Sitting of 5 March 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    H.M.S. "Ceres"
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the shore establishment, H.M.S. "Ceres", at present at Wetherby, Yorkshire, is shortly to move to Chatham and in two years' time be transferred to Portsmouth, why this establishment cannot remain at Wetherby until it moves to Portsmouth, thus reducing the cost of a double move.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The decision to move H.M.S. "Ceres" to Chatham was taken before it was decided to close, in 1961, the various naval establishments at Chatham and the work required to accommodate H.M.S. "Ceres" at Chatham is now almost complete.
    The possibility of deferring the move of H.M.S. "Ceres" was very carefully considered; but it would cost more to keep the establishment at Wetherby open until it could move to Portsmouth. A decision now to move the establishment to Portsmouth would not, therefore, reduce the cost, but delay the closing of the establishment at Wetherby and the resulting saving on overheads.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend assure me that, bearing in mind what happened the last time hostilities broke out, H.M.S. "Ceres" will not be immediately decamped back to Wetherby as soon as hostilities do break out?
    Mr. Galbraith: I cannot give my hon. Friend any undertaking of that kind.

    Royal Yacht "Britannia"
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) how much has been spent on refits of the Royal Yacht "Britannia" during the last five years;

    (2) the cost of the recent refit of the Royal Yacht "Britannia";

    (3) the estimated cost for the repairing of the propeller of the Royal Yacht "Britannia" which was damaged as she was entering Portsmouth harbour on 4th February.

    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): The total amount spent on refits of the Royal Yacht "Britannia" so far is about £270,000, excluding the recent refit. The cost of her recent refit, which is her first major refit, is expected to be about £160,000. Repairs to the propeller are estimated to cost about £2,000.
    Mr. Fernyhough: When the Government are wielding the economy axe so viciously in respect of many essential and desirable social services, how is it that this costly toy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—completely escapes? How is it that a ship which is operational for an average of only three months of the year should need refits so frequently? Furthermore, can the hon. Gentleman say how the damage to the propellor occurred? Was it a case of negligent navigation? If so, will any charge be preferred?
    Mr. Allan: The hon. Member has asked a number of supplementary questions. I do not resent that, but merely hope that I shall remember them. In the first place, I think that the Navy and the country largely would resent the implication that this is a costly toy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Secondly, the hon. Member said that the "Britannia" was used for only three months in the year. During the last twelve months immediately preceding this major refit—
    Mr. Fernyhough: I said "an average".
    Mr. Allan: —she was used for over nine months in the year. The hon. Member spoke about the number of refits. This major refit, which was the

    1141
    "Britannia's" first major refit, was necessary because she is built and maintained according to Lloyd's specification and, consequently, a complete survey has to be carried out at the end of each fourth year. This was the end of her first four-year period. The "Britannia" has had only two other refits and they were smaller.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Would not it be right to say that it is quite impossible to measure in terms of money the prestige value and the pride which the Royal Navy has in the "Britannia"? May I ask, further, whether my hon. Friend has heard the expression,
    "There, but for the grace of God, could I have gone"
    on several occasions whilst in command of H.M. ships in regard to that part of the supplementary question which relates to propellors?
    Mr. Allan: My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. The answer is emphatically "Yes". Concerning the second part of his question and the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), to which I forgot to reply in the first instance, while manœuvring in Portsmouth Harbour the yacht was caught by an unexpectedly strong gust of wind and she touched a buoy.
    Mr. Shinwell: While in no way seeking to deprive the Royal Family of any relaxation, which they thoroughly deserve from time to time, I should like to ask whether it is desirable, in time of financial stringency, that we should be burdened with excessive costs for this vessel. Could not a little prudence be employed in the matter?
    Mr. Allan: A great deal of prudence is employed in the matter. It is not right to refer to the use of the Royal Yacht in terms of relaxation only. In fact, she carries the Royal Family on official occasions all the time. For instance, next month she is to take the Queen on her State visit to Holland, and in each of the subsequent months she is taking the Royal Family on official visits.
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this very unpleasant Question has been put by a Tyneside Member, would
    1142
    not it be in order to call another Tyneside Member to ask a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady may have what opinions she likes about the Question. It is a matter for the House. But, if the Question falls into the category she describes, the sooner we pass from it, the better.
    Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. It was not my question which was going to be unpleasant. I wanted to ask whether it would be in order for me to say how much the Tyne wishes it could have had the "Britannia" to build.
    Mr. Speaker: I did not mean to accuse the hon. Lady of any unpleasantness.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Royal Hampshire Regiment and Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry
    Dr. Kingasked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his decision to move the Royal Hampshire Regiment from its traditional home at Winchester to Exeter, and the Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry to Winchester.
    The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. Julian Amery): These two regiments will retain their regimental headquarters at Winchester and Oxford to look after regimental affairs and take part in recruiting in their county areas.
    The training of recruits, however, will in future be carried out at the infantry brigade depots as explained in the White Paper on the Future Organisation of the Army (Cmd. 230). The depot of the Wessex Brigade will be at Exeter, and the Green Jackets Brigade at Winchester.
    Dr. King: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the association of the Royal Hampshires with Winchester and of the Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry with Oxford dates back to the founding of these regiments? Would it not be a pity to hurt the traditions of them both and the will and wishes of the people of the three counties concerned by breaking that association?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the principle of training

    1143
    recruits at brigade depots was fundamental to the reorganisation announced last year, and I can assure him that the selection of the sites for the brigade depots was made unanimously by the regiments concerned.
    Mr. J. Eden: Is it at all possible for the regiments in some ways still to maintain their ties with their old depots and those towns with which they were formerly associated and have been associated for so long? Is it necessary to uproot them completely, lock, stock and barrel, just to enable brigade training of recruits to be carried on?
    Mr. Amery: As I said in my original Answer—to reassure my hon. Friend now, if I may—both regiments will retain their regimental headquarters, that is, a smaller form of depot, at both Winchester and Oxford.

  POST OFFICE

    Cable and Wireless, Ltd.
    Mr. J. Rodgersasked the Postmaster-General since, during the financial year 1956–57, the standard 4 per cent. dividend collected by the Treasury from Cable and Wireless has not been covered by earnings, and there is a demand for substantial tariff increases, if he will consider setting up a special commission to consider what advantages have accrued to Cable and Wireless since nationalisation, and whether or not it would be advantageous to return this industry to private enterprise.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I see no justification for a special commission, either in the financial record of Cable and Wireless Ltd. or on other grounds. It is believed that the tariffs which have been in operation since last October will result in a satisfactory out-turn to the company. These tariffs are on average only 80 per cent. above those of 1939, and few services can point to such a good record.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the sharply increased charges, the profits before tax have never exceeded two-thirds, and often have fallen below a half, of the figures in the last year before nationalisation? Further, is he aware that there are complaints of
    1144
    delays and distortion of commercial messages? Does he realise that the company is about to be thrown out of various countries in Europe, and is not it time that a most searching investigation was made into the operation of the company?
    Mr. Thompson: I can, I think, short-circuit a lot of questioning by referring my hon. Friend to the letter from the chairman of the company published in the Journal of the Institute of Directors.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply of the chairman of the directors, Sir Godfrey Ince, on this matter is a complete rebuttal of the charges made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers), and shows conclusively that the financial results of Cable and Wireless, since nationalisation, are superior to what they were before?
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that his assessment of the situation is very much more accurate than that of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers), who asked the Question, who, obviously, has been in touch with certain dissatisfied people and, possibly, has based his Question on their information? Further, will the hon. Gentleman do everything possible, on the lines he has taken already for the development of internal telecommunications, to make this service the best in the world? It is so already, but I am sure that it is desired to maintain its improvement.
    Mr. Thompson: I should be lacking in my duty if I did not say at once that we are constantly searching for ways of making sure that the efficiency of the company is maintained and that its services are improved wherever improvement can be introduced.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Will my hon. Friend, if he will not set up a special commission, at least tell us what advantages have accrued from Cable and Wireless since nationalisation?
    Mr. Speaker: That is beyond the Question.

    Business Reply Service Envelopes (Welsh Language)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General (1) why he has recently rejected a design for a business reply

    1145
    service envelope in which the essential and prescribed information was set out in Welsh as well as in English, when the proposed service was intended primarily for the convenience of persons resident in Wales; and
    (2) the objections of his Department to the use of the Welsh language in connection with the business reply service: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Thompson: The design was rejected because it did not comply with Post Office requirements. No licence was issued, although a number had been provisionally assigned to the applicants. I have arranged that, in order to avoid embarrassment and difficulty for the applicants, the envelopes will be treated as if the design had been agreed. I must emphasise that this special concession applies only to these envelopes, and all future designs must have the prior approval of the Post Office. I have also asked the Director of the Post Office in Wales to be prepared in future to accept designs incorporating the Welsh language as well as English, provided that they conform to the practical requirements of the Post Office.
    Mr. Gower: I thank my hon. Friend for this change of mind, which was certainly desirable, but will he consider also with sympathy the similar case of the Welsh National Folk Museum at St. Fagan's, Cardiff, which has submitted a design in Welsh which is intended for use in parts of Wales where the prospective recipients are primarily Welsh-speaking people?
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) speak Welsh?
    Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his perhaps somewhat grudging acceptance of the arrangement we have made. I think that he will find that my Answer covers the sort of case he has in mind for the Welsh National Folk Museum, which I have seen and which I very much liked. If there is any further difficulty in that case, or in others, I have no doubt that hon. Members will very quickly bring it to my notice.

    Administration (Welsh Language)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General to what extent in the administration of his Department in Wales account
    1146
    is taken of the fact that the Welsh language is the chief language of many persons in Wales, and the only language of others; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Thompson: We do all we can to make sure that anyone who wishes to transact his Post Office business in Welsh can do so. Fel mater o ffaith byddwn yn cymeryd—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you now ruling that it is out of order for any right hon. or hon. Gentleman to make a quotation in the Welsh language in this House? I beg to submit that hitherto the Chair has not frowned on quotations in Welsh.
    Mr. Speaker: Has not frowned on what?
    Mr. Thomas: The Chair has not hitherto taken exception to hon. Members on either side making quotations in the Welsh language.
    Mr. Speaker: I did not know whether it was a quotation or not. It seems to me out of order to address the House in any other language but English.
    Mr. Gower—
    Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) rising to a point of order?
    Mr. Gower: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would you kindly rule that it is, and will be, in order for a person to quote in Welsh in the same way as he might quote in Latin or Greek?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes. All these other languages are allowed within reason in quotation, but in order to keep himself in order an hon. Member should state that the sounds he proposes to utter represents a quotation, otherwise the Chair is completely at a loss.
    Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will not take advantage of this rule yourself and address us in Gaelic.
    Mr. Speaker: I should not dream of doing such a thing. It is true that I speak another old language, but I would not use it in this place. There is very

    1147
    old authority for that. It was St. Paul who said something to the effect that if a man prophesy in a language not understanded of the people it were better that he should refrain from prophesying and hold his peace.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a precedent for an hon. Member from Wales addressing this House in the Welsh language? The Right Hon. William Abraham, who at one time represented the Rhondda Valley, once said the Lord's Prayer in Welsh, and all hon. Members laughed because they could not understand it.
    Mr. Speaker: I was not Speaker then. Has the hon. Member for Barry asked Question No. 16?
    Mr. Thompson: That is the Question that I have just got into trouble about.
    Mr. Speaker: It was impossible for me to understand what the Answer was.
    Mr. Thompson: The Answer was that we do all we can to make sure that any one who wishes to transact his Post Office business in Welsh can do so. As a matter of fact, we take a great deal of trouble over this.
    Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was not grudging in my recognition of the concession, but is not it advisable that Welsh should be treated in this country with even greater tolerance than, for example, French is treated in non-French parts of Canada? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]
    Mr. Thompson: We have to arrange to conduct our business in a way which makes it possible for people who may or may not be exclusively Welsh-speaking to do business in post offices, and that we do.
    Mr. Bowen: May I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether his Answer means that behind the counter in post offices in Welsh-speaking parts of Wales there will always be available an assistant who can conduct business in Welsh?
    Mr. Thompson: It depends on what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by "Welsh-speaking parts of Wales", but broadly the answer is "Yes."
    Commander Donaldson: Further to the supplementary question of the hon.
    1148
    Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), may I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the comparison of Canada is not apt to this country? The French language is acceptable in Canada, as it is a bilingual country, whereas this country is not.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman also ensure that similar facilities are available to English-speaking Welshmen in Wales?
    Mr. Thompson: Oh, yes.
    Mr. G. ThomasOn a point of order. In view of the answers which have been given today, I beg to give notice that at the first opportunity I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Stamps (Commemorative Issues)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he will give an estimate of what it would cost to issue a special stamp on the occasion of the bicentenary of the birth of Robert Burns.
    Mr. K. Thompson: At a very approximate estimate, £6,000.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this £6,000 is a very small sum considering the amount of national sentiment that is behind this matter? Is he aware that the Burns Federation has recently received the support of the Royal Scots Clan of America? If the Scots do not appeal to him, will he reconsider this matter in view of the necessity of maintaining Anglo-American relationships?
    Mr. Thompson: I do not think that we set any lower value on Anglo-American relationships than the hon. Gentleman or Scots generally. We have never at any time suggested that it was an estimate of the cost of producing a Burns stamp which was the obstacle that stood in our way.
    Dame Florence Horsbrugh: May I ask my hon. Friend if he is aware that a great many people think that it is a bad thing that too many opportunities are taken to issue special stamps? Their value may decrease, and many people do not want special stamps to be issued on too many occasions.
    Mr. Thompson: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has supported the view

    1149
    that we take, which is that we should maintain the prestige of our stamps not only by limiting the number of them, but by maintaining the very high quality.
    Sir T. Moore: On a point of order. As the poet Burns was born in my constituency and as you have quoted him on many an occasion, Mr. Speaker, would not it be appropriate if I were allowed to put a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: A great number of people have been born in Ayrshire.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Postmaster-General the loss to the Post Office of issuing special stamps to commemorate the International Boy Scout Rally and the Conference of the International Parliamentary Union.
    Mr. K. Thompson: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that there is the same justification for issuing a Burns postage stamp as there was for issuing special stamps to commemorate these two functions? Does he realise that if a Burns stamp were issued there would be far more stamps sold by the Post Office, and we should get an increased revenue as a result?
    Mr. Thompson: The difference between the special stamps we have issued to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question and the proposed special stamp to commemorate Robert Burns is that these stamps commemorate other than individuals, whereas the Burns stamp would represent a significant departure from policy in representing an individual on a special stamp.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: If the Assistant Postmaster-General were ever considering issuing a stamp to celebrate the birth of a poet, would he give precedent to a poet who wrote in English? I refer to William Shakespeare.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many of us who welcome this tribute to the spirit of internationalism? Will he, therefore, not be discouraged from any further proposals he may have in mind to support international bodies and authorities of the kind and character mentioned in the Question?
    Mr. Thompson: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman wants me to do, but I will bear it in mind.
    Sir T. Moore: Though I am usually unwilling on general principles to associate myself with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), may I ask whether my hon. Friend does not think it rather short-sighted and perhaps a little stupid to offend the national sentiment of Scotland by remaining adamant on this question of the issue of commemorative stamps?
    Mr. Thompson: I should like to avoid the appearance of being stupid to my hon. Friend or to the House generally. We have given a great deal of very prolonged and careful thought to this matter and have not reached this decision lightly. I hope that, in view of the arguments which have already been exchanged across the Floor on the subject, the House will at least give us the credit for having tried to be reasonable.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Robert Burns was not only a very great poet but is a great institution in Scotland and in Britain as a whole—indeed, all over the world? May I, as a Cockney, but nevertheless a great admirer and student of Robert Burns, beg of the hon. Gentleman to take this matter to the Postmaster-General and ask him to reconsider it?
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider these exchanges in the House today with great care. I should point out, however, that the Post Office is not called upon to decide what prominence should be given to Robert Burns in the calendar of the great. Our job is to decide how we can take this matter into account in relation to our postage stamp policy, and that is what we have done.

    Shipley Market Square (Postbox)
    Mr. Hirstasked the Postmaster-General whether a postbox may be provided in the new market square of Shipley, which is now the centre of the town's activities and its widespread omnibus services.
    Mr. K. Thompson: There are two posting boxes, one of which is a pillar box, very near to the square, and an

    1151
    additional box in this area would not be justified. If the urban district council agreed to the pillar box in question being moved to the market square, this would be done.
    Mr. Hirst: is my hon. Friend aware that this is a new market square of which the town is justifiably proud, that it replaces a built-up area of slum houses and has an enormous service of buses, 700 a day going through its centre? Does not he agree that it is reasonable that there should be proper facilities for those living in the town and, indeed, for those who visit it?
    Mr. Thompson: We do not dissent from those considerations at all. There are two boxes within 220 yards of this square and we are quite willing to move one of these boxes to this market square if the urban district council will agree to us doing so.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is all bound up with the red tape regulation that a post box must be so many yards from another one? Cannot he justify the reputation of his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General for cutting red tape?
    Mr. Thompson: It is bound up with the same consideration for the economic and efficient operation of the Post Office.
    Mr. Hirst: Get on with it then.

  TELEVISION

    Anglesey (Reception)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the poor reception of television in Anglesey; and what steps he is taking in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corporation to improve it.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Yes, Sir. This is due to the distance from the transmitter and, in some instances, to the screening effect of neighbouring hills. These, and similar difficulties elsewhere, are being considered by the B.B.C. but they cannot yet say what improvements will be practicable.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made with the new experimental transmitter at Folkestone? When that transmitter does come
    1152
    into general use, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that North Wales has some priority in the matter, because the situation at present is very bad?
    Mr. Thompson: Of course, from the proposed transmitter in Folkestone we have not yet any results showing its success or otherwise in operation. When those results have been analysed, then will come the question of deciding where priority should be given for the use of similar stations elsewhere. There are many competing claims both between different districts in Wales itself and between parts of Wales and parts of England and Scotland.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that I asked a similar Question some six weeks ago in relation to Forfar, where reception is equally bad, and will he, therefore, bear in mind, in considering this matter, the priority which should be given to Forfar?
    Mr. Speaker: This Question relates to Anglesey.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Overseas Calls (Reverse Charge Facilities)
    Mr. Hirstasked the Postmaster-General what steps he will take to provide reverse charge facilities similar to those in operation in this country for telephone calls to the United Kingdom initiated upon the Continent.
    Mr. K. Thompson: I am pleased to say that arrangements have been made to introduce the reverse charge facility in our telephone services with Belgium, Denmark, Faroe Islands, France, Luxembourgh, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden from 1st April. I hope that before long it will be extended to other European countries.
    Mr. Hirst: May I thank my hon. Friend for this concession which will be extremely valuable in all business circles? May I ask him if, in his consideration of extending this concession to additional countries in Europe, he will give some thought also to Canada and the United States in due course?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir; we have that consideration very much in mind.
    Mr. Hobson: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the countries which he has enumerated are reciprocating the arrangement?
    Mr. C. R. Thompson: Yes, it is part of an agreement fixed on that basis.

    London Area
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General if he will now state to what extent the new scale for telephone charges in the London area has led to increased calls; and to what extent revenue from such calls shows an increase over a corresponding six weeks' period from 1st January, 1957.
    Mr. K. Thompson: From the best estimates that can be made, the number of calls appears to have increased by about 10 per cent. on the routes on which the charges were reduced to 3d. Figures showing the effect on revenue are not yet available.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is at least encouraging? May we have an assurance that there will be no reversal of the policy, and, if possible, that it will be extended in other parts of the country and with respect to other parts of the service?
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure my right hon. Friend will do his best to provide an economic and efficient telephone service for the country.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Welfare Services, Wittering (Petition)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Royal Air Force Station Commander at Wittering has considered a petition signed by over 200 airmen asking for an extension of the welfare services provided by Malcolm Clubs; and what steps have been taken in the matter.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Mobile canteen services on this station are now being provided by the Malcolm Club and the N.A.A.F.I. in alternate months.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a general feeling among airmen in the United
    1154
    Kingdom, Germany and elsewhere that the Malcolm Clubs render rather better welfare services than does N.A.A.F.I.? Will he give an assurance that his Department will do everything possible to enable the Malcolm Clubs to maintain and extend the facilities which they provide for airmen?
    Mr. Ward: That is rather a wider question than the one on the Order Paper. Of course, a number of welfare organisations exist already and they are doing excellent work in supplementing the services which N.A.A.F.I. provides. I do not want in the least to under-estimate the work which these welfare organisations do, but I think it would be equally wrong to under-estimate the work which N.A.A.F.I. does.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for Air whether a compassionate release will be allowed to Corporal K. Whittaker, 4034062, Royal Air Force, whose wife and twin children, aged 3 years, are suffering from tuberculosis and are in separate hospitals, details of which case have been provided by the hon. Member for Wednesbury.
    Mr. Ward: Corporal Whittaker has been posted to a station near to his home and to the hospitals in which his wife and children are patients, and his hours of work have been adjusted to allow him to visit them. I realise, however, that difficulties will arise when his family leaves hospital, and in the light of representations which he has made in a further interview with his commanding officer, I have decided that he shall be discharged.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision will be received with much satisfaction and appreciation?

    Ballistic Missile Bases
    Mr. J. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for Air the circumstances that decided him to concentrate the proposed American missile bases in the East Midland counties, in view of the previous declarations that these bases were to be dispersed along the whole eastern seaboard of England and Scotland.
    Mr. Ward: I know of no such declarations by Her Majesty's Government. The

    1155
    sites for the ballistic missile bases must be determined by operational considerations.
    Mr. Harrison: In view of the declaration made by the Minister of Defence in the debate last week, when he indicated that most of these missile bases would be concentrated in this area, are we to understand that there has been another change of plan relating to the places where these bases are to be located? Has there been a change of plan recently?
    Mr. Ward: None whatever. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said that these bases would be dispersed throughout Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and East Anglia. That has always been the plan and it still remains so.
    Mr. Kimball: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if it is finally decided that a large number of these rocket bases have to be sited in the East Midlands area, and in particular in Lincolnshire, they will be accepted by the large body of the public who live there in the same spirit as the Air Force bases have already been accepted? In addition, is my right hon. Friend aware that, from a farming point of view, a rocket base takes up less land, that there is no noise from practice flying and that there is no more danger than from the present Air Force bases?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is this concentration entirely due to operational reasons or is it because there were objections from a neutral country, Sweden, which objected to rockets going over its territory if the bases were stationed further north?
    Mr. Ward: The criteria which determine the siting of these bases are entirely operational.
    Mr. de Freitas: Since we have our own V-bombers with the nuclear deterrent, since there is grave doubt as to the effectiveness of these missiles at all, and since they are to cost us £10 million, is not it time the Government reversed their policy and did not have these American missiles?
    Mr. Ward: I do not accept that there is grave doubt about the effectiveness of these missiles. On the other hand, I think they will greatly strengthen the effectiveness of the Western deterrent as a whole.
    Mr. J. Harrison: On a point of order. In view of the disturbing and evasive Answer of the Secretary of State, when I specified deliberately the East Midland counties in my Question, I wish to give notice that I propose to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Aircraft Crashes (Fire Brigade Notification)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air the policy governing the notification of local authority fire brigades of crashes of Royal Air Force and United States aircraft.
    Mr. Ward: R.A.F. and U.S.A.F. stations maintain close liaison with local fire brigades. Accidents to Service aircraft are always attended by representatives of the Service authorities. Aircraft accidents on airfields are normally dealt with exclusively by Service firemen but the civil fire brigades may be summoned if additional help is needed. If an aircraft crashes away from an airfield, civil fire brigades may be notified by the Service authorities, the civil police or the public, depending on the circumstances.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that present Government policy prevents local fire brigades being trained to deal with aircraft carrying nuclear weapons when they crash? Will not the Government reverse this policy, balancing public safety against the very natural considerations of security?
    Mr. Ward: This matter has been very fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible. He dealt with it on 4th February and I have nothing to add to what he said.

  ROADS

    Trunk Road Schemes
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will provide a list of the major trunk road schemes each costing over £100,000 of which details have been given to local highway authorities as being schemes in which they will be involved up to the contract-letting stage during the years up to and including 1962.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I have asked certain of my trunk road agent authorities if they can prepare a number of schemes, but this does not imply that constructional work will start at any particular time. I think therefore that to circulate such a list would only be misleading.
    Mr. Davies: Is not it unfortunate that Parliament is the last place to be informed of proposals for these road schemes? Is not it a fact that a very large number of proposed schemes were enumerated in lists issued by the Central Office of Information regional officers and that those lists have not been made available to the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that hon. Members are interested in the roads which are to be built in their constituencies and that constituency matters are involved?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. I will look into that slightly different point. I am most anxious that hon. Members should know what road works are to be carried out in their constituencies, because I am glad to say that they will speedily increase in the next year or two.

    London Airport—Chiswick Fly-Over (New Road)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what estimate he has formed of the cost of the new road connecting London Airport to the Chiswick fly-over.
    Mr. Watkinson: It is not possible to be precise at this stage, but a rough estimate of the cost is £9½ million.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As this projected road evidently goes through a very built-up area from the Chiswick fly-over to London Airport, could my right hon. Friend give further details? I do not think that any details of how it is intended to run have been published.
    Mr. Watkinson: That is because we have not yet finally established the line, but as soon as we can do that we shall publish all possible details about the line and about the construction.

    Whipps Cross, Leyton
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how
    1158
    many pedestrian crossings will be installed and whether traffic lights will be erected on the thoroughfare now being reconstructed at Whipps Cross, Leyton.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): No zebra crossings or light signals should be necessary here. The central reservation between the new dual carriageways will help pedestrians to cross the road.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that in the summer—especially after the road has been reconstructed—it will be difficult and highly dangerous to cross this road? Will he make some representations to those responsible for laying out the thoroughfare?
    Mr. Nugent: The Leyton Borough Council is immediately responsible for making such proposals, and evidently it has not thought that they would be necessary.

  TRANSPORT

    Public Service Vehicles (Annual Summary)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why the Annual Summary of Annual Reports of the Licensing Authorities for Public Service Vehicles for the year ended 31st March, 1956, has only now been published; and whether he will take steps to expedite its publication in future so that this information is available earlier.
    Mr. Watkinson: I regret the delay in publishing this summary, which was caused by pressure of other work in my Department. The summary for 1956–57 will be ready shortly and future issues will be published as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking the Minister for speeding up the publication of these Reports, may I ask whether he realises that the last Report is now a matter of historical interest only? Is he aware that very valuable information can be gleaned from these Reports, particularly with reference to the servicing of rural areas?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree that publication was very late. I hope to do better in the future.

    Passenger-Carrying Vehicles (Registration)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that an increasing number of firms are registering passenger-carrying vehicles with twelve or more seats as private cars to transport their employees without charging fares and that thereby they can avoid the public safety provisions of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to hours of work and rest periods and also the Conditions of Fitness Regulations; and what steps he proposes to take to end this anomaly.
    Mr. Nugent: I am aware that these vehicles are outside the statutory provisions to which the hon. Member refers. We have no power which would enable us to include them, nor have I any evidence that they constitute a danger.
    Mr. Davies: Is it a fact that these vehicles are not subject to the public service regulations and that it is desirable that conditions of safety should be no less stringent in these cases than in the case of public service vehicles? Cannot the Minister, by administrative or legislative action, bring this anomaly to an end?
    Mr. Nugent: The conditions under which these vehicles operate are quite different from those which apply to public service vehicles that operate for reward or hire. I do not think that there is a case for extending regulations or legislation to cover these vehicles.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that they carry the same number of passengers as do ordinary public service vehicles, such as buses and coaches? Why should people be subject to more risk and greater danger on the road because of the poor condition of these vehicles, of which there is evidence in some cases? Why should not these people be subject to inspection under public service vehicle regulations?
    Mr. Nugent: In a general way these vehicles ply for short distances for a short time in the mornings and evenings. If the hon. Member has any evidence to support the implications which he is making, I should be glad to have a look at it.

    Long-Distance Lorry Drivers
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is satisfied that his regulations governing the employment of long-distance lorry drivers are complied with by all employers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am well aware of the importance of securing compliance with these regulations and as I informed the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) on 18th December last, more enforcement staff are now being recruited.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety about pressure being brought to bear on lorry drivers to extend their hours of work in such a way as to cause them great difficulty and trouble? Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely what kind of steps he is taking to bring home to these people that they must comply with the regulations?
    Mr. Watkinson: I told the House in my Answer what step we are taking. It is to increase the number of the enforcement staff.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year ago I sent him evidence of how the law had been broken and men forced to work longer hours than the law required and that I was told that nothing could be done about it because the enforcement staff was engaged in administering petrol rationing? Is he aware that in only the last few weeks a firm has been heavily fined? Is he aware that the allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) are widespread and that lorry drivers are being forced to endanger public safety through being required to drive for longer periods than the law allows? Will the right hon. Gentleman's staff make active investigation into this matter and bring the offenders to book?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept that the hon. Member's statement has general application. All laws are broken from time to time. If hon. Members on either side of the House will give my Department details, they will always be most carefully followed up. As to the general

    1161
    situation, I have said that a large increase will take place in the number of enforcement officers.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Prestwick Airport (Direct Rail Link)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will examine in the light of the further structural developments at Prestwick Airport, the feasibility of incorporating a railway station in the terminal, as has been done at Gatwick, so that a direct railway link would connect Glasgow with the airport.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): Yes, Sir. In planning the re-development of Prestwick Airport my right hon. Friend will examine the possibility of a direct rail link between Glasgow and the airport.
    Mr. Rankin: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that statement, may I ask whether, in view of it, he will consider the possibility of making it clear that Prestwick Airport will be ready by 1960 to deal with the newer and bigger jet aircraft which will be on the North Atlantic routes?
    Mr. Neave: As I think the hon. Member knows, we are still in consultation with the operators about their requirements for the operation of jet aircraft. The jet era presents new problems to Prestwick and we are devising a new scheme and will present it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Farey-Jones: Will not my hon. Friend agree that it would be infinitely preferable and much less expensive to the taxpayer to establish a helicopter service between Prestwick, Glasgow, Perth and Aberdeen rather than establish this service?
    Mr. Neave: That is another question.
    Mr. Rankin: Yes.
    Mr. Neave: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) would like to put that question on the Order Paper.

    Aircraft (Safety and Maintenance)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what standards of skill are required for those responsible for safety and maintenance of civil aircraft; and whether he is satisfied that there is adequate supervision to ensure reliability in service.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Air Registration Board, under delegated powers, ensure the necessary standards of skill by licensing engineers and through the approval of firms' inspection organisations. I have no reason to doubt the adequacy of these arrangements.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has not the Minister seen the allegations made by some of the technical staffs that the standard of efficiency in this matter has fallen very greatly and that there are not enough people in the industry to ensure adequate safety? Could he give a reassuring answer to the public on this matter?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I must make it plain that I am not commenting on accidents on which I have not yet had reports, but the fact is that there is nothing in our Ministerial records, which go back to 1947, to indicate that any accident to public transport aircraft has been due to the failure of maintenance.
    Mr. Beswick: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a quite outstandingly efficient general council for this industry and that if anybody connected with the industry has any substantial criticism to make they should put it in the first place before that council?
    Mr. Watkinson: I entirely agree that that is the right thing to do, and I do not think that any such allegation has been made.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Expenditure
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. SWINGLER: To ask the Minister of Defence, if he will state the percentages of the national Budget expenditure and national gross product, respectively, devoted to defence in each of the last twelve years.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. This Question and Question No. 36, I believe, are of particular interest to half the party opposite. Would I be in order in asking whether the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), who are supposed to put the Questions, have been warned off by the Leader of the Opposition?
    Mr. Speaker: My answer to the hon. Member's question is, "No, it would not be in order."

    Ballistic Missiles
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of Defence if he will now state how many squadrons, and the strength of each squadron, of American-made ballistic missiles will be stationed in Britain; where they will be based; what precise arrangements have been come to as to what power will decide when such missiles are to be fired; and to what extent Great Britain and the United States of America, respectively, will be responsible for the costs of building and maintaining such bases.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence on how many occasions the Thor missile has been tested.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I cannot add anything to the information given on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air in the defence debate last week.
    Mr. Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the statement made last week, to which he has referred, represents the considered judgment and decision of all the members of the Government?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman's Question to me asked how many squadrons there were, the strength of each squadron and things of that kind. The considered judgment was that it would not be in the public interest to give that information.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister of Defence say if it is the case that this missile has been tested on ten occasions, but that on five of those occasions the test was completely unsuccessful? Is not it the case that the weapon has also been
    1164
    rejected by the American Army as being obsolescent, and, as far as they are concerned, in their view, far safer in Britain than in America? Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the debate yesterday, in which we were told that we have a missile project of our own, the Polaris, which is far more effective and efficient than the obsolete and unpredictable Thor?
    Mr. Sandys: It seems that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the newspapers, and has not been reading HANSARD very carefully.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the Minister reread HANSARD and see whether he can answer this question? Is not it a fact that everywhere outside this Government the Thor is regarded as a highly inefficient missile, and is not it ridiculous to waste £10 million on bringing it over here?
    Mr. Sandys: I am sure that most people were surprised how small the sum was.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Can the Minister assure the House that the criticisms of this weapon which have been published by the leading Conservative newspaper in this country are unjustified?
    Mr. Sandys: It is a well accustomed rule in this House that Ministers are not expected to comment on newspaper reports.

    DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will specify the various disarmament proposals, nuclear and conventional, which have been accepted in principle by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the four Western Powers and those on which no agreement has yet been reached in principle.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): The differences of principle between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers relate to the entire nature of a partial disarmament agreement and to most of the elements to be included in it. In fact, I am not aware that the Soviet Government have ever admitted that there

    1165
    is agreement, in principle on any disarmament measure at all. Nevertheless, the Western Governments considered that in last year's negotiations they had achieved common ground with the Soviet Union on certain matters that could be included in a disarmament plan if general agreement were reached. As the list of these matters and of the points which remain disagreed is rather long, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Henderson: Would not the Minister agree that agreement was reached in principle on proposals for safeguards against surprise attack? May I also ask him whether it is correct, as stated in The Times today, that a proposal was made for a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the disarmament deadlock? Are Her Majesty's Government in favour of such a meeting?
    Mr. Harvey: With regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, that is the issue in regard to which the nearest point of agreement has been reached, although not agreement in principle. On the second point, although it would not be correct to say that any definite decision with regard to a meeting of the Security Council has been made, the discussions are going on and we are very hopeful that measures can be taken to resolve this deadlock.
    Mr. J. Eden: Is it a fact that a large part of the delay in reaching further agreement on the matter of disarmament has been chiefly due to the obstructiveness of Soviet delegates in the past? Would not my hon. Friend emphasise the point that Her Majesty's Government have taken every opportunity to try to accept any reasonable proposals put before them, and that there is no possible hope of reaching any agreement on disarmament unless the Soviet delegates are prepared to do something more constructive than just talk about peace?
    Mr. Harold Davies: And Mr. Dulles.
    Mr. Harvey: I think there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend has said. The important thing is that we should work towards the future to achieve this very desirable result.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Is not it fair to say that the Soviet Union has, in fact, put forward a large number of proposals
    1166
    with a view to securing a disarmament agreement?
    Mr. Harvey: That is perfectly correct, and is the subject of a Question by the right hon. and learned Gentleman which is to be answered next week. At the same time, a great many of these proposals amount to the same thing, and over a long period there was no change whatever in their attitude.
    Following is the list:
    The list of matters on which the Western Governments considered that common ground was achieved in last year's negotiations is as follows:

    (i) The principle that any suspension of nuclear tests should be subject to international inspection; the Soviet Union has, however, refused to discuss just what this inspection would involve and how it could be carried out.

    (ii) The principle of aerial and ground inspection as a means of protection against surprise attack; but there is no agreement on the areas to be inspected and again the Soviet Union has refused to discuss inspection arrangements in detail.

    (iii) The figures to which the armed forces of the major powers could be limited, in successive stages.

    (iv) The principle, that, in a first-stage agreement, the participating states should draw up lists of conventional arms to be put into internationally supervised depots. However, Mr. Bulganin has now proposed that measures of conventional disarmament should not be discussed at the "Summit talks" but deferred till later.

    There is no agreement of principle on the following Western proposals:

    (a) for the cut-off in production of fissile material for nuclear weapons;

    (b) for reduction of existing military stocks of fissile material after the cut-off;

    (c) for a study of control over the use of outer space;

    (d) for an undertaking that nuclear weapons should be used only in self-defence;

    (e) for exchange of information on military expenditure;

    (f) for international inspection and control generally.

    Likewise, there is no agreement on Soviet proposals for an absolute ban on the use of nuclear weapons; for the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether; for a percentage cut in military budgets; for the elimination of foreign military bases; for reduction of the forces of the four major Powers stationed in Germany and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact areas; and for measures to stop propaganda for war.
    Details of all the disarmament proposals mentioned will be found in the report on last year's proceedings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee, Command 333.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Call-up
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement clarifying the present position of young men born between 1st October and 31st December, 1939, under the National Service Acts.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The White Paper on Call-up of Men to the Forces, 1957–60, explained that men born in the last three months of 1939 were unlikely to be called up. I have nothing to add to that statement at present.
    Mr. Dodds: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, may I ask him if he could say if there is any fear that these men will have to be called up to the forces, because, as he will appreciate, the majority are now 18½ years of age, and if they have to wait another two years to be called up, few employers will give them a worth-while job?
    Mr. Macleod: I would certainly like to resolve this uncertainty as soon as I can. I have said that implicit in the word "unlikely" there is a chance that they may be called up. The position at the moment is that it is unlikely that they will be needed, and when I can make the position absolutely clear, I will do so.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Displaced Labour (Consultations)
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Labour what consultations he has had with British industrialists, and the Trades Union Congress for the absorption of displaced labour.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: It is my practice at the regular meetings of the National Joint Advisory Council to review the employment situation in the country, and problems arising from the displacement of labour are discussed as necessary.
    Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are fully aware of the importance of this machinery, but, in view of the increasing gravity of the problem, would the Minister consider the possibility of developing this consultation more at the
    1168
    local level so that the varied experience of local trade unions can be brought fully into play?
    Mr. Macleod: I think this is the right forum at the national level. At the local level, there are such provisions as the local employment committees, which do excellent work. As far as consultations with trade unions and employers are concerned, the right way is to work through the National Joint Advisory Council.

    Birmingham Small Arms Factory, Cardiff
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to ensure alternative employment for the workpeople of the Cardiff Birmingham Small Arms factory when it closes on 31st March next; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 26th February.
    Mr. Thomas: In view of the fact that that reply told us nothing of any value, the fact that the Minister has already told us that 3,400 people are signing the register at the employment exchange in Cardiff, and the further fact that the Llandaff North Engineering Company has announced that it is likely to close in April, when we will have another 800, counting that factory and B.S.A., on the employment register, cannot the Minister give some urgency to this matter?
    Mr. Macleod: We always try to do what we can with each problem as it arises, but, of course, it does not follow that an announcement of redundancy is the same thing as an increase in the numbers on the employment register. As we have been able to show on a number of occasions in the past, that is not so. We will do everything we can through our local offices to help these people.

    Engineering Vacancies, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Labour how many engineers were unemployed, and how many engineering vacancies were available in the county borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne on 1st March, 1958.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: At 17th February, there were 204 men and boys on the register of employment exchanges in Newcastle-upon-Tyne whose last employment was in the engineering group of industries, and at 12th February there were 201 vacancies for men and boys in those industries notified to those employment exchanges and remaining unfilled. These figures include office staff, labourers and other ancillary workers as well as craftsmen.
    Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position has considerably worsened since then and that we now estimate that about 1,200 engineers of one sort or another are unemployed on Tyneside? Further, is he aware that a local newspaper today carries a report of another 200 men being paid off this week? May I ask the Minister two further questions? First, what steps is he taking with his right hon. Friend to ensure that the running down of arms orders in the big engineering works is synchronised with the provision of new ones? Secondly, what is he doing with his right hon. Friend to deal with the rapidly deteriorating position of the shipping and ship-repairing industry on the Tyne, because we are extremely perturbed about the whole problem?
    Mr. Macleod: As regards the Question on the Order Paper, the figures I have given are recent ones, and I have no information that the position has deteriorated as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I will look into the matter in the light of the figures he has suggested to the House. As regards the provision of new industries, that question should be put directly to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Night Bakeries (Women Workers)
    Mr. Robensasked the Minister of Labour how many permissions have been granted, and are at present in operation, to night bakeries for the employment of part-time women workers under the Factories (Evening Employment) Order, 1950; how many work-people are affected; by whom they are employed; and in which bakeries.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Robert Carr): Permissions under the Factories (Evening Employment) Order may be granted by
    1170
    district inspectors of factories without reference to Headquarters and the information is not immediately available. I am asking inspectors to report and will write to the right hon. Member.
    Mr. Robens: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware of a growing practice in the bakery industry to take advantage of the Act by dismissing full-time employees and employing part-time female workers merely for the six to ten o'clock shift? Does not he agree that this was not the intention of the Order, and will he ask his inspectors to look into this practice?
    Mr. Carr: I will certainly keep that in mind, because it is our intention to make certain that the Act is operated as it should be.

BROOKHOUSE COLLIERY, SHEFFIELD (ACCIDENT)
Mr. D. Griffiths(by Private Notice) asked the Paymaster-General whether he will make a statement about the cage accident which occurred at Brookhouse Colliery, near Sheffield, on 4th March, when 47 men were involved.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): This accident occurred at 6.25 a.m. on Tuesday, 4th March, when an ascending cage was overwound and the descending cage landed heavily at the bottom of the shaft. Thirty men are in hospital, of whom 27 have fractures to the leg. Her Majesty's inspectors are now carrying out extensive tests to establish the cause of the accident and to ensure that the control gear is working effectively before normal operations in the shaft are resumed.
I am sure that the House will wish to join with me in wishing the injured men a speedy recovery.
Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to you, Sir, for allowing this Question and creating what possibly may be a precedent, because I understand that hitherto an accident had to involve fatalities before one could ask a Private Notice Question about it. I thank the Minister for his reply and wish to associate myself and hon. Members on both sides of the House with the sympathy that he expressed for the men who are suffer

1171
Bad as it is, the accident could have been much more serious. While wishing the men a speedy recovery, may I ask the Minister whether he will ensure that there will be exhaustive investigations to discover exactly what caused this tragedy?
Sir I. Horobin: Yes, Sir. A number of possible causes present themselves: some could be due to personal failure, others to mechanical or electrical failure. All are being urgently considered, but I have not yet received an interim report.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your help and guidance? A short time ago the Minister of Health announced that he had taken certain decisions on the salaries and conditions of National Health Service workers. Apropos of this, I put down two Questions to the Prime Minister, asking the right hon. Gentleman to intervene. Those Questions passed the Table because they were in order, but I have since had a letter from the Prime Minister's office stating that they will not be answered by him and that they must be answered by the Minister of Health.
My point is that those Questions cannot be answered by the Minister of Health. He has already replied, since they are his decisions. I was asking the Prime Minister to take action and now I am told that he will not answer the
1172
Questions. What does a back bencher do to get a Prime Minister to answer a Question?
Mr. Speaker: I find it difficult to advise the hon. Member. As I have said frequently in the House, the transferring of Questions is not a matter over which I have any control; it is entirely one for Ministers. There is nothing I can do about it.
Mr. Mellish: With respect, Sir, cannot we have a ruling? Otherwise, a back bencher has no protection. If a Minister will not answer Questions, what can one do? It is making democracy a farce.
Mr. Speaker: It is entirely a question of the responsibility of various Ministers. They are the judges of that, not me.
Mr. M. Stewart: Further to that point of order, Sir. Would it be in order for my hon. Friend to ask the Prime Minister whether he would dismiss the Minister in question? A Question of that kind could not be transferred to anyone else.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that would be in order.

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

RENT ACT, 1957 (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) AND VACATED HOUSES (SCOTLAND)
3.35 p.m.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend to sixty pounds the figure of forty pounds in subsection (1) of section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957, in its application to Scotland; to make provision for the modification of certain tenancies of dwelling-houses affected by that amendment; to provide in Scotland for the nomination by local authorities of tenants of dwelling-houses vacated by movements of their former tenants into dwelling-houses provided by local authorities; to continue rent control on such dwelling-houses in Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
I feel, Sir, like the widow who was getting married for the fourth time and who said that this represented the triumph of hope over experience.
I noticed in my newspaper this morning the latest statement on the iniquitous Rent Act. It came from the Tory lady who represents Kelvingrove—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I mean the Tory lady who is now standing for election at Kelvingrove. She said:
"I am rather shocked at what the Rent Act is doing in this constituency. It is having a worse effect than I thought. There ought to be some way in which tenants should have longer leases and more protection."
I am trying to ensure that protection by means of this Motion. The Rent Act is the worst Act that has ever emanated from the Tory benches. It will put them out of office not merely at the next Election, but probably for ever. The Act was ill-conceived and it was ill-becoming of the Secretary of State for Scotland blindly to follow the example of England, where housing conditions have always been so much better.
There never was an Act with decontrol contained in it which had not been preceded by a commission of inquiry. The last time decontrol was introduced a commission carried out a searching survey to find what houses were empty and to let. I remember going to that commission, when I was Chairman of Glasgow Housing Committee, to give them the figures of empty houses available for renting in Glasgow. There were over 2,000, and the commission therefore recommended that this category of
1174
housing, category B, should be decontrolled. There was great opposition to the decontrol, but these houses were freed from it. Six months later war was declared, and all were taken under the sheltering umbrella of control. This time, the Secretary of State for Scotland has not made the slightest effort to find out whether a single house is available.
The right hon. Gentleman said that one-twelfth of the houses in Scotland will be decontrolled. What abysmal ignorance! We are decontrolling rapidly. He takes credit for the fact that local authorities are providing 32,000 houses per annum. Deducting 8,000 houses for replacing houses in slum clearance areas and those affected by closing orders, that means 24,000 additional houses every year. Now we are to have the spectacle of local authorities feeding the decontrol list willy-nilly. The right hon. Gentleman is completely ignoring the fact that the 24,000 extra houses produced annually by local authorities are furthering decontrol not only in the £40 to £60 rateable value range, but below it, and that that will have its consequences on agreements with landlords.
I am asking that the decontrol stage should be a rateable value of £60 instead of £40. Decontrol is taking place all the time and we are paying very heavily for council houses. Hon. Members opposite take credit for the rapid building in Scotland, but the result is not that there are more houses to be let, but that every house vacated by tenants going to a local authority house is offered for sale. That process plays right into the hands of landlords.
I know that the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison), who is to oppose this Motion, represents an area which largely consists of council houses and I know that many Tories are saying in Kelvingrove that it is unfair that people in Kelvingrove should have to pay such high rates to subsidise council house tenants.
I do not support the actions of spongers, whether in council houses or on the landlord. I believe in everyone paying for his housing accommodation. I have had to do it myself the hard way all the time, but when I was in that position I could have been surrounded by "To Let" boards all over Glasgow. One would have thought that the people in

1175
Kelvingrove, who are making such a great contribution to the rates, would at least have the gratification of knowing that when 30,000 tenants moved out every year there would be an equivalent number of houses with "To Let" boards in Kelvingrove and other districts of Glasgow.
It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that landlords have been selling only since the Labour Party published its programme, "Houses for the Future". They have been selling all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and I raised this matter five years ago. We introduced a Bill then and we have now drafted a Bill to stop the sale of houses, especially those from which the tenant went to local authority houses. It is utter nonsense to say that the sale of these houses started with the threat of the Labour Party programme.
I am not alone in condemning what has been done. The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has stated that Murray MacGregor's comment on the Minister's statement to landlords was putting a cloak of virtue on all landlords and did not represent a true picture. He said:
"I know of many cases of great agony of mind among tenants … people have come to me in tears, some because of unreasonable increases in rent, others because they are faced with a buy-or-quit ultimatum."
Yet the Secretary of State says that the majority of landlords are acting fairly, and he presents us with another set of "phoney" figures. This week the right hon. Gentleman told us that 3,267 out of a total of 3,310 houses had been relet. Where does he get those figures? The exchanges in council houses in Glasgow are 2,000 a year. Were these relets obligatory?
Mr. Speaker: I very much dislike interrupting the hon. Lady, but I am bound to point out that the Standing Order under which she is operating provides for a short explanatory statement of the proposals of her Bill. I have to draw her attention to that.
Mrs. Mann: I will finish, Sir, by saying that the Secretary of State has long been connected with the Bible Training Institute of Glasgow. I quote:
1176
"… they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, … but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."
I hope that
"… while the lamp holds out to burn. The vilest sinner may return."
and I welcome the Bill.
3.47 p.m.
Sir James Hutchison: I rise to ask the House to reject the Motion moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann).
I have always admired the hon. Lady's political foresight and imagination. We had a glimpse of her political foresight when she indicated what she thought the result of the Kelvingrove by-election would be, and, indeed, I venture to think that if it had not been for the Kelvin-grove by-election, there would have been no Ten Minutes Rule Bill today. The hon. Lady has let her imagination run riot with a vengeance this afternoon.
I oppose the Motion for two main reasons. First, I do not believe that the Ten Minutes Rule was ever designed for such sweeping and fundamental Amendments to an important Act as the Measure which the right hon. Lady proposes represents. The time and the place for Amendments of this nature is while the Bill is going through the House. I oppose the Motion on the ground that the Ten Minutes Rule is not a satisfactory way to handle questions of this kind.
Secondly, I oppose the Motion because of what it contains. The hon. Lady did not enlighten the House very much about what her proposed Bill contained. Perhaps she will now allow me to do so. She proposes that the level of rateable value for a house to be decontrolled shall be raised from £40 to £60. The question of the level of decontrol was exhaustively examined during the long debates on the Rent Bill. I see no reason why Scotland should have a higher decontrol value than London or the rest of England.
The effect of the hon. Lady's proposal would be to reduce the pool of decontrolled houses from 60,000—which is expected to result if the figure remains at £40—to 6,000 houses. That would clearly make a very severe incursion into the free market in decontrolled houses upon which we set so much store. It

1177
would create more demand for a smaller supply of houses and would tend to encourage landlords to sell rather than to let—and I am at one with the hon. Lady in wanting to see more "To Let" boards and fewer "For Sale" boards.
The Bill would make provisions in respect of affected tenancies, but the hon. Lady was silent upon what those provisions would be. She is asking for an extremely blank cheque in asking the House to agree to the introduction of a Bill which will make certain provisions, hitherto unexplained. Some provision would have to be made to set aside the hundreds or thousands of agreements already entered into under the Act, and her proposal would introduce an element of turmoil into the whole housing situation if it tried to set aside those agreements and set the whole Act back. It would be grossly unfair.
The hon. Lady then asks that when a tenant moves from a controlled house to a council house the house from which he moves should come under the control of the local authority. She does not say whether it would be the receiving authority or the local authority in whose area the vacated house stood, but I consider the proposal to be a most undesirable one. The vacated house would remain the property of the landlord, but a local authority—unspecified—would have the right thereafter, in perpetuity, to nominate the tenants to live in that house. The landlord would be responsible for the upkeep of the premises, but he would have no control over the tenancy. The local authority would have power without responsibility, and there would be municipalisation without the burden of upkeep. It is a most unfair, far-reaching and dangerous proposal.
The hon. Lady then proposes that the vacated house should remain controlled. I can understand the arguments adduced in favour of not removing control where a sitting tenant is in a house, but I cannot understand the argument that the decontrol of a house which is vacant, or in which there is no sitting tenant, creates any hardship. The programme she suggests would encourage owners to sell and not to let. Perhaps the hon. Lady also proposes to take away the power to sell.
This is an ingenious Motion, but I wonder whether, behind its ingenuity, there is not some evidence that the party
1178
opposite is beginning to realise what a burden its proposals would place upon its own shoulders and, incidentally, the shoulders of the taxpayers and tenants. Under the Labour Party's plan it is certain that most rates, rents and taxes would have to rise, even at the artificially low price which hon. Members opposite propose to pay for the property they municipalise.
It is this sort of threat, aggravated by what the hon. Lady now proposes, which is causing so many evictions. She mentioned the unhappiness she felt at seeing so few "To Let" boards, but it is exactly her party's programme of municipalisation, dictating to landlords and threatening what will happen to their properties, that is causing them to seek to sell instead of to let. Which hon. Member opposite, if he knows that he is to be plundered, will wait calmly? The programme of the party opposite is a programme of plunder. The landlord will sell and he will evict.
The Labour Party has much responsibility for the anxiety through which the country is passing. It failed to build the houses when it had the chance. We have built far greater numbers of houses than the Labour Party ever predicted would be possible, and we are determined to keep houses in repair and put an end to the rotting away of the country's dwelling places, which is the reason for the present unhappiness which exists. I ask the House to reject the Motion.
Mr. Herbert Butler: On a point of order. I understood. Mr. Speaker, that when permission was being asked for the introduction of these Ten Minutes Rule Bills you told the House recently in no uncertain terms, that we could not discuss matters outside the Motion on the Order Paper. I wished to ask whether the hon. Member was entitled to raise the whole question of housing in the course of his speech, but I am very glad to be able to sit down, because the hon. Member has now finished.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 250.

Division No. 54.]

AYES

13.56 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Holmes, Horace

Pearson, A.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Houghton, Douglas

Peart, T. F.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Pentland, N.

Awbery, S. S.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Popplewell, E.

Balfour, A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Prentice, R. E.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbarton, E.)

Hunter, A. E.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Beswick, Frank

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Probert, A. R.

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

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Randall, H. E.

Blackburn, F.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Rankin, John

Blenkinsop, A.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Redhead, E. C.

Blyton, W. R.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Reeves, J.

Boardman, H.

Janner, B.

Reid, William

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

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

Rhodes, H.

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

Jeger, George (Goole)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St.Pncs,S.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Bowles, F. G.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Boyd, T. C.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Royle, C.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Short, E. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Callaghan, L. J.

Kenyon, C.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Carmichael, J.

King, Dr. H. M.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Champion, A. J.

Ledger, R. J.

Skeffington, A. M.

Chapman, W. D.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Sorensen, R. W.

Clunie, J.

Lindgren, G. S.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Coldrick, W.

Lipton, Marcus

Sparks, J. A.

Cove, W. G.

Logan, D. G.

Steele, T.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Cronin, J. D.

McCann, J.

Stonehouse, John

Cullen, Mrs. A.

MacDermot, Niall

Stones, W. (Consett)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

McGhee, H. G.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

McGovern, J.

Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

McLeavy, Frank

Sylvester, G. O.

Deer, G.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Delargy, H. J.

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Diamond, John

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Dodds, N. N.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Timmons, J.

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

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Tomney, F.

Dye, S.

Mason, Roy

Usborne, H. C.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mellish, R. J.

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Messer, Sir F.

Wade, D. W.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mitchison, G. R.

Watkins, T. E.

Fernyhough, E.

Monslow, W.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Finch, H. J.

Moody, A. S.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fletcher, Eric

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Foot, D. M.

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

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mort, D. L.

Wigg, George

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

Moss, R.

Wilkins, W. A.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. .

Moyle, A.

Willey, Frederick

Greenwood, Anthony

Mulley, F. W.

Williams, David (Neath)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Grey, C. F.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Oliver, G. H.

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

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Oram, A. E.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oswald, T.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Owen, W. J.

Winterbottom, Richard

Hastings, S.

Paget, R. T.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hayman, F. H.

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

Woof, R. E.

Healey, Denis

Palmer, A. M. F.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

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

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Pargiter, G. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Parkin, B. T.

Mr. Ross and Mr. Lawson.

Holman, P.

Paton, John

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Ashton, H.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Aitken, W. T.

Atkins, H. E.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

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

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Alport, C. J. M.

Baldwin, A. E.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Banks, Col. C.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Barber, Anthony

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Barlow, Sir John

Bingham, R. M.

Arbuthnot, John

Barter, John

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

1180

1181

Bishop, F. P.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Black, C. W.

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

Osborne, C.

Body, R. F.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Page, R. G.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Partridge, E.

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

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Peel, W. J.

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

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hobson,John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Pitman, I. J.

Bryan, P.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hope, Lord John

Pott, H. P.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Powell, J. Enoch

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

Horobin, Sir Ian

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Campbell, Sir David

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Carr, Robert

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Profumo, J. D.

Cary, Sir Robert

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Ramsden, J. E.

Channon, Sir Henry

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Rawlinson, Peter

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Redmayne, M.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh,S.)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

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

Renton, D. L. M.

Cooke, Robert

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Ridsdale, J. E.

Cooper, A. E.

Iremonger, T. L.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Robertson, Sir David

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Cunningham, Knox

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Roper, Sir Harold

Currie, G. B. H.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Dance, J. C. G.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Russell, R. S.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Deedes, W. F.

Kershaw, J. A.

Sharples, R. C.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kimball, M.

Shepherd, William

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Kirk, P. M.

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

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lambton, Viscount

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

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

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Duthie, W. S.

Leather, E. H. C.

Speir, R. M.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Leavey, J. A.

Stevens, Geoffrey

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

Leburn, W. G.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Errington, Sir Eric

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Storey, S.

Farey-Jones, F. w.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Fell, A.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Finlay, Graeme

Longden, Gilbert

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Fisher, Nigel

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Foster, John

McAdden, S. J.

Teeling, W.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Temple, John M.

Freeth, Denzil

McKibbin, Alan

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Gammans, Lady

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

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

Gibson-Watt, D.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Glover, D.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Glyn, Cot. Richard H.

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

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Godber, J. B.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Vane, W. M. F.

Goodhart, Philip

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Gough, C. F. H.

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Gower, H. R.

Mathew, R.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maude, Angus

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

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

Mawby, R. L.

Wall, Patrick

Green, A.

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

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

Gresham Cooke, R.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Gurden, Harold

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Neave, Alrey

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Nicholls, Harmar

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Woollam, John Victor

Harrison, A. B. c. (Maldon)

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

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Sir James Hutchison and

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Oakshott, H. D.

Sir James Duncan.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.6 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is not a complex Bill and, therefore, my exposition will be not so much of its contents, which were described by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last week, as of its principles and of the considerations which affect and give rise to the Bill. These considerations include many of the basic social and economic factors in the National Health Service.
  I said last week that on Second Reading I would seek to deal with some of the general issues of the economics of the National Health Service, in which a good deal of interest is taken in the country as a whole. I appreciate that this involves rather wide and diverse matters—for example, the amount, composition and trend of the total cost of the Service, the value received and the ratio of value to cost, the question whether by economies, it is—or, at least, should be—possible to maintain the value of the Service for less total cost and, of course, the pattern of cost and its appropriate division among the various contributory elements.
  If I may start with the total cost of the Service, this has gone from £452 million in the first complete year—1949–50—to £740 million, an increase of £288 million. Perhaps the first question we should ask is: how much of this increase is an increase in real value? We get that answer by converting the £740 million of present costs into the purchasing value of 1949–50 as measured by the estimated change in the Consumer Price Index. Adjusting £740 million to 1949–50 prices, we arrive at a figure of £530 million. In other words, there has been an increase in real terms in the total cost of the National Health Service during those years of £80 million. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to this point last week but was using last year's figures to show what is really the same point.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: It is valuable to have these figures. I hope that the Minister agrees that they should be given just as much publicity as the other figures given in our last debate. Can he also give the further rectification of the figures that would come from an understanding of the increased volume of call upon the Health Service of old people and of accidents?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly try to deal with that. The population of Great Britain has risen between April, 1951, and June, 1957—the latest figure I have—from 48·9 million to 50 million. There would be some increase in cost on account of the rise in total population, although not a proportionate rise because, for example, the hospital services would have been fully extended in any event.
  Regarding old people, the Guillebaud Committee calculated that changes in the age structure would by themselves increase costs by 3½ per cent. in the 20-year period between 1951–52 and 1971–72. In the nature of things that is not a precise calculation, but I think it puts the matter in a fair perspective. We are not yet half way through the 20-year period, so the percentage increase due to the impact of old age would only be a little over 1 per cent.
  Perhaps it would be convenient, while dealing with these points, also to refer to the question, which figured in our debate last week, of the percentage of the gross national product devoted to the Health Service. I have had a look at that. The percentage started dropping towards the end of the period of the Labour Government and continued to drop until 1954, since when it has risen slightly.
  I do not think that the House ought to attach so much importance to the question of that percentage as some hon. Members appeared to do in our debate last week. It would certainly be quite wrong to regard it in any way as a ready reckoner of the well-being and progress of the Health Service. We should aim to expand the gross national product as much as possible and to spend on the Service the highest common factor of what we need and what we can afford.
  The ideal position would obviously be to get a sustained and rapid increase in the gross national product, coupled with

  1185
  a sustained and steady fall in calls on the Health Service due to the reduction of illness and disease. That would be the ideal position, but it follows that the attainment of that position would result in a declining percentage of the gross national product devoted to the Service.
  If that percentage were taken as a ready reckoner, the result would be taken as showing an unsatisfactory position for expenditure on the Health Service. [Interruption.] I am glad that I carry the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) with me. I think that that clearly demonstrates the invalidity of arguments based on the percentage as an automatic index.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: Any gesture of mine was a mark of admiration rather than of consent.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Member. No doubt in time the one will follow the other.
  Conversely, if the gross national product fell, the percentage of money, even though the amount was static, which was expended on the Health Service would automatically rise. That would mean not that the Health Service was doing better, but merely that the country was doing worse.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not that what we are doing now?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: No. I have already pointed out that since 1954 the percentage has, in fact, risen, and as the hon. Member will know, the gross national product is increasing year by year. The inescapable fact is that, in the context of the total cost of the Health Service, there has been an increase of £288 million, of which £80 million is an increase in terms of real value, so we are left with the position that, with some marginal adjustment for the increase in population, the old people and other factors, about £200 million is the measure of the inflationary increase.
  It is quite true that the bulk of this inflationary increase is not due to the Health Service itself. It is not the prodigal habits of the Service which are forcing the inflationary pace. The increase is primarily the reflection within the Service of the inflationary tendencies which we all know to have been at work in the economy as a whole. In saying
  1186
  that, I do not mean that we can disregard the effect of inflation on the Health Service. Of course not. We cannot look at the Service in the isolated context of an assumed, but unreal, stability. We cannot stop the individual steps of an inflationary escalator. We have to stop it altogether, or not at all.
  Although it is interesting and important to analyse the cost factor in the Health Service, the cold, hard fact remains that the cost, whatever its cause and composition, has to be met. That is the sharp and solid rock on which founder all the attractive arguments we hear, that the social value of the Service means that one cannot properly assess its cost merely in normal economic terms. We cannot escape our financial liability by pleading the extenuating circumstances of a social evaluation.
  Of course, the services rendered for this money are immensely worth while and it is annoying that a great deal of the increased cost arises from general factors outwith the Service, but that is the common experience of businessmen. Market factors, changes in taste and fashion, economic and political policies in foreign countries may all operate to the disadvantage of the trader, even if he is improving the quality and production of his goods.
  I will not say that a businessman does not complain about that. I had two years at the Board of Trade and the Treasury. I know it would not be quite true to say that they do not complain, but they know that those circumstances cannot affect their economic liabilities. So it is with the Health Service; at the end of the road we must pay for what we have and our cheque must be drawn in currency harder than mere good will or enthusiasm.
  I said last week that the contributor to the Health Service gets good value for his money. I think that he does, by any test that can apply. We can measure it in real money terms or in terms of services rendered, but by either test he gets very good value. In real money terms, he gets a service increased in value by £80 million in total and by £35 million of Exchequer money. Time, of course, forbids an exhaustive or even a representative catalogue of the services rendered to substantiate my claim that the contributor gets good value. However, only a very few figures are needed to show in

  1187
  the main fields the nature of the progress achieved in return for the extra cost and by reason of increased efficiency in the Service.
  Take hospitals as an example. There has been a steady and gratifying increase in the number of new hospitals and extensions to existing hospitals. It is a good thing that, in spite of our economic difficulties, the graph of the money we are able to make available for capital works on hospitals is still steadily increasing. Progress can be measured also by the increase in the average of bed occupancy and in the number of outpatient attendances. Bed occupancy has increased from 453,000 in 1950 to 478,000 in 1956. Out-patient attendances have increased from 31 million in 1950 to just over 35 million in 1956.
  Or we can take our test in the sphere of general practice by reference to the number of doctors. In 1951, for example, there were just under 20,500 general practitioners in practice. In 1956, there were just under 22,500. If we examine the figures about which an hon. Member was asking at Question Time the other day, the number of patients per doctor has fallen from about 2,500 in 1951 to 2,272 in 1956.
  The same applies if we examine dentistry. The number of treatments increased from just under 9½ million in 1953 to 12 million in 1956. For sight tests, the 1951 figure of 4½ million was up to nearly 5½ million in 1956. One final example, in the sphere of home services which are so vitally important. Visits by home nurses have increased from 22,600,000 in 1951 to no fewer than 27,600,000 in 1956. On that evidence, taking the normal criteria of any business undertaking, we can say that the case for increased efficiency and production and increased value to the consumer in the Health Service is clearly proved.
  I do not for a moment suggest that these facts of themselves dispose of the question whether unhurtful economies can be found in the Service. The increased productivity and value of the Service in general is not of itself necessarily inconsistent with the possibility of economies being found without detriment to the patient. It is clearly right that the search for such economies—as I said
  1188
  last week—should be unceasing and untiring. The question really is: can the £200 million of inflationary increase, or, indeed, any substantial part of it, be saved by individual economies in the Service, apart from the general arrest of the inflation in the economy as a whole?
  To answer this question we must look first at the pattern of expenditure. Taking the main elements in the cost of the Service we find these figures and proportions, based on the 1958–59 Estimates. Hospital running costs amount to £399 million, which is just under 54 per cent. of the total cost; hospital capital expenditure is £23 million, which is just over 3 per cent. of the total cost; general medical services, £72 million, just under 10 per cent. of the whole pharmaceutical services, £74 million, 10 per cent. of the whole; dental services, £51 million, just under 7 per cent. of the whole; local authority services, £65 million, just under 9 per cent. of the whole.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will see straight away that more than half the total cost is the hospital running costs. Those are mainly composed of wages and the cost of commercial commodities, which means that the inflationary element in the rise in costs is mainly a reflection of the general inflationary tendency. Of course, there must always be considered the possibility of economies in administration and of improved organisation and methods, and that we are doing.
  One method of making the maximum number of economies without detriment to the patient is by ensuring the greatest possible efficiency in administration, and to that end we have instituted the technique of organisation and methods in hospitals in the hospital service. It was started in September, 1954, with an experimental hospital organisation and methods unit recruited from the Treasury and the Ministry. By September last this unit had completed 78 assignments covering a large number of aspects of hospital work at individual hospitals. It had also undertaken, and has nearly completed, eight comparative studies involving the examination of important common procedures or services at a large number of hospitals.
  Mr. J. T. Price: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is breaking down these figures, will he say whether the investigation has covered the

  1189
  widespread use of private motor cars by hospital personnel on mileage allowances? If not, will he deal with that?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: That is a subject which is kept under careful scrutiny, but it has not as yet, so far as I know, been the subject of any organisation and methods studies, with which I am more particularly dealing at present.
  The subjects included under these comparative studies were methods of analysing expenditure, arrangements for compiling and maintaining inventories, methods of stores accounting and arrangements for out-patient departments and other such matters of common and substantial interest. The experience of these three years has shown that the application of the various techniques used by organisation and methods investigation in business, industry and public administration can produce valuable results in the hospital field. The value of this work has been recently recognised by the Estimates Committee and I am now considering the best way to establish organisation and methods procedure as a permanent and integral part of the hospital service. I am keenly conscious of the importance of this approach, and I hope to press forward in this field.
  One other possibility of economy with which I think the House would like me to deal, because it figured largely in the discussion last week and is present in the public mind, is the drug bill. I realise that the discussion we have had about this reflects some measure of doubt, perhaps even of disquiet, in the country. It is, therefore, right that I should attempt a short assessment of the present position. First, its size. For 1958–59 the estimated cost of the drug bill is £74 million; in other words, 10 per cent. of the total cost of the Service. That is more than twice the cost in the initial year of the Service and the drug bill has steadily increased from the beginning. Obviously, therefore, it is right that it should be kept under very close scrutiny.
  Dr. Donald Johnson: In this the drug bill in general practice or does it include hospital items, or are the hospital items separated and included in the hospital services?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: This is the total pharmaceutical drug bill split as to 60 per cent. to manufacturers and wholesalers, and as to 40 per cent. to chemists for their services.
  Mr. James Griffiths: What about drugs in general practice and hospitals?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I will give the right hon. Gentleman that figure in just a moment, if I may, but, first, I should like to indicate the pattern of the rise.
  There are, I think, two causes for the rise in the amount of the drug bill. The first is the general rise in costs, and the second is the introduction of new drugs, such as the antibiotics and cortisone. The prices of these new drugs reflect not only a higher level of general cost but, of course, the research and development costs which must go into them before they can be manufactured on a commercial scale—
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope not to do so again, but could he tell us the average cost of the prescription today?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Just off the cuff, no, but I will be glad to tell the right hon. Lady at a more convenient time; or at Question Time, if she would be good enough to put a Question down.
  I should like to add that the new drugs have made a great contribution not only in the social sense, but also to the national economy in mitigating the effects of those once dreaded diseases like tuberculosis, pneumonia, and acute rheumatism. Keeping the drug bill under scrutiny, we have taken various measures to try to confine it to its lowest reasonable cost, and those measures fall into two categories. First, there are those taken to influence the prescribing habits of doctors; and, secondly, those taken to restrain the prices of manufacturers.
  As to prescriptions, we start from the point that doctors have a statutory right to prescribe the drugs that they think are necessary for their patients, but we give them guidance in discharging their duty economically by the issue of such things as the National Formulary, price lists showing comparative costs of standard and proprietary drugs, the Prescribers'

  1191
  Notes, which are regularly issued, lists of proprietary preparations that are classified as being not of proved therapeutic value, and lists of those preparations that are advertised to the public and have been recommended as not normally to be prescribed.
  Passing from this category to that in which we seek to restrain manufacturers' prices, the facts, shortly, are these. A special inquiry in 1955 into the price of standard drugs revealed no evidence of excessive prices. The majority of proprietary drugs are covered by the 1957 agreement for a trial period of three years from June last. The scheme is still on trial, and its operation will be carefully studied over the trial period to see whether we are on the right lines, or whether anything further is required.
  I should like to assure the House that the Government are not in the least complacent about the cost of drugs. For that reason, the Hinchliffe Committee was set up last summer to investigate the factors contributing to the cost of prescriptions in the Health Service, and to make recommendations. That Committee is progressing in its work, and I have asked its chairman to make interim recommendations, if he can usefully do so. A similar Committee, the Douglas Committee, is sitting in Scotland.
  I was asked about the cost of hospital drugs by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). A further £12 million or £13 million is involved in the hospital drug bill, beyond the pharmaceutical total of £74 million of which I was speaking. Answering the right hon. Lady, the average cost of a prescription today is 6s.
  I hope that I have said enough to justify my claim that the search for economies that can be achieved without detriment to the patient and the Service is unceasing and untiring, but I must say that the analysis shows that the scope for economy without such detriment is not nearly so large as some people appear to think. For example, there is a widespread, if, perhaps, rather nebulous, feeling that in so large a Service big, unhurtful economies must be possible somewhere. Indeed, people often come
  1192
  to the conclusion that much could be done, for example, by the correction of abuse of the Health Service by foreigners, but this, I think, results more from an emotional than from a cerebral approach. I am very grateful to hon. Members who put down Questions about this matter, and so enable it to be seen by the country as a whole in its proper perspective.
  Coming to the pattern of payment, we have this position. In spite of all practical economies, short of cutting the Service or injuring the patient, the total cost of the Health Service has increased, and we cannot, in fact, guarantee a stabilisation at the present figure. This increase contains both an inflationary and a real element, the latter being reflected in improved services and efficiency. However, the present pattern of payment has necessarily brought in its wake a mounting liability upon the Exchequer—
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: In these calculations, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken into account more pay for the doctors?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Clearly, not in the estimate that has been made, because, at the moment, there is no question of increased remuneration for the doctors, as the matter is sub judice before the Royal Commission now sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Harry Pilkington. The hon. Gentleman may make what prognostications he likes in that direction, but it is certainly not for me to indulge in the delights of prophecy on such a question.
  I believe that the most important deductions from the facts that I have sought to analyse are these. First, as the main element in this steady, and hitherto apparently uncontrollable, rise in the cost of the Health Service is a reflection of the general inflationary tendency in the economy, the Health Service clearly has a prime interest in countering and reversing inflation, because only so can it hope to achieve its own economic stability and salvation. I would suggest that the second deduction is that the principle of unlimited Exchequer liability—that is to say, the principle that every increase in total cost should automatically be put on the taxpayer—is clearly inconsistent with a disinflationary policy.
  It is in the context of these principles that this modest adjustment in the pattern

  1193
  of payment contained in this Bill must be judged, and it is from them that it derives its logic and its justification. We can, after all, argue individual cases indefinitely, in rather the same manner as that of the medieval schoolmen, interminably discussing how many angels could stand on the point of a pin, but no argument can be either coherent or convincing which does not take into account these broad general principles, governing, as they do, the basic position and future of our economy on which the fortunes of everybody, whatever their earnings, ineluctably depend. Instead of meeting us on this broad ground of principle, the Opposition have chosen—at least, they did last week—to seek to engage us in a narrow field of controversy on the allegedly regressive effect of this modest but necessary and useful Measure. On that, I would just make the following points.
  It is true, of course, that Income Tax is more progressive than contributions in its incidence, though there is less difference than there used to be because of the change made by the 1957 Act in removing contributions from the ambit of Income Tax relief. But, of course, not all tax is Income Tax. After all, the national revenue is drawn from two main sources. Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. It is not a question of a main stream and a tributary, but of two equal streams joining forces and feeding the Exchequer. Each of these streams contributes over £2,000 million a year to the Exchequer. There is certainly nothing particularly progressive, or, at any rate, nothing scientifically progressive, about the incidence of Customs and Excise, and if one looks at one or two of the main items I think that the point becomes clear.
  Taking the Budget Estimates for 1957–58, Purchase Tax represented £462 million—there is some element of progressiveness in Purchase Tax, but it is by no means universal or scientific. Tobacco represented £698 million—no progressive element in that at all. Beer represented £260 million. Nobody would suggest that there was a progressive element in that. So it is really an over-simplification of the argument to say that when these things are put on to the taxpayer it is progressive and when put on to the contributor it is regressive.
  1194
  The next point I want to make is this. A typical low-paid family worker, for example, a farmworker, was paying a larger percentage of his income in contributions to the Health Service than the average worker in the days of the Labour Government, both at the start of the scheme in 1948 and following the Budget of 1951, just as he is under our own scheme which we are now proposing.
  Mr. Houghton: I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his argument against relating the cost of the Health Service to the national income probably applies equally to the parallel he is now drawing of the cost of the Service to the worker and his total income. There is room for expansion in both standards of life, if I may say so.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: We shall certainly not differ in the desire for expansion in the standard of life.
  The point I am now making is that the principle of adverse differentiation to the lower-paid worker applied in those days as in these. I am reminded by the intervention of the hon. Gentleman, who is such an expert on tax matters, that many of those for whom the Opposition claim to speak and feel would hardly have thanked them for their zeal in trying to put the total burden on to taxation in the days when they were in power, because, at that time, these same people were taxpayers and have only ceased to be direct taxpayers because of exemptions made in Conservative Budgets.
  The next point I want to make is that which I made last week, and, therefore, I will do no more than indicate it today. It is that, when related to total income, these increases of 6d. and 4d. are tiny percentages, as, indeed, is the whole incidence of the Health Service contribution. I would say that even with the increase provided for in this Bill, the contributor is still getting a wonderful bargain here compared, for example, with other countries, some of them richer than ourselves.
  In no country is the scale of service equal to that of the Health Service. In most countries, it is done mainly on the basis of health insurance rather than on the basis of a national scheme, and in few countries does even health insurance cover all. Often, even in enlightened

  1195
  and progressive countries like the Netherlands, France and Western Germany, the Government contribute nothing to the insurance scheme.
  I believe that the Opposition are wrong to oppose this modest and necessary adjustment. I believe that it is inconsistent of them to do so, as the patentees of the National Health Service ceiling which, indeed, cannot be explained, as the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) sought to explain it last week, by reference to the Korean War. The original patentee was Sir Stafford Cripps in April, 1950. The Korean War did not start till June, 1950, and, clearly, the ceiling preceded the Korean War. I fear that the Opposition must confess either to having a bad record in office or a bad case now. Alternatively, of course, it may be that they have both, which, no doubt, is the most probable answer.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: At least, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a sense of humour.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: In seeking to assess the public reaction to this Measure, I looked carefully at the newspapers following the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about these increases. I propose to make a very brief reference to them, quoting only from those which do not normally support the Government. I have not got among these cuttings one from the Daily Herald, because I assumed at the time that it would automatically follow the official Labour Party Line. I know better now, and I am still hopeful that it may yet repeat its deviationism, this time in a better cause and for better reasons. Taking, first, the Manchester Guardian of 19th February, it said:
  "Perhaps there is something to be said for shifting more of the cost of social services away from general taxation and on to the insurance stamp. It may do a little to persuade the users of the services that they have to be paid for by the public and are not financed out of some mysterious national pool."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting the Manchester Guardian, he must go on and quote its further comment to the effect that it would prove a hardship to the lower-paid worker.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The Manchester Guardian was certainly not all praise; I concede that, but I should not expect that newspaper to be wholly on one side or the other.
  The Star of 19th February said:
  "But action to make the many pay for the few and to keep the balance sheet as solvent as possible by increased contributions—this keeps the principle."
  And, finally—
  Mr. Mellish: That is all very well. Is not one of the main arguments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is increasing the contribution, on the one hand, and cutting back the money required even to cover the existing service on the forecast of figures for the coming year, so that it has been, on the one hand, an increase and, on the other, a reduction? What happens to the profit that is made? Where does that go?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman was not here during the earlier part of my speech, when I sought to make a rather full analysis of all these economic matters. I might be in trouble with Mr. Deputy-Speaker if I went over the ground again.
  Let me give my final quotation from the News Chronicle, which said:
  "The Government has taken the correct but unpopular course over an increase in National Health contributions. … Even with the proposed new contributions in force the contributor will still have to find only the same proportion as the Labour Government proposed when bringing in the scheme. This makes the Opposition protests sound rather hollow."
  Of course, the leader writer of the News Chronicle was gifted with prophetic insight, because he was writing before our debate of last week and, no doubt, felt justified when he heard or read the speeches of the Opposition on that occasion.
  I believe this Measure to be a right one in the context of present circumstances, but not as an end in itself. For ten years, the efforts to control expenditure on the Health Service have had a rather makeshift and piecemeal appearance. We have been working our way rather as in a tunnel, with our eyes fixed not much further forward than our feet. It has been a case of
  "I do not ask to see
  The distant scene; one step enough for me."

  1197
  In taking this step, we should ask to see a little more of the distant—and, I hope, not too distant—scene. We can see some light at the end of the tunnel and a sounder financial future for the National Health Service than many people are now inclined to prophesy, provided always that two objectives can be attained.
  In mentioning the first of those objectives, I should explain what to many is a paradox in the economics of the Health Service. I have sought this afternoon to show that by ordinary business standards and leaving out of account for a moment its reflection of the general inflationary position, the Health Service has improved in efficiency, productivity and output.
  The question then immediately suggests itself: why does this not result in lower cost? Why is it not reflected in a diminution of disease and, consequentially, a diminution of treatment and cost? The answer to that is twofold. First, many of the new drugs and treatments are necessarily expensive and the immediate impact is, therefore, to increase costs. Secondly, because of the war and the consequent arrears, the first impact of increased productivity up to now has necessarily been the overtaking of the arrears of treatment, the reduction of waiting lists, the acceleration of treatment, and so on, rather than a reduction in the totality of the cost of the Service.
  Something of what can be done in this context has, however, been shown by the dramatic reduction in the calls on the hospital service—for example, in the case of tuberculosis. I hope that we may in future see this pattern reflected in other cases. In this way, we can hope to reduce the calls particularly on hospitals, which account for so large a proportion of the total cost.
  There is also this to be remembered. If we can succeed in due time in keeping in the community, with proper home and clinical care, more of the old people and of the mentally ill, surely we have a great opportunity both of increasing their prospects of human happiness and of reducing the burden on our hospitals and showing a real saving in money and resources. Surely, along these lines lies one objective that is necessary for the progress and satisfactory economic outcome of the Health Service.
  1198
  The second objective is the one to which much of my earlier argument today has related. The National Health Service can have a sound financial basis only if we get rid of its inflationary elements. As these reflect the general position, we can succeed only by ridding the whole economy of its inflationary virus.
  It is not only the financial basis of the Health Service which depends upon this for success. Its whole future depends upon a sound economy, because inflation and the social services cannot co-exist in the long run. The social services are strong in themselves, but they cannot be stronger than sterling. Although the National Health Service is the object of much international admiration and even of envy, the world does not owe us its continuance. We can guarantee its continuance only if we earn it for ourselves on the basis of a sound economy.
  For that reason, if it is necessary to take any step in this sphere with a dis-inflationary object, we take it, if not with glad hearts, at least with firm purpose and calm resolve, because we know that in doing so we are serving the interests not only of the national economy as a whole, but of the National Health Service itself. It is in that conviction, and for that reason, that I commend this Measure to the House today.
  4.56 p.m.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: We have listened to a speech from a Minister of Health who is fairly new to the House. In the first place, however, I should like to say how pleased I am to see his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), back with us again. Another of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), is also present.
  The Bill is of a very limited character. The contributions are designed to yield an additional £32 million. The Minister might well have come to the House with the intention of devoting himself simply to the financial aspect, which I was afraid he would do, but he has wisely discussed certain aspects of the Service which are related to finance.
  Nevertheless—and I never try to make party capital out of a health debate—I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's survey was superficial. I

  1199
  cannot blame him, because successive Ministers of Health—we have three present this afternoon—have been quite incapable during their short period of office of grasping the ramifications and the problems of the National Health Service which, we are told, is this year to cost the nation £740 million. Indeed, what the Minister's speech this afternoon has done is to focus attention on the real need to examine the financial and administrative problems of the Service.
  I believe I shall carry with me this afternoon some hon. Members opposite who have attended successive health debates. Let me remind them of what has happened during the last two years. In December, 1956, a prescription charge of Is. was made on every item prescribed in order to provide £5 million. In May, 1957, another Minister of Health, whose ill health we all regretted at the time, introduced a Bill containing provisions which came into operation last October, to provide a further £40 million. This involved an increase of 8d. in contributions for the employed man. I was very glad that the Minister at the time said that he realised that for some people an extra 8d. a week was not easy to find. That was rather different from the present Minister's approach this afternoon.
  Today we have yet another Minister of Health who, in order to provide £32 million, is prepared to find the money by raising yet again the contributions from the poorest in the country. I propose to show how, apart from the burden that the Government are placing on the shoulders of the lowest wage earners, this ad hoc policy of casting about every few months to provide a comparatively small sum in relation to the total shows—I say this with careful consideration—an administrative ineptitude which should be clear to hon. Members opposite who have sat here on all these occasions when successive Ministers of Health have come to the House and asked for further grants of comparatively small sums in relation to the total.
  Last week, we heard Beveridge called in aid, and, of course, the past was discussed as a justification for today's approach. Today has been no exception. The Minister sought to defend the new increases by reference to past decisions which have little relevance to the present
  1200
  situation. In the last ten minutes of his speech he recalled what the Labour Party had done. I assure him that I do not propose to oppose the provision of a further sum. He tried to defend the provision of £32 million. I shall not oppose it. I recognise that it is almost certainly necessary, but I strongly oppose the method it is intended to adopt in order to obtain the extra £32 million.
  In the course of the debate last week, when the proposal was considered in Committee, the Beveridge Report was frequently quoted. As one who gave evidence before the Beveridge Committee, on another aspect of the inquiry, I was impressed that the Committee was very anxious to do its best, in the light of circumstances then prevailing. Does the Minister really believe that Lord Beveridge today would consent to a woman who is earning £5, £6 or a week being asked to pay 8s. a week as her share of the National Insurance scheme, as she will be called upon to do if the Bill becomes law? As I was sitting here, one of my hon. Friends came to me and asked me whether I was aware that many apprentices earning £5 a week would be called upon to pay 9s 11d. Of course, that all depends upon their ages but—
  Sir Keith Joseph: The right hon. Lady is being scrupulously fair. She should not import National Insurance elements into her comments at this stage.
  Dr. Summerskill: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He must realise that when men have to pay contributions of 9s. 11d. and women have to pay 8s. per week, they do not analyse them and consider how much of it is for health. What the Government are now doing is to increase what the ordinary people believe is their contribution to a scheme which will cover all the insurance services, including health, Although, from the actuarial point of view, it might be comforting to imagine that an employee would think as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that does not happen in practice.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: At least I hope that the right hon. Lady will lend her assistance in bringing home to the public the true facts of what the proportion is for the National Health Service contribution.
  Dr. Summerskill: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will read all the speeches I have made on the Service since its inception, he will find that I am always scrupulously fair. I am not attacking him. I have some sympathy with him. I am attacking the Conservative administration, as I shall show. I cannot expect him to understand this highly complicated Department which he has been called upon to operate within a few weeks.
  The Minister recalled the past, as I say, and I wish to draw his attention to paragraph 287 of the Beveridge Report in which it was said that it could be argued that
  "… persons with low wages … should be relieved at the cost of the taxpayer or the employer".
  If that was the opinion in those days, I should have thought that the opinion has been strengthened by the present Government's proposal to increase the contribution of an adult male from 5s. 1d. to 9s. 11d. a week, an increase of 95 per cent. As I say, I am not surprised that the cost of the National Health Service is increasing. The main structure of the Service has to be maintained unimpaired, while expenses of maintenance, salaries, wages, food and equipment have risen, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said. Indeed, it would even cost more if the facilities of the Service were just to stand still. Yet, if we are to judge from the Questions which are put down to the right hon. and learned Gentleman every Monday, there is great need for expansion. We need more hospitals and more institutions. We need all kinds of facilities which modern medicine demands. I should think it will be very difficult to reduce the cost of the National Health Service in the future, and there is every probability that it will be increased.
  We must regard the National Health Service as an essential part of our national life and plan accordingly. There is no need for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to the House and speak in an apologetic manner. We are proud of the Service, but we are anxious that it should be run efficiently and that all waste is avoided. People who have always ignored the tremendous benefits of the National Health Service which the Minister mentioned—the diminution
  1202
  of suffering and the prolongation of life—are obsessed by the overall cost; but, as he said, the proportionate cost of the Service related to the national income is falling and not rising. This is not disputed.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Prior to 1954, but it has risen since.
  Dr. Summerskill: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the proportion has not varied greatly. There is no spectacular change, let us say. That is right, I am sure.
  It is quite indefensible, therefore, to increase the contribution by a method which is equivalent, in its effect, to a tax on rich and poor alike for meeting the cost of the country's sickness. I regard this as a great social service, and I find it difficult to understand why there should be a discrimination in this way.
  Last week, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that, unless the Government were to take this increased load on the Exchequer, that is to say, the increased cost of the Service, there were three courses open to them. First, they could cut costs by reducing the Service; secondly, they could further extend the system of charges; and, thirdly, they could raise the contributions. That was a rather naïve statement, for the hon. and learned Gentleman omitted the most important first step. An efficient Minister should, in the first place, satisfy himself that the heavy spending services of his Department are using the money to the best advantage, before being panicked by the Treasury into demanding further sums from the poorest in the country.
  This is a panic measure. I have been a Minister and I know precisely what happens behind the scenes. I feel that the Minister should have asked for more time in order to examine the Service closely in detail. He told us today what he had done, but, of course, he did not touch upon the machinery or explain how it worked, how co-ordination was improved, or what could be done, until the last minute of his speech, when, almost as a postscript, he touched on something which is absolutely fundamental if we are to reduce the cost of the Service.
  It is the time-honoured practice of the House to satisfy itself about how money

  1203
  is spent before granting further supplies, and I propose to follow it. The Minister said last week that he was persevering in his search for new economies, and he indicated today that he was trying to do something about it. I wish to direct his attention to those aspects of the Service where, perhaps, it is necessary to make a fundamental change. He mentioned the pharmaceutical service. I know that, after I have referred to it, some hon. Gentlemen opposite will follow me and, after declaring their interest, will dissent from everything I say.
  Last week in Committee of Ways and Means an hon. Member opposite, having declared an interest, sought to protect the drug houses. I must say that on a previous occasion the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton had said that I was justified in criticising the colossal niagara of medicine. At the end of November, 1956, in a debate on prescription charges, I raised the question of what I considered was the unnecessary over-prescription of certain proprietary drugs. The only report which hon. Members have before them is the report of the Ministry of Health for 1956. It is most unfortunate that these reports take a long time to prepare, so I must quote from some of those figures and amend them from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told me today.
  I attacked the drug houses because I felt there was an appalling abuse of the Service, and in return I was attacked by hon. Members opposite. Since that debate we have had the report of the Ministry, of Health. During that year the cost of the prescriptions has risen—and I anticipated that it would rise—from 4s. 7d. in January to 5s. 1d. in November, and to 5s. 6d. in December. When I asked the Minister this afternoon what was the average cost of prescriptions, he told me that it had risen to 6s. This is a colossal amount for an average prescription, and I presume it is still rising.
  The total drug bill when I spoke last was £61 million. The Minister tells us today—I appreciate that this is apart from the hospital practices—that the pharmaceutical bill is going to be £74 million a year. The cost of the pharmaceutical service has more than doubled since 1949.
  1204
  Not for one moment do I underestimate the value of the antibiotics and the new drugs on the market in the cure of disease, but I say again that there is a high-powered salesmanship in this country which induces doctors to prescribe and patients to ask for expensive proprietary drugs for which there is a much cheaper equivalent. I have repeated my charges on other occasions, giving the names of the firms concerned and illustrating my case by giving details of experiments carried out by experts in this field to prove that there is a cheap equivalent for some of these drugs.
  I only say to hon. Members opposite who have dissented from what I have said that during that time I have not heard one representative from any drug house attempt to disprove what I have said. I am very careful, when speaking from the Dispatch Box, in criticising people outside who are unable to reply in this House for themselves. Therefore, before I made this statement I had verified every point. I think that the proof of my statement about there being an equivalent for some of these proprietary drugs is that I have not had one letter from any of the drug houses charging me with being irresponsible.
  Therefore, I say that the position is becoming deplorable when we have an average prescription of 6s. and an annual pharmaceutical drug bill of £74 million. I have seen a report that the position is not improving. It states that 43 per cent. of the drugs and preparations dispensed are proprietary drugs. That is in the latest report. It may be—the Minister knows; I do not; everything we say on these benches is related to information that we can obtain chiefly from outside industry—that this year the figure will be even higher. Apparently some action has been taken to the extent of sending letters to some doctors drawing attention to their higher prescription costs.
  The profits made by the private drug houses were discussed by the Guillebaud Committee, I hoped that the Guillebaud Committee, which was set up to examine the expense of the National Health Service, would be able to say what was happening, but all it said was:
  "On the basis of our evidence we have no means of forming a judgment on the level of profits now being earned as a result of the sales to the National Health Service."

  1205
  Evidence was given on behalf of some of the drug houses. Yet, despite the questioning by the Guillebaud Committee, the profits were not revealed. Indeed, the investigation into the cost of the pharmaceutical products was the most unsatisfactory part of the Report.
  Now I come to another point, and this deals with what I would call the postcript to the Minister's speech when he spoke for over an hour.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: It may have seemed like it.
  Dr. Summerskill: I was waiting for some information to emerge for an hour and it did not come. Perhaps that is the explanation. I should like to know if the Minister will reconsider the whole field of hospital expenditure. The gross maintenance cost of the hospital service for 1956 was £305 million, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman states that for this year it is £399 million. However, I will relate my remarks to the information available in the latest report.
  The national average cost of maintaining in-patients in hospitals administered by regional hospital boards—of course, it is more in voluntary hospitals—was £l7 15s. a week for acute cases, £11 18s. 6d. for mainly long-stay cases, and for chronic cases £7 18s. 7d. Is the Minister satisfied that in-patient and outpatient services are used in the least wasteful manner? I was astonished to hear him in such a naïve manner counting up the number of prescriptions and the number of patients and then saying, "This is how we have served the country." That is not the criterion of a good health service. It would have been better if he had said that not so many people came to the out-patients departments, instead of telling the House that an increased number came. I am not blaming him personally, but I am putting a point of view which I think is absolutely valid. My only object is to try to make the National Health Service as efficient as possible.
  In these days of increasing specialisation, should we not encourage group practices more? I should like to see health centres all over the country, but I realise what they would cost. I realise that it would be unrealistic for me to go
  1206
  to the Minister on party grounds and say, "Put a health centre in," but I do say that the group practice today is more efficient, because in group practice we often find men and women who tend perhaps to have their own little specialities, and that in itself would reduce the number of people going to out-patient departments.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention this matter, and yet this is almost fundamental to the hospital problem. Is he satisfied that many of the long-stay and chronic patients could not be nursed at home if the facilities were available? In his postscript to which I referred, he said: "We look forward to the time when more old people and more people suffering from some mental disability will be treated by local authorities." But he has got to pursue that line. I would be interested to discover—perhaps he might give me the information in a letter—how the number of long-stay and chronic hospital patients in an area well served with home help and home nursing facilities compares to those in an area with a shortage of both those facilities.
  The Minister told us this afternoon how many visits home nurses have made. The question I want to ask—I did ask it, but I did not get an answer—is how many visits district nurses and home helps have had to refuse. How does the district nursing and home help service relate to the demand? That is what the House wants to know.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but she keeps on saying that I referred to this important aspect of the question of home help and community care and so on at the end of my speech. Surely she appreciates that the reason for that is that we had a full and interesting debate on this precise subject in November, and I do not think we had the advantage, for personal reasons—which I regret—of the right hon. Lady's presence. I spoke of all these matters. There is no need for me to write to the right hon. Lady about them. She can look up the speeches in HANSARD.
  Dr. Summerskill: It is quite unnecessary for the Minister to get hot under the collar. Certainly let him be on the defensive; but that debate was entirely different. This is a valid point. Hon.

  1207
  Gentlemen need not criticise me as though I am making party points. I am not. I am trying to suggest a way of reducing the colossal health bill.
  We all agree that home helps are necessary. I want to develop my point and to show the Minister how he should examine the machinery so that the hospital service and the home help service is more co-ordinated. The Minister gave those figures and the number of visits, but I want to know how the district nurses and the home helps meet the demand of the country. That is most important. Unfortunately, in most parts there is a shortage of one or the other.
  I want hon. Gentlemen who have listened to the figures given for the National Health Service to consider the pay which is given to these women. I observed that hon. Members nodded when I emphasised the importance of the service. A State Registered home nurse with district training gets £467 non-resident. One nurse may make fifty or sixty visits to patients every week. I want hon. Gentlemen to bear in mind the cost of keeping a chronic patient in hospital, which is between £7 and £11 a week. There is a shortage of home helps all over the country. The home help is paid 3s. 3½d. an hour for hard and heavy domestic work, while she can get 3s. 6d. an hour for lighter work in a private house. Of course, there is a shortage.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: Do I take it that the right hon. Lady is suggesting we should put another 6d. or so on to the contribution in order to increase this service?
  Dr. Summerskill: I really cannot descend to the hon. Gentleman's level of intelligence.
  It is not, therefore, surprising that friends and relatives of old people, seeing their relations well looked after in hospital, are reluctant to have them home and press the doctors, matrons and nurses to keep them as long as possible because this home help service is not available. I have always felt very strongly on this aspect of the medical service, because nearly two-thirds of the money spent on the National Health Service is attributable to the cost of the hospital service. If, therefore, we reorganise and look at the machinery to ensure that we have an
  1208
  adequate home service, we might well, perhaps, relieve the hospitals.
  I was very glad to see that the Royal College of Physicians, in its Memorandum to the Guillebaud Committee, emphasises this point. It said:
  "The most costly form of medical care is that given in hospitals, and money would be saved if some of the cases now investigated and treated in hospital were investigated and treated by the general practitioner. In the technical revolution of medicine general practice has lagged behind. With the rise of specialism, the scope of the work undertaken by the average practitioner has steadily narrowed, and the public has come to believe that all but the most trivial ailments need the attention of a specialist. Since 1948, when consultations with the practitioner became free, the number of patients going to him has risen and he has often responded by sending more of them to hospital."
  Finally, it said:
  "Better general practice, closer contact between practitioner and specialist, and the greater use of the district nurse and the health visitors and home helps supplied by local authorities, would reduce total costs by preventing many patients from going to hospital and by allowing others to be discharged sooner to their homes."
  I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), who interrupted me, did not think I was making a party point. This service makes a most important practical contribution to the National Health Service.
  My third and final point is this. As hon. Members will appreciate, in a debate of this kind one needs a long time. Perhaps the Minister could answer these points when replying to the debate, when I hope his approach will be the same as mine—constructive. He will realise that what I am saying is not by way of criticism of the Ministry but an endeavour to improve the National Health Service. I am glad to see the Minister here today. I am not criticising him. He is much better at law than we are, but technical knowledge is important.
  I want the Minister to look at the cost of part-time consultant appointments as opposed to full-time appointments. I strongly believe that too many part-time consultants are employed and that it would be more economical to have fewer. When it is considered that these consultants are paid on a sessional basis, which includes travelling time plus payment of domiciliary visits at the rate of four guineas a visit up to a maximum

  1209
  of 800 guineas, and then supplement their income by private work, it seems that there is room for investigation.
  My opinion is that we have had an increasing volume of criticism by people who have needed an urgent operation. An alderman sent me a letter this morning complaining that a relation of his wanted an immediate operation on an eye. They had been told at the local eye hospital that there would be a wait of three months. They were also told that if the woman was prepared to pay £60 she could have it done in a fortnight. The family are collecting this sum. This alderman has been associated with the services of the local authority, and rightly he is very incensed. It is human nature for doctors if they have spare time to see private patients and to do as much private work as possible.
  I want to ask the Minister this question, both from the financial and practical aspects: Is it wise to have so many part-time consultants? I only hope that in reply the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will not quote the Guillebaud Report too much, because he must remember that the Guillebaud Report was presented in January, 1956, but that the committee of inquiry was appointed in May, 1953, which is five years ago. Since that date expenses have soared. There have been changes in therapeutic practices and changes in the morbidity rate of various diseases, all of which calls for a rethinking and reviewing of the Service.
  This is what is called for, not a Bill hurriedly presented, designed to see the Government over a difficult period. By so doing, they have to cast around to find from where they can get the money as easily and quickly as possible. The result is that they have done something which is grossly inequitable. They have gone to the very poorest and to the people in the lower wage groups to ask for this increased contribution, when only five months ago they did precisely the same. They showed a callous indifference to the needs of these people and asked for a further contribution. I say very strongly that this shows an ineptitude on the part of the Conservative administration.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: It is clear that the speech just made by the right hon. Lady the Member for
  1210
  Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) could be divided into two parts. I am glad to say that the first part, commenting on the future of the Service and upon its financial structure, was wise. The second part was, unfortunately, of a different nature. It was designed to exaggerate differences and to describe this Measure in very thoughtless terms.
  The right hon. Lady attacked the Administration as being guilty of administrative ineptitude. She became delightfully ingenuous when she said "This is a panic Measure. I have been a Minister and, therefore, I know what happens behind the scenes." I hope that I can prove to the right hon. Lady that this is not a panic Measure and that any unfortunate experiences which she may have had in the last Socialist Government have not recurred either in my right hon. Friend's Department or in the present Cabinet.
  This is no change of financial structure. I remember that last week hon. Members went back to Beveridge in their speeches, but that does not seem to be the right distance to go back. Let us go back to the White Paper which accompanied the National Health Service Act, 1946—the Measure which set up the financial structure of the Service.
  All of us, on all sides of the House, take pride in the Health Service, though we may well feel at times that it requires improvement. There is no party difference about the establishment of the Service, nor indeed very much difference about this part of the structure. Paragraph 100 of Command 6761 stated that
  "The new service is to be financed mainly from the exchequer, assisted by a payment of some £32 million transferred from the National Insurance Fund, and partly from local rates with the help of exchequer grant."
  Paragraph 5 of the White Paper said:
  "A proportion of their contributions"—
  that is, of those paying National Insurance—
  "will be used to help to finance the health services under the present Bill …"
  What was that proportion?
  The proportion in 1948, when the Act was introduced, was 10 per cent. of the contribution. It was 10d. out of the existing total contribution of 8s. 5d. That was decided by the Socialist Government.

  1211
  Before this Bill was introduced, the proportion of insurance to the total contribution had dropped to 9½ per cent. Now the Bill is to raise it to 12¾ per cent. Therefore, in that context no one would say that this is a major change.
  It may well be that a major change ought to come, but this is not a major change from the structure in the 1946 Act. When one considers the tripartite structure, the only possibility of a major change having been made by the present Government is not in this Bill but in the Local Government Bill, whereby, by moving from a percentage grant to a general grant, it is left to a local authority to decide whether it wishes to reduce or increase the proportion of its expenditure upon its local health services.
  One of the difficulties with which we have been faced ever since we began the Health Service is that a very large part of the expenditure comes out of the central Government. Figures issued by the International Labour Office show that, taking social security as a whole, 58 per cent. of our social security expenditure comes from the central Government, whereas in other countries in Europe, such as Germany and Holland, the proportion is under one-third, and in France it is a little over one-eighth.
  This seems to me to be a weakness in our social security schemes. I believe that it is one of the reasons why we have some long-term drawbacks in the Health Service and in other branches of social security. It may be said that a good deal of this difficulty flows from the decision which we originally took to establish a Health Service. I remember the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) saying on 30th April, 1956, that the scheme was necessary
  "because it has been the firm conclusion of all parties that money ought not to be permitted to stand in the way of obtaining an efficient health service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 43.]
  It was for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman decided that the financing of the scheme should be placed in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I do not believe that the financing of a hospital building programme is easily done under a system of annual accounting, which is the normal requirement of Exchequer financing. I believe that this
  1212
  system of financing by the Chancellor of the Exchequer tends to make both the user of the service and its administrators less conscious of the price factor than I should like to see them. There is no way, under this system of central financing, of keeping on reminding those who are using or administering the service of the factor of price.
  Nor, indeed, does this system achieve the right hon. Gentleman's object of seeing that money does not stand in the way of an efficient development of the Health Service. The House will remember that, only eighteen months after the Service came into operation, the right hon. Gentleman had to have his Health Service subjected to a ceiling and that in May, 1950, he had to take part in imposing that ceiling by giving a pledge.
  In a speech on 5th May he said:
  "I have given a pledge that for the year 1950–51 there will be no exceeding the financial ceiling laid down in the Estimates."
  It seems true, therefore, that this system of central financing hampers the development of the Health Service. I am afraid that it is especially true when capital expenditure in the Service is considered.
  I remind the House of the words used in the Guillebaud Report and the figures published in paragraphs 62 to 64, which show that capital expenditure during the first six years of the Service stayed at a level which was about two-thirds below the level which ruled before the war.
  That, I believe, is the most astonishing result of the creation of the Health Service. If we look at the surrounding circumstances, at the great amount of bomb damage, the great need for the construction of hospitals, how many hospitals had to be housed in temporary buildings, we must be surprised when we realise that, when the war was over, we in this country took no steps to renew the capital expenditure on hospitals. Before the war, the relationship of capital expenditure to current expenditure on hospitals was 19·6 per cent. After the war, it dropped to 4 per cent., and from the figures given by my right hon. and learned Friend in his very clear speech today, it now appears to be 6 per cent.
  If I may again quote a Guillebaud Report figure to give the comparative position outside this country, I gather that in the United States, which is not necessarily a model for this comparison,

  1213
  the relationship of capital expenditure to current expenditure on hospitals is 23 per cent. I believe that there is a great lesson in these figures.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman is raising a very important and valid point. I had hoped that, for the sake of giving a perfectly fair picture, he might have added, so far as hospitals are concerned, that during the war quite a number—I do not want to exaggerate—of valuable buildings were put up, unlike the provision made in other fields, such as housing. These wartime hospitals proved to be of very great value, and that fact did bear on the problem of capital expenditure in the years immediately after the war. I quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's general argument.
  Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, knows his own hospitals in his own constituency. I have seen hospitals all over the country, and have seen the damage done by the bombing, and the amount of damage which has not been repaired. There was no acceleration of the hospital building programme in the first six years of the Health Service, and the Guillebaud Report recommended that at least we should get back to an increase of 200 per cent. to bring us up to the prewar position. [Interruption.] I kept very quiet while the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington was speaking. It may be surprising that she agrees with me, but to make that observation is not very courteous or very helpful to the conduct of the debate.
  Dr. Summerskill: The observation was, of course, that we all agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Turton: I did not interrupt the right hon. Lady. I know how difficult it is for her to keep quiet. That sort of thing is not very helpful.
  Dr. Summerskill: Very well, I will look at the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Turton: That will be very agreeable.
  The Guillebaud Committee recommended a 200 per cent. increase. What has happened today is that, instead of an increase of 200 per cent., there has been one of 130 per cent. I wish to bring the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to this position. It means that we
  1214
  have built houses and schools and have tried to repair defects which occurred because of the war in these directions, but we have not yet really tackled the problem of the hospitals.
  This is the only country in the civilised world that has not completed a new hospital in the last twenty years. If one has been completed recently—and I know that a number of buildings have been begun—I stand corrected. I find as I go round some countries in Europe, as I found when I was in North Africa, in Tunisia, last year, new hospitals which had just been completed. When I see these things, I always feel that we ought to have done the same in our own country.
  If we had not had the take-over by the State of the hospitals, let us try to think of what would have been done. As a memorial to the miracles of surgery and of nursing that were performed during the war, and as a tribute to those who had sacrificed their lives, I am quite certain that this country, both local authorities and private hospitals, would have set out upon a great rebuilding programme. [Interruption.] I gather that the right hon. Lady does not agree with me there, but I am certain of that. As it was, all the endowments of the hospitals were taken away from them and that did not help. It put a stop to the rebuilding.
  I challenge right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to deny that, if we had been in that position there would have been a great demand from the people to have these hospitals rebuilt, but that has not happened yet. I am not arguing that we should put the clock back. I do not suggest that, but I am suggesting that we should now realise that, in fact, one of the reasons for the increasing expenditure on health is the fact that we—and both sides of the House are guilty of this—have starved the hospital boards, and also the local health authorities, of capital expenditure.
  This is one of the occasions on which I believe that by spending more we can save money. Let me give two illustrations of this; and I know that one of them comes very close to what the right hon. Lady said, so I feel sure that she will want to interject again. First, let us take the problem of the mental hospitals. All over the country we have these large barracks of mental hospitals, built more

  1215
  than a hundred years ago and isolated from the rest of the community; their very nature tends to retard the recovery of the patient and they are very difficult to staff. If we could pull these places down and build psychiatric wings in the hospitals and after care local authority hostels, as recommended in Chapter 10 of the Percy Commission's Report, it would mean a tremendous saving on current expenditure.
  Equally so, if my right hon. and learned Friend could spend £1½ million on chiropody to keep old people mobile, and if flats, bungalows and small hostels could be built to house the old people, I believe that that should come before the right hon. Lady's suggestion about an increase in the domiciliary services, although I attach equal importance to them. I believe that we must build suitable accommodation for these old people, and that, if we could do that, there would undoubtedly be a very great increase in capital expenditure, but there would also be a very great saving in current expenditure in later years.
  Although my right hon. and learned Friend divided the £280 million into one part which was inflationary and that which represented an improvement in the services, I hope he will bear in mind that, if we could accommodate the old people or some section of the present mental patients in the community, there would be savings of expenditure in not only the improvement part but also the inflationary element in that increase which my right hon. and learned Friend talked about. That is why I stress the need to reconsider this part of our programme.
  In my view, the £740 million which has been mentioned today is the irreducible minimum so long as 72 per cent. of the expenditure is borne by the Exchequer, because there is not sufficient price consciousness in the Service and the present method of Exchequer financing makes it impossible to get sufficient insistence on extra capital expenditure rather than on current expenditure.
  The right hon. Lady has said that the proposed contribution will be too heavy. Only last week my right hon. Friend answered a question of mine. He said that the new total insurance contribution will be 3·9 per cent. of average weekly
  1216
  earnings for the employed and 3·2 per cent. for the employer. In West Germany, it is 12·2 per cent. for the employed person and 14·9 per cent. for the employer. In France, it is 6 per cent. for the employed person and 30·2 per cent. for the employer. It is clear from those comparisons that the burden of this contribution here is much lighter than it is in France and in Western Germany.
  Dr. Summerskill: Are the benefits comparable?
  Mr. Turton: I am coming to that.
  It is true that in Western Germany the contribution does not provide for all the benefits provided by our 3·9 per cent. In fact, the German worker himself has to pay more for his hospital treatment, which is provided by the Lander and the church. This means that in his local taxation he has to pay extra for hospital treatment and he also has to contribute to his hospital treatment through the church and religious societies.
  It is equally true in France that the worker has to pay an extra amount when he goes to his doctor of 20 per cent. of the cost of medical treatment. Therefore, on that comparison, also, the worker in France and Germany is more heavily burdened than is the worker here. I believe that this insurance system has the benefit that it generates price consciousness and avoids the system of annual accounting.
  We must look ahead. Clearly, on a flat-rate contribution there is a limit to which the insurance contributions can rise. There have been articles in both The Times and the Manchester Guardian on the question of a social security tax. I invite Her Majesty's Government, therefore, to look at the question of financing social security on a broad basis. I believe the time has come for a Royal Commission to examine the question. I believe it would be impossible to run both a pay-as-you-earn scheme and a social security tax. If we had a social security tax, it would have to be merged into pay-as-you-earn, whether on the Chambers plan or the Lady Rhys Williams' plan or otherwise. Also, if there is to be a graded insurance contribution, I believe that this also should be merged with the pay-as-you-earn scheme. The time is coming when that matter

  1217
  should be considered because, as in the case of the Beveridge Plan, we want to remove this service from party politics. It is a question of how best to finance social security.
  Meanwhile, we are retaining the original structure of the 1946 Act without any great amendment. That is why, as a temporary measure, I am sure that this Bill is to be commended and is right. I have only two regrets. The first is that this 8d. is divided as to 6d. and 2d., which more or less retains the division made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale in his original Bill of 1946, when the division was 8½d. for the employed person and 1½d. for the employer. I believed that this was wrong at the time, because health should be financed equally by the employer and the employee. I would like to see in this Bill a division of 4d. for the employer and 4d. for the employed person. That was the division made in the Conservative Health Insurance Act of 1936, when the insurance contribution of 9d. was divided equally between the employer and the employee. I believe that the 1946 Act made a great mistake in that respect.
  My second regret is about a more difficult point. I regret that this contribution is not earmarked for a special part of the health expenditure, because that would give a greater consciousness of the price factor. I believe the contribution should be earmarked to the general medical and pharmaceutical services, because, then, all would realise how the insurance is linked with the visit to the doctor and getting the drugs. I agree completely with the right hon. Lady that one of the most worrying signs in the National Health Service is the rising cost of drugs.
  We must remember, however, that the new drugs are doing a great deal of good. There are many people alive today who would have been dead if they had not been available. The right hon. Lady is right, however: I am sure that the pressure salesmanship of some of the drug houses is making some young doctors prescribe expensive drugs unnecessarily. I hope that the inquiry being made by the British Medical Association will help in this respect. It would also help if the whole of the 2s. 4d. contribution had been tied to the medical and pharmaceutical services.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: If the right hon. Gentleman seriously proposes that, would he agree that the 1s. charge for medicine would have to be obliterated? If this new charge were tied to the pharmaceutical service, it would be only fair to remove the 1s. charge from medicine. If so, and we put down an Amendment on those lines, as we did the last time the contributions were increased, would he support us in the Division Lobby?
  Mr. Turton: If the right hon. Gentleman will state in his Amendment that all this expenditure is earmarked to the general medical and pharmaceutical services, remains earmarked, and is tied in as I have suggested, I will gladly look at his Amendment with sympathy and, I hope, with approval, but I must see how he ties it in.
  Some may ask what is gained by this earmarking. I agree that no more money will be spent, but the gain will be an awareness of the cost. Too many have said too much about the free Health Service, so that far too many people think that it costs nothing. However, the Health Service has to be paid for and that is why the Bill has been introduced. Somehow, we have missed the contributory factor in the last ten years of the Health Service, when some of its expense has been rising unnecessarily. What we must try to do is to bring back the contributory spirit into the Service.
  I am reminded of the Declaration to Electors, in 1945, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who said:
  "The Health Scheme will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost."
  So long as the citizen feels that there is no unnecessary waste in the Health Service, so long as he feels that those who are not really ill are not abusing the Service, so long as he feels that those who are really ill have the buildings, equipment and the skill of doctors and nurses to make them—if possible—well, he will pay this increased contribution with a cheerful heart, knowing that it is his insurance against ill-health.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: Before following some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Thirsk

  1219
  and Malton (Mr. Turton), I want to make a few observations about the circumstances in which the Bill has been introduced. From the benign appearance and urbane manner of the Minister this afternoon, one would never assume that the Bill is the result of a Cabinet row. During the debate, I have been wondering what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is doing here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Taking notes."] Has he brought the tranquillisers to administer at the end of the debate? I can see something in common between his duties as chief Government propagandist and the Bill. They are both concerned with "dope."
  The Bill is the outcome of the convulsions in the Cabinet a few weeks ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and two other Treasury Ministers decided to quit. What we do not know is whether the Bill is what they asked for and were refused, or whether they quit on charges which were proposed and then dropped. The Minister has said nothing about that this afternoon and perhaps the Minister who is to reply to the debate will lift the veil a little more.
  Let me draw the distinction between last year's Bill and this year's Bill. Last year's Bill was introduced on 8th May, when we had seen the shape of the Budget and had seen the detailed Estimates for the National Health Service. This year the Bill is introduced before we have seen the shape of the Budget and before we have seen the details of the Estimates of the Health Service. Why has the Bill been introduced now, when we do not have the whole financial picture before us? It is significant.
  What we do know is that the Bill is an instrument for announcing to the public a faked economy in Government expenditure. The Government have said, "We have got the total estimate of Government expenditure within £50 million more of the total expenditure for the current financial year, including Supplementary Estimates." That is bogus. What the Government have done is merely to shift something from budgetary taxation to extra-budgetary taxation. It is simple as my eye, yet
  1220
  the Government present this as a calm and considered approach to the financing of the Health Service. It is nothing of the sort.
  The right hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), the previous Minister of Health, is in his place. I wonder what has been passing through his mind this afternoon. When he introduced the first Bill last year, did he expect to see his successor introduce another Bill at this stage this year? I do not think that he did. The terms in which he introduced last year's Bill did not suggest that.
  What we are discussing today is not the nature of the Service, but how and by whom it is to be paid for. There are attractions about the idea of earmarked taxation. I do not dismiss them. In considering how the Health Service can be paid for, one might dwell upon some of the factors which are increasing the cost of the Service today.
  For example, motorists are knocking down many people. Why, then, do we not put an extra tax on them and call it "butchery on the roads tax" and bring that home to the motorists? Again, cigarette smokers apparently intend to persist in putting themselves in the surgical wards of our hospitals. Why not put an extra tax on them and call it "the lung cancer levy"? That might stop them in their headlong rush towards a painful death. Our business tycoons are digging their graves with their teeth. Why not put an extra tax on them and call it the "gluttony tax", to be levied on expensive meals in restaurants and hotels for those who over-eat, largely at the taxpayers' expense? There are all sorts of suggestions which one could make relating extra taxation either to the purposes to which it is to be devoted, or to the cause of additional expense.
  Seriously, we have here the choice—and it is a free choice, a political choice as well as an economic choice—about how the expenses of the Health Service shall be spread. I am not tied to Beveridge. Beveridge is out of date in many ways. He thought in a different age.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton drew comparisons between the proportions directly contributed to the Health Service in other countries and that paid by the Exchequer. He overlooked

  1221
  two things. The first is that few other countries have the same efficient and equitable system of direct taxation as we have. France is a notable example. France could not collect the cost of a national health service by direct taxation. We know that the French do not believe in it and that, even if the Government did, the people do not and would not pay.
  One has also to consider differences in taxation structures in other countries and the efficiency of their tax-collecting machines. If the right hon. Gentleman goes behind the Iron Curtain he will find that practically the whole cost is borne by the Exchequer. In some Iron Curtain countries, there are no contributions from either employers or workmen. The whole cost is borne on the Exchequer. That is a political decision.
  The second respect in which the right hon. Gentleman went wrong was in suggesting that there is some kind of common denominator, a common factor, in all countries relating to the proportion which the worker should directly contribute to the expense of social services. There is no such common factor. Each country has its own political direction. We have a free choice, as I said, and in making that choice we may decide that more should be put upon the central Exchequer than upon contributions, because we prefer it that way or because we see very strong social and economic reasons for it.
  We are not bound to follow Dr. Adenauer, or the Government of Holland or Belgium—still less of France—in our approach to the distribution of social service costs. We are considering how the costs should be distributed. The Minister, in his rejoinder, to the suggestion that flat-rate contributions are regressive, drew a comparison with the tax upon beer and tobacco. He said, "Look at the tax on beer; that is not progressive." It is progressive to the extent that the more one drinks the more one pays, whereas we pay the National Health Service contribution whether or not we have the benefit of it. The Minister can easily get into a state of confusion when indulging in intellectual analyses of different aspects of our taxation.
  I am not one of those doctrinaire people who call a contribution a poll tax when they want to inject prejudice against
  1222
  it, or a form of regressive taxation when they want to build up public hostility towards it, and a contribution when, although it is much heavier, it is levied upon a graduated basis. We should regard a contribution of this kind as a contribution, without ignoring regressive tendencies in flat-rate contributions, or the bias that we have in favour of the more equitable form of direct taxation as against the unfair aspects of indirect taxation.
  The only reason why we have so much indirect taxation is that Governments lack political courage in levying more direct taxation and relieving commodities—many of them important, if not essential—from indirect and regressive taxation.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what forms of direct taxation he proposes to increase?
  Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member knows my weakness for the Income Tax; I have believed in it all my working life. I cannot think of anything else that comes readily to mind which would be half as effective. It can be stiffened at the top without very much harm.
  No one will suggest that Britain's economic future would be imperilled by the restoration of the reliefs given to Surtax payers in the last Budget. I do not like ramming things down people's throats, but the truth is that that was a significant relief to give at a moment when we were being told—as we still are being told—that we cannot afford to find the higher cost of the National Health Service from Exchequer taxation, but must have extra-budgetary taxation to meet it.
  The question that we must ask in these cases is whether a flat-rate contribution is becoming so unfair in its incidence on wide ranges of income as to provide strong criticism for its continuance or, at all events, for any increase in it. I know that much play can be made about this extra 6d. It is the old story, "It is only another 6d.; who will miss it?"
  Sir Frederick Messer: That is what they said last time.
  Mr. Houghton: Is it quite obvious that the contribution introduced last year is a temptation to the Government to increase extra-statutory taxation to pay for

  1223
  the Health Service, and to drift away from the obligations of the national Exchequer in this connection.
  If this kind of contribution were fair, or fairer, in its application, there might be some saving words to be said for it, but we must remember that the contribution is strictly linked with the payment of the National Insurance contribution. If a married woman, for example, feels that she ought to pay for her own retirement pension because she will reach pension age before her husband, she is thereby compelled to pay a contribution to the Health Service, but her neighbour, whose husband will reach pension age before she does, and who, therefore, does not feel the same need to contribute to a pension in her own right, is allowed to opt out not only of the National Insurance contribution but the Health Service contribution.
  The same consideration applies in the case of men and women who have passed retirement age, but who have deferred retirement in order to earn bonuses upon their retirement pensions. They have to pay contributions, and to earn the additional bonuses on their pensions they have to pay National Health contributions on top of their National Insurance contributions. I cannot see anything fair about that.
  How rough and ready this system is. The House accepted it last year, thinking that it was perhaps a necessary departure from the financing of the Health Service of previous years, but surely not with the intention of pursuing this additional contribution, with all its unfairness and its increasingly regressive tendencies.
  Let us consider the additional burden put upon the employer. It is levied without any regard to the profitability of his industry. If he were paying for his share of the Health Service through direct taxation what he paid would at least be related to the profitability of his business, but upon this basis he pays whether it is profitable or not. We must also consider the effect upon local authorities.
  I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) for providing me with figures relating to the Liverpool City Council. The increased contributions for last year and this year amount to £150,000,
  1224
  which represents a rate of 4¾d.—which charge goes straight back to the ratepayer who, after all, is the contributor. We take the money from him in the form of a contribution and levy an additional charge upon him in the guise of rates. Hon. Members opposite have not studied this matter closely enough. They do not see what a bogus system it is.
  If hon. Members opposite ask me what I would suggest in present circumstances, my reply would be that this additional charge should not have been brought forward now; it should have stayed where it belonged, as part of the general expenditure of the country upon social services. The Minister disclosed his hand in regard to economic policy a little more clearly than did his right hon. Friends, however. He said that with a disinflationary policy it would be inconsistent to put the whole of the increased cost upon the taxpayer. What he was really saying was that we shall put extra burdens upon the mass of the people, not based upon their ability to pay but with the deliberate object of reducing their consumer expenditure. That is the purpose of the Government's economy policy both in relation to the Rent Act and the additional contribution proposed by this Bill.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman naïvely says, "Of course, you talk about putting this on direct taxation, but look at how many people no longer pay Income Tax. A Conservative Government relieved many millions of people of their obligations under direct taxation. If we put it on direct taxation, or keep it on direct taxation, they will not pay. Therefore, we have introduced this contribution to be fair." The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes that observation as if Moses had brought down from Mount Sinai a line of Income Tax exemption beyond which the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot go.
  But the Government can enlarge the field of Income Tax payers at any time the Chancellor of the Exchequer likes to propose it, and, therefore, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to say, "We cannot bear this and other costs at the present time without increasing taxation," that was something which should have been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he said, "It will be necessary for me to increase Income

  1225
  Tax or reduce personal allowances to meet the increased cost of the Health Service" that would have been understood as clearly as the contribution which is proposed here.
  The truth is that this is a question of political choice and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a political choice in favour of what he calls a dis-inflationary policy, which means putting additional burdens on the mass of people to damp down expenditure on consumer goods and reduce the standard of life of the people. That is all it is. When I say "all it is," I mean that is the whole purpose of levying the additional contribution at this time.
  If I am asked whether, in considering contributions in principle, I would object to graduated contributions I would say it is fairer than to have a flat-rate contribution. There is no law against a graduated contribution. Last week, when one of my hon. Friends referred to a graduated contribution hon. Gentlemen opposite said, "Yes, but you cannot give graduated benefits." Under the principles of direct taxation in this country, which rest upon the assumed ability to pay, we have never looked for flat-rate benefits. If it comes to that, the Navy is a flat-rate benefit. What bigger share have I, as a substantial taxpayer, in the British Navy than people who pay very much less? I have no more. I do not see the ships either lower in the water or higher out of the water or bigger, or smaller, or with bigger guns or smaller guns, because I pay more tax.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is pursuing an interesting subject with expertness. When he says that if there were a graduated contribution, may I ask whether, in his opinion, it should take into account the family situation in order to be parallel with P.A.Y.E., or does he prefer a flat rate though graduated—if he understands what I mean?
  Mr. Houghton: That refinement in direct taxation has only to do with its incidence. Were Income Tax 3d. in the £, we should not bother about wife, or children, or dependent relative, or life insurance contribution allowances, still less with business expenses. People would say, "There it is and we can pay.
  1226
  We can call it a flat-rate contribution." When considering a graduated contribution in relation to family circumstances it depends on what is the level of the graduated contribution whether we make a simple distinction between single people and married people or carry the refinement still further, as we have been compelled to do in the Income Tax system with the rise in the level of taxation.
  I revert now to the question of flat-rate benefits and suggest to the Minister that the wealthier people are the more valuable is their health and there is no reason why they should not pay a bit more. After all, in all our approach to direct taxation we have regarded those with wealth and substance as having a bigger stake in the community than others. They have more to lose, and more to gain from prosperity.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: They have their lives to live in the same way as anyone else.
  Mr. Houghton: The lengths to which some people go to save their lives suggest that they attach great value to them and I am sure that, were the choice put before them that they should pay a higher contribution to the Health Service because of their more valuable lives which they have to save, they would be in agreement with it.
  I do not think that there is anything in the objection to graduated contributions on the ground that one can provide only flat-rate benefits. It is unsound and, in any case, it conflicts with the general approach to progressive taxation; and the agreed contribution can be either progressive or proportionate. Here again, I think that it is largely a question of how big or how small it is.
  I have taken up some time in saying this, but I felt that some of these observations, at any rate, were justified, having regard to the subtle way in which the Bill has been introduced, without regard to how it was born; to the need to see the Estimates of the Health Service; to the need to see the shape of the Budget. The Government are just pursuing their policy of last year with no more rational basis to their approach to financing the Health Service than in any other aspect of their economic policy.
  6.26 p.m.
  Dr. Donald Johnson: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will excuse me if I do not follow him either into the realms of political polemics or the intricacies of taxation. I think it is possible to state one's agreement with this simple Measure in a few simple words and to get on to the subject which I believe is the most important in the present debate, that is, the tone set by my right hon. and learned Friend when he discussed possible economies which might be effective in the Service. Obviously these things have to be paid for and as a general principle I consider it is all to the good that they should be paid for in as direct a form as possible.
  I wish to express my pleasure at the tone set by my right hon. and learned Friend when he discussed the Service on broad lines with particular reference to economies, and I hope that I may be permitted to follow him on those lines. We can accept his explanation of the inflationary nature of the increase in the cost of the Service in recent years, or, at least, that it is mainly of an inflationary nature. But the main miscalculation in the cost of the Service seems to have occurred prior to that. The fundamental confusion that occurred is one that was mentioned in the debate last week. Whereas the original estimate of the cost of the Service in the Beveridge Plan was £170 million, the actual cost in the first year of working was no less than £450 million, or over twice as much as the original estimate. It was this basic fact together with the further yearly increases that led to the appointment of the Guillebaud Committee.
  I differ from many hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, when I describe the Guillebaud Report as one of the most disappointing documents of recent times. The fault of the Guillebaud Report was that it failed, or so it seems to me, to see the wood for the trees. The fault lies in that it looked at the details and failed to consider the fundamentals of the Service. The mistaken approach was that it looked at the Service as a fixed one instead of at the possibility of it being operated in a more flexible way.
  In the debate last week my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)
  1228
  suggested that there was nothing sacred about preserving the original pattern of the Service. He said that in reference to finance, but I repeat it in reference to the structure of the Service. In considering the question of economies I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to look at the entire Service in that way. One thought occurred to me as I considered the difference between the two figures I have quoted. How much of this miscalculation was due to failure to realise the value of voluntary service in respect of our hospital services?
  One of the features of the changeover in 1948 was the complete writing off from any basic point of view of the voluntary services which had been given in connection with hospitals. The result has been that this immense fund of local good will in connection with hospitals, inasmuch as it has been made use of at all, has been sidetracked into trivialities and inessentials, such as radios in the wards and seats in hospital grounds. I appreciate that this attitude may seem old-fashioned, but one cannot help feeling that some of that good will might in other circumstances have been used in the manner mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for constructing new hospitals. Can my right hon. and learned Friend look at that point to start with, and see whether the scope of the voluntary service can be extended in some more fundamental way to give help to our hospitals?
  The second point I wish to stress, at the risk of repetition, is that economies do not necessarily mean decreased efficiency. Frequently we can have wasteful expenditure and inefficiency going together. The converse is also true. That is why I particularly welcomed what we were told today about the initiation of the organisation and methods department relative to the financing and administration of hospitals.
  I should like to know if one particular point comes within the scope of that work. That is the question of the changing pattern of disease which has been taking place in the last few years. As we well know, fever hospitals and T.B. hospitals are closing down for want of patients. The same is starting to happen with children's hospitals. As opposed

  1229
  to that we are getting more demand for hospital services for the elderly, not only in mental hospitals, which we have discussed previously, but also in general hospitals. I had something of a shock when I was told that in the district in which I am living the average age of patients in the men's surgical ward of a hospital at that time was no less than 74. The fact is that the elderly are not only crowding our mental hospitals, but our general hospitals at the same time.
  Is my right hon. and learned Friend keeping track of this changing pattern? I know he is familiar with it, but is he taking action quickly enough to make the necessary economies as it is taking place? One can see in Oxford that an old fever hospital is being used very efficiently in connection with the geriatric unit, but is this adjustment taking place quickly enough generally to make appropriate economies? What brings this particularly to my mind is that I know of one children's hospital which quite definitely is under-employed at present. I will give my right hon. and learned Friend its name by correspondence.
  I come to the question of the divisions of the Service. The Minister is quite familiar with the fact that he has not one Health Service, but is working three separate services at the same time. That is one of the main problems confronting him. As a general principle, we can say that nothing is more wasteful than duplicated administration. It not only creates duplicated work, but frequently creates further difficulties when disagreements arise, as they frequently do, in the different branches of administration. If my right hon. and learned Friend is not familiar with the problem, I can assure him that the medical profession is by no means immune from such disagreements.
  We have to pay tribute in a debate such as this to the increased efficiency brought about by the Service in many spheres. But in one respect the changes made in 1948 were of a retrograde nature rather than a progressive nature, in the creation of yet a third division of the Service by separating hospitals from local authorities on one hand, and, on the other hand, from the general practitioner system after the manner in which the voluntary hospitals had worked in close association with general practitioners. The slogan "Passed to you" does not only
  1230
  apply to Whitehall. Speaking as a poacher turned gamekeeper, I can assure the House that there are few greater reliefs to the medical practitioner than to be able to pass over difficult cases to the responsibility of someone else, clear one's conscience, and feel happy about it. That is exactly what is happening at present in the Health Service with the load put on to hospitals, on the one hand, by local authorities and, on the other, by the general practitioner service. This fact is creating the load on the hospital system, which probably has been the most prominent feature of the development of the Service in the last ten years.
  As I mentioned in a previous debate, these institutions appear to have acquired a dynamic of their own. Although they take the load, very often they increase it themselves by telling out-patients to keep attending when they could well go back to their general practitioners. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make a special study of this question. I am quite sure that for a fraction of the cost of building new hospitals he could get better results from an economic point of view and from the point of view of the Service if this were done.
  I particularly welcome the words he spoke about developing the home care of the mentally ill and the aged. In this the Minister is again faced with the problem of the divisions in the Service, because obviously the problem which will be predominant in this new development, particularly in the mental health service and in the Royal Commission recommendations for the development of local authority services, is that of finance. We do not doubt that, taking an overall balance, we shall save a considerable sum of money if we can arrange for both the mentally sick and elderly people to be looked after at home to a greater extent than is the case at present, but the difficulty is that in the beginning it will be the local health authorities who have to spend the money, while money will be saved in an entirely separate division of the Service run by the regional hospital boards. There is no incentive whatever for local health authorities to save money for regional hospital boards, and it is altogether too much to expect altruism of that kind in committees who have their own responsibilities to the ratepayers.
  If my right hon. Friend finds these divisions insuperable, as may well be the

  1231
  case, will he look at the possibility of establishing integrated services for mental health and for the aged on a local level, so that we can have a mental health service working as an integrated whole and an old people's service working as an integrated whole, without disagreements between different administrations over the financial and other problems which I have mentioned. Many people say that these things worked better before 1948 when these services were integrated, when local authorities had both home services and hospital services under their own control and when this division had not been created.
  Turning to the vexed question of drugs, about which we heard earlier in the debate, I am not competent to pass any opinion on the prices charged. Without an extremely detailed investigation, devoting a great deal of time to it, I think it is impossible to do so. I make only one main point, speaking from a medical point of view. Naturally, I admit the great benefits which have been conferred by antibiotics and other newer drugs. They have changed the face of illness in the treatment of pneumonia, meningitis and other serious illnesses. In the general practice of medicine, however, they have not been used only for serious illnesses such as pneumonia and meningitis. They have also been used for a wide variety of other ills, such as coughs, colds, sore throats, spots on the face and many other troubles which are quite capable of treatment by very much simpler methods. I am not blaming the doctors entirely for this, because often they are faced with patients coming into the surgery with, say, sore throats or tonsilitis and asking to be cured in twenty-four hours rather than have to wait for two or three days.
  It is part of human nature, unfortunately, to squander its blessings. That has happened in this instance. The fact that patients have demanded these drugs for trivial complaints has led to unfortunate effects. Taking the picture over a number of years, what has happened is that fresh strains of penicillin-resistant germs and other drug-resistant germs have been created which have led to other complaints no longer being responsive to the simpler penicillins. This has meant that still further antibiotics
  1232
  have had to be developed at still greater expense in order to cope with these new strains of germs. In that way we have created a snowball of expense in the pharmaceutical world and at the same time have brought into existence a very indifferent form of medical practice.
  Mr. Herbert Butler: If I have followed the hon. Member's argument correctly, he is suggesting that these new methods of treating illness should not be used. Does he want us to go back to the use of Epsom salts?
  Dr. Johnson: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I want these drugs to be used for serious diseases, for which they are useful, and not to be used instead of simple drugs. They are used at the moment to cure trivial complaints. What happens is that a doctor uses one of these drugs, say, penicillin, for the treatment of a sore throat, and when the same patient gets pneumonia six months later he finds that a strain of germs has been created which are resistant to penicillin. Consequently, because the patient was treated with penicillin for a sore throat, the doctor may not be able to cure his pneumonia. The hon. Member anticipated what I was about to say. My suggestion is that when every young doctor qualifies he might well be presented with an illuminated address containing the famous words used by the late Lord Horder, that sodium bicarbonate is the most valuable drug in the pharmacopœia. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Epsom salts?"] They are almost as good.
  Before leaving the question of drugs, perhaps to be settled elsewhere, I want to deal with one other point. I do not wish to get on to the rather contentious grounds of private practice in any way as a general issue, but one point arises from this relative to economies in the Service. A feature in recent years has been the development of insurance by people who are willing to pay insurance for the privilege of private beds in hospitals. These are not wealthy people, but people of moderate incomes who are willing to pay the appropriate amount of insurance for such privileges when they are ill rather than spend their money in other ways.
  Possibly my right hon. and learned Friend is familiar with this development, and I hope that he will give it his sympathy, not only from a general point of

  1233
  view, but also from the point of view of economy. This may not save the Minister a great deal, but it will create some economies if a substantial body of people are prepared to pay for themselves by insurance and private fee in this way.
  I end by asking my right hon. and learned Friend to look at economies in the Service on these quite fundamental lines, and to look at the Service as being of a flexible rather than of a fixed pattern. I am sure that nobody will begrudge extra payments of this kind if they see developments taking place in the manner I have suggested.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. W. Griffiths: Many speeches that are heard in this Chamber can be likened to the curate's egg, and I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) is no exception. With some of the things that he said I would agree, but some of his other points of view I have not heard expressed here for very many years. For example, he spoke about patients demanding antibiotics for trivial illnesses. Is not the real fact that it is the doctor who is the guardian of the public purse here?
  I refuse to believe that my constituents are the sort of people who can browbeat their general practitioner into giving them the drugs that they, as patients, think they need. All experience is to the contrary. The layman is generally completely at the mercy of his medical adviser, and is often far more confident in his abilities than I think is sometimes justified by the facts. In this respect, it is the doctor who is really responsible.
  The hon. Member concluded by saying, as have other hon. Gentlemen opposite, that these increases were a trivial matter. I thought that the Minister's speech showed quite clearly the influence of his tenure at the Board of Trade. His was a rather statistical presentation. His right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and others all argued that these increases were a trivial matter. Indeed, I was only waiting for someone to say that it was merely the price of one cigarette.
  If there is one thing that I am rather fed up with it is that since the end of the war, whenever there is an increase in the cost of living, or whenever the Govern-
  1234
  ment impose further burdens on the taxpayer, someone will say "After all, it is only the price of another cigarette." I should have thought that had a man who smoked 80 cigarettes a day in 1945 heeded all Ministers since then, he would have given up smoking long ago.
  Ministers, and hon. Members opposite should not minimise the effect of these increases. Their present level imposes a very heavy burden on very many people. This point was put to me very well by a ticket collector when I was travelling to my constituency quite recently. He said, "Three of us in my family are now paying about £75 a year to the National Insurance Fund. Last week I went to the dentist, and had to pay £4 10s. for a denture. Two weeks ago, my wife went for some spectacles, and had to pay for those."
  That railway man was, in fact, answering the argument of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who said that the National Health Service content in the National Insurance contribution, expressed as a percentage, is no different from that in the original Act. The fact is that since the original Act came into force, successive Governments—and this one in particular—have, in addition to increasing the contributions, imposed a whole series of charges upon the contributors. My ticket collector friend was putting it very clearly. He was pointing out that although he was paying increased contributions, when he needed to avail himself of certain parts of the Service he had to pay again. That is the fundamental difference between the situation in 1946 and the situation that now exists.
  Most of us would agree with what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton had to say about the need to increase capital expenditure on hospitals, but did he not rather minimise the fact that in the immediate post-war years, immense strains were placed on the building industry as well as upon Government finances? In the conditions prevailing in the early post-war years, I think that it was legitimate that the hospitals should not have been put at the top of the priority list. However, that time has long since gone, and I agree that we have now reached a stage when considerably more money should be provided for this purpose—
  Mr. Turton: My point was not that they were not in the forefront of the queue, but that they were not in the queue at all. I am sure that had it been left to the choice of the ordinary citizens, they would have put the hospitals first.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am not so sure of that. I think that then, as now, most of my constituents would have put housing first. But I agree that more money should now be found for this purpose.
  When we had the previous Bill before us last year I said that when Ministers—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did today—talk of an increase in real terms in the National Health Service they are striking a note of optimism that does not accord with the facts. Successive Ministers have found it not possible to provide the money for essential capital works—never mind maintenance—in the hospitals, to such an extent that in some parts of the country the hospitals are literally on the point of collapse.
  I can illustrate that by the present position in Manchester, about which the Minister knows. There the physical conditions in our distinguished teaching hospital, the Manchester Royal Infirmary, are, in some respects, worse than they were when I first had to go there with a fractured leg thirty-five years ago. We recently reached a stage in the out-patients' department when the teachers, the doctors, the medical students, the public—everybody who goes to that busiest of all parts of a hospital, the outpatients' department—were obliged to exist in surroundings in which one could see through the walls of the clinics into the street. I am happy to say that the Minister has been able to find the money to repair that department, and that work is to be put in hand. I use that as an illustration of what is happening all over the country. The truth is that the real seriousness of the situation has been concealed.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that there was no question here of panic measures, that the introduction of this Bill was not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) had said, an example of Government panic. Be that as it may, it was only on 6th June, 1957, that the previous Bill received its Third Reading. That Measure increased the Health Service content of the National Insurance
  1236
  contributions, and it is on record that some of us who took part in that debate prophesied that, as a result of the obligations that the Minister had to meet, and could not put off indefinitely, he, or his successor, would soon be asking the House of Commons for more money. So it has proved. The fact that the Minister has had to come back to the House of Commons after so short a time is a clear indication of a panic Measure. He just does not understand the size of the problem.
  I will give another example of the mess Ministers get into, and I will take it again from my own city. All the hospitals in a group in Manchester did not know until December of last year what the allocations for maintenance were to be for the current financial year. When the original estimates were put in earlier in the year, the hospital authorities were told that they could not be met and that there had to be reductions in the maintenance estimates. The estimates, accordingly, went back from the regional board to the management committee and to the individual hospitals, which had to face the consequences of these imposed reductions. Matrons received instructions that they should not employ further nurses, that wards should be closed and that inferior foods should be used, for instance, no more butter in the hospital, but margarine instead—a cutting down of the ration scale in general.
  This happened in the spring of last year, and at once there was a public outcry because members of the committees who were charged with carrying out these measures objected. Back the matter went to the Ministry, and no cuts in the services were, in fact, made. But this was only because it leaked to the newspapers and it was raised in the House of Commons. Eventually, quietly, in about November or December, 1957, the hospital management committee concerned was informed officially of how much money it could spend in the current financial year. What sort of accounting procedure is that? Is that not an example of panic?
  Men and women are asked voluntarily to serve on hospital management committees and other hospital committees, and, as everyone knows, it is becoming increasingly difficult to persuade them to do so. At the same time, they are placed in an impossible situation, charged with

  1237
  these responsibilities, yet not knowing until December of the financial year how much money they have to spend.
  The Minister talked about seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, and he spoke, quite rightly, about the changes which are taking place in, for example, the incidence of tuberculosis. We are all delighted to know that we can look forward to relief from this scourge. But, as the demand for treatment of tuberculosis runs down, in the same hospitals rises the demand for thoracic surgery for decreasing the toll of lung cancer. Here, again, I should like to use a constituency illustration. In the entire Manchester region, we have only two operating theatres, one in Blackpool and one in Manchester. I am advised that one of them is not equipped in the most modern way for the surgical treatment of carcinoma of the lung.
  The Minister, I know, does not exaggerate the relief which will come to him by the rundown in tuberculosis; as medical science conquers one thing, something else comes along. Now it is chest surgery which is making an increasing demand in the treatment of lung cancer. I am sure that the Minister is not optimistic, but I must inform him that, in these thoracic surgery units in Manchester, there is an alarming delay between diagnosis and treatment of the patient in the theatre. This delay is increasing. I am advised that it is absolutely essential, if a patient is to have a chance of survival in such cases, that there should be the very minimum of delay. The gap is widening. As tuberculosis runs down, the other thing becomes the greater scourge.
  I believe that the Minister will have to come back again even if he has his £32 million. However he finances it—we can argue about that—the National Health Service will demand more in the next five years than he has now. He has reached the level of what it is possible to obtain from the wage-earner and employer in the present National Health Service contribution. It will be for this Government or succeeding Governments to think how, as I know some hon. Members are thinking now, the burden of increasing costs can be shouldered. Certainly, the correct way to do it is not to come to the House of Commons again and again and ask that the insured
  1238
  worker shall pay increased contributions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I believe that it should be dealt with more by direct taxation. But, however it is done, the right hon. Gentleman will be back within twelve months to ask for more money.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I cannot, I am afraid, follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) in his local arguments, but I should like to correct one thing which he said, perhaps by inadvertence. I understood him to say that the present contributions, plus the charges, were much higher than they used to be; even though contributions may be low, other charges have become higher. I think that he is wrong in saying that. It is a fact, as I am informed on quite good authority—my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said it the other day in debate—that if the charges and contributions are added together, they are still slightly below the 20 per cent. which was envisaged as a proper contribution from the individual. I know that these mathematical formulæ, as the hon. Gentleman said, do not get us very far, but I believe that what I have said is correct.
  I have a very healthy respect for anything said by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) about taxation, and I should not venture to put my opinion very strongly against his. The hon. Gentleman spoke about inflation. There are two aspects to the problem of inflation which the Government have to meet in this situation. One is internal and the other external. I agree that so far as this Bill, or any other Bill, transfers from one section of the population a payment for services which are, in fact, rendered, it has no disinflationary effect within the country, except in so far as it might withdraw some purchasing power. That is an argument to which I do not attach great faith because it seems always to make the assumption that those who had the money taken from their pockets would otherwise have foolishly wasted it. They might just as well have saved it. One does not know.
  There is this further aspect of the inflation problem which I think the hon. Member for Sowerby forgot. What foreigners think of our position in this

  1239
  country is extremely important for the strength of the £. If it becomes clear that the Government are committed to very large expenditures, particularly if those expenditures are not within the direct control of the Government, foreign confidence in our financial position is likely to be sapped, with a consequent harmful effect upon our inflationary situation at home. The extra bill which must be paid, the £200 million of inflationary cost and £80 million in real terms, must somehow be met, and the Government have a very difficult problem in meeting it. These costs are really not much within the control of the Government.
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) explored various economies which she thought might be possible in the Health Service but, in spite of her great experience in health matters, she was not able to put her finger on any important measure which could make any economy. The only suggestion I heard her make was, of course, her familiar one about drugs. Whether or not any great savings in drugs can be made, I take liberty to doubt.
  Every day new, more important and more expensive drugs are invented. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange said, most patients take what their doctors give them, and there is not any great tendency to demand expensive drugs. I believe that the average cost of prescriptions at present is not rising, as the right hon. Lady said, but is falling, and has gone down 2d. or 3d. in the past months. I do not believe that great economies would result, although doubtless some economies could be effected if drugs were more intelligently applied at the moment. The right hon. Lady made other sound suggestions. We all believe in the desirability of having more home helps. We had a debate about that matter the other day and I myself raised it also on the Adjournment. I doubt whether much saving could quickly be made in that respect.
  The other suggestion that we had from the right hon. Lady was that we should not have so many part-time consultants. That is an arguable case. Some of us may not agree with it, but, even if we had fewer, I doubt whether larger and
  1240
  more important economies could be made by reorganising the consultant service. The only real candidate for making important economies in the Health Service is the concept of work-study which the Minister mentioned in his speech. No doubt there is something in that, but even there I doubt whether really large savings can be made in a bill which this year stands at £740 million and which, as has been said, is likely to rise yearly. It is the future costs of the Health Service to which we must give thought. My right hon. and learned Friend and the Financial Secretary, when they spoke the other day, thought that we might see a fall in the costs as we started to get the better of some of the killer diseases, in the same way that we have seen ourselves so happily get the better of T.B. I wonder whether that time is yet come. As has been said, as one disease is overcome so another disease seems to become more active.
  I now return to what I said to the hon. Member for Sowerby. At the moment, no Government could have the cost of the Health Service under control in the sense that they would know in advance what the cost would be. Having decided the standard of care which should be given—and I do not think any hon. Member in this House or outside suggests that the standard should go down—the costs automatically flow from that standard. Therefore, I believe that no Government ought to show, by putting every increase automatically upon the taxpayer, that they have abandoned control of the Health Service, or indeed of any other expenditure. That would have a harmful effect upon our economic position and upon sterling, and it would not be in the interests of the Health Service or in the interests of any part of the population.
  I welcome the principle of the Bill. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite should wax too indignant about it, although it is a very good opportunity for them to do so. After all, the contributions and the charges are now no higher than they were when they were fixed by the Labour Government. Since last year, the National Health Service contribution is not a deductible expense for Income Tax, so that the richer man does not, to that extent, get an allowance towards his payments.

  1241
  I cannot help feeling that to some extent the Opposition are now attacking measures which they supported when they were in office. Of course, it is against the background of rising wages that this extra contribution has been made. If anybody tells me that an extra charge amounts to the cost of one cigarette a week, or something like that, then I have no sympathy. I do not smoke, and I do not know what is the cost of a cigarette.
  We must examine further, therefore, the way in which in future the Minister of Health, whoever he may be, will ask for more money, because this is not the last time that he will do it. The annual wrangle—indeed, it is more than annual sometimes—which we have in the House when charges have to go up in some way or other does not further the best interests of the Health Service. It is true that Parliament must have the opportunity to review expenditure as often as is necessary to exercise some sort of control. As I have been trying to make clear. I would not advocate a policy which took away from the Government the power to control expenditure. That is one of the great weaknesses of the French social service tax—it takes away from the Government power to control what the expenditure on a particular service shall be, and, therefore, makes proper budgeting impossible.
  Nevertheless, the time has come for us to inquire more fully than we have done in the past into how annual budgeting can be reduced or how the Government can know in advance, whilst still retaining control over expenditure, what the expenditure will be. The annual method, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) pointed out, is also harmful for the long-term planning of any service. Perhaps one of the reasons why the hospital-building programme has suffered in the immediate past is because we have been unable to plan more securely instead of just from year to year.
  I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is considering this matter deeply. I hope that we shall have the fruits of his consideration before very long and that the system which he recommends will be more adapted to the future long-term progress of our Health Service
  1242
  without necessarily meaning any extravagance. For the time being, I welcome the Bill. It is soundly based and it exerts very necessary Government control in a sector in which it should be exerted, and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Royle: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) will agree when I suggest that he and I are the only hon. Members who have participated in the debate who have no specialist knowledge of the subject of hospitals and taxation. However, from his speech, I feel that he has some intimate experience and knowledge of the hospital service which I cannot claim. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) when he said that he had no intention of following my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) with regard to taxation. I have the same feeling about the details of what we are discussing today. The difference between the hon. Member for Carlisle and myself as far as our professions are concerned is that we have more drastic methods in dealing with our patients than he has in dealing with his. It will be seen that I have not the same intimate knowledge of the National Health Service as other hon. Members who have spoken so far in this debate.
  My interest concerns the increase in the contribution. I look at this matter as a representative of an industrial constituency which still contains in its midst many hundreds of poorly paid workers. It is for this reason that I have the temerity to speak in this debate, and in so doing I apologise to the House for my lack of knowledge of the subject in general.
  It has been said so many times this afternoon—and all of us agree—that the National Health Service must be paid for. The only difference, apparently, between hon. Members opposite and ourselves is how it should be paid for. The difference between our viewpoints is quite clear. Hon. Members opposite regard this proposed increase as the right course to pursue, while we on these benches believe that the only fair method is that of direct taxation. People of greater wealth, approaching this matter purely and simply from the point of view of the

  1243
  contributions, are looking at it in a very selfish way. Surely, if anything at all could be regarded in a community sense, it is the health of the people. I should have thought that it was a privilege for people with high incomes to play their part in seeing that the health of more unfortunate people was properly safeguarded, automatically leading to the sustenance of the service by direct taxation, rather than making everybody pay an equal contribution, whatever his means.
  It is with that high ideal in mind that I approach the matter, because with improved health the whole community benefits. I cannot help but think that in an enlightened nation which believes in the health and welfare of its people, as we claim to do, and which believes in the Welfare State as we do, that is the only possible approach. That is the way in which we should deal with the problem in these more enlightened days.
  There is a very big difference in principle between the two sides of the House in this matter. I listened intently to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) when he was telling us about the method of payment for health services in Germany, for example. He told us of the proportion of hospital and medical costs paid by the patients themselves. That is the difference. We believe that this is a service which should be borne by the State and, therefore, by the taxpayer.
  I would remind the House that when we were discussing this matter in 1946—and there are one or two hon. Members on the benches opposite who were here in 1946—hon. Members opposite never really believed in this scheme as we did. During the Second and Third Reading debates hon. Members opposite voted against the principle of introducing a great National Health scheme. It is all very well for them to excuse themselves by saying that they wanted time to examine the Bill in Committee in order to make it a better Bill. That excuse falls completely by virtue of the fact that they voted against both the Second and Third Readings of the Bill in 1946. That difference in approach is still exemplified by their attitude to the proposed increased contributions in order to pay for any extra costs that the Health Service may incur.
  1244
  When I decided to try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, it was in order to make a specific point on the question of contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) was referring to a conversation which she and I had had when she was interrupted by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and she never got back to her point. I said at the beginning of my speech that I was concerned about the question of contributions because of the constant increases. In two months' time we shall probably be discussing the Finance Bill, and from both sides of the House Amendments will be moved asking the Treasury to forego various taxes. I can hear the representatives of the Treasury saying, "It is all very well for hon. Members to say that this would cost only £800,000, and that that would cost only £2½ million, but those figures keep mounting up." The same consideration is in the minds of the workers of this country, and particularly the low-paid workers.
  It is not many weeks since we were discussing an increase in the contribution, and here before us today is this further proposed increased of 6d. The point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington intended to make was this. Whilst these increases affect many people very seriously, there is another class of person who is hit even harder. I confess that this class of person has only recently come to my mind. I refer to apprentices.
  Earlier this week I received a letter from a young man in my constituency, 18½ years of age. He is apprenticed in the electrical industry, an industry which is of great importance to us. He is the only child of a widowed mother. He has been apprenticed to a very good trade, and at the moment his income is less than £5 a week. Because he is over 18 years of age he has to pay the full contribution of 9s. 11d. a week, after this Measure becomes law, out of that income of less than £5. That income has to help to maintain his mother as well as himself. He has undertaken this apprenticeship to give him a worthwhile future, but because of these increases he is having to consider ending that apprenticeship, in which case he may have to go into some dead-end occupation where at the moment he would be receiving a higher

  1245
  remuneration. Sixpence does not sound much, but this is one of those cases where it means a good deal.
  I know that under the terms of this Bill it is impossible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the whole gamut of contributions—National Insurance as well as National Health—but when future amending legislation comes along the Government might well see whether consideration can be given to young apprentices between the ages of 18 and 21 so that their contributions shall be less than those of people receiving higher wages, over the age of 21, when apprenticeships have terminated. That is a simple point, but it is one which has been neglected.
  We rightly think of widows, family men and the like, and of how these additional contributions bear heavily upon them, but the effect on apprentices after they reach the age of 18 is very serious indeed, and I suggest that the matter could be reconsidered without involving the country in much cost.
  That is the detailed point which I wanted to make, but that does not alter the fact that this Measure will impose an increased burden on many thousands of people. The Government's approach to this problem is wrong. It should not have been tackled by means of increased contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington gave some practical illustrations of how money could be saved on the National Health Service. We all know the tremendous truth of what she said. When I recall what I have noticed in the way of drug purchases and prescriptions, it seems to me quite crazy that we should not be able to save millions of pounds a year in that connection.
  If these economies could be practised and if we approached this matter entirely in the light of taxation, we should be adopting the best possible means of tackling this problem. The Government are making a mistake in adopting the means proposed in the Bill, and I support the protests made against it.
  7.31 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: I am sure that we have all listened with attention to the sincere and moving speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle). He has issued a challenge to
  1246
  us on both sides of the House. He would probably agree that it would be a fair summary of what he has said if I put it in familiar words, and said that "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need" is the way in which the National Health Service should be run.
  Mr. Royle: That is very sound gospel.
  Sir H. Linstead: That is a challenge to me and my hon. Friends which we must face, and I hope, towards the end of my remarks, to try to meet that important issue which the hon. Member put quite clearly before us.
  Before I do that, as one who was in the House at the time when the National Health Service Act was passed and who remembers the discussions at that time, I think it is worth while putting on record an error in the historical reference which the hon. Member made to the passing of the Act. I am sure that I have his words right. He said that the party on this side of the House voted against the principle of a national health service. That statement contains an error which needs correcting. The principle of a comprehensive, universal National Health Service was sincerely accepted by the Conservative party in those days and was embodied in the Willink White Paper.
  Mr. Royle: I should not like it to go on record that I suggested something which is not true. We have always understood, in the course of our work in the House, that the issue of the principle of a Bill arose on Second Reading. Therefore, if hon. Members opposite at that time had thought fit to do what the hon. Member is now saying, they should have voted for the Second Reading and attempted in Committee to put right those things which they thought were wrong.
  Sir H. Linstead: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member should have taken a purely party political point about this, because, in fact, the 1946 Measure was not a Bill which was capable of being amended at any stage. The hon. Member has only to think of the Opposition at that time, when there was a majority of over 200 on the Government side. To say to us that we should have accepted the Second Reading of the Bill and sought to amend it in Committee is not quite worthy as a political argument.

  1247
  However, the point I want to make for the record is that the principle of a comprehensive and universal Service was embodied in the Willink White Paper. We voted against a Socialist Bill and not against the principle which was embodied in that White Paper of ours.
  I was glad to hear from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the report which he had to make on the progress of the Health Service. In spite of party differences, good feeling about the progress of the Service is shared on both sides of the House. I also think that on both sides of the House we recognise that, inevitably, the cost of the Service will increase, for various reasons and in various ways, and that, inevitably, the Minister must come to the House and ask for more money ad hoc, or must persuade the Treasury to take more money out of the country's general funds.
  It is very important that those who work in the Health Service should not work under a perpetual cloud of economy and of scraping and making-do with second best. It takes the heart out of the Service if perpetually that is the atmosphere in which those engaged in it have to work. Therefore, it is inevitable, and I do not complain about it, that the Minister has to ask for more money, as my right hon. and learned Friend has to do now.
  The problem between us is the problem which the hon. Member for Salford, West put. It is the problem of out of whose pocket we take the money to pay for the Service. It is important to remember that the scope for economy now is very limited, according to my knowledge and experience. In the first three or four years it was possible to squeeze economies out of the hospital service. When the hospitals were first taken over by the Ministry, control was loosened. Wise hospital administrators who foresaw the future made hay while the sun shone. One was not surprised to find expenditure on the hospitals soaring in those early days.
  Since then, control of one kind or another has been applied to the hospital service. In the last year or so individual management committees have been overspending on their budgets, whereas in previous years, on the whole, they got by,
  1248
  That is a fairly clear indication that there is not much economy to be squeezed out of the Service now.
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) raised a point which she perpetually is hammering in the House—the question of economies in drugs. She did far less than justice to those negotiations which have been stimulated by the Committee of Public Accounts over four or five years and which have been going on between the accountants of the Ministry of Health, no doubt with experts from the Treasury, and manufacturing organisations.
  When we find that representatives of the Ministry of Health and the Treasury have come to an agreement with the manufacturers, which they can report to the Minister and which he can report to the House as offering a guarantee of fair prices for a period of three years, I should have thought that we could be as reasonably satisfied as it is humanly possible to be that the business is now being conducted between the Ministry and the suppliers on an economic footing.
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member always brings up this question, and I understand why. I bring it up because there is gross extravagance. Can he justify an average cost of 6s. for prescriptions and a pharmaceutical bill of £77 million?
  Sir H. Linstead: I would justify it, first, by saying that it is what the medical profession has decided it needs to prescribe for the treatment of its own patients, and, secondly, that if there are economies to be made the place to which the right hon. Lady has to look for them—the place where the tap can be turned off, if it has to be turned off—is among the members of her own profession. There, at any rate, we have a hand on a tap capable of controlling it.
  I was in Canada in the autumn of last year, and was able to make a comparison of the average cost of prescriptions in Canada, the United States and this country. After we have reduced the figures to make allowances for the different levels of prices and the different standards of living in the two other countries, the figures are 15s. for Canada and £1 in the United States, as compared with our 6s. I know that these seem to be frightening figures, but they are, in fact, the figures which,

  1249
  in those two countries, represent what a general practitioner finds it necessary to prescribe for his patients. If these figures are to be the yardstick, the 6s., contrary to the view of the right hon. Lady, seems not an unreasonable one.
  The problem with which we are faced is from which pocket are we to take the extra money which, today and tomorrow, I suspect, the Health Service will need. Nobody has suggested that there should be an increase in charges. Therefore, we are faced with the alternative either of taking it from the National Insurance contributions paid by the man or woman while he or she is in productive employment and full earning capacity, or taking it from the general national taxpayers' contributions.
  It seems to me that the question which this dilemma puts before the House is this: can this country, in present circumstances, in any section of our national economy, afford unlimited facilities paid for out of Treasury money? We have to remember that half the cost of the Service is attributable to the hospitals, virtually the whole of which service is free and the cost of which is paid for out of Treasury money. Are we, or are we not, prepared to say that there is some part of national expenditure which should be free of control from this House and should be available to the taxpayer at his will and wish?
  I do not think that in the present economic state of the country it could be allowed that any service should be able to run completely away without a ceiling put on it, either by way of Treasury dictate, as was done first by the Socialists and later by ourselves, or by a scheme which provides for increasing the contributions as the costs go up. This must be related, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) related it, to the general economic situation of the country, and I do not think that the general economic state of the country really permits some part of the national expenditure to be unregulated and without any limitation or control at all.
  I would call in aid there the excesssively heavy charges which are to fall on the National Insurance Fund in future years. We here are inclined to think of the National Insurance Fund as solvent. It is very far from solvent. The House will remember the White Paper circulated in November of last year, in which
  1250
  the future commitments of the National Insurance Fund were set out. That White Paper makes it clear that in 1960–61 the taxpayer will have to find £126 million for paying retirement pensions, unemployment benefit, and so on, and that by 1979–80, the taxpayer will have to find £475 million for the deficit on the National Insurance Fund.
  Against that background, I do not see how we can say that the Health Service is free to take in Treasury money without any limitation at all. At some time, some Government will have to look ten or fifteen years ahead and keep the National Insurance Fund, and, incidentally, the taxable income of the country, sound. Somebody will have to have the the courage to do it; otherwise, we shall be leaving it to the future in the most irresponsible way.
  The final point I want to make is that we are here challenging an assumption in the Beveridge Report which was very dear to many of us at the time when that Report was published. I think we called it Assumption B. It was that there was to be a National Health Service, "universal and comprehensive," I think Sir William Beveridge called it, which was to be available without any charge on the National Insurance Fund. There was also another assumption, called, I think Assumption A, which was that there were to be family allowances to be paid by the taxpayer without any relationship to contributions. Alas, as time has passed it has been shown that these two assumptions cannot be valid in the economic circumstances in which the country finds itself at present.
  I remember a meeting upstairs at which my party discussed the whole question of the cost of the Beveridge Report. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time, the late Lord Waverley—Sir John Anderson, as he then was—said to us with great firmness and sincerity that, on the figures as presented to us, he saw no reason why the country could not afford all that was implied in the Beveridge Report. On those figures, I for one gladly wished to see a universal and comprehensive National Health Service introduced.
  Unfortunately, those figures have been proved to be fallacious, and, to my regret, I do not now see how it is any longer possible to fall back on that assumption of Beveridge that the whole of the Health

  1251
  Service can be carried on Exchequer money. Therefore, a system such as this has to be introduced and has to be pursued, I feel certain, if we are to get the extra money which we all want for a service of which, on both sides of the House, we are extremely proud.
  7.49 p.m.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), because he speaks with technical knowledge which commands the respect of the House, and particularly when he is speaking from the depth of his own experience. I am sorry that on this occasion I have to disagree with him on a political point, without making the party political point which he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) of making.
  Starting off from the hon. Member's premise that we all agree that the National Health Service should be based on the principle "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need", I think that the argument which he then advanced about the money coming out of the pockets of the patients, as it were, instead of out of general taxation, contradicts his own thesis and what is Socialist doctrine"—From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need."
  Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I was worried, as I have been for some time, as to whether we can equate the health of the nation any longer with the National Insurance Fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) put the point about meeting the increased costs of the Service from general taxation, and for the life of me I cannot see why that does not appeal to the hon. Gentleman. The health of the nation is a matter which enriches all of us if that health is improving all the time. Every one of us, whether workers or employers, or if we are raising a family, is enriched every time the standard of the health of the nation goes up. Why then should we not all make our contribution on an egalitarian basis towards this?
  Sir H. Linstead: The point I was trying to make was that we cannot, unfortunately, isolate the National Health Service from the general economic and finan-
  1252
  cial situation of the country. That is why, as I developed my argument, I came down in favour of increasing contributions as costs went up.
  Sir L. Plummer: I accept that, but there are a lot of other things that are being supported out of the national economy which are ridiculous compared with the needs of the National Health Service. I do not believe we can have a viable economy in this country, that we can have increasing production, that we can have an increase in the amount of wealth produced, unless we have a healthy, invigorated population; in other words, unless the stock we are producing becomes better and better with each succeeding generation. Therefore, this is all to the national benefit.
  I put this point to the hon. Gentleman: we are not dipping into everybody's pocket alike. The agricultural workers in the village in which I live feel by their 6d. an impact infinitely greater than the engineers in my constituency, because the percentage increase on the farm workers is much higher than that of the man earning between 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. more.
  In time, as our civilisation progresses—if it is not blasted by a hydrogen bomb in the next few years—we shall come to the decision that we must regard our Health Service as something which holds a unique position in the economic life of the country, and that it must have more consideration than it is having at the moment both as to the resources we devote to it as well as to the direction of its efforts.
  Sir H. Linstead: May I put a question to the hon. Gentleman? Does he or does he not advocate a ceiling on National Health Service expenditure?
  Sir L. Plummer: I speak for nobody but myself, but the answer is, no. The Health Service I want to see in this country is what the nation needs, and the nation may need a different expenditure at different times. For example, if plague were to return to this country and it was found that it cost £5 to cure everybody or to give every one injections against it, would the hon. Gentleman say that could not be done because there was a ceiling on the Health Service? Of course he would not.

  1253
  It seems to me that what we ought to do is to take from those according to their ability and give to those who need the service. This, it think, is the fundamental difference between us. There has been in the course of this debate much discussion about the necessity for economies, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has made a powerful case about a great deal of expenditure on the Health Service that need not occur. Particularly she made reference to the amount of money spent on pharmaceutical products.
  The other day I heard of a lady who had a row with her husband and took 45 Aspros. Whether she did it seriously or as a gesture, I do not know, but fortunately they did not kill her. I asked her husband where she got the Aspros from, and he told me she got them from the doctor and that he had prescribed them for her. I said, "If she is going to commit suicide this way she should take Boots' ordinary aspirins, because they are a quarter of the price."
  These ridiculously priced medicines and drugs which are inflated in price because of the amount of salesmanship and advertising spent on them, are the cause of so much money being spent. I do not want to get at odds on this issue with my right hon. Friend or with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but I am getting a little tired of the argument that we cannot do anything about this because the doctor must be left free to prescribe.
  This argument now means that American pharmaceutical firms in this country are standing outside the medical schools waiting for chaps to graduate and giving them £1,500 a year and a motor car and telling them to go around selling tranquillisers and products of that kind to such a degree that our prescription costs go up. I am hoping that the Consumers' Research Council over here will do some work on the line of the Consumers' Union in the United States, in trying to give information and advice to the doctors about the danger and the expense of these products. I hope that such an organisation will have the assistance of the Ministry, because if we continue with the argument that we must not interfere with what the doctor prescribes there can be no ceiling on prescriptions at any
  1254
  time if the medical profession is irresponsible.
  Finally, I want to put one point seriously to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster because it concerns economies in the Service. In my constituency of Deptford, we have a London County Council lodging house which houses between 500 and 600 men itinerant workers in London. Some work at the docks, some are seamen coming in from the ports, some are migrant workers of one kind or another.
  One man who uses that hostel is an infectious tubercular sufferer, if that is the right phraseology. He has tuberculosis, and he can transmit it freely and easily to other people. Now and again he goes into hospital for some treatment and is kept alive as a result. Then he gets bored with it and leaves the hospital, where nobody can keep him. He goes to a cinema or into a public house and drinks from glasses which are then presumably used by other people. Then he goes back to the L.C.C. lodging house and sleeps in dormitories with other people. Then he disappears altogether; no one can find him; and then suddenly back he comes again.
  This man is a walking menace to the health of the people with whom he is in contact Heaven knows how many he has already infected and put on the National Health Service. The tuberculosis officer for my constituency, Dr. Rigby, very worried about the situation, took it up with me, and I took it up with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health. He told me, and I paraphrase what he said, "It is perfectly true that there is a law under which this man could be confined, but nobody ever does anything about it, so we cannot do anything." So this man is free to roam about the country—
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I would point out that under Section 172 of the Public Health Act the medical officer of health or the tuberculosis officer can ask the court to insist that the person remains for treatment over a period of three months, which is renewable. I would imagine that any medical officer of health or person responsible, knowing the situation, would take action. We certainly do in Liverpool. So it is no use saying that there is no power to insist that the man takes

  1255
  treatment to prevent him infecting other people. There is power, and it is for those responsible to use the power.
  Sir L. Plummer: All I am saying is that there was no power to keep him in hospital when he was being treated, and in the Minister's letter, of which, no doubt, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have a copy, the Minister says that although there are powers which can be taken they are very limited and it is very difficult to do anything about such a case. At any rate, the net effect is that this man is free to carry the germs around with him wherever he goes.
  I remember that when I was once in New York there was a girl called "Typhoid Mary" who went around giving people typhoid. By some ordinance of the New York City Council, she was confined in isolation on an island in New York River—on Governor's Island, or one of the others. This woman was so dangerous that the authorities were constantly tracing her as a carrier. Here is a man in my constituency who is a carrier and, despite what my hon. Friend has said, there seems to be nothing that we can do about it.
  One way of saving money, a very small but nevertheless necessary way, is to see whether the powers to which my hon. Friend has referred could be augmented, or whether the Minister could, by circular, remind local authorities of their responsibility, authority and power in matters such as this to prevent this sort of thing occurring in any other part of the country. That is a very small point to the Minister, but it is a very serious point to my constituents and that is why I have raised it.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: I am sure that the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) will forgive me if I do not follow him through the more economical ways of committing suicide and into methods of dealing with the plague.
  Although nobody likes a Bill which increases a charge, the most encouraging thing about the Bill is that although the cost of the Service has increased, that has not been due entirely to inflation, but to improvements in the Service. While more money has to be found to maintain
  1256
  the Service, the proportion of the contribution to income, which is similar to that which was recommended in the Beveridge Report, should be maintained. I am certain that this method of increasing the contribution is far better than some of the other suggestions, such as cutting the Service, paying a subsistence cost for hospital beds, or paying when one goes to the doctor. It is eminently desirable that the charge should fall wholly on people when they are well and that when they are ill there should be only a small contribution for the goods which they need.
  Speakers from both sides of the House have agreed that we are nearing the stage when we cannot make the contribution any higher. We have heard much about the proportion to average industrial earnings, but it follows that half the community receives less than average industrial earnings from the mere fact that they are average industrial earnings. There is a largish group of people on small fixed incomes who do not have an opportunity to increase their earnings, but who still have to pay their contributions. In particular, I am thinking of clergymen who have to pay a self-employed person's contribution every week, but who have not had an increase in their stipends in any way comparable with the general rise in wages and who, in most cases, are prohibited by their calling from doing other work.
  It would be a very good thing if an inquiry, such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr Turton), were instigated to consider methods of financing the welfare services. There is a definite advantage in people realising what amount of the national product has to go to welfare services, and there is a very good case to be made for a social service tax to be run in much the same way as P.A.Y.E. This is obviously too wide a subject to discuss now, but it is one which must be considered in considerable detail.
  Another suggestion has been a payroll tax, that is, a tax on a fixed percentage of a payroll above a certain figure paid each week by an employer. The trouble about that tax is that although employers would pay it, self-employed men would not, and it would be a disincentive to employers to pay bigger wages. Another

  1257
  objection is the fact that a large proportion of the community would not contribute to it, and that is probably the factor which rules out such a suggestion.
  So much for raising the money. Now for spending it. I imagine that every hon. Member—and there are many hon. and right hon. Members who serve on hospital management committees—will agree that they all think that they would make a better Minister of Health than the current Minister. Looked at from a hospital management committee level, every Minister of Health appears as a bogy of sorts, no matter what his party. From that level, there seem to he two or three economies to be made, and made with considerable advantage. I agree that there is nothing which will produce a startling economy in the Health Service or in its administration. By increasing the efficiency of various sections of the Service and by cutting unnecessary expenditure and waste here and there the general level of expenditure may be held, but we shall not get anything very startling.
  I wonder whether we could go into the question of the general administration of the Health Service rather in the way that Messrs. Marks and Spencer have just gone into the general administration of their stores. They have managed to reduce their costs considerably by the extensive use of organisation and method investigations. I was specially glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that he was going ahead with the organisation and method branch, although he had not quite decided how it would operate. I suggest that it should do so with the greatest possible independence, within the Health Service, and also that when it takes on a job it operates in the widest possible field. So often when organisation and method people investigate one section of a hospital they cannot reap the full benefit of their discoveries.
  Lest anybody should think that works-study or the introduction of organisation and method leads to a cheapening or falling off in the Service I would hasten to assure them that the experience of one hospital of which I know—and it is not the one upon whose management committee I happen to serve—has been that through organisation and method investigation doctors have been less tired and
  1258
  have consequently been able to provide better treatment for patients. That has gone on throughout the hospital. It is a benevolent and not a vicious spiral, and it has been brought about through investigations into organisation and method.
  I should like to make one or two small points on the subject of finance. I am no financial expert, but in my little experience I have never struck anything quite so wasteful as the minor capital works programmes which have to be completed by 30th March, or whenever the accounting period ends. I realise that it will probably take a hydrogen bomb at the Treasury to alter the system, but I am sure that nobody who has served upon a hospital management committee can fail to have had experience of a region saying, "We can have £1,000 to carry out certain works, but it has to be done by the next few weeks."
  Most hospital management committees are becoming trained in this matter, and they keep a list of vitally important jobs for which they have not received allocations. In that way the money is used fairly reasonably and effectively, but the time limit which is imposed for the spending of the money is often so short as to necessitate committees taking on projects that are not essential, merely for the sake of spending the money offered. I hope that if we drip away long enough on this aspect of the question some method will be devised of carrying forward a credit so that a bigger sum can be built up to carry out a worth-while project.
  I want to make a suggestion in regard to hospital buildings and capital works. I wonder whether we are not building too much for the future. During the debate it has been said that one of the chief troubles is the great barn-like structures of hospitals built 100 years ago which we have inherited. There is a very great danger that we shall be building hospitals which, in forty or fifty years' time, will be regarded as just as inconvenient as the hospitals built 100 years ago are regarded now.
  I suggest that non-traditional types of building might be considered for many hospital works. I know of one case where about £25,000 has been spent in the building of one operating theatre. When the equipment and the theatre lay-out have

  1259
  become obsolete the building will still have another fifty or sixty years of life ahead of it, and it will have to be improvised for something else, whereas it could have been built very much more cheaply without being any less efficient.
  I know that farm buildings are not comparable with hospitals, but I am told that certain successful farmers have fires throughout their buildings every twenty years. Many of our hospitals would suit us much better if, through being built non-traditionally, they could be scrapped from time to time and rebuilt. That would be better than spending a lot of money in rebuilding very solid white elephants, for which the people who will have to run them in future will curse us.
  Mr. Sidney Dye: Will the hon. Gentleman specify the farmers who manage to get their buildings burnt down every twenty years and then rebuilt at somebody else's expense?
  Dr. Summerskill: And the name of the insurance company.
  Mr. Harrison: I made no mention of their being built at somebody else's expense.
  Mr. Dye: It is no use burning them down unless they can be built at somebody else's expense.
  Mr. Harrison: The hon. Member will find that he can write them off in ten years' time quite simply, if he studies his tax procedure. I will give him a little lesson on taxation afterwards.
  By altering the time limit in regard to minor capital works programmes, by carrying out non-traditional building, and by going ahead fast with the development of organisation and method teams throughout the Health Service, the whole Service, including the hospital service, can be improved. I feel sure that the additional money which is being found by way of the Bill will be of benefit to patients who are receiving attention under the Service.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Randall: I wish to apologise to the Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) for not being present when the debate opened,
  1260
  but I was engaged on a Committee in the House and it was impossible for me to be present.
  The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) will want to take my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) on one side and impart to him some of the secrets of taxation. I was glad to hear that there are hon. Members opposite who feel that we cannot push up the Health Service contributions much further. That is a most helpful attitude of mind and I hope that it will be demonstrated during the discussions on this Bill. I am sure that when the hon. Member referred to the examination of the Health Service and mentioned Marks and Spencer he did not want a Health Service on the cheap.
  Mr. B. Harrison: I certainly did not, and I should like to make that clear. But Marks and Spencer did use organisation and method teams and quite a lot of work and study was carried out in connection with that store. It has also been proved in a hospital not far from here that even though organisation and method investigation may result in cheaper service—do not let us object to it on that score—the hospitalisation is better.
  Mr. Randall: I do not wish to do the hon. Gentleman an injustice. May I remind him that an exhaustive inquiry was carried out by the Guillebaud Committee and that the Health Service emerged with flying colours. Others may have thought that there would be a different kind of Report, and might even have been looking for one. But the thorough examination by that Committee showed that there were economies being carried out in the Service and that a good service was being given. Another important Committee, the Select Committee on Estimates, has recently examined the Service and a similar Report has resulted. I do not object to inquiries into the Service, because I think that it can hold its own.
  The Bill proves that all the fears and suspicions which we entertained when discussing the National Health Service Contributions Bill last year were justified. When the first suggestion of changing the method of contribution was introduced we suspected that it would not be the last time that an increase would be made in the contribution. Now that Bill

  1261
  has become an Act and it has opened the door to the possibility that every year there is a good chance that the flat-rate contribution for the Service will be increased. During the debates on that Measure we were told from the Government benches that the flat rate contribution would bring stability to the income of the Service. Of course we wish to see stability in the finances of the Service, but at what price to the contributors? It looks as though that stability will be achieved by the contributors having to pay.
  I am certain—and this was referred to by the hon. Member for Maldon—that it is impossible for the flat rate contribution to be extended indefinitely. Beveridge gave us several warnings about the need to avoid inequalities in the scheme, and this idea of the flat rate contribution with a gradual increase is clearly introducing inequalities which affect the lower-paid workers. It is also clear that the Government intend to carry on with this idea. I am amazed that nobody asks that this sort of treatment should be administered to education and defence. The economic situation of the country remains the same whether this idea he applied to health, education or defence, and there seems to be no argument—
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the Government are endeavouring to apply this to education by means of the Local Government Bill and their economy circulars?
  Mr. Randall: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. The minds of people in this country have been conditioned so that more and more they have to bear the responsibility of the peculiar economic policy of the Government.
  To me it seems all wrong that when the country is facing the present economic situation as a result of the activities of a Tory Government, it should be the contributors to the Health Service and to National Insurance, particularly the lower-paid workers, who should bear the heaviest burden. I am not convinced that this approach of the Government to the financing of the Health Service is in the best interests of the Service or the nation.
  In an earlier debate we were told by a Government spokesman that this
  1262
  principle of payment was to relieve the taxpayer. That statement was incomplete. It is also to increase the burden on the contributor which it would seem must fall more heavily on some than on others. I complain about this Bill, as I do about the one which preceded it because they are a means of conditioning the minds of the people to accept the beneficence of the Government to relieve taxes and taxpayers and only later will a substantial section of the community find itself the victims.
  I am reminded that we had something of this kind in 1949 and 1950. There was at that time a suggestion that the food subsidies were perhaps not the right way to cushion problems of the cost of living. Propaganda went on until, gradually, even the worker and the housewife became convinced that after all it was in their best interests that the food subsidies should be taken away. Quite a number fell for that only to find later that they were the victims. Here, again, we are finding the same sort of thing happening. It is a conditioning of the mind of the people that it is better not to pay these things by taxes but by contribution. I believe that absolutely wrong. For the nation as a whole there is a fundamental difference between contributions and taxes.
  When incomes are so varied it is inevitable that this Bill, one of a series of niggling Measures adding to a considerable amount, could lead to an attitude of mind which might well shake to the foundations our ideas of the Welfare State. I hope I am not exaggerating. Already there are whispers about the burden of the Welfare State. As each increased contribution comes along it bears more heavily on the lower-paid wage earner. Each week as he draws his wage packet his deductions seem to be on the upward trend. What a tragedy it would be for the nation and its future if in any way, without intention or design, we created an attitude of mind which, because of a personal financial burden, caused any section of the community to demand less activity along the road towards the Welfare State. Because I fear this is happening and because the burden of the costs of the Health Service are being shifted and bear more heavily on the lower-paid worker, I cannot possibly support the Bill.

  1263
  I do not think there has been any disagreement on essentials in this debate. We are not cutting down or restricting the Service. On all sides, I think it true to say, there is the idea that the Health Service has come to stay. It has to continue and remain a national Service, for the economic value of the Service can never be measured. I am again reminded of the time between the wars when the physical standards of the British people were probably as low as they have ever been. They came under very close examination by this House. I never want to see those conditions again. The Health Service can make a great contribution to maintaining the physical standard of our people. I am strongly opposed to this method of payment. The Bill underlies, continues and perpetuates the flat rate principle. It could lead to the undoing of this great Health Service.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I am sorry I was not in the Chamber to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), but I have been here for the greater part of the debate. I am sorry I missed the beginning of his speech. Had I listened to that beginning I might have learned why the hon. Member is so upset.
  I cannot understand the reason behind the speech of the hon. Member nor behind the speeches of most hon. and right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen opposite. I am told that they fear this as the thin end of the wedge, the end of the National Health Service, and as a sinister attack to be made on standards. That is an awful lot of nonsense. We are restoring the contribution to a level not as high as the percentage to which it was originally put by the Socialist Government. Why that should be represented as having all these sinister implications passes my comprehension. It shows a lot of synthetic fury, if I may talk about synthetic fury in so quiet an atmosphere. I hope that we shall get away from this unreality.
  A point I want to deal with is that which was made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) about drugs, which was another red herring if I may so describe it.
  Mrs. Slater: It is not.
  Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend the Member or Putney (Sir H. Linstead) very properly said that if there is any reality in the fear that too many expensive drugs are being consumed, there is a direction in which we can turn to obviate it. That direction is the profession to which the right hon. Lady has the honour to belong. I do not say that an effort is not being made in that direction, but I think it proper for the right hon. Lady to turn to her own profession in this regard rather than to Ministers on the Front Bench.
  Dr. Summerskill: As the hon. Member always brings up this question, although I do not want to be a little unkind, may I ask whether he has an interest in the matter? Many other hon. Members who raise the question of drugs declare an interest in it. As he raises the question so frequently, I should like to know if he has an interest to declare. Can he justify what I think can be rightly called high pressure salesmanship and its relationship with the prescription charge and the £75 million bill for drugs?
  Mr. Shepherd: If the right hon. Lady had not such a nasty mind she would know that had I an interest in this particular matter I would unhesitatingly declare it. The reason I have not declared such an interest is that I do not have such an interest.
  The right hon. Lady also asked me whether I can justify the bill. I do not have sufficient information at my disposal to justify the bill or to regard it as unjustified. For example, I do not know how the blame ought to be shared between the Government, the doctors who prescribe these drugs, the patients who apply the pressure and other factors, but one thing I do know; we cannot have an efficient, progressive drug industry in this country, which is now well in the forefront of development and research, without paying for it in some way or another. That is one thing of which I am sure.
  There are two obvious ways in which one can pay for research and development in drugs. One is by doing what we do now—and that is, subject to careful scrutiny, to allow the firms who involve

  1265
  themselves in research and development to charge a price which covers these costs. Alternatively, we can do what has been done in another industry of which I have some knowledge, the aircraft industry, where it is so organised that the Government place research and development contracts.
  If the right hon. Lady objects to the system of allowing firms to charge a sum which covers their reasonable research and development costs, does she believe in the other system? Is it the policy of right hon. Members opposite to say, The present system is no good and we want to give research and development contracts to firms engaged in developing drugs in this country." They cannot merely say that they will wipe off this cost. The cost exists and it must be recovered. What I want to hear the next time the right hon. Lady speaks from that Box is not simply a wholesale condemnation of drugs firms—there are good and bad in the industry, and I think most of them are good—but a practical statement of how she intends to finance research and development. Or is the right hon. Lady prepared to see us lag behind the rest of the world? I am not, but perhaps she is. Perhaps for political spite she is prepared to see us lag behind.
  Dr. Summerskill: That is unfair.
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not ask the right hon. Lady now to give me an answer off the cuff. What I ask is that the next time she speaks from that Box and tries to slang the drug industry—in which I have no interest—she will tell us whether she prefers to have development paid for by a reasonable charge for the drugs or whether she wants Government research and development contracts to be introduced. From my experience of the aircraft industry, I have no doubt in my mind which is the better system from the taxpayers' point of view.
  I welcome the Bill, and I temper my welcome with some doubt only because it does not go as far as I want to go. I was upbraided a little time ago by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)—in a very kindly way, because he is a very kindly man—because last year I suggested that one-third of the cost was the percentage which the contributor and the employer together ought to pay towards the cost
  1266
  of the National Health Service. Despite his strictures, I am quite unrepentant. I believe that one-third represents a practical, realistic and, from the social point of view, on the whole the most desirable percentage, and I hope briefly to give some reasons why I think so.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Member make this clear? Does he mean one-third to be paid by the employer, one-third by the employee and one-third by the State, or does he mean one-third to be paid jointly between the employer and the employee?
  Mr. Shepherd: I am not as ambitious as the hon. Member might think. I am content to say that the contribution from employers and employed ought to be one-third of the cost and that, at any rate for some time ahead, we should provide two-thirds of the cost from taxation.
  I cannot understand why there is such hesitation on the benches opposite. I could understand it if we were attacking the Service; if we were attempting to limit benefits. I stand very firmly on the principle of the National Health Service giving its benefits to everyone who needs them irrespective of whether or not they contribute—that is, in respect of their families. I firmly believe that. I am a wholehearted supporter of the social services, including this one. I cannot understand the extraordinary rigidity displayed on this matter by hon. Members opposite. Have they really tried to look at this objectively and to decide which is the best way by which this Service can be paid?
  One or two things are basic to the question of payment. As far as possible, the Service should be paid for by those who are gainfully employed. I believe that, contrary to what some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, there should be uniformity of contribution for uniformity of benefit. Thirdly, I believe that, in terms of contribution from taxation, the State ought to pay as little as is practically possible. If I am asked why I believe that there should be such a contribution from the worker, my answer is that I do not believe, as hon. Gentlemen opposite do, that it is a good thing for the National Health Service to be regarded as something free and provided entirely by the State—
  Mr. Fernyhough: It is not.
  Mr. Shepherd: No, but we have had many speeches today indicating that we should take it all from taxation and—
  Mr. Herbert Butler: It is not free if it is taken from taxation.
  Mr. Shepherd: No, but many hon. Members seemed to take another view. I think that that is a bad principle. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) may think that he is pleasing his constituents when he says, "Do not take anything from the employer or the worker—take it all from taxation," but I do not think that he is. He is putting his constituents below their real level when he takes that view. I do not believe that the majority of our constituents want to feel that they are the recipients of something for nothing. The majority of them would like to feel that they are making a worthwhile contribution for the service they are receiving.
  The hon. Member does not take that view. He may be right, but I feel very profoundly that he is not, and that the great majority of our people are not something-for-nothing layabouts but prefer to feel that they are making a realistic contribution towards the service afforded to them. I deny entirely what he says. I think that he is utterly wrong. I am sure that most people would regard it as an advantage to be able to say, "This is not a benefit given to me at the cost of other people's taxation, but something for which I make a contribution in accordance with my ability to do so."
  Some hon. Gentlemen have said. "This is all very well, but how about the low-paid workers?" It is true that the incidence of the contributions is in general terms a flat one and does bear unevenly over different grades of workers, but there has been a great deal of exaggeration over this question of the lower-paid worker. In the first place, a differential is already established. We are not dealing here with just one flat rate of contribution, as perhaps some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to assume.
  For example, we have women over 18 years of age who pay 1s. 4½d. and we have boys and girls—for this purpose, under 18 years of age—paying 10½d. Therefore, if from the numbers of those whom we call the lower-paid workers we
  1268
  take the women and the boys and girls of 18 and under, we have removed from that class a very substantial number of people indeed—and a number much larger than hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to make out.
  Last week, one hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about low-paid workers. He referred to railway workers, and there was a great deal of assent to what he said from his hon. Friends. Being somewhat interested in these matters, I took the trouble to write to the British Transport Commission to get details of what were the actual earnings of its staff, and the Commission was kind enough to send me a census which gave certain figures. It does not show the latest wages—the latest wages are higher than these—but these are good enough for my purpose. The ordinary station porter who is, I suppose, the lowest paid man on the railway, receives £9 6s. 5d. a week. A ticket collector, whom one does not imagine to be the highest grade of employee on British Railways, receives £11 1s. 1d. a week if he is at a barrier and £11 16s. 2d. if he is on a train. [Interruption.] Looking at these figures, which I hope no one will contest, in spite of the muttering opposite—
  Mr. H. Butler: The reason for the muttering is that we are wondering whether this is average wage or basic wage.
  Mr. Shepherd: This is the are paid.
  Mrs. Slater: No.
  Mr. Randall: Is this the basic, the minimum?
  Mr. Fernyhough: It includes overtime and everything else.
  Mr. Shepherd: To set hon. Members opposite at rest, I will explain that this is the annual census of staff giving the average earnings of principal groups—
  Mr. Fernyhough: And overtime.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am concerned with earnings, and so is the man who draws his money. He is not concerned with his basic wage but with what he earns, and so am I concerned with what he earns. Hon. Members may say that we have a very odd set-up in British industry, where there are too much supplementary

  1269
  earnings and basic rates are not right. I may agree with that, but here I am concerned for the moment only to discuss what a man takes home, because what he takes home, less these contributions, is the important thing.
  Dr. Summerskill: We should not deceive the House in this important matter. If next week, as is quite probable, overtime ends in any industry, the figures the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has given cease to be valid.
  Mr. Shepherd: Of course, if overtime ends on the railways my figures will not be valid, but I am concerned with what now applies and has applied for some time in the past and with what British Railways themselves believe will apply in the future. I am pointing out that this argument about the lower paid workers is by no means as valid as hon. and right hon. Members have been suggesting.
  In one respect only do I think that there is a valid argument, and that is in respect of apprentices. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) and see whether, when the matter is next adjusted, something can be done to deal with the situation in which apprentices find themselves.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure he wants to be fair about earnings. Surely he appreciates that when British Railways give average earnings they take the average over many people, and within an average for a particular grade, of course, there must be many receiving considerably less. When the figure of earnings of ticket collectors is given, that is an average, depending on all manner of circumstances and vicissitudes in different parts of the country. I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair and will appreciate that what I have just said is right.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is no part of my argument to maintain that no person in the grade of porter, for example, receives less than the average; it would not be an average if that were so. There are differentials for different locations; London men receive more than provincial men. But this is an indication that the argument about lower-paid workers is not as valid as hon. Members opposite would like to make out.
  1270
  Again, each year on drink, tobacco and entertainment the populace is spending over £2,000 million. A great deal of that may be consumed in Park Lane, and a great deal may be consumed on expense accounts at the expense of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I am not convinced that £2,000 million goes in that way alone. I am sure that the figure of £2,000 million, which represents an enormous expenditure on drink, tobacco and entertainment, shows what the figure of £30 million means in terms of hardship on the community. Hon. Gentlemen say that one-third is not right and that it is too harsh. I agree that by putting it up one-third at the moment and putting it on the employees would be inadvisable for various reasons, into which I will not go at this late hour. But it could be done by causing employers to pay more. This will set up a howl from the Federation of British Industries and the British Employers' Confederation.
  I want to reply by saying that after a period in which trade has been almost consistently good for twenty years or thereabouts, I am convinced that most employers today have over-loaded administrations and inflationary weaknesses. They could, if they had to, make sufficient savings within their own organisations to offset any effect of a rise in the contribution that they have to pay towards the National Health Service for their employees. I know that that would not be possible in some hard-pressed industries, but the great generality of industries could make good any increased contribution to the National Health Service by making corresponding savings in their administrations.
  I feel sure that that is the case. I am only sorry that the Government have not had enough courage to put up these contributions by the employers and reach a stage, which is the right one, of one-third of the total cost of the services paid for in contributions in one form or another.
  I want to end by making a comment on the question of taking the money out of taxation. The hon. Member for Sowerby was very keen about this matter. I do not believe that the man who earns £5,000 a year is undertaxed. I believe that he is overtaxed. This rate of taxation upon the executive class is an extremely punitive one from the national point of view. I want to see it reduced. Perhaps

  1271
  the hon. Gentleman wants to see it increased, but he has been a tax collector all his life and I have been a payer. Therefore, we have different points of view.
  Irrespective of whether it is desirable or not to increase the level of taxation on individuals, there is a strong economic reason, which I do not think hon. Members opposite have appreciated, for not imposing so large a burden upon the Revenue. Briefly, may I say why? We want to see some of this burden taken off the Revenue, because we want to have a less inflationary situation in the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, "What difference does it make if you take it off the Revenue and put it on the contribution?" It is not entirely a question of taking that amount of money out of circulation from the point of view of purchasing power, although I would not deny that that is a significant factor in the concept. What is perhaps more important is whether one puts oneself in a position where one can or cannot have a truly deflationary Budget. Last year, when we were facing a severe inflationary condition, we had about £500 million uncovered below the line.
  Mr. Fernyhough: And we gave £35 million to the Surtax payers.
  Mr. Shepherd: I would defend that. I have no difficulty in defending that on economic, social or ethical grounds. To have a situation in which we have £500 million uncovered below the line, as we have had, is not the way to fight an inflationary pressure. If the Government want to assist the Revenue by increasing the contribution, it is not because they want to kick somebody or to lighten the load on somebody else, but because it is highly desirable that we should cover our expenditure below the line. That is a very valid point.
  Some hon. Members opposite have questioned the belief of hon. Members on this side of the House in the National Health Service. I am a staunch supporter of the National Health Service and I dislike intensely those who subject it to unreasonable criticism. I become rather tired of hearing people in the more expensive cocktail bars or on the odd occasions when I am in the sun-drenched South of France, saying that people in this country do not want to
  1272
  work, that they want something for nothing and that everybody in the Welfare State is becoming idle and useless. We have suffered an immense amount of damage in this country from talk of this kind, and it is so utterly, hopelessly and maliciously untrue.
  Let me assure those who talk in terms of moral deterioration, whether they be in Monte Carlo or in Bournemouth, that there was more moral deterioration of the fibre in one month of unemployment between the wars than has occurred during the whole of the period of what is called the Welfare State since the war. Of course there are defects, and there are individuals who try to take advantage. But a man cannot take advantage so easily today as he could before the war. Before the war, if a man wanted to live without working it was not a very difficult thing to do, but today people offer him a job which he finds great difficulty in refusing. Therefore, it is much harder to be a real "miker" under this so-called Welfare State than it was in the old days when things were not quite so good.
  The Welfare State and the National Health Service are as much a part of our progress as was radar and as Zeta is today. They are part of the progress of the nation, an investment in our future. To have a more healthy and better educated people is an investment which this country has to make if it is to be a leader in twenty years' time. The crabbers and the cavillers have little argument in their favour. We have an excellent Health Service. We have a welfare society which, on the whole, is the envy of the world. In return, hon. Members opposite will not, I hope, be quite so fixed in their ideas. Disaster will not come if we ask for a third contribution. I believe that by making people feel that they are paying more towards these services, we shall create a happier atmosphere, and most certainly it will enable us more readily to have expansions when expansions become necessary.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman quoted certain figures relating to the wages of railway employees. For instance, he quoted the case of a porter getting over £9 a week. In fairness, surely he will agree that the figure which he quoted related to a porter who had been

  1273
  working on Sundays, overtime, night duty and Saturday afternoons. The basic rate of a porter is between £7 10s. and £7 14s., and that of a ticket collector is about £8 10s. The fantastic figures which he quoted must relate to exceptional cases where Sunday duty, overtime and Saturday afternoons have been worked.
  Mr. Shepherd: Where the hon. Member would be right would be if every porter worked Saturdays, Sundays, day-time, night-time and holidays.
  Mr. Popplewell: That is entirely wrong. The hon. Member should withdraw.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: I am sorry to have to cut short this interchange about the wages of railway workers, but before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has an opportunity to reply, I want to adress a few words to the House. This very small Bill, dealing with one method of financing part of the cost of the National Health Service, has given rise to a very wide-ranging debate, in the course of which we have heard, especially from the other side of the House, many speeches mainly devoted to discussing the structure and the methods of operation of the Health Service itself.
  I can understand the desire of hon. Members opposite not to talk too much about the Bill and its provisions, but I welcomed this technical irrelevance because it gave the House the benefit of hearing a very remarkable speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health. It was really worth while having a little irrelevance in the debate in order that we could listen to his panegyric, his pan of praise for the Health Service. He summed it all up by saying, and I was careful to make a note of his words, that "its increased efficiency and increased service to the consumer are conclusively proved".
  We have come a long way since the debates in the 1945 Parliament which some of us remember. We have come a long way, indeed. I could hardly believe my ears when the Minister claimed credit for the increased number of visits to practitioners in the optical service. Hon. Members who were in the House during the 1945 Parliament will remember the screams of horror and shouts of fury at the fact that 18 million or 19
  1274
  million spectacles had been supplied by the Service during the first two years. Now there is rejoicing, quite properly, that, the initial backlog having been overcome, people are once again seeking and getting proper optical assistance.
  I smiled also, though, naturally, I could not help being gratified, when the Minister gave his hon. Friends the same answer about alleged abuses of the Service by foreigners as I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had given at the Dispatch Box some years ago. These things are satisfactory. I am glad that the Minister feels that the advice on the therapeutical value of drugs given by the Cohen Committee, which was set up by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, is now so valuable. And I am also glad that the Prescribers' Notes, which were instituted when I was Minister of Health, are still being regularly circulated and are considered to be doing some good.
  We are all delighted at the increased number of beds which are now available to patients and the better rate of bed usage. We are glad that the waiting lists which at the initial stages of the Service were so long are now reduced to quite manageable proportions. I am glad to think that the extension of treatment of tuberculosis from specialist sanatoria to general hospitals which we undertook has borne fruit in a continuing reduction of the number of cases of tuberculosis which have to be treated. That, of course, was not the only cause of the reduction in the number of cases, but it was one of the contributory factors.
  We have all shared in this achievement. These improvements, started in 1946 or in 1948, when the Health Service came fully into operation, have gone on continuously. I am not seeking for a moment to say that these improvements are not going on under the administration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. What pleased us particularly this afternoon was not so much the Minister telling the story of the great and remarkable achievements of the Health Service with such evident pride, but to hear him candidly admitting that a very large proportion of the increase in money cost in recent years has been due to the inflationary pressure in the economy which the present Government have failed to correct or control, and to go on

  1275
  to claim credit for that proportion of the increase which represents a real improvement in the services to the patients.
  As I heard the Minister's claim that the services and the size of the Health Service have been increased, that the number of doctors had increased and all these various items to which I have already referred, the thought came to my mind how thoroughly justified was my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale in placing these Measures on the Statute Book, despite all the difficulties of that time, as early as 1946. I hope—in fact, I am confident—that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if I might address a word to him personally, will join with ours his voice in the triumph song when he rises to reply to the debate.
  So much, then, we are all agreed about. So much is agreed that I hope there will be no further attempt—there have been attempts in the past; and there was one when Mr. Crookshank, as he then was, became Minister of Health—to reduce the Service itself, or any more of the niggling and cheeseparing economies which have broken out from time to time, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) referred to. I hope that these things are at an end. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will tell us that it is the intention of the Government to expand the Service more and more until it fully meets the needs of the community.
  Can we really rely on this? Despite all the satisfactory words which we heard from the Minister of Health this afternoon, can we be sure that the Government, even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself wants to do it, will be able to continue along the road of expansion? I am sure we cannot if the Government adhere to their present financial policy What the Minister had to say about the positive achievements of the Service, the improvements in its real value and efficiency to the community, was good. What he had to say about the main subject of this Bill, the finance of the Service, was nowhere near so good, and filled me with some misgiving and alarm.
  The present Minister of Labour, more than once, when he was in opposition and after he became Minister of Health,
  1276
  has told the House that, in his opinion, the proper course for the nation to pursue was to settle what it regarded as a fair proportion of the gross national product to be devoted to the Health Service and to adhere to that proportion, thus not involving itself in too many irrelevant considerations of figures, and continuing to devote a fair proportion of the real resources of the community to health, because only in that way could we build up the sort of health service that we need and want to have.
  That was the view stated more than once by the present Minister of Labour. The Guillebaud Committee, which he appointed to look into the cost of the Health Service, was an entirely independent and impartial tribunal and nobody has ever for a moment tried to deny that. That Committee, the chairman of which was certainly not a member of my party, brought this point out very clearly. It emphasised as clearly as has ever been done before in a public document the need for the community to decide what proportion of the national resources it was able to devote, and wished to devote, to the Health Service, and then to adhere to it.
  In our debates, I am sorry to say, we have heard words which sounded like a retreat from Guillebaud, a retreat from the stand taken by the present Minister of Labour when Minister of Health. In the debate on the paving Money Resolution for this Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said:
  "I wonder whether we are right to say that the proportion which the cost of the Service bears to the national income must necessarily be maintained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1958; Vol. 583, c. 224.]
  The Minister also said today that he did not attach the same importance to this concept as other hon. Members appeared to do.
  I suggest to the House that to aim at adhering to a positive, publicly known, admitted and accepted proportion of the national income is vital for the future of our Health Service. I see a red light whenever the Treasury begins to dispute this doctrine. I thought that we now had it well established, but when the Financial Secretary says that he is not sure about it, and the Minister of Health

  1277
  seems to back him, then we can see danger coming.
  If now, departing from the doctrine of the former Minister of Health who is now Minister of Labour, it be admitted that the proportion of the national income need not be kept at 4½ per cent., but can be allowed gradually to go down, then we have no real hope of maintaining the expansion of the Service which is still necessary. We have by no means yet reached the maximum desirable optimum expansion of the Health Service. And if the national income should begin to expand again, and if this doctrine of the fixed, recognised proportion of the national income which should be devoted to the Health Service be abandoned, then we will find successive Chancellors of the Exchequer wanting continually to maintain an artificial monetary ceiling, and, having abandoned this doctrine, no one will be able to criticise them when they do so.
  I suggest to the House that now, for many years to come, and as far as anybody can reasonably foresee, the Service needs expansion and not contraction. The foundation of the Service, as I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy will agree, the bedrock upon which the rest is built, is, first, the preventive services which are largely in the hands of the local authorities, and, secondly, the general practitioners. In both these directions considerable extra expansion is still required in my judgment.
  I was glad to hear that the number of general practitioners has increased and that the proportion of patients per general practitioner has diminished. It is good to know that these figures have changed to some extent, but the maximum permitted list is still 3,500, which is an enormous figure. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that it is an enormous figure. Perhaps he will be able to tell us how many doctors still have that maximum number of patients on their lists, and can give us his expert opinion as to whether that is a satisfactory figure.
  There must be more doctors yet in the general practitioner service before we can possibly be satisfied. As it is, we hear far too many complaints, and justified complaints, from general practitioners of overwork and of their inability to give sufficient time to patients who require that time because the doctors are so
  1278
  pressed with the large numbers with whom they have to deal. Those are still the conditions in the sort of industrial areas which I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent.
  We cannot be satisfied with this. We need an expansion and hon. Members opposite as well, as on this side of the House, have drawn attention to several directions in which they want to see expansion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), a former Minister of Health, like every former Minister of Health, was naturally disappointed with the amount of hospital building which he was able to secure when he was Minister—as I was when I was Minister. We all want to see, and we all know that there is, a need for a great expansion in hospital building. We know that there are still arrears of a hundred years of neglect to make up in many parts of the country. One could go on expanding the list and mentioning the need for industrial medical services in our factories and industries.
  For many years to come, there will be no reason whatever to contemplate a reduction of the Service or to abandon the ideal of maintaining a satisfactory proportion of the national resources going to it. Now, under the policy followed by the Government today, there is a danger of abandoning this ideal and concentrating again upon a mere monetary ceiling and, inevitably in the end, reducing the Service instead of expanding it.
  As my hon. Friend Member for Sower-by (Mr. Houghton) reminded the House this afternoon, there was undoubtedly a clear directive from the Chancellor this year that there must be no increase of expenditure calling for increases in taxation, and that if there were to be increases in expenditure the burden would have to be shifted elsewhere and hidden in another account. That is what is being done. When we are discussing this process of hiding the expenditure in a non-tax account and transferring the burden from the taxpayer to the contributor to National Insurance, it is ridiculous to do so without remembering what we did in the autumn—the increase in contributions for National Insurance which was authorised at that time.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) seemed to have forgotten all about that in some of his remarks. In

  1279
  the autumn, we had the notorious plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for giving 9d. for 10d., for financing the increased cost of old-age pensions and benefits from the pockets of existing contributors and, to a very small extent, from those of the taxpayer. Now we have a similar dodge whereby those same contributors are to meet the cost of the increased wages and salaries in the Health Service.
  The result of those two things taken together—and this is what we must remember—was shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) the other day when she explained that whereas, in October, 1951, an adult male had to pay a contribution of 5s. 1d. per week, he now has to pay a contribution of 9s. 11d., an increase, as she reminded the House, of 95 per cent. during the term of office of the present Government.
  My hon. Friend pointed out that that represented 6·6 per cent. of the agricultural worker's minimum wage and 8 per cent. of the minimum wage of women in the retail food trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has given even more important figures this afternoon and has pictured the plight of widows—and there are many of them—who have to continue to pay National Insurance contributions to secure that they will have an adequate pension—I am thinking now of the 10s. widows—when eventually they reach retirement age. Women like that, who are earning £3 or £4 a week, are now to be asked to pay these increased contributions. The percentage of their incomes which goes in this way must be well over 8 per cent. The hon. Member for Cheadle said that we are exaggerating. He proposed an increase in the total contribution, to cover one-third of the cost of the Health Service.
  In all the figures that he gave us he did not tell us what percentage of the wage of the lowest-paid worker would have to be paid in contributions if his suggestion were carried out. The figure would be utterly intolerable. In the debates on the National Insurance contributions I said that we had reached the end of this road; that we could go no further with a system of National Insurance and National Health contributions
  1280
  which imposed so heavy a burden upon the lowest paid workers, and that somehow or other we must get round quickly to a system of graduated contributions.
  All this addition to the burdens on the poor goes with a corresponding lessening in the burdens upon the better-off sections of the community. That must be remembered. Our complaint is not merely that these burdens are too heavy for the lower-paid workers to sustain but, in addition, that they have always gone with a relief to the higher-paid Income Tax payers. We were rebuked during a recent debate for laying too much emphasis upon the £34 million bonus which was given to Surtax payers, but we are not thinking only of that. We are thinking of a long series of reductions of tax upon the rich and new imposts upon the poor. The Government have a settled policy for the redistribution of wealth in favour of the better-off members of the community.
  I made some calculations which show that the total reliefs given to Income Tax payers in four Budgets in the last six years amounted to £427 million, and the reliefs given to the payers of the standard rate of Income Tax—which, as has been pointed out a thousand times, benefit the well-to-do more than the less well-off—totalled £250 million. These are substantial figures.
  These reliefs have always been paid for not so much out of an expansion of revenue as by the placing of new burdens upon the poor—by raising the price of bread; by raising the price of milk and by raising the price of school meals, from 7d. to 1s. It is the accumulation of injury to the poor and benefit to the rich about which we complain, and it is because the Bill is part of that same process that we so strongly dislike it. There has even been imposts in the National Health Service itself, to help this process, by the levying of taxes upon cripples and the poorest of the poor who need medicine.
  The Minister defended this extraordinary process on the ground that it would be deflationary. How is it more deflationary to levy a tax upon a poor widow who has to pay an insurance contribution than to levy it upon a rich Surtax or Income Tax payer, who can cut down his expenditure without great sacrifice? I have never been able to understand that argument.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: And the right hon. Member never will if he talks that way.
  Mr. Marquand: I want to ask the Minister very seriously whether it is inflationary.
  When the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance made an announcement about the increase in contributions for National Insurance I asked whether he consulted the Trades Union Congress. I was laughed at by hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North asked the question again, and again it was not answered. Did the Government consult the T.U.C.? If not, why not? Does the right hand of the Government know what their left hand is doing? The Minister of Health made a rather Left-wing speech today, so he must not blame me if I refer to him as the left hand of the Government.
  Does the Minister of Labour know what the Minister of Health and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance are up to? He cannot know, because if his right hon. Friends told him, the Minister of Labour would say, "Boys, don't you know that the miners have put in a wage claim and that included in the claim for lower-paid workers in the mining industry is an item to cover the increased contribution costs which their members will have to pay?" How can these imposts on the lower-paid workers be tolerated by any decent trade union? They may well be inflationary; they are certainly not deflationary.
  This is harsh treatment of the poorest of the community and it is unfair between man and man. It is almost certain to be inflationary in character. It is a threat to, and not a defence of, the Health Service; worse, it is a deliberate and reactionary distribution of the wealth of the country in favour of the rich.
  9.27 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said that this has been a wide-ranging debate, and he suggested that in parts it was irrelevant. It is fortunate that it was, for it has covered a number of interesting and important topics within the National Health Service, but not necessarily directly related to the particular propositions contained in
  1282
  this Bill. If, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, a desire to talk too much about other things revealed a lack of interest in the Bill, that has been characteristic of the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health opened this debate with what I think will be regarded as a comprehensive speech. He was followed by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), who made a wide-ranging, thoughtful and temperate speech, and we have had a number of other speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House who sought to take advantage of the occasion to probe and discuss some of the more important aspects of the National Health Service.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East was puzzling to me when on the subject of the proportion of the national product that the National Health Service has commanded and should command. I wondered why he should be pressing for a fixed proportion, bearing in mind that we may reach the day when the cost of the National Health Service, because of its success, would represent a smaller proportion of the national product, without necessarily being inferior because of that, or because of a fall in the national product there might be what looked like a rise in the percentage represented by the National Health Service without it being a real rise.
  Do not let us get tied to percentages and averages in dealing with this matter. At least this can be said. Although it is not possible to follow exactly the method of the Guillebaud Committee—partly because it used a special team of economists for the purpose, and partly because it deals with the financial year, and the National Income and Expenditure Blue Book is for the calendar year—although it is not possible to give exactly comparable figures with those of the Guillebaud Report, it is a fact that from 1950 to 1954 there was a declining percentage of the national product. From 1954 to 1956, the last year for which figures are available, at least it can be said there was a modest increase in that percentage proportion.
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington gave a number of useful suggestions on what she thought in the long

  1283
  run would be a more sensible way of saving money, of raising the equivalent of the sum of money sought to be raised by this Bill. She spoke of better domestic provisions, home provisions, reductions of out-patient attendances, and was also on her usual theme about drugs, drawing attention very rightly, to the drug bill of £74 million, only £13 million of which is covered by charges, and the £61 million does not include the drugs prescribed and provided in hospitals. It is a tremendous amount.
  I am not going further into that matter. I am not going to deal with the difficult problem of the increasing proportion of proprietary medicines in that bill. I make the general observation that we must never forget there is a widespread passion for medicine in this country. There is a belief in the bottle, even though the medicine may not be invariably of therapeutic value.
  The right hon. Lady put a specific suggestion as to a way of saving money. In effect, she asked: Why not convert the part-time consultant service into a whole-time consultant service? She drew attention to the fact that the rate of payment for the part-timer is higher than that for the whole-timer. This is one of the matters on which the Royal Commission is taking evidence and asking questions. I say that because we must not go beyond that in a definite answer. I will offer three reflections. If we decided to do this and converted every part-time consultant into a whole-time consultant, we should raise the costs. If, on the other hand, we took the number of whole-time consultants who are needed for the hospital job, we should have to sack certain consultants and deprive them of their hospital experience. Thirdly, even if we did that, on my calculation, which admittedly is rough, the economy would be between £1 million and £1¼ million out of a total bill for consultant services of over £20 million. I think I had better say no more on that, bearing in mind the first consideration I put forward.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) dealt with problems of capital expenditure on hospitals. I should like to give the figures because, although it may well be said that there
  1284
  is too little capital expenditure in this direction, it is useful to know that whereas capital expenditure in 1950–51 was £13 million, for the year 1957–58 it is estimated to be £20 million. I put this forward in no party spirit. I am speaking of capital expenditure, including acquisition. In 1958–59 it is estimated that it will be £23 million, and in 1959–60, £25 million.
  Many other useful matters were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) urged the Minister of Health to be flexible in his administration of the Service. The Minister is watching the changing pattern. He gave evidence of that in his speech by his reference to the tuberculosis service. He appreciates the point which was raised by my hon. Friend.
  I will come a little nearer to the Bill, although there were times today when I felt that I might be called out of order if I referred to the Bill itself, so far did we wander from it. I want to deal with the criticisms which have been raised. On the one hand, there is the basic or fundamental criticism that the Beveridge principle is wrong or outmoded, and at the other extreme there is the criticism that this is a hardship to the individual man within a lower paid group.
  I will deal first with the basic issue. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) put it last week when he said:
  "My objection to the addition to the health contribution is based on my objection to any special contribution for health purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1958; Vol 583, c. 260.]
  A number of hon. Members have taken the same line today. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) took that line in similar terms, and there were times when the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington seemed to be taking the same line.
  Clearly, a good intellectual case can be made out against this system. No one has mentioned it, but one obvious argument is that the Service is available to every member of the community whether he is a contributor or not. The Beveridge arguments were, first, that the contributory principle was accepted for cash benefit and, therefore, should be accepted for medical service; secondly, that the contributory principle had for years

  1285
  characterised medical benefit; and, perhaps looking more into the future, the argument that a good Health Service saves sickness benefit and therefore the contribution from National Insurance funds to the Health Service is a premium against future contingencies. In moving the National Insurance Bill, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) added the simple argument that it was good value for money at a contribution of 10d., 8½d. of which would fall on the individual worker.
  Although I can understand the criticism that this method can bear too heavily under a system of flat rate contributions, I am bound to say that the system of the flat rate contribution and the transfer of moneys from the National Insurance Fund to the National Health Service were principles adopted in the 1946 Act. I say that with no desire to arouse controversy. On the basic principle, that is a position which both sides of the House have accepted.
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: If that were the case, and if it were accepted as a principle and not purely as an historical incident, when was the contribution increased between 1946 and 1950?
  Dr. Hill: In the 1946 Act, there was provision for the automatic increase of the contribution after five years, and in fact the contribution rose from 4s. 11d. in 1946 to 5s. 1d. in 1951 by the automatic—
  Mr. Bevan: But when was legislation introduced in the House betwen 1946 and 1950–51 increasing the actual rate of contribution from the National Insurance Fund into the National Health Service?
  Dr. Hill: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait until the argument develops. I am saying that the principle of a contribution from National Insurance funds to the National Health Service was included in the National Insurance Act, 1946.
  There has been some criticism of the formula, the percentage of 20 per cent., as representing the amount which the National Health Service payment constituted of the original estimate of the cost of the service of £170 million or £175 million in the Financial Memorandum of 1946.
  1286
  I will just say this. It was what could be done. I frankly recognise that it was exceedingly difficult. In 1946, with many costs unknown, with too little known, I imagine, about the cost of the voluntary hospital service and the cost of the local authority service, it was impossible, I recognise, to estimate the cost at that time. But it was the fact that in 1946, when the rough estimate—the only estimate that could be made—of the cost was £175 million, the proportion, the amount allocated to the National Health Service contribution, was, in fact, £36 million; was, in fact, 20 per cent.—
  Mr. Bevan Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.
  Dr. Hill: It was, in fact, 20 per cent. of that amount.
  Mr. Bevan: Quite wrong—quite wrong.
  Dr. Hill: I will proceed with this statement of the facts. The point I want to bring out is not that there was anything rigid, permanent, sacred about that percentage, but that, in fact, of the estimated cost of £175 million, the proportion that was transferred from the Insurance Fund was approximately 20 per cent. In fact, the sum turned out to be £40 million and not £36 million.
  It is as well that we should get clear the various stages of the cost of the Service as the background for our discussion on this Bill tonight. In 1946, it was thought that the gross cost would prove to be £175 million. In 1949–50, the first year of the Service, the cost was actually £452 million. Next year, the gross cost is estimated to be £740 million. In 1946, the Exchequer contribution was estimated to be £126 million. In 1949–50, the actual Exchequer contribution was £345 million, and the estimated amount of the Exchequer contribution next year, without this Bill, is £555 million, and, with this Bill, £531 million. Lest the local contribution be forgotten, the original estimate in 1946 was a contribution from local rates of £7 million. In the first year of the Service, the actual amount was £16 million, and next year it is estimated to be £31 million.
  The right hon. Lady said that in order to see today's problem we should look at the last two years, and she recited, very fairly, the increased charges of the last two years. If we are to see this problem in its perspective—
  Mr. George Chetwynd: Good health.
  Dr. Hill: —we should look at the last seven or eight years for, after all, it was in 1949, after the first full year of the Service—indeed, within the first full year of the Service—that, in the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, the party opposite decided to take power to impose prescription charges. Those charges were not imposed, but the power was taken to impose them, and in moving in the other place that the appropriate words be added to the Bill, Lord Shepherd made it clear that the object behind the Amendment was twofold,
  "to act as a deterrent to excessive or unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists, and to reduce expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 17th November, 1949; Vol. 165, c. 796.]
  So it was that at least the amber light about expenditure was seen by the party opposite in 1949, and power was taken, not to increase the contribution, but to make charges for prescriptions.
  In 1951, the party opposite, with the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) as the Minister of Health, actually imposed the charges on teeth and spectacles. The Leader of the Opposition, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave his reasons in his Budget speech:
  "We decided that the Health Service estimates must be brought within a total of £400 million, which, for the time being, will have to be a ceiling … it is plain that the only way to keep within this limit without reducing the standards of the hospital, family doctor, and consultant services below what is really necessary is to find some other source of revenue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 851–2.]
  Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite found that source of revenue in the imposition of dental and ophthalmic charges.
  Miss Jennie Lee: Shame.
  Dr. Hill: There it is; I have recited the facts. When the charges were thought necessary, the limit was seen as £400 million, yet hon. Gentlemen opposite criticise an increased contribution on the healthy when we see the Exchequer contribution rising to £555 million.
  I know, and the House will recall, that thirteen days after that announcement the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale resigned. I think it as well to recall what he said in his resignation speech, for in
  1288
  that speech—a tense occasion—there were indications that he had, in fact, voted as a member of the Government and supported the kind of charge which he was then resisting.
  Mr. Bevan Mr. Bevan rose—
  Dr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me just read this first?
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman on three occasions has talked about the imposition of charges. The charges to which he is referring were not made until they were made under his own Ministry in 1952.
  Dr. Hill: I am referring to the charges for teeth and spectacles, which were made by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member—
  Mr. Bevan: I know, and I resigned.
  Dr. Hill: —from which he himself had resigned. The right hon. Gentleman is cleverer at histrionics than he is at history.
  Mr. Bevan: I would say that I am very much cleverer than the right hon. Gentleman was as a resister of the National Health Service. Will he answer me this question: which way does he want it? Does he want me to say that I was in favour of Health Service charges or resigned because of them?
  Dr. Hill: I want to quote the right hon. Gentleman himself. This is what he said:
  "I have also been accused—and I think I am entitled to answer it—that I had already agreed to a certain charge"—
  Mr. Bevan: I had not.
  Dr. Hill: I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman. He said:
  "I speak to my right hon. Friends very frankly here"—
  and he then spoke to his former colleagues, saying:
  "It seems to me sometimes that it is so difficult to make them see what lies ahead that you have to take them along by the hand and show them."
  Sir L. Plummer: Like the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorney-croft).
  Dr. Hill: A beautiful picture of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale coyly, cosily cajoling his

  1289
  colleagues up the garden path. I must add, in fairness to him, that he went on to say
  "The prescription charge I knew would never be made, because it was impracticable. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Oh.'] Well, it was never made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 42–3.]
  The interesting thing, if I may leave controversy for the moment, is that it is now possible to know what it was not possible to know at that time. If we look at the out-turn of Exchequer expenditure over the year 1951–52, ignoring the income from the charges which were imposed, which came to £10 million, the figure was, in fact, less by £1 million than the £400 million ceiling. All I can say is that if that had been known ahead the right hon. Gentleman might not have resigned, and Heaven knows what might have happened. I suppose that that resignation was the beginning of the Bevanite movement. [Interruption.] Well, in those days Bevanites were Bevanites. I saw a horrible word the other day. I think they are called "Mikites" now. Bearing in mind the sporting propensities of their new leader, it will be interesting to see how far they travel and in what direction they travel. I refer to this new little army of bookies' runners.
  I want now to come to the criticism of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) of the panic character of the introduction of this Measure, as he so described it, and the criticisms of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange, that, in fact—
  Mr. Houghton: I never used the word "panic" at all. I said that the Bill was the outcome of a rough house inside the Cabinet.
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman and others questioned the timing of the Bill. On 18th February, the Vote on Account was published. It was then obvious that the Exchequer contribution for next year would be £531 million instead of £545 million in the previous year. It was clearly desirable that the cause of that difference should be made plain to the House. So my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement to the House—
  Mr. G. Lindgren: Which Chancellor?
  Dr. Hill: The present Chancellor. I believe that that will be regarded as a proper courtesy to the House.
  I want to come to the allegation which was made by an hon. Member last week that there was something wrong about reducing the Exchequer contribution for next year to a level below that at which it has obtained this year. The increase of last year was intended to reduce the Exchequer contribution to £530 million. It did not, for a number of reasons, succeed. The further contribution this year is likely to bring the Exchequer contribution to £531 million.
  If I may, I will turn to the hardship argument. The Minister of Health has dealt with the percentage which the contribution bears to income. The Financial Secretary has also given the figures. It will be recalled that he related the contributions to the average earnings today of £12 11s. 7d., pointing out at the same time that this figure was 10s. more than six months previously and £5 10s. more than in 1948.
  I want now to take the extreme position which has been pressed, and that is to take a not well-off group, disregard overtime, and take the whole contribution. I want to take the example of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer)—the agricultural worker. In 1946, it was decided that 4s. 11d. was the right amount. At that time the minimum wage for the agricultural worker was £3 10s. a week, and the party opposite thought that 4s. 11d. was a reasonable deduction from £3 10s. As agricultural wages went up soon afterwards, let us take the year in which the Service came into operation. The minimum wage then for the agricultural worker was £4 10s. Today it is £7 10s. in England and Wales and £7 5s. in Scotland. In short, the increase in the minimum wage as between 1948 and now is £3.
  Hon. Members opposite will immediately say, "Yes, but the cost of living has gone up." But if we apply the figures for the cost of living we find that the increase in real wages is 34s. a week. The increase in contribution is 5s. a week, and of that increase in contribution 3s. 10d. is in respect of retirement pension, sickness pay and unemployment pay—a compulsory investment in the future, in

  1291
  fact. I believe that puts it in proper perspective.
  We believe that this increased contribution is justified. As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, it should be seen in the context of the Government's anti-inflationary steps. Hon. Members opposite may disagree with the methods that are being followed, but surely they agree with the objective of seeking to maintain the value of the £ both at home and abroad.
  Mr. Lindgren: Why give the Surtax payers relief?
  Dr. Hill: In view of the steps which the Government have taken, regretfully, but definitely, to ensure that capital expenditure in the public sector is kept next year at the level at which it is this year
  and that bank advances next year are kept at what they are this year, the Government believe that they should seek substantially to maintain Government expenditure next year at the same level as this year.
  I say to hon. Members opposite that it comes ill from the party who first used the 20 per cent. formula, which formula still obtains today, and who first took power to impose a charge on patients to secure a ceiling of £400 million, to oppose this Government when we seek to restrict the Exchequer contribution to £530 million by increasing contributions on the healthy and not, as they did, on the sick.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 252.

  Division No. 55.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cole, Norman

  Gower, H. R.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Graham, Sir Fergus

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Cooper, A. E.

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

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Green, A.

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat(Tiverton)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Corfield, Capt, F. V.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Ashton, H.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Crowder,Petre(Ruislip—Northwood)

  Gurden, Harold

  Atkins, H. E.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Baldock, Lt-Cmdr. J. M.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Barber, Anthony

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Deedes, W. F.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Barter, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclestd)

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Hay, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

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

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

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

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Bingham, R. M.

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

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Black, C. W.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Body, R. F.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Fell, A.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Holt, A. F.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Forrest, G.

  Hope, Lord John

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Foster, John

  Hornby, R. P.

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

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Bryan, P.

  Gammans, Lady

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Howard, John (Test)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Glover, D.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Carr, Robert

  Glyn, Col, R.

  Hunt, A. R.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Godber, J. B.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh,S.)

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

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

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Maude, Angus

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Shepherd, William

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

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

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Speir, R. M.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

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

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

  Kaberry, D.

  Neave, Airey

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Keegan, D.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

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

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Kimball, M.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Storey, S.

  Kirk, P. M.

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

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Lagden, G. W.

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

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Viscount

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Osborne, C.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Page, R. G.

  Teeling, W.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Temple, John M.

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

  Partridge, E.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Peel, W. J.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

  Peyton, J. W. W.

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

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Thorn on-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

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

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pott, H. P.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Wade, D. W.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Redmayne, M.

  Wall, Patrick

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

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

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Robertson, Sir David

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Marshall, Douglas

  Russell, R. S.

  Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.

  Mathew, R.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Diamond, John

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Anderson, Frank

  Callaghan, L. J.

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

  Awbery, S. S.

  Carmichael, J.

  Dye, S.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Baird, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Edelman, M.

  Balfour, A.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Clunie, J.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

  Coldrick, W.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Benson, Sir George

  Collins,V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Beswick, Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Finch, H. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Foot, D. M.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Boardman, H.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Galtskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

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

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Brockway, A. F.

  Deer, G.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Grey, C. F.

  1294

  1295

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Ross, William

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mahon, Simon

  Royle, C.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Hale, Leslie

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Short, E. W.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Hastings, S.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mason, Roy

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Healey, Denis

  Mayhew, C. P.

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

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

  Mellish, R. J.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Snow, J. W.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Monslow, W.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Holman, P.

  Moody, A. S.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Holmes, Horace

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Steele, T.

  Houghton, Douglas

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

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Mort, D. L.

  Stonehouse, John

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Moss, R.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moyle, A.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Swingler, S. T.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Oram, A. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Orbach, M.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Janner, B.

  Oswald, T.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

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

  Owen, W. J.

  Timmons, J.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Padley, W. E.

  Tomney, F.

  Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

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

  Usborne, H. C.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Viant, S. P.

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

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Parker, J.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Parkin, B. T.

  West, D. G.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Paton, John

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Kenyon, C.

  Peart, T. F.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Pentland, N.

  Wigg, George

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Willey, Frederick

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Probert, A. R.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

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

  Lipton, Marcus

  Randall, H. E.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Logan, D. G.

  Rankin, John

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Redhead, E. C.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  McCann, J.

  Reeves, J.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  MacColl, J. E.

  Reid, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rhodes, H.

  Woof, R. E.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  McGovern, J.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Zilliacus, K.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

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

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rates of national
  1296
  health service contributions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the administrative expenses and other sums so payable under the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: It is customary on these occasions, Sir Charles, for an explanation of the Money Resolution to be given to the Committee. The Committee is waiting with great interest to hear the views of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on this Resolution.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Hear, hear.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (U.S.A.) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 25th November.—[Mr. Simon.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Hurd: I rise to draw attention to a problem which should be troubling us a great deal more and should be taking up more time than we have given to it in recent months or, indeed, years. I want to speak about foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks and the loss they are causing to the economy of the country.
  Britain is afflicted all too frequently with these outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. We do not generate the infection ourselves; all of it comes from outside. It is a serious matter because, unhappily, Britain has only been completely free from foot-and-mouth disease infection for 16 weeks in the last two years. That is not a good record. In all but 16 weeks one or other part of the country—happily, in many cases, only a small part—has been afflicted by this disease. This has meant that markets have been closed and movement restrictions have necessarily been imposed on livestock on the farms, holding up the normal course of business in the livestock industry.
  In addition, taxpayers have been called upon to meet heavy bills for compensation to farmers whose stock, unfortunately, has had to be slaughtered. That bill for compensation has been running at £1 million a year for the last two years. I fear that in the current year it may be over the £1 million mark, because
  1298
  of the very heavy series of outbreaks of the disease which we are now suffering in the West Country.
  I am convinced—and I want to make this clear straight away—that we are right to pursue the slaughter policy as the best means of keeping our country free from continuing endemic foot-and-mouth disease infection. We are an island and blessed to that extent by nature. I know that many other countries, having to adopt other and less ruthless, but also less effective, methods of controlling foot-and-mouth disease, long for the day when they will themselves be able to adopt a slaughter policy. I am sure that we are right to continue on that line. If we allowed the disease to become endemic, it would gravely handicap the efficiency of our dairy, beef, sheep and pig industries. We are all trying to raise the efficiency of those industries and it would be folly to contemplate any less drastic measures for stamping out foot-and-mouth disease in this country.
  From where does the trouble come? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was good enough to give me some figures on Monday, of which I will remind the House. Taking 1956 and 1957 and the first two months of this year, 41 of the original primary outbreaks have been attributed to South American meat, 36 were spread from infection from the Continent, probably brought by birds, and in 13 primary outbreaks the origin has been considered obscure. Apparently, half our trouble comes with South American meat.
  The Minister of Agriculture attributes the blame on circumstantial evidence. We should be in a much stronger position to convince those who send us meat which brings trouble with it if we could have more definite scientific evidence obtained by taking periodical tests of the meat which comes from South America, or anywhere else, in order to pin the blame where it truly belongs. Some of our friends in South America are all too apt to salve their consciences by saying that Britain gets the trouble entirely from birds flying from France and other countries.
  We want the most definite scientific evidence in order to place the blame where it belongs. The circumstantial evidence is fairly strong. If there is an

  1299
  outbreak on a farm where pig swill has been found to contain scraps of infected meat, and that meat has been South American, the implication is clear. If an outbreak has come where a sheep dog has been given infected bones which have been traced to South American meat, again the implication is clear. But that is circumstantial evidence and if we can pin it down more decidedly with scientific evidence that would strengthen our case.
  What are we doing to protect our herds and flocks? As long ago as 1928, the Bledisloe Agreement was reached with Argentina. I want to speak about Argentina particularly, because that country sends us 98 per cent.—practically all—of the carcase meat which we get from South America.
  The Bledisloe Agreement was made in 1928, and the regulations provide for veterinary inspection and certification of cattle coming off the farms, at the markets if they go to market, at the final stage, just before slaughter or even in the freezing works themselves, if they go direct to the freezing works. The agreement also requires a thorough dis-infection of trucks and lorries that carry the stock from the farms, and also the use of new wrappings for the meat shipped here.
  At the beginning of last month, I had the opportunity of studying this matter for myself in Argentina. The Argentine Minister of Agriculture was here shortly before Christmas, and I had some talks with him about the problem as it affects his country and ours. At his suggestion, backed by my right hon. Friend who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, I found it possible—since I was going to the Falkland Islands, anyway—to pay a short visit to Argentina. I have given the present Minister my impressions and the conclusions that I reached while I was there. I shall not go into any detail now.
  The Argentine authorities were most helpful. I was able to see whatever I wanted to see and, with the help of two veterinary officers from my right hon. Friend's Department—we have two British veterinary officers attached to the British Embassy at Buenos Aires—I saw a great deal in a few days, and was able to form my own judgment.
  1300
  The Argentine Minister of Agriculture and his senior veterinary officers frankly recognise that foot and mouth disease is a major economic problem for Argentina. The men at the top and the responsible leaders in the farming community there will not resent some impetus from this country encouraging them to press ahead with measures to control and, one day, as we hope, eliminate the disease.
  The crux of the matter is that the farmers in Argentina, Uruguay and other South American countries do not yet take foot-and-mouth disease seriously. For them it is not a killing disease; when dairy cattle get it they go out of milk production, and beef cattle are set back in condition for two or three months, but they almost always recover. But it is a serious burden upon their economy, and I believe that the leaders there are beginning to recognise it. But it is still not recognised by the rank-and-file farmers. The more progressive farmers certainly carry out, more or less strictly, a régime of vaccination three times a year, and this confers immunity on the stock which is properly treated.
  But the coverage is far from complete. In Argentina, there are 43 million cattle and 50 million sheep. The output of vaccine is 33 million doses a year, which will provide adequate immunisation for 11 million cattle. Since there are 43 million cattle and 50 million sheep, the coverage is not nearly complete. In the main, those who are using the vaccine fully are the dairy farmers, the pedigree stock breeders and those who are fattening cattle for export to this country. Even so, there are chinks through which the infection reaches us in chilled and frozen meat from Argentina.
  I have nothing but praise for the veterinary inspection at the markets or the freezing works. It is being carried out well, by responsible men. They can spot the obvious symptoms of the disease in the animals at the markets and in the freezing works, and those animals which show symptoms are turned away and not used for export. But in a country where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic there are bound to be many cases where the disease is incubating and is not obvious. Cattle may, or may not, show signs when loaded in the country, but if they travel in infected trucks they are incubating the disease by the time

  1301
  they get to the freezing works. I think that that is one of the main sources by which the infection reaches us.
  In my view, we shall not be clear of trouble from South America until Argentina determines to clear up the disease by a nation-wide campaign. It will be a big job. It will have to be done by stages, district by district, in the way in which we are successfully tackling the task of eradicting bovine tuberculosis in this country. This is a much bigger problem for Argentina, but I believe that, if she has the will to do it, it may well be possible, with the advances of science, to achieve success within a measurable time.
  Argentina will need a great strengthening of her veterinary service to achieve this. At present, there are 700 veterinary officers in the service of the Ministry of Agriculture in Argentina and many are only part-time. The pay is so poor that they have to supplement their livelihood in other ways. That number of officers could not possibly cope with foot-and-mouth disease in a vast country like Argentina. There are not less than 1,000 new outbreaks of the disease recorded each year. I do not say that that is the total, but that is the figure which I was given and which may be taken as a reliable minimum.
  We should be able to look to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, which is charged by the United Nations with the responsibility for tackling foot-and-mouth disease throughout the world. I ask my right hon. Friend, what is F.A.O. doing to close the avenues by which the disease reaches us, whether from Argentina, France or any other country? We make our contribution to F.A.O. funds. I believe that Argentina also is a member of F.A.O., so we should get helpful action from that organisation.
  We must take a downright line with Argentina. It will be for her good as well as ours if we make clear that she runs a serious risk of losing her place in the United Kingdom market for beef unless she takes more determined and effective measures to clear up foot-and-mouth disease and gain a clean bill of health for the meat which she ships to Britain. The United States will not take any carcase meat from Argentina, nor will Canada, because of the risk of intro-
  1302
  ducing foot-and-mouth disease. We will not take carcase meat from Europe for the same reason. We are giving favoured nation treatment to Argentina. We may have to come to a hard decision unless in, say, the next five years Argentina can show she is really on the way to gaining a clean bill of health.
  It would be a serious matter for the British consumer if we had to cut off the supplies of South American beef. This chilled beef is first-quality meat, produced and handled carefully to reach our market in good condition. The quantity shipped is now 260,000 tons per year, about one-fifth of our total beef supplies, and far more than we get from Australia who sends 100,000 tons, and New Zealand, who sends 80,000 tons a year. Both Australia and New Zealand are planning to increase their shipments of chilled beef to the United Kingdom.
  That will mean more chilled beef and less frozen beef so far as Australia is concerned. Of course, both Australia and New Zealand have a much longer haul than Argentina, and in Australia they have nothing like enough high quality cattle to take the place in our market of the chilled beef we now get from Argentina. But supplies from the Commonwealth will be increasing, and our own home supplies of beef have increased and can increase still further.
  I want to say these things in the House so that Argentina may realise that the United Kingdom need not now be so dependent upon her for chilled beef as she has been in past years. As I said, we are now taking 260,000 tons a year from Argentina. Before the war we took no less than 370,000 tons. We are not now so wholly dependent upon Argentina for beef supplies as we were.
  It comes to this. We cannot afford any longer to be complacent about the foot-and-mouth disease infection that we get from South America or the continent of Europe. It is a curse to our livestock industry and a heavy burden on our taxpayers. I believe that we should take Argentina firmly by the arm and say, "It is in your interest, as well as in ours, that you should tackle foot-and-mouth disease more effectively. We realise that it is a very big problem for you, and we will help you all we can with technical advice. But we must expect you, if we are to continue to be a good customer

  1303
  of yours, to do more to gain a clean bill of health in the next five years than you have done in the last thirty years since the Bledisloe Agreement was signed."
  10.32 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I think that the House will join with me in expressing gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) for raising this important matter tonight. I am sure that we were all very interested to hear from my hon. Friend about his recent visit to the Argentine.
  I will, if I may, in the fairly short time at my disposal, try to set out our general policy on this matter as well as deal with a number of the important specific points raised by my hon. Friend. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend, quite rightly, said that we did not generate the disease ourselves. He also quite rightly pointed out the great damage which outbreaks of foot-and-mouth create in British agriculture generally. In fact, the cost of compensation payments to the Government have been high. Already this year we have had to ask the House for £850,000.
  Of equal importance, I believe, is the point which my hon. Friend made about the serious interruption which this disease causes in normal farming operations, including the A.I. service, and, perhaps more important still, the irreplaceable loss which occurs when herds which have been the product of years of patient breeding have to be destroyed to the anguish of those who have painstakingly built them up.
  In spite of that, however, I have absolutely no doubt that the slaughter policy—no matter how expensive and distressing—is the right one for this country. We must remember the alternatives. In France, for example, where the disease is endemic, there were 99,000 outbreaks in 1957, and that in spite of the very wide use of vaccine against the disease. In that year there were 184 outbreaks in this country. Therefore, if anyone is in doubt about the wisdom of our policy he should consider these figures, and if he has any doubt after that he should read the Gowers Report.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we must take the most stringent precautions possible to prevent the intro-
  1304
  duction of the virus from South America into this country. As he says, rather more than half of the primary outbreaks of the disease—and although our evidence is circumstantial, we are quite certain that we are right on this—come from infected meat imported from South America.
  Therefore, I think we have the right to expect that the exporters of meat in South America should take the most stringent precautions possible to avoid the risk of sending this pernicious virus to us. I think that the Argentine authorities have recognised this. We had the Bledisloe Agreement in 1928, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not enough for the Argentine Government to be content to rest only on those provisions. I think they realise this; but we must make our own feelings on this matter absolutely clear to them, and I think that what my hon. Friend has said and what I am saying now will help in that connection.
  I am sure that only by the widespread and efficient vaccination of the cattle herds in the Argentine can we be protected. As my hon. Friend saw for himself, some progress is being made in that direction. I notice that he gave a Press conference at the British Embassy in Buenos Aires when he was there, and said that he was impressed by the determination of the authorities to make a success of their plan to combat foot-and-mouth disease with the co-operation of farmers who are realising the loss which the disease still imposes on the Argentine's livestock industry. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the idea of establishing a list of elite herds in the Argentine which are regularly vaccinated and examined by veterinary surgeons.
  Although we realise the great problems which face the Argentine authorities in dealing with the problem, I think that, in particular, they arise, as my hon. Friend said, from the limited number of veterinary surgeons available. I would, naturally, hope that the Argentine will plan to build up a veterinary service on a larger scale. In fact, when the Argentine Minister of Agriculture was over here, before Christmas, we emphasised to him our readiness to help in any way that we could. I believe that the Argentine authorities recognise that the research done at Pirbright can be a valuable source of help to them, and I am sure that they know that we are

  1305
  always ready to consider any means of improving the exchange of scientific knowledge between us. Moreover, the problem is constantly under review by our own veterinary experts in the Argentine, who are working in collaboration with the Argentine authorities.
  Some people have suggested that we ought to impose a complete ban on the imports of meat from South America until we have complete assurance that no foot-and-mouth virus can be brought in. Frankly, I do not like that proposal. The Argentine provides about 15 per cent. of all our meat and more than 20 per cent. of our supplies of beef—and this beef, incidentally, is of very good quality indeed. There is no possibility in the reasonably near future that the loss could be made good from our own home farms or from Australasia.
  In spite of that, I must say that while South American meat brings us, however occasionally, foot-and-mouth disease virus, a question mark must hang over the whole trade. I believe that the Argentine authorities recognise this, and I believe that they will do all they can to improve the position.
  We have so far concentrated entirely on the Argentine, but we must also remember that a proportion of the disease comes from the Continent of Europe, spread either by the wind or by birds. I have already referred to the large number of outbreaks in France. In fact, the disease has no frontiers. Therefore, the problem is an international one which, I believe, requires systematic international co-operation.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the F.A.O. My chief veterinary officer has only just returned from a meeting of the Foot-and-Mouth Commission in Lisbon, where he has been discussing this very problem. I am glad to say that there is likely to be a meeting of the European Foot-and-Mouth Disease Commission in April. I understand that a further meeting under the auspices of the F.A.O. itself may discuss this problem in the autumn, when it meets in Jamaica. I very much hope that international collaboration in this matter will be developed still further. I shall do my best to see that our own representatives will urge upon their colleagues in F.A.O. the important part that organisation can
  1306
  and must play in this campaign against foot-and-mouth disease.
  It is very important that, when outbreaks occur in this country, we do all we can to avoid the risk of the spreading of the disease. As far as the imported meat is concerned, proper treatment of swill is of vital importance. If it is boiled the danger is averted, but slipshod methods of carrying out the boiling process can lead to catastrophic results. We must remember the danger of a raw bone for a dog in a rural area.
  My own veterinary staff have been dealing with the very troublesome and difficult outbreaks which have been going on in Somerset and some of the neighbouring counties in the South-West. I asked my noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to visit those areas last week to satisfy himself there was all possible efficiency in carrying out the remedial operations. He tells me that the people in those areas affected, including the farmers, who have obviously suffered the heaviest blows, are agreed that the job of controlling the spread of the disease during the recent outbreaks has been done with all the efficiency which could be expected.
  To sum up, I am certainly in no way complacent about this problem, and I never shall be. I believe that there is still much more that can be done both in Europe and in South America to control this abominable disease. I am most anxious to give all the help we in this country can, particularly on the technical side, to other countries, and, at the same time, to ensure that we here in Britain play a full part in international co-operation in this matter. When outbreaks do occur in this country I am determined to localise them by the drastic methods we have always adopted. I can only hope that, by the combination of these means, we shall be working towards the day when the risk of this foul disease is completely eliminated.
  Mr. Sidney Dye: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman stipulate that the meat which comes from Argentina is meat only from herds which are entirely free from the disease, and give notice that we shall take only clean meat, and so save us the trouble which the disease causes in this country?
  Mr. Hare: It is all very well to say that, but unless there is complete supervision of the herds in the Argentine, and we can be certain that there will be no likelihood of outbreaks in the herds which are supposed to be clear, it will be very difficult to enforce the sort of supervision the hon. Member has in mind.
  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 seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SHIPBUILDING
  Orders
  Orders
BRITISH ARMY
  Recruiting Publicity (Expenditure)
  Recruiting Publicity (Expenditure)
  Requisitioned Land and Premises
  Requisitioned Land and Premises
  R.A.O.C. Depôt, Swindon
  R.A.O.C. Depôt, Swindon
POST OFFICE
  Printed Paper Rate (Books)
  Printed Paper Rate (Books)
  Telephone Service (Barry)
  Telephone Service (Barry)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  U.S.A.F. Aircraft Accident, Greenham Common
  U.S.A.F. Aircraft Accident, Greenham Common
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Officers (Pensions)
  Officers (Pensions)
  CYPRUS (DISCUSSIONS)
  CYPRUS (DISCUSSIONS)
  Barry
  Barry
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (EUROPEAN CIVIL SERVICE)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (EUROPEAN CIVIL SERVICE)
EMPLOYMENT
  Bridport
  Bridport
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dogs (Quarantine Regulations)
  Dogs (Quarantine Regulations)
  Charollais Bulls
  Charollais Bulls
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Disarmament (Redundant Workers)
  Disarmament (Redundant Workers)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Murders
  Murders
SCOTLAND
  Murders
  Murders
ROADS
  Car Parking, Wickford
  Car Parking, Wickford
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TRADE WITH CHINA
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether four-wheel drive vehicles were exported from this country to China before the China Embargo List was reduced in May, 1957: and, if so, why permission is not now granted for the sale to China of replacements for such vehicles.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, a number of light four-wheel drive vehicles were exported to China before May, 1957, under the exceptions procedure. The export of vehicles of that type is now subject only to quantitative restriction, and no licences for such vehicles or spare parts for them have been refused since May, 1957. Four-wheel drive vehicles with a load capacity greater than 1,200 lb. and an engine capacity in excess of 3,000 cubic centimetres were not eligible for consideration under the former exceptions procedure. Spare parts for these may not be exported to China because such vehicles—and spare parts for them—are still subject to embargo.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his Answer, which will require study. In the meantime, may I ask him the reason for the distinction between the two types of vehicles, and whether he has any information to the effect that heavier-type vehicles are being exported to China from any other country?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, so far as I know, the only recent refusals of export licences related to parts of four-wheel drive vehicles, not of United
  1088
  Kingdom origin. These were of the more powerful type, and they still remain on the embargo list. Discussions have begun in Paris to clear the ground for the review of these control lists, but, with fourteen other countries taking part, I cannot yet say when the detailed reviews will begin.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

  IMPORT OF CHAROLLAIS CATTLE
  2.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 whether they are in favour of the proposal to import Charollais cattle from Central France, and, if it is desired to import continental cattle for crossing with British breeds, why Charollais are specially chosen, coming as they do from a climate and terrain so different from Britain.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, the suggestion that Charollais bulls should be imported was made because it was thought that they might be suitable for crossing with Ayrshire cattle. It was not thought that the differences in climate and terrain are so great as to make it unlikely that they would be successful in this country. It has been decided that in view of the present incidence of foot-and-mouth disease in France no importation can be permitted for the time being. The question of permitting a limited importation for experimental purposes will be reviewed early next year in the light of all the circumstances then prevailing.
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. I am extremely gratified to hear that Her Majesty's Government are approaching the importation of these cattle with caution.

  JOHNE'S DISEASE IN SHEEP AND CATTLE
  2.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 what progress is being made in the prevention and cure of Johne's disease in sheep and cattle.]
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, research and investigation into problems associated with Johne's disease are continuing. In particular, vaccination trials are taking place and a blood test is being developed to identify infected animals. It has long been known that losses as a result of the disease can be reduced by improved hygiene, nutrition and management on the farm. It would be wrong to hold out any great expectations of finding a cure for diseased animals, but I am hopeful that efficient preventive measures will ultimately emerge from all the work that is now being done and so lead eventually to the control of the disease.
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. No doubt the noble Earl is aware that on certain outlying farms there are cases of this wasting disease. Often a farmer does not know what it is and sells his infected stock or the progeny of the infected stock on the open market. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government could, by some means, try to prevent this practice. I quite understand that it is an extremely difficult problem, but this does happen.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords. I appreciate what the noble Viscount has said. We do encourage farmers to watch out for this disease. The veterinary surgeons are also fully aware of the problem and do all they can to educate and assist the farmer.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Earl, who is always very generous to the House, to produce for the next main debate on agriculture some statistics on this disease and how it is being treated? This disease is
  1090
  causing considerable alarm among the farmers, who often mix up the symptoms with those due to lack of magnesium and other allied minerals, and we ought to try to get it rooted out. Could the noble Earl give us more statistics and advice on this subject in our next debate?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think it would be more appropriate if the noble Viscount would put down a Question, either for oral or for written answer, rather than for me to produce a number of statistics for a debate which will probably range over a wider field.

  SOUTHERN ELECTRICITY BOARD AND STAMPED RECEIPTS
  2.42 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I should like to make an apology to the House and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for the Answer which I gave to the Question which the noble Lord asked on Wednesday, February 26. It concerned the wording of the statement on accounts issued by the Southern Electricity Board to the effect that receipts would not be given where payment was made by cheque. The Answer I gave then was based on wrong information and was misleading. I now understand that the words given by the noble Lord in his Question were in fact used on accounts issued in the Portsmouth Sub-Area. A different wording has now been substituted both on the account form and on the explanatory note intended to be attached to the account. This makes it clear that the Board is prepared to issue receipts when requested. I very much regret this error and hope that the House will accept my sincere apology.
  LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his statement, which reassures me that I am still capable of reading accounts when I receive them.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, as this question has come up, and at the risk of flogging a dead horse, may I mention that a number of receipts for over £2 still I arrive without a stamp? I am still rather vague as to what we should do about them.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is fully aware that he is entitled by law to demand a proper receipt if he wants one.
  LORD KILLEARN: Yes. But do the Government encourage that practice? Do they mind losing their £5 million, or do they not? We are told that it costs £5 million sterling. If it is a matter of indifference to the Government, it seems somewhat strange.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I would say that if the noble Lord would look after his own interests in the matter of receipts, I expect the Government will look after theirs.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to ask whether it is still the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that individuals have a moral duty to notify the tax commissioners if this practice is proceeded with.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords. I should not like to pronounce on moral duty, but they have no legal duty to do so. However, I am sure the tax commissioners will be grateful for any information of that kind.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, would the noble Earl be prepared to answer the Question I have down for early next week, which covers this whole matter as well as I am able to cover it?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, when that arises, I will endeavour to do so.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, we have a long list of speakers to-day, and it has been arranged that we should adjourn at 7.15 p.m. and resume at half-past eight. The experiment of sitting through dinner has not proved very successful in the past, and it is hoped that, with a definite interval for dinner, the later speakers will have the support of a fuller House.

  DEFENCE
  2.45 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to move to Resolve, That this House approves the Report on Defence: Britain's Contribution to Peace and Security set out in Command Paper No. 363. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in presenting a similar Motion to your Lordships in May of last year I made so bold to suggest that the White Paper of 1957 was one of the most important documents ever laid before Parliament. This year's White Paper has aroused equal if not more attention, and has provoked discussion throughout the world. In truth, however, it contains few surprises. It contains little that is not the logical application of principles already settled.
  In considering this White Paper, the question I believe we have to ask ourselves is this: Is Britain building the right sort of military force for the right sort of job in the world? In our present Defence Budget we are spending about one-tenth of our money on the nuclear deterrent—our strategic bomber force, its nuclear bombs and the research and development that go with them, including work on ballistic missiles. We plan over the next five years to spend roughly the same amount as this year. We are also spending roughly another 10 per cent. on the defence by conventional forces of our deterrent bases at home. This figure includes the fighter force, the control and warning system, our defensive guided missiles, and the research and development related to them all. The total of these adds up only to about one-fifth of our Defence Budget.
  Let us see how this fits in to the general pattern of our Forces. If we gave up all bombers larger than light bombers, all missiles, all megaton weapons, all air defence at home and all related research and development, we might possibly save something like one-fifth of the money which we now spend on defence. But do your Lordships really imagine that we should give up all these things, even if it were, as a matter of policy, decided to give up the United Kingdom contribution to the deterrent? Should we give up all work on air defence, including research on the means of development of anti-missile defence? Of course we should not. We are not, I

  1093
  maintain, spending an undue proportion of our defence effort on the deterrent.
  But that is only the financial aspect. It does not dispose of a view held and expressed nowadays with increasing vigour and increasing audibility that we should not have the deterrent at all. I gather from the terms of the Opposition Amendment that noble Lords opposite at least do not go quite so far as this: they just decline
  "to approve a defence policy which relies predominantly upon the threat of thermo-nuclear warfare, insists on the installation of strategic rocket bases in Britain before the projected Summit talks and fails to provide effectively for the defence requirements of Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth".
  There are certain fundamental questions involved here, and it may be as well if we try and clear our minds upon them now.
  The first question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we trust the Russian Government and rely on their making no attempt to overrun, or threaten to overrun, the free world by violence?
  If the answer is, "Yes, we do trust the Russians," then obviously we do not need the deterrent. But, my Lords, do we? Heavens above, how we wish we could! But I think we may be forgiven if we do not yet feel quite confident in the good will of the Russians, and if some of us are still prepared to try to defend ourselves against possible attack, rather than tamely and lamely surrender our rights and freedom. We seek, therefore, to provide for such a defence.
  The Russians have 200 divisions, 500 modern submarines and 20,000 military aircraft. Rule out the strategic nuclear weapons and see what happens. Western Europe would lie at the foot of the Russian. We should be quite incapable, even with the help of American conventional forces, massive as they are, of withstanding the attack which the Russians could mount. The blunt and inescapable fact is that the only means of defence against any full-scale attempt by Russia to dominate our world is the threat of nuclear retaliation.
  How could we try to match the Russians in conventional forces? It could mean an increase of at least £1,000 million in cur own defence expenditure, with similar heavy increases for other members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance. The increased manpower bill would be enor-
  1094
  mous—with no chance, incidentally, of ending conscription here. It would lower the standard of living in all Western countries. That, of course, would make them an easier prey for Communist subversion, and there is no development the Russians would like more. But even if the West could provide the resources and match its conventional forces with those of the Russians, they would still have the whip hand, because they would have their nuclear weapons as well.
  If your Lordships think that this is only the case for a Western deterrent and not for a British deterrent, since the Americans have a strategic nuclear capability large enough for us all, let me say this. To shelter under the American H-bomb as long as its launching sites offer no temptation to make us the target of reverse attack is, to my way of thinking, hypocritical and dishonourable. The decision to join the "nuclear club" was taken by a Labour Government some years ago. We respect them for that; we endorsed their decision. As a result of it, we have spent much money and effort to reach the stage of development which we have now reached.
  The installation of the rocket Thor is but a logical stage in this development. It offers no more provocation than do our nuclear bomber squadrons today. I doubt really whether this alleged provocation caused by the installation of Thor will prejudice the Summit talks, to which some of us look forward. One cannot help noticing that the Russians suffer from no such delicate sensitivity. They have exploded two more hydrogen bombs since the Opposition's Amendment was put on the Order Paper. And what happens if the Summit talks fail? Do we all then start installing rockets in a flurry? That will not help much. There is no argument for stopping developments at this stage and wasting a great deal of the time and money and effort which we have put into them.
  Then we are told that our contribution to the deterrent, despite the political case for having an element of strategic deterrent under the control of a European Power, is so small as to be meaningless; that it has no value of its own. That, my Lords, just is not true. It is quite true that the Russians could attack this country with far more nuclear weapons than we could deploy against them; but

  1095
  the destructive power of these horrible things is so immense that even a few could produce such appalling consequences as to be wholly unacceptable to a realistic Government—and nobody has ever accused the Russians of not being realistic—even if they knew that their own attack on us could be ten times heavier.
  The statements in the White Paper about the use of thermo-nuclear weapons have also been attacked on what I believe to be another false ground. We are told that we have recognised only two situations. On the one hand, the minor incident, the local upheaval or border skirmish, to deal with which nuclear retaliation could not conceivably be employed; on the other hand, the full-scale Russian attack, whether by conventional forces alone or by both conventional and nuclear forces—in which, equally clearly, the nuclear retaliatory power of the West might have to be employed. We have been asked whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to use nuclear retaliation in all situations going beyond the category of minor incidents.
  We have been told that there is, in fact, a large indeterminate grey area between the black of all-out nuclear warfare and the white of the border incident. We have been told that the absence from the White Paper of any reference to tactical nuclear weapons must mean that the Government have decided that British forces are not to have such weapons; that there would therefore be nothing in our armoury between the conventional high-explosive bomb and the hydrogen bomb. There is nothing in the White Paper that could possibly justify these conclusions. We are well aware that the spectrum of possible hostilities has more shades in it than pure white or deepest black.
  Equally, we are of the opinion that it would be fatuous to try to define in advance precisely what action would be taken to deal with any and every situation that might arise. For one thing, this would make it clear to a potential aggressor just how far he could go without bringing the whole weight of nuclear retaliation down on his head. And, for another, since no situation would obviously develop exactly as the planners had calmly and quietly foreseen, it would
  1096
  put the Government of the day, any Government, in an impossible position in trying to deal with it. What we can say, however, is this: the doctrine of the economy of force still applies, and applies here with undiminished validity. Of course, no more force than the Government considered necessary would be used in any situation. To say more than this is, I believe, wrong.
  It is also argued that excessive reliance on nuclear retaliation might lead an aggressor to calculate that, as its consequences would be so appalling, the other side would risk using it only when the attack threatened an absolutely vital interest. There is, however, another side to this argument. In deciding what risk he could afford to run, the potential aggressor would equally have to be sure that the object of his attack was absolutely vital to him, since the consequences of a miscalculation of his opponent's reaction would be so catastrophic.
  We made clear in the White Paper last year that it is the Government's policy to equip British forces with tactical nuclear weapons. This is in accordance with accepted N.A.T.O. military doctrine. It would be tedious if the same things had to be repeated in the Defence White Paper every year. The fact that last year's statement has not been spelled out again does not indicate any change of Government policy. The Royal Air Force has had stocks of tactical kiloton bombs for the Canberra bomber force for some time. The Army is being equipped with the Corporal ground-to-ground weapon. This weapon has a nuclear warhead, and the first regiment will be deployed in Rhine Army this year.
  Your Lordships will recall that we are proceeding with the establishment of a range in the Hebrides. The main purpose of this range is to train troops in the handling and firing of Corporal. We are also continuing with our own research and development of a future generation of tactical weapons. The circumstances in which they would be used, and whether they would be used in situations that do not call for the use of the strategic weapon, would again, I suggest, be foolish and dangerous to define in advance. Paradoxically enough, the very horror of nuclear warfare may make it the least of our dangers. It may stimulate the efforts of the Communist Powers

  1097
  in other directions. It may stimulate the subversion and economic penetration with which we have become so vividly familiar and of which the Western Powers have been so notably innocent. It may even, when the risks do not seem too great, stimulate military action.
  Our conventional forces are the first line of defence against military threats in any part of the world, whether these come from Communist activity or from any other form of activity directed against our peace and security. During the past few years our own forces have been actively engaged in Korea, Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus. They have dealt with internal security troubles in Hong Kong and Singapore. They have provided part of the answer to a number of minor problems that have arisen elsewhere—for instance, in the Caribbean. Apart from our world-wide Commonwealth commitments, the Western Powers must jointly be able—and I emphasise the word "jointly"—to resist local hostile military actions, and they must be able to prevent Communist Powers from benefiting from such actions. They must be able to offer a stout enough resistance to Communist conventional forces to be able to establish whether or not a hostile attack is the prelude to, or part of, some major onslaught designed to subjugate all or part of the free world. We cannot, therefore, over-emphasise the importance of our conventional forces. It is obviously right that we should spend by far the largest part of our Defence Budget upon them.
  Lest any of your Lordships should still think that we have neglected those conventional forces, their progress and their well-being, let me briefly draw the attention of the House to those parts of the White Paper, and to the Memoranda issued by the Service Ministers, which demonstrate how our conventional forces are being re-equipped and reorganised to as high a standard of efficiency as possible. The aircraft carrier "Victorious" has been practically rebuilt and will rejoin the Fleet this year. She is now one of the finest aircraft carriers in the world. The coming year will see the introduction into squadron service of the swept-wing Scimitar, which is a single-seater day fighter ground attack aircraft. A trial flight of Sea Vixens, with their armament of air-to-air guided missiles and rocket batteries, will
  1098
  be formed. Among helicopters, deliveries will continue of British built Whirlwinds, which began to come into service last year. A more powerful aircraft, the Wessex, is under development. This will provide the next generation of helicopters for the Royal Navy. Comets are now in service with the Royal Air Force Transport Command. A commando carrier will provide additional mobility for the Royal Marine Commando, which form a most important part of our conventional forces. They will be deployed east of Suez.
  The frigate programme has been going steadily ahead. Nine new ships will have been completed this year and a further five next year. The conversion programme of thirty-two destroyers to antisubmarine frigates has been completed. The submarine-building programme is also going well. Three new ships will join the Fleet this year—the first new operational submarines we have had for ten years. In addition, twenty-eight smaller ships will have been completed during the current year. The naval research and production Votes, the vast bulk of which are devoted to purely conventional forces total £136 million for 1959.
  In the coming year, a proportion of the Army will be re-equipped with F.N. rifles made in this country. The L.2 sub-machine gun is being produced in quantity to replace the Sten. An interim heavy anti-tank weapon for infantry units will be issued and a more advanced replacement is being developed. More of the new range of radio equipment will be introduced into service. The field formations in the Army are being reorganised on a brigade group basis to achieve greater mobility and striking power and better means of dispersal.
  A large Service works programme, costing £90 million, to provide barracks and married quarters is being undertaken over the next five years. Your Lordships are already aware of the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to accommodation and its influence upon recruiting. I have little to add to the detailed information about the Government's recruiting programme which I gave to the House in the Defence debate on the 22nd January. Regular recruiting to provide high-quality conventional forces and, in particular, a wholly Regular Army stands at the centre of

  1099
  our defence policy. The Government will do everything in their power to speed this programme to success.
  The recruiting figures, though it is still too early to recognise a definite trend, give us hope that we shall succeed in building up these all-Regular Forces. The simplest way not to get these Forces is to say continually that we shall not get them. Men will not join what they believe, however mistakenly, is not a going concern. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the first sentences of the White Paper—
  "Never in peace time has the British soldier, sailor or airman had a more vital part to play. Never has he more deserved the respect and encouragement of all those who live their daily lives tinder his protection."
  The status of the fighting man must be enhanced, but it cannot be enhanced by Government action alone: press and public have their part to play. But the Government's determination to play their full part as a good employer is firmly demonstrated in the White Paper.
  My Lords, it is indeed a hideous thought that we should continue indefinitely in a state in which the peace of the world is kept only by the fear of mass suicide and mutual annihilation. Real peace will, of course, come only when all countries have the same belief in the peaceful intentions of all others. When that Utopian point is reached, no country will feel the need for any armaments except for internal security. But the growth of this conviction throughout the world will be at best a dishearteningly slow process.
  What can we here in Britain do to hasten it? This is, primarily, a political and a moral problem. If the Russians are steeped, and genuinely and sincerely steeped, in Marxist doctrine, they know that Karl Marx taught them that capitalism desperately carrying the seeds of its own decay may threaten Russia. They are wrong—very wrong. We, for our part, have told the Russians time and time again that we do not covet one inch of Russian soil; nor have we any evil intentions against Russian men, Russian minds or Russian material. They do not believe us, but we must still strive to make them. There is at least one field in which great contribution to the pacification of the world could be made; and that, of course, is disarmament—a
  1100
  genuine balanced disarmament, properly devised and properly controlled.
  I say "genuine" disarmament, because a mere promise never to use this or that type of weapon would be a dangerous sham if no steps were taken to eliminate the weapon itself. I say "properly devised" because if the Western countries were to deprive themselves of nuclear weapons without a reduction in the Soviet conventional forces, they would merely place themselves at the mercy of these overwhelmingly greater forces. Those who in Britain are now vociferously agitating for us to "Ban the bomb" are not, I think, hastening the day of world disarmament; they are seriously delaying it, since they are continually feeding the Soviet hopes of betraying the Western nations into fatal weakness by propaganda. I say "properly controlled" because without full inspection of any disarmament arrangements neither side, in its present state of mistrust, would rely upon the other faithfully to carry them out.
  Even a small step in disarmament, subject to inspection and therefore known to be faithfully carried out, might turn the tide of fear and mistrust, by creating a greater confidence on the part of both sides in the peaceful intentions of the other. It was with this spirit, and with these intentions in mind, that the Western Powers put forward last summer a balanced disarmament plan which was approved by fifty-six members of the United Nations. It was opposed by nine only—the countries of the Soviet bloc. Why, my Lords? Why? These proposals would have benefited all of us and endangered none. Their rejection was a serious blow to the hope of creating greater confidence.
  We still believe, however, that disarmament would be to the overwhelming advantage of all countries, and not least to Russia. We shall go on trying to find a scheme acceptable to all of us, not the least to Russia. In the meantime, the Government must do their duty. How they see that duty is set out plainly in this White Paper—too plainly, to some people; but plain speaking in the years before 1914 and 1939 might have saved us untold misery and bloodshed. To prevent yet further misery and yet further bloodshed is the avowed policy of Her Majesty's Government. We have restated that policy in this White Paper.

  1101
  We intend to pursue it with vigour and with determination. I ask your Lordships to approve.
  Moved to resolve, That this House approves the Report on Defence: Britain's Contribution to Peace and Security, set out in Command Paper No. 363.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  3.11 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, as an Amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "House" and to insert "declines to approve a defence policy which relies predominantly upon the threat of thermo-nuclear warfare, insists on the installation of strategic rocket bases in Britain before the projected Summit talks, and fails to provide effectively for the defence requirements of Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name and that of my noble friends. As I read the White Paper, and again as I listened to the noble Lord's exceedingly sincere, I think, but rather overconfident speech on this great, grave and important matter, I was reminded of the old classical saying which says: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. "If one looks at the situation that faces not only this country but every country to-day, one can only think that the world is rapidly developing into a world-wide madhouse.
  It is true that the White Paper does not give us many surprises—the noble Lord seemed to be rather proud of that fact—but we have had announcements from time to time in White Papers which were usually post-statements to those which had already been made by staff officers in high positions. That has been one of the great errors of the present Government in the last six years. I notice the noble Lord smiles at that, and the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty is quite amused. However, it is rather significant that when we debated Defence on January 22, I quoted from statements made by Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein in 1954, and I am glad to say that The Times, in its staggering, leading article against the Government's Defence policy only a week ago to-clay, quoted the same passages
  1102
  from the Field-Marshal's statement and around them largely built its case against the Government's general policy on Defence.
  Up to the present we have had no real answer to The Times. I have read most carefully the debates in another place and I must say that I still want the answer to what is postulated in the title of that article, "Defence is Defence." I think that what is suggested by that is that at present our Defence policy is about as near suicidal as possible. That is not something new in our minds, nor is it something new in the minds of other people in the world. I am sure that a good many of your Lordships who have taken the trouble for many years to study in detail all the growing and multiplying problems of Defence have taken the opportunity to read the book published last year by Henry Kissinger entitled, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. In that book one finds that we in this country have been misled into adopting the wrong policy, probably as nearly all the other members of the N.,A.T.O. have been misled, by placing far too great a reliance and for too long a period, upon the deterrent power of the nuclear weapon and its possession.
  Although this White Paper lays emphasis upon the fact that we must be prepared to defend upon the ground the borders and boundaries of our territories, in consequence of pursuing the policy I have just mentioned we have never been able to build up even the minimum requirements in conventional land, naval and air forces such as N.A.T.O. would need for the fight to hold, even for a period, any major attack from the major enemy. That is the fact.
  If your Lordships look at Kissinger's book (which is, by the way, written by him individually after a most notable study of experts, about twenty-five or twenty-six people, and certainly seems to have been most carefully documented all the way through) you will see that he says:
  "These trends…have placed the defence of Europe, and with it the strategic balance of the world, in, great peril. The threat of an all-out war may have been effective in forestalling a Soviet onslaught on Europe in 1950–51; its risks have been radically altered by the growing Soviet nuclear stockpile and long-range air force. A strategy which requires

  1103
  us to maintain the strategic balance by the threat of suicide"—
  so we are not by any means the first to use this word—
  "places a disproportionate psychological burden on us"—
  that is, upon the United States—
  "An alliance which relies completely on the protection promised by only one of its members amounts to a unilateral guarantee."
  It goes on to say that, as a consequence, as a political organisation N.A.T.O. is at a testing time.
  "As a political organisation it may retain a measure of validity, but as a military grouping it will prove ineffective. In every crisis it will force us either to resort to a suicidal nuclear war which would not save Europe from being overrun, or"—
  for the United States—
  "to violate"—
  its—
  "solemn pledge."
  These are not ill-considered words, or words written without long and continued and expert study. Whilst it is perfectly true and sound to say, as Sir Winston Churchill often said in the period between 1945 and 1951, that the possession at that time by the United States of the atomic weapon—the only country that did possess it—provided a deterrent, and by providing a deterrent such a safeguard against any immediate and major war as to keep people's minds at rest to a great extent and to influence the amount of other armaments required, what has happened since? Do not let us mince words about this. One has only to read the Press as printed in New York and the United States at the time of the launching of the first Sputnik to see the complete funk in which so many people were; and they have been anxious ever since to try to match the Sputnik with the one projecting power that they have proved they possess. And even long before that, from the records of the earlier test explosions in the U.S.S.R., no one could be certain any more than the possession by the United States of America of a considerable stockpile of these weapons was going to give complete security to the nations of Europe.
  What has happened during those years? I fought Her Majesty's Government on the fact that it took so long for them to analyse the situation and the way it had changed, and even to produce the changed policy which they now have,
  1104
  with much of which I do not agree. Year after year from this Box, from 1952 to 1955, we implored Her Majesty's Government, in view of the changing scene in the world armaments position, to have a really detailed national inquiry into the direction in which armaments of the future ought to go. We were never given any satisfaction. The only bits of information that we had came from unguided and unguarded references to future policy by chief Staff Officers of N.A.T.O. and the like—until we get the final break, hinted at in the White Paper of 1955 and produced in the 1956 Paper. How much more security-minded is this or any other country in the N.A.T.O. organisation as a result of this declaration of British policy? Wherever I go I find that there is a greater fear and greater anxiety. With each step we take, it seems to me, as I meet the people—anxious as I am for them not to have these fears—their fears are increased.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, spoke as if we were all pretty foolish to take the line that we have taken about the recent agreement, most of which, apparently, was all settled at Bermuda, nearly twelve months ago, between Mr. Macmillan and his opposite number there—and the country did not know very much about it at the time. I can assure the noble Lord that the question of these missile bases is giving rise to great anxiety in all the Eastern Counties of this country. Her Majesty's Government have not only released the fact that they are to construct these bases at once but, broadly speaking, are also telling the area in which the bases are to be. I do not want to overstress this aspect from my own point of view. I know too much of the detail of how defence works in this country to be any more alarmed than I was before; for I know that our bomber bases are not dissimilarly placed. All that Her Majesty's Government have done is perhaps to increase the incentive that a potential enemy might have to attack with megaton bombs in that area. But when I read statements of the kind made about the extra security provided through our having the deterrent, all I can say is that I fail to understand them.
  The actual potential destructive power of the weapon which undoubtedly could be used now is almost unbelievable, until one reckons it out. But the book I have mentioned says, after a most careful study

  1105
  by experts, that twenty megaton bombs on this country would destroy one-half of the British population. So unless we are prepared to immolate on the altar of sacrifice one half of our population, we have to be very careful what kind of international policy we have; what we are going to do in any negotiations, and before we threaten to be the first to launch that weapon whether or not we are attacked only by conventional weapons.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, may we get this point clear early in the debate, because it is rather important? I had understood from the Leader of the noble Viscount's Party that they were in favour of the deterrent and in favour of having rocket bases in this country, provided that they were under British control. Is he now questioning from that Bench that whole policy?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I will come to that in a moment. What I am concerned about is the smug (if I may use that term, which I hope is not offensive) and complacent attitude being adopted by Conservatives in this matter and about the effect. of their policy. I am not saying at all that I want to be without the possession of a deterrent: I have never said so. But I am entitled to question the policy in this White Paper of threatening to use it and of being the first to use it in a given struggle. That is what I am protesting against, and that is part of the policy set out in this White Paper. I say that we have to be exceedingly careful before we even broach action of that kind, by words or, later, by deeds, without having considered what is likely to be the loss to our own country and our own population. Perhaps sufficient attention has not yet been given to that aspect of the question, about which I feel anxious. But certainly I have always been anxious that we should not be left without the deterrent or without a reply to the bomb if it was first used against us.
  I have, however, been concerned about the policy of Her Majesty's Government from the moment they released the fact that in this so-called "grey" aspect of atomic warfare they were to use tactical weapons which were atomic. Under cross-examination, the Minister of
  1106
  Defence said in another place that a weapon would certainly be regarded as a tactical weapon if it was not greater than the weight of the Hiroshima bomb. A tactical weapon! What an amazing thing that was! Is there anybody who believes that we could possibly have an entirely "grey" period instead of black or white warfare in between, as a result of which we could then make further decisions? Of course, directly we launch an attack of that kind we shall be met by the immediate rejoinder from the other side of fissionable nuclear weapons—and we shall have asked for it. Yet that is the policy to which Her Majesty's Government are committed; and I believe that it is a very difficult situation for this country, or for the world to have to face.
  If I go back to this book I find all kinds of documentation from our own Hansard. And on looking up a speech which is quoted I find that as recently as February 28, 1956, Sir Walter Monckton (as he then was: now the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a Member of your Lordships' own House), said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 549, col. 1035]:
  "I am far from saying that any aggressive move against the West would inevitably be countered by the use of the hydrogen bomb."
  That was less than two years ago. He continued:
  "One cannot be specific in a matter of this kind"—
  LORD MANCROFT: Hear, hear!
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I said to my colleagues just now, "Lord Mancroft is using the exact words of Sir Walter Monckton in another place in 1956," and I am glad that he is cheering him. Sir Walter continued:
  "but one can imagine circumstances in which local aggression might be dealt with quite effectively by local retaliation. One cannot say that retaliation would not involve the tactical use of atomic weapons."
  It is this country, above all others, which has put itself, under this Government, into the forefront of saying, "We will use the atomic weapon in tactical and local warfare"—that is the atomic, not the hydrogen, bomb. And no one is going to question that, if this country is drawn into a major war, the reply to the atomic weapon used in a tactical sense will be-the use of the full-scale weapon on the

  1107
  other side. That is how one would be drawn into it. I feel that we have been very inconsiderately treated in this matter by the Government's policy.
  There is something else that I should like to say. We had our debate in this House on January 22 on the basis of the Report that was made to us of the meeting of the Chiefs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council, the heads of the different states. Although the language of that Report was very guarded, it was quite clear that there was going to be a distribution to any of the countries in N.A.T.O. of the "know-how" on the use of atomic material, fissionable material, and also of stocks and supplies of these different grades of nuclear weapons. We have the case, mentioned in this book, from which I have already quoted, of France. Some of your Lordships may remember that in 1955 France declared quite specifically that she would not engage in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. But it was not long before the pressure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation got her away from that. I will quote from a speech made by the then Prime Minister, Monsieur Guy Mollet, on July 13, 1955. He said to the National Assembly:
  "The Government's position is as follows: France commits itself not to explode a bomb of the atomic type before January 1, 1961. Taking into account the delays for research and for construction…this moratorium will not occasion any delay in France's nuclear programme. At its termination we will be at liberty to pursue independent policies…During the period of the moratorium it can pursue research with respect to military applications. Nothing prevents it from orienting its efforts toward military purposes…"
  And so, within a few months of the declaration that the French would not manufacture atomic weapons, it became abundantly clear that France was already engaged in research for the production of the military weapon.
  Then take the other point which must be kept in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, spoke about the way in which our ground forces would have to hold the position, as I understood it, in almost any part of the world until such time as the Government had made up their mind whether the particular incident justified the opening of nuclear warfare. You must bear in mind that the use of nuclear weapons in the future may surprise some. Many people, of course,
  1108
  have considered the use of these weapons. And concurrently with the wider spreading of the "know-how" about the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes there is a storing up of a supply of plutonium from which it would be an easy matter for one of the countries which has never yet touched the making of the weapon to go on to the manufacture of the nuclear bomb itself.
  Some people have doubted whether that is possible. I do not believe for a moment that it is impossible. Certainly, France has been using nuclear energy for non-warlike purposes, and it is estimated, I believe, that she produces now about fifteen kilograms of plutonium annually, and in a very short time she would have a sufficient stockpile of that to be able to manufacture several hydrogen bombs. That is the fact which has been inquired into and estimated. Bear in mind the way in which this power is going to be made available for non-warlike methods, and then consider the position of Japan. China, the Eastern States and States all over the world—many of the areas in which we are likely to have to put some of our very small and what may become beleaguered forces in far-flung places. What are you going to do if there is a danger which you are not quite sure about that the nuclear weapon will be used? I think a false beginning was made in the statement as to what we ought to be doing, from a warfare point of view, in this matter.
  The other matter which I should like to mention is one which perhaps we can deal with in more detail in the debate on foreign affairs next week. There is this to consider: it was a Western nation which first sprang this weapon on the world as a great surprise, and it must not be forgotten that half the world have never recovered from the fact that that came from a Western democracy. We ought to be exceedingly careful as to how we proceed if we are to prevent at this moment—this supreme moment in the history of the world—countries which are not yet committed to alliance with and support of the tyranny of a Communist dictatorship from rising up behind Russia. Because we are not making sufficient advance in getting rid of the commitment we made to the world in 1945 at the time of the Hiroshima incident, and not coming to an agreement on a world basis to rid the world of this

  1109
  Horror, this dreadful thing, which makes every mother afraid of what the future for her children is going to be. That is the position, and the way in which the Government calmly declare their position on the use of this bomb really rather shocks me.
  My own position is that I would not, from my experience of defence, ever want to allow my country to become in a position in which she was not in possession of equal weapons with other countries. I am not at all in favour of the policy of saying, "Do not let us manufacture these weapons and do not let us have a stockpile." I am not saying that at all. I ant saying that you are making a vast error in threatening the other side in advance that whether they attack you with conventional weapons or not, you will reply to them with this bomb. In dealing with all the great, growing and important Eastern nations, that is going to count absolutely decisively in how far they will be drawn to your side or whether they will be against you and on the side of the Communists. That is a vastly important point for us to remember.
  I do not want to take too much of your Lordships' time, but I have two other questions with which I wish to deal. I wanted to deal with many more, but have colleagues who will be speaking after me and they can pick up those points. I will turn, therefore, from the first point in our Amendment, which I will leave with this comment: that we think you are placing too much dependence upon the deterrent factor of America's overwhelming possession of the bomb, because circumstances have entirely changed in the last six years. You are depending too much on that and you are not (to use the words of The Times) adequately making provision in other respects for the defence of the Commonwealth.
  Now let us look for a moment or two at the results. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has already said that Labour has made it quite clear that it is not against having American air forces based here, under conditions, and that, in a similar way, it is not against having missile bases here, if there is going to be a really adequate provision about the control of the trigger. I am not at all sure that we ought to feel much reliance on these new technical resources if they take
  1110
  ten, twelve or fourteen hours to prepare before they can be launched with safety, even for the people who are launching them—though, of course, that all depends on the work of the future.
  But a time when so many more people in the world are waking up more effectively to the frightful danger of the use of these weapons, I should have thought, was exactly the wrong time to insist on laying down these bases at once and not to await the outcome of the efforts that are being made to call a Summit conference to try to get a beginning of disarmament. There is one matter in the White Paper on which I can congratulate the noble Lord—that is, the paragraph on disarmament. The logical case set out there as to how the Government should proceed and what matters should be covered in an agreement is one with which I agree entirely. The Government may find that they will not be able to hold to every dotted "i" and crossed "t" in the statement made in that section of the White Paper, when they come to negotiations with other parties; nevertheless, it is the kind of statement of what we want to secure in disarmament of which I approve.
  But at a time when we are trying to get to grips in negotiations with the other side, why consider the further irritation of saying, "Lay down these bases at once." It would take very little time to catch up on this work after the Disarmament Conference, if it were a complete failure. I think that the Government would save more time by doing that. If we are going to use American missiles, we shall have to construct bases of a certain kind, and then, when we have gained possession of the new British missiles, which apparently are quite a long way off yet from operational performance, we shall have to build an entirely new kind of base, so I am told. Why cannot the Government give us what we want on that point and suspend the building of bases until it has been settled whether or not we are going to have an effective and fruitful conference with the people on the other side? That is all we ask, and I think that it is a completely reasonable request to make. I think that the Government should follow up what they have already agreed, at least in part (I am speaking from memory), with regard to the suspension tests if tests if the other side will suspend "them also.

  1111
  With regard to the Commonwealth, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, did not state at all too highly the value of the soldier, sailor and airman in the future defence of our home and our Commonwealth. We can never rate that too highly. But I wonder whether the Government are laying before the country a programme which is really going to be effective, even for doing the peace-time jobs that fall to the Services in defending not only our own country but all the scattered, far-flung links of our Commonwealth. It is a tragic thing for me to read in the White Paper what the naval forces are to be and where they are to be disposed. They are completely inadequate for their peace-time job, let alone for a war-time job. We are to have four cruisers in commission, possibly two full aircraft carriers, one remodelled for helicopter work and maybe another in reserve or under repair. Then there is the question of destroyers—but I will reserve that for the naval debate. I ought not to go into details on each of the Services, but I use this part of the White Paper on naval defence to show that the provision is so inadequate, from my knowledge of the Navy, even for peacetime circumstances, as to be an extraordinary demonstration of what the Government think to be really necessary.
  We have been through these phases before, I know. What we should have done in this country in regard to the anti-submarine campaign if we had not had in reserve our V's and W's and other classes of anti-submarine ships in 1940, I shudder to think. But we are getting rid of a large part of the Reserve. We are to have only enough ships in reserve to be able to supply gaps or vacancies in the small force we are going to display at sea in the East and the Mediterranean. Has the Commonwealth been fully consulted about this matter? I have read many of the speeches of the Prime Minister since he came back from his Empire tour and I would ask: have the Commonwealth countries agreed that we are doing our part in Commonwealth defence? I should doubt very much whether they would agree with that. At any rate, it is most significant that there has been no statement on the matter either from the Admiralty or from the Prime Minister since his return. I think that the position is serious. Anybody
  1112
  who knows about the detailed work of the Navy and calls made upon it from all sides in peace time, with all the little disturbances occurring here and there, knows that what the Royal Navy does for us can never be fully written up.
  In the falling value of the pound we get a key which answers some of the points that the noble Lord has been making, in which he prides himself on what is being done in providing modern weapons in this, that and the other direction. The fact is that this White Paper presents a Bill to the nation for barely three-quarters of the force we were providing for in 1951. If we take the figure of £1,420 million from the White Paper and recognise that a pound to-day is worth only 15s. 6d. compared with its value in 1951, the Government are not buying a very big force, are they? What is the use of the noble Lord saying that if we scrapped all the nuclear and atomic programme we should save only one-fifth of our defence budget? In actual net amount, we are paying, in terms of 1951 currency, £1,105 million, not £1,420 million. And knowing that we are committed to increasing the administrative personnel costs per head in the next two or three years, we know that the equipment of the Forces will be even more restricted. I am bound to say that I am disappointed in the effort the Government are making for the proper defence of Britain and the Commonwealth. Perhaps I may have some more to say about the details on the Services Estimates when they come up for debate.
  I am horrified at the idea that we are going to cut and cut in this way for the next two or three years. We have got ourselves into such an economic position over the last six years that the pound has fallen to 15s. 6d. in value, because the Government in their economic policy have been so foolish as to let everybody go "free for all"—"free from controls, spend what you like, put up the hire purchase"—and have then come back and tried to cut it down, because that course has increased the overall cost of production. Now the first thing to suffer, apparently, is the defence of our country. I wondered this morning, and I wondered last night when I was thinking about it, whether the position in which we are allowing our affairs to pass politically, economically and militarily

  1113
  was the reason why we were passed over in the Note from the Soviet.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out all words after ("House") and insert ("declines to approve a defence policy which relies predominantly upon the threat of thermo-nuclear warfare, insists on the installation of strategic rocket bases in Britain before the projected summit talks, and fails to provide effectively for the defence requirements of Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth.")—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
  3.52 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, while I have listened with great interest and sympathy to the points made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition in support of his Amendment, I cannot help feeling that, behind his tactics, there is a sort of indication of his Party's mistrust or disapproval of the function of a Second Chamber—an institution which, in principle, I support and approve—because I think he has brought before your Lordships a criticism identical in every word with the Amendment brought forward by the Labour Party in another place only a few days ago. In that other place, as your Lordships know, it was defeated, and I confess that I find it difficult to see much real value in bringing the corpse before your Lordships to be even more decisively drawn and quartered, after it has been hanged in the House of Commons. Worried and mistrustful as I confess I am about Her Majesty's Government's proposals and contentions, it strikes me as perhaps a little unfortunate that the protest which failed in another place should so quickly be shown to the whole world as having failed even more drastically—as it will fail—on immediate reconsideration by the Second Chamber of the British Parliament.
  Apart from that, neither can I support the substantive Motion, because I feel that both the Report on Defence and the present activities of Her Majesty' Government do not hold out enough assurance of a vigorous and effective action to stop the present arms race or to limit the further production of nuclear weapons to the two great Powers who can afford this suicidal luxury—for we cannot afford it. We all, of course, support the declared aim of Her Majesty's Government of comprehensive disarmament, for it is based on a realisation that any war of the future will be in no way comparable with past wars. Noble as it may sound
  1114
  to say that we shall fight for our future with our backs to the wall and in every village street, there will, of course, in a nuclear war, be (generally speaking) no walls, no streets, no fighting and no future. The horrific nature of nuclear warfare allows of no such compromise as the unconquered laws of nature afforded us in the past; the obstacles of distance and time and the limitation of destruction have all been virtually overcome.
  I find myself in the difficult position (and who is not in a difficult position in this matter?) of seeing the whole problem in this way. Our defence cannot possibly be a passive defence; it must connote counter-attack. This means that, if hostilities start, either our enemies or we ourselves will let off an offensive nuclear weapon; and the other side must and will retaliate. The result may well be not only the end of 10,000 years of civilisation and culture, but also the setting back of human existence to the standards of primitive man for those few who are spared to live or, perhaps I should say, exist. Do we therefore agree that, rather than take any risk of the temporary triumph of an ideology which we totally dislike for the period of perhaps a generation or so—as has happened before in the military history of this country—we will be a party to sacrificing not only ourselves personally, as was the case in the past, but also our women and our children, our grandchildren and their descendants, and all mankind, perhaps for ever or for thousands of years, just by participating in letting off a nuclear weapon? In my own conscience and in my heart I feel that, theoretically, the only genuine answer is probably unilateral disarmament and taking a magnificent lead in setting an example to the world of putting principle before all else.
  But, my Lords, we are not in this House individual arbiters of ideal conduct: we are here as representatives of the people of this country, no matter whether we are an elected or a non-elected body. And I am convinced that this nation, like every other nation, has not reached the Christian or ethical ideal of true altruism, and therefore we must compromise with such good consciences as we can muster. I would therefore beg that in our progress we should not seek the rôle of leadership, or even of equality, in matters of warlike preparation, but

  1115
  that we should seek primarily, urgently and continuously, to regain the traditional leadership of this great country of ours, by taking the first place among all nations of the world in the path towards peace and stability, and prosperity and freedom from fear. This we can do, at present, only through international co-operation and the production of good will among all nations whose varying characteristics debar us from being one entity but whose better nature can surely be co-ordinated.
  3.59 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I wish to intervene for only a few minutes in a debate which, though not relevant to a good deal of my work, is, on the whole, one that I could not allow to pass without raising my voice in some way. I want to make it clear at the outset that I do not represent the Church, in which I hold a responsible office; nor do I represent any other opinion than my own. I must also emphasise that I am not speaking from any Party political allegiance—and I do not mean by that any disparagement of Party politics.
  My first point is that in a matter of this kind, which is so vital to all the people of our country and to many other peoples, a matter which is so grave and serious, I feel that the greatest hope of advance and the first step forward should be to lift this question of national defence right up above the divisions of Party politics. In saying that, I hope that I shall not be regarded as saying anything in a dictatorial way to responsible bodies of people. I want to express my sincere conviction that national defence must, if it is to be effective, have the support of the people as a whole; and it can have that only if the major political Parties are able to find a policy which they can both support.
  Apart from the grave anxiety which prevails widely in the country through this division of opinion amongst our leaders, there are two other considerations that I should like to submit. I believe that the continuance of division of opinion with regard to this matter is a serious threat to democracy itself; to the democratic way of government. We have to realise to-day that there are a great many young men and women who have grown to maturity and who have
  1116
  little recollection of the last war. They are sorely agitated and bewildered by the kind of world in which they find themselves. We sometimes hear them referred to as "angry young men." There are not so many "angry young men," but there are a great many agitated young men. They are agitated principally over this question of peace or war, and they are looking to their leaders to try to discover a policy which offers a hope. They know that no policy from this country will offer much hope unless it has the support of the vast majority of the people represented by the various Parties.
  I would plead for the lifting of national defence above Party politics, because I believe that British influence in the councils of the nations can never be really effective so long as we are divided on this matter. It is not for me to suggest how the difficulty of lifting it on to a new level can be overcome, but in passing I would recall that in the early part of this century there existed an Imperial Committee of Defence which tried to achieve this very thing of lifting defence above the level of Party politics. I suggest that it might be worth while to look at the causes which brought that Committee into being.
  My second point is this. Great as is the danger of nuclear destructive power, it is being rendered more dangerous by being pinpointed as the one deadly threat of our time. It is obsessing the minds of men. It is paralysing hearts through fear of colossal devastation and suffering. There is developing a kind of mental fixation and emotional concentration upon the H-bomb, with a growing feeling that if only we could get rid of that it would be permissible and possible to engage in some kind of war where only conventional weapons were used, and that such a war would be more or less respectable. I think we must recognise to-day that we are not confronted just with the problem of getting rid of nuclear weapons; we are confronted with the problem of getting rid of war. It is not the banning of weapons but the banning of war that would offer hope to mankind. For let us be reasonably well assured that if war breaks out on any moderately large scale, whatever agreements may have been made previously about banning nuclear weapons, as sure as day follows night nuclear weapons

  1117
  will be developed and used. I am not being cynical, I hope, about human nature, and I think that what I am saying is true to life. Would anyone suggest that towards the end of the last war Hitler would have refused to use nuclear weapons if he had had them, and even if he had signed an agreement not to use them?
  We have been reminded this afternoon that a nuclear weapon, or an atom bomb, was used. We ought never to forget that, for it gives us an insight into what we are capable of when our backs are to the wall. I believe that any nation, no matter what it agrees to beforehand, will, when its back is to the wall in time of war, resort to any means of defence that it can make or secure. Therefore I want to see this kind of debate on defence lifted right up and related to what are the alternatives before mankind—not peace or the abolition of certain weapons, but peace or deadly destructive warfare. I believe that it is a choice between peace and destruction that confronts mankind to-day.
  While politicians must deal with ad hoc situations, I should hope that they would keep clearly before their minds that weapons are secondary to a policy that is pursuing peace. It is the positive pursuit of peace that we need at this moment to liberate men's minds from fear. If we are going to pursue peace positively, far more attention, in my submission, will have to be given to a study of the causes of war. Racialism, nationalism and national aggrandisement, economic insecurity, gross inequalities confronting a great many people in different countries—those are some of the material causes of war; and no defence policy that is not thinking in terms of the causes that lead people into aggression can be effective.
  There is room for more thinking about this aspect, but I would not stop there, on the material plane only. I have listened with almost increasing horror at various times to the combination of weapons of war that can be produced to-day. We all shudder. I wish I could say that I was a pacifist; but I cannot. That is too simple an explanation. I wish I could say that if the H-bomb is banned that will get us on the road to peace. But I do not believe that that is enough. I believe that we have to be giving new thought entirely to the causes that pro
  1118
  duce war—the material causes that I have mentioned. I cannot sit down without adding that there are other causes besides the material causes that produce war. There is the lust of power, the lust for possession, the lust for selfish aggrandisement and the lust for domination. These must be fully reckoned with in the positive pursuit of peace.
  I should like to see peace pursued with a new devotion to the task of discovering the causes of war, with a new devotion to approach every problem with the yardstick of justice by which to measure every situation; and I would wish to see it approached with a new appreciation of the importance of spiritual values and not solely concentrating upon the material things that cause war. At the opening of this Session I read in the Sacred Writings these words:
  "He shall judge the folk righteously, judging righteously every situation that confronts men and nations. He shall judge the folk righteously and then govern the nations upon earth."
  4.10 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have all been very interested in the speech of the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down. He suggested that it might be possible to lift the question of defence out of Party politics, with which view I certainly agree, and I commend it not only to Her Majesty's Government but also to noble Lords opposite. The right reverend Prelate also went on to say that there is a generation of young men growing up with a fixation on the problem of nuclear weapons, and I think perhaps one can get back, as he says, to conventional weapons; that is a point I will deal with a little later on.
  May I suggest that perhaps by far the most important statements in this admirable White Paper on defence are to be found in paragraphs 8 and 9? It is laid down quite clearly in those two paragraphs that our ultimate aim must be comprehensive disarmament by all nations coupled with inspection and control by a world authority. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, rather cast an aspersion on Her Majesty's Government, especially on the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who opened the debate, when he said that the noble Lord was rather over-confident in his speech about defence and disarmament.

  1119
  But I am sure none of us would underrate the practical difficulties of reaching an agreement and enforcing it.
  May I draw your Lordships' attention to the words of warning in the White Paper? What does it say in paragraph 9? It says:
  "If the safety of humanity is not to be imperilled, great care must be taken to maintain, at each successive stage, the balance of military power and deterrents which, for the present, constitute almost the sole safeguard of peace".
  Those are very important words indeed, and I fully support the policy of Her Majesty's Government in maintaining this balance of power right up to a possible Summit conference and also, if some agreement is obtained, after that has been arranged, otherwise it would be most dangerous indeed. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lords opposite favour the plan of not proceeding with the establishment of rocket bases until such time as a Summit conference can be convened. Surely this is a mistaken view. The Russians are certainly not halting their plans in installing rocket bases. If we were to weaken in our resolve to maintain the balance of nuclear power it would lead to a tightening of the Russian screw. We must maintain this balance of power in the nuclear field, because we cannot do so with conventional weapons. If we are to get some form of disarmament agreement we must include limitation of conventional weapons, otherwise the Russians would be able to sweep through Europe at will.
  In some quarters fears have been expressed that it might be difficult to decide what would constitute a major attack by conventional weapons, which, of course, under present N.A.T.O. organisation would mean retaliation by nuclear weapons. I think it is true to say that no major attack could be launched by Russia without a considerable build-up which would become known to us and might extend over two months and possibly three months. That would give time for us to make clear to Russia without any shadow of doubt that we intended to use our full nuclear power in the event of attack, either with tactical atomic weapons or strategic bombs or both. There are those people who would like suspension of nuclear tests. Surely unless there is some string attached to this a suspension of tests
  1120
  by itself would have very little value indeed. I suggest that suspension must include cessation of production of atomic material for war purposes, coupled with inspection and control of existing stocks. Without these controls it would be useless and dangerous.
  I am sure we are all delighted to know that a Summit conference appears now more likely, at which it is hoped that some kind of nuclear disarmament agreement may be negotiated. I suggest that the problem day by day becomes far more urgent, because there is certainly in the future the danger that nuclear weapons might find their way into the hands of irresponsible Governments. From time to time one cannot help feeling very despondent about this question of disarmament. But perhaps it might be even possible to make use of the strategy which is shown to us in the Greek Comedy Lysistrata, although I fear that the rulers of the world are perhaps a little too old to be appealed to by it.
  In some quarters it is strongly held that we should not contribute to the deterrent at all. I may be wrong, but I rather think that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is inclining towards that view. Do these people really mean that they are prepared to accept the shelter of the United States while at the same time considering that any participation by us would be immoral? Surely this view is completely dishonourable, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord must not associate me with that view.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am very glad for the correction. Surely the view of those people is completely dishonourable and in any case would in no way lessen the risk for this country. On the contrary, I should say it would increase it. The N.A.T.O. organisation would be destroyed and Communist aggression would be free to mop up each country one by one. Does the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, really suggest that we should spend £1,000 million more on conventional weapons in order to get some kind of parity with the conventional weapons of Russia? Where does he think the money is coming from? Should the social services be cut? I should like an answer to that question.

  1121
  If the deterrent is to be employed by the N.A.T.O. countries it must obviously be deployed in the most efficient manner. Let us look at the tactical situation for a moment. I think it is true to say that an are of a circle passing through Norway, the East coast of Britain, North-East France and Greece and Turkey has a radius of some 1,500 miles from Moscow. I need hardly point out that all those countries are in the N.A.T.O. organisation and with intermediate ballistic rockets stationed on the are of this circle they would be able to concentrate on the heart of Russia, whereas Russia would have to disperse her fire if she wished to silence all rocket attacks. There is every military reason why rocket stations should be set up in the N.A.T.O. countries, but I hope we may in the near future be able to provide submarines, either nuclear or otherwise, fitted with laurelling platforms for these guided missiles.
  Let us also be quite clear about the present position of the United States in the rocket field. I would say that it is unlikely for some years that she will be able to build up a stock of intercontinental rockets with the necessary range of something like 5,000 or 6,000 miles, and in any case their accuracy will for some time to come be very limited. The fact is that America does not come into this rocket business at all unless we throw up our hands and allow her to make the intermediate rockets for us and also to man them in the N.A.T.O. countries, and surely that is not the wish of the majority of people in this country. I am sure many of us are aware of the very grave danger of a "Peace at any price" campaign sweeping through the country. In between the wars, many of us will remember that a university passed a resolution that they would not fight for King or country. Only last night at Oxford, in the Town Hall, we had something of the game kind brewing. I trust we shall never see the like again, because such an attitude is deadly dangerous and may very well increase the risk that people are trying to avoid, because Russia may feel that we are becoming a decadent race. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to educate the people of the country to be firm in their resolve to maintain their ideals and the safety of the free world.
  4.21 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords. I cannot rival the expert knowledge of many of your Lordships who will be taking part in this debate to-day and to-morrow, but perhaps I may be excused in asking your indulgence for a maiden speech on the ground that this is an important subject—in fact, one of vital importance to every man, woman and child in the country. It is a regrettable fact that ever since the last war the world has been divided into two main power groups. The Soviet bloc has certain advantages in warfare, whether it be hot or cold, over the democratic countries. Decisions once taken can be ruthlessly carried out; an unsuccessful policy can be swiftly changed without any publicity from a free Press or without the criticism of a watchful Opposition; manpower and resources can be concentrated on desired objectives without regard to the choice of the consumer—all this backed by a Communist ideology, which believes in the ultimate destruction of all other forms of government.
  Against that are the freedom-loving countries, grouped in various alliances and with all the corresponding disadvantages of the fact that they are independent and not autocratically directed. It seems to me, therefore, that if we are going to have a realistic defence policy we must be as strong and united as we possibly can be in those alliances. I see the only hope of arriving at a businesslike and workable peace, or any proper form of disarmament, in a strong and united alliance of free countries negotiating directly with Russia. I feel that any disunity in our ranks will only be interpreted as a weakness. So far as this country is concerned, therefore, I feel that we must make the greatest possible contribution to the defensive alliances of which we are members—N.A.T.O., the Baghdad Pact and S.E.A.T.O. The strength of those alliances depends obviously upon the sum strength of the nations that form them. I feel that we should make the greatest possible contribution within our powers, even at the cost of certain sacrifices. After all, greater social benefits will be of little use to the people of this country if we become a Soviet satellite.
  It is very easy on emotional grounds to make a popular appeal to ban the use of the hydrogen bomb. Equally, it is a

  1123
  political attraction, in that one feels that this country might be taking a lead and not following in the footsteps of either of the two other great Powers. It seems to me, however, that in the very fact that we should not be walking hand in hand and step by step with our Allies, and particularly our American Allies, we should be endangering the whole of our system of defence. We should not forget that it is equally easy to make an emotional appeal to various sections of the population of America, and to put it to them: Why should they send their troops overseas? Why should they pay so much for the defence of other nations overseas if those nations are not going to help themselves? Fortunately, there are statesmen in Washington and Westminster who see the danger of any loosening of the Western Alliance; but I feel that the renunciation by this country of thermo-nuclear warfare, or further drastic cuts in our defence expenditure, would be playing into the hands of the American isolationists and would seriously weaken those defensive alliances on which our very existence depends. What right have we to expect America to underwrite the defence of Europe unless we are going to help ourselves to the greatest possible degree? We have great responsibilities in the world on our own account, as a member of the Commonwealth and in alliance with our Allies, and I feel that we must retain the power to discharge those responsibilities in the modern world. To my mind, that means the use of thermo-nuclear weapons.
  It has been said that this country cannot be both a great Power and a great Welfare State, but to my mind we must at least be a sufficiently great Power if we are going to remain even an independent State. It seems to me that the Government's defence policy strikes as far as possible, the correct balance in the means that we can afford to devote to our defensive preparations. Economies are necessary, and they have been made in our conventional forces where, on the face of it, owing to our size, we can make less contribution to the common defence, while concentrating on those nuclear Weapons which continue to give us as powerful a say, if not a more powerful say, in our mutual defence. I would only express the hope that Her Majesty's Government in their nuclear research pro-
  1124
  gramme are working as closely as possible with our Allies, especially our American Allies, in order that we can get the most out of, and make the maximum contribution to, our joint defence.
  I am not impressed by the part of the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, which says that this House declines to accept
  "the installation of strategic rocket bases in Britain before the projected Summit talks."
  I do not feel that that is going to weigh very strongly with the Soviet leaders, and I certainly cannot imagine the Supreme Soviet discussing any such unilateral gesture of appeasement. Finally, I should like to support what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle. This is such an important and vital subject for this country that I regret greatly that the suggestion originally made, I think, by a distinguished member of the Opposition in another place, is not accepted, and that we cannot take the whole of the subject out of Party politics.
  4.30 p.m.
  LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will allow me to say how happy I am that it is my lot to be the first to congratulate him on what was a certainly notable maiden speech. The noble Lord has given us, in very brief compass, a great deal to think about. I hope in a few moments to elaborate upon some of his points, but everything that he said seemed to me, and I am sure it must have seemed to your Lordships, to be thoughtful, penetrating, balanced and wise. We well remember the noble Lord's father for the grace and vigour of his manhood, and even more for his long record of public service—a form of public service devoted above all, I suppose, to preserving our greatest national asset: the vigour and character of our youth. I know that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that we shall look forward with the very greatest anticipation and eagerness to the noble Lord's intervention in future debates.
  It seems to me to be one of the unhappiest aspects of human life that we can never learn by other people's experience; but what seems to me to be particularly unfortunate in our present predicament is that, judging by what one

  1125
  reads in the Press, judging by the mass meetings, the processions, the ballots and all the rest of it, we cannot even learn anything from our own. In many respects the pattern of the inter-war years is being repeated. Yet for some sections—highly vocal sections—of our people it seems as though those years had never been. Twenty-five years ago, in 1933, the British people, in an agony of apprehension at the prospect of mass aerial bombardment on a scale never experienced before, lay down on its back, with its four paws in the air, in the belief that by adopting such an ingratiating attitude the danger would be averted. As the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said just now, we seem in some peril, at any rate, of making the same mistake to-day.
  Of course, to-day everything is not the same, happily. Twenty-five years ago the Leader of the Opposition was a respected and respectable pacifist. The present Leader of the Opposition is not a pacifist. If I may say so, with respect, he is a man far more conscious of the realities of the world situation than ever Mr. George Lansbury was. And the attitude of the official Opposition towards defence is very different to-day from what it was then. The Opposition, like Her Majesty's Government, are committed to the hydrogen bomb and to United States bases. It is a picture very different from that of twenty-five years ago, when, in effect, the Opposition denied the need for armaments at all. We must be infinitely grateful for the difference.
  Yes, my Lords, there are differences between the conditions to-day and conditions as they obtained at the time of the East Fulham by-election twenty-five years ago. But though there are differences, there is a striking and dangerous similarity in the climate of opinion. If Press reports and debates in another place mean anything, it would seem as though there is a very considerable body of opinion seeking to contract out of danger to-day, just as it sought to contract out of danger twenty-five years ago. It cannot be done. If the danger is there, it is no use just turning one's back on it, turning up one's coat collar and believing that, if one does not look at it, it will disappear. The impression given by public opinion in this country twenty-five years ago was an entirely false impression. It was belied by events, and I have no doubt at all that it is equally a false
  1126
  impression to-day. But the fact remains that it is the impression which creates the immediate effect, rather than the reality behind it.
  Your Lordships will have seen in the Press a day or two ago the comment of an American commentator, Mr. Joseph Alsop. It was a shocking and offensive comment. He said that London seemed to be "stinking of defeat". But what we ought to remember is, as I believe I am right in saying, that Mr. Alsop has always been a firm friend of this country. He still is. What we have to consider is this: if that is the kind of impression we are making on our friends, what kind of impression are we making on our enemies? It seems to me that there are signs of the same kind of panic that we remember from the inter-war years. Panic and fear are not the same thing. We must all be fearful of the present position. We must all fear the hydrogen bomb, nuclear warfare and everything that is implied by it. It is natural and desirable that we should. But the great trouble about panic is that it altogether impairs the judgment, and it seems to me that the judgment of large or, at any rate, very vocal sections of the British people is to-day in abeyance. We cannot deal with nuclear warfare by mass meetings and processions. We cannot even deal with it, I fear, by Divisions in this House or another place. We can deal with it only by seeking to bring a real judgment upon it—not just a panic judgment.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in his speech earlier in the debate, moving the Amendment, said that the Opposition were not against the idea of the hydrogen bomb as a deterrent. I would, with diffidence, submit to the noble Viscount two propositions. The first is that, in the present state of human society, if the hydrogen bomb is not a deterrent, in the sense of preventing a third world war from breaking out—if it fails to prevent that war from breaking out—it is no more of a deterrent than germ warfare or gas warfare were deterrents in the last war. They were in existence, they could be used; but the fact of their existence did not deter Hitler from overrunning Europe from the Atlantic to the Caspian Sea. Unless the hydrogen bomb prevents the outbreak of war it is not a deterrent at all. That is the first proposition which

  1127
  I should like to put to the noble Viscount.
  The second is this: if we announce that we shall use the nuclear weapon only in retaliation against the use of the nuclear weapon by the enemy, we shall, in effect, be making the use of the nuclear weapon absolutely inevitable. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle referred earlier on to what the position would have been if Hitler had possessed the nuclear weapon. He said—and I agree with him—that it was almost certain that in those last hours Hitler would have used the weapon. It does seem to me that we must accept the fact that, if a major war breaks out, someone, at some time, is going to drop the hydrogen bomb; is going to extremes. Does it not therefore follow that the only way we can prevent the use of the hydrogen bomb is to hold it as a sanction, not against the hydrogen bomb but against a major war breaking out? That is a harsh decision, but surely it is inescapable. That is the decision on which, as I understand it, the policy of N.A.T.O. is based; and I do not see how it can be avoided.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord has been kind enough to refer to what I have said. I would say that in any formulation of national policy resulting from the joint organisation you have to be very careful what you take as a calculable risk. What I have been pointing out to-day is that, while I am perfectly in favour of ensuring that my country is as well armed in any of the weapons as any other country, I do not like the approach contained in this White Paper, because it involves taking the calculable risk of retaliation which will kill half the population.
  LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's point, but it does not seem to me to be entirely valid. He is saying that we have to take a terrible risk. I agree. We have to take a terrible risk because we are in a terribly dangerous situation. There is a well-known proverb, "Fear and be slain." If ever that proverb was relevant to any people and to any situation, I believe that it is relevant to our people and to our situation to-day, and will be over the next few years.
  1128
  I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but I should like to touch upon a point (it was his main point, I think) that was made very forcefully by the right reverend Prelate in his intervention this afternoon; it was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and it was elaborated in another place by Mr. Shinwell: that is, not only the desirability but the absolute necessity of getting this problem of defence outside Party politics. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, quoted the old tag that "Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad," and he applied that to the Government. My Lords, ought we not, all of us, to apply it to ourselves? And are we not mad, insanely mad, to be kicking the hydrogen bomb about like a football in the game of Party politics? It is like children playing with loaded revolvers. Can we never grow up?
  Politics in a real sense is a game; it is the greatest game in the world. But it is a game that we cannot play with this kind of toy. I do not know whether there is going to be a Division at the end of our debate; but if there is I, for one, shall go into the Lobby with a very heavy heart in support of Her Majesty's Government. My heart will be heavy not because I have doubts about the policy outlined in the White Paper; my heart will be heavy because I am beginning to feel a despair for the Parliamentary process. Democracy is a frail and uncertain growth. It has never lasted for very long. Always before it has been succeeded by tyranny; and I suppose, as a generalisation, it is fair to say that democracies in the past have failed for lack of restraint—for lack of restraint on the part of the leaders of democracy in the methods they have used to keep or to get power. Unless we here in this House, in this Parliament, and in the constituencies, can show more restraint than we have done; unless we can say there are some weapons we will not use, either to keep or to gain office, then I am afraid that this democratic system will go the way of others. The only difference, perhaps, will be that, whereas in the past democracies have capitulated to the tyranny of men, the danger now is that we shall be engulfed in the wrath of God.
  4.48 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will allow me, to add my congratulations from this side of the House to those which he has already received upon his maiden speech. It was, indeed, a most attractive speech, most attractively delivered, and a speech which revealed the exercise of considerable powers of thought. I am sure that all your Lordships, having listened to it, will hope that we shall frequently again have the benefit of the noble Lord's counsel and advice in our deliberations.
  There was one point in the very lucid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to which I should like to refer. The noble Lord said, quite truly, that we have over and over again told the Russians, most solemnly and most formally, that we have not the slightest hostile intention towards their country. We have had the pleasure of welcoming here over many years now a succession of Russian Ambassadors. We have welcomed them, even if sometimes we have wondered at the strength of the Embassy's staffs which they find it necessary to maintain and have speculated about what can be the duties assigned to all of them. But any Russian Ambassador after he has spent three or four months in this country must know perfectly well that what the noble Lord has said is true and that we have no aggressive or hostile intentions towards Russia or towards any other country in the world.
  That leads me to wonder what sort of reports the Russian Ambassadors send home. I cannot believe that they are such stupid men as not to recognise the fact that I have just quoted. Are they afraid to report the truth to the Kremlin for fear of unpleasant consequences to themselves? I feel that that is a distinct possibility. Or is it that they do report the truth but that, for their own good or bad reasons, the Kremlin absolutely refuse to recognise the truth of such reports? In any case, this emphasises the extreme difficulty of trying to negotiate or to deal with the leaders of the Russian people.
  Having said that, I should like now to go on to the main purpose of our debate. We are now entering upon the defence season. This is the second debate in about a month that we in this House have
  1130
  had upon the subject. There was a two days' debate in another place last week. Soon we shall be starting to deal with the Service Estimates. I have re-read the speeches made in another place last week, and it seems to me that one can roughly divide the speakers into three categories. First, there are the out and out pacifists; secondly, there are those speakers who are reluctant about everything to do with war and the preparations for war, for whom it is a thoroughly uncongenial subject; thirdly, there is that category of speakers who hate war but recognise the hateful necessity of making adequate preparations in case war comes.
  The second category, those who hate the idea of war, are very uncertain guides in these matters, because their reluctance is such that they will neither think nor study what is evolved. The third category, who recognise the hateful necessities under which we labour to-day, are so flummoxed by the new issues that are introduced by nuclear weapons—and I do not blame them for it for one moment—that they show signs of confusion in their ideas about what sort of a war to prepare for. The result is that in these debates it is only the pacifists who have a perfectly clear and consistent line of policy to advocate—a wrong line, in my opinion, but clear and consistent—while the other two categories, for reasons that I have mentioned, may be rather uncertain guides. The rest is largely ignorance or uncertainty or groping, and I would say particularly uncertainty.
  I noticed that the Minister of Defence said in his speech that we are confronted by "various ugly choices", and those three words, to my mind, express exactly the situation in which we are placed today. As I read them I was reminded of a saying of Trotsky:
  "A man who wants a quiet life should not have got himself born in the twentieth century."
  Indeed, that is very true, for we must agree with Trotsky that the natural state of twentieth-century man is one of anxiety.
  Much of the confusion in these debates, I feel, springs from two causes. Many speakers speak about "we" when they should say "N.A.T.O.", and I noticed throughout the debates in another place that speakers were continually attributing to the Minister of Defence what is N.A.T.O. policy, constantly blaming our

  1131
  country for what are really N.A.T.O. responsibilities. We cannot act independently; we are part of an alliance. These missile bases, about which we have heard, surely are part of N.A.T.O. policy. We are not exactly free agents, even in that matter. Then, again, there was running through many of the speeches the fallacious assumption that certain results which largely depend upon other nations will follow if "we" do this, that or the other. That, I think, is one of the reasons why these debates are sometimes rather woolly.
  But there is a second reason, too. We all remember that Euclid began his immortal works with certain axioms and postulates, and I feel it would be very helpful if the Minister of Defence would begin a White Paper by defining such things as "strategic nuclear weapons", "conventional nuclear weapons", "tactical nuclear weapons", and so on. These terms seem to me to be often used indiscriminately. That being so, they are confusing. What, for instance, is a "tactical nuclear weapon"? I have never seen it defined. I know only that the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima has been reduced in rank and is now a "conventional nuclear weapon". Remembering that, I must say that I wonder how long it will be before the H-bomb suffers a similar demotion.
  Then, my Lords, we have heard much in these debates about major and minor wars. How does one define them? This reminds me of a well-known mathematical paradox about the difference between a big heap of stones and a small heap of stones. You show your friend a large heap of stones and he says, "Yes that is a large heap" Then you take a stone away and say, "Is it still a large heap?" He says, "Yes," and he is bound to go on saying "Yes" until finally you throw a stone away and he has to say, "Now it is a small heap of stones." I think the difference between a major war and a minor war is rather similar. One could be asked to define a Christian. It would be very hard to arrive at a definition which covered the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. Archbishop Makarios, and the Pope; but the interesting fact is that we all know a Christian when we meet one. We do not have to look for a definition when we have the experience of coming across a Christian.
  1132
  I can only say that you will certainly know a major from a minor war when you find yourself confronted with one. But these things do produce some uncertainty and confusion in what is, in any case, a most complicated matter. I feel that even the leaders who speak on these subjects have so many facts, so many ideas, and so many theories in their minds that they give an impression of uncertainty, of woolliness, in their speeches.
  Again, I noticed a fallacious criticism running through speech after speech, that because the circumstances in which the deterrent would be used are never likely to arise (which means, in effect, that it is a deterrent), therefore there is no need to have the deterrent. There can hardly be a greater fallacy that that, yet one hears it raised very often. Then we have the advocates of unilateral nuclear disarmament. But let me pass from these broad issues raised by these debates, which certainly have revealed some grave anxieties—for instance, in regard to Transport Command. All our strategic planning is supposed to rest upon mobility, but it has been shown, both after Suez and by the recent exercise, that we are deficient in Transport Command. The essential point is that if we do not order the aircraft, we cannot get a Transport Command. If we are to have a Transport Command, we have to order the aircraft. That may sound a simple truism, but the fact remains that we do not have a Transport Command because we have not been ordering the necessary aircraft.
  Then there is the missile, Thor. I am not qualified to say anything about nuclear weapons, but Colonel Wigg, who seems to know all about these matters, says that Thor is useless. I do not know, but in any case I imagine that Thor is only a stopgap. That leads me to ask: if missile bases and equipment are being prepared for Thor, will they be capable of being adapted to the use of the new missiles, when better ones come along or will the expense have to be faced all over again? I suppose the launching pads will eventually go underground, but I wonder if there is any date when that is likely to be the case. As regards the parts of the White Paper referring to the Royal Navy. I think that the proposals are shockingly inadequate, but I think that the proposals about the Navy are better dealt with in a debate on the

  1133
  Naval Estimates than in a debate such as this, when we are occupied more with broad principles of defence than with the derails.
  I noticed that one speaker in the debate in another place criticised the powers of the Defence Minister as insufficient. I cannot agree. It is within my recollection that when the present Minister took office the Prime Minister endowed him with far-reaching powers, which none of his predecessors had been fortunate enough to possess. To-day the Minister of Defence can even veto high appointments which are made by the heads of the three Services. I do not think that he would be likely to do so, but I mention that as an illustration of the very wide powers which are now at the disposal of the Defence Minister. I cannot believe that there is any lack of powers—whether or not the powers are adequately used is, of course, a separate matter. I certainly could not agree that many of the defects in our planning and deficiencies in our weapons and equipment are due to any lack of powers of the Minister of Defence. The causes are to be found in other directions.
  I think, for instance, that there is still room for more integration of the three Services at the top. The idea of one Service has completely faded out, and I do not imagine that it is likely to be revived; but I feel that there could be more integration at the top, resulting in more common services (there are some already, as I know) and more standardisation, all leading to economies. In particular, if I may mention it, for twenty years I have advocated that there should be one Defence Estimate introduced by the Minister of Defence. It should be presented and defended on broad lines by the Minister of Defence, the details being expounded by the Service Ministers. In that way I think that the country would get a broad picture of the problems of defence and the steps being taken, which they certainly do not get at the present moment.
  The Minister of Defence was severely criticised in the debate in another place for the statement in the White Paper that if Russia attacks with conventional weapons we shall retort with nuclear weapons. It is not "we" at all; as I have said, it is N.A.T.O.I do not know how far we agree with N.A.T.O.
  1134
  decisions, but I should imagine that for certain reasons American influence might be felt in N.A.T.O. more than British influence. At any rate this is not British policy but N.A.T.O. policy, and has been since 1954. It is not something that has suddenly appeared in the 1958 White Paper. It is a policy which perhaps requires amplification, in the sense of stating which class of nuclear weapons would be employed.
  I gathered from the statement made some years ago by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, that it would be retaliation with everything that N.A.T.O. has got. He did not qualify his statement at all, and left me under the impression that whatever was "in the locker" would be used. But I think that N.A.T.O. has adopted a highly illogical policy. Having been warned, is Russia likely to make an attack with conventional weapons only, and in so doing expose herself to failure? What is perfectly certain is that if one side uses nuclear weapons, the other side will quickly follow suit; and if war begins with tactical nuclear weapons only, it will very quickly merge into all-out nuclear war. That is certain, because we may be sure that no country will go down to defeat in however gentlemanly a manner it might have started the business and wish to go on with it, with an unused H-bomb "in the locker." If they see defeat staring ahead of them, that H-bomb will be used. It seems to me, therefore, that this N.A.T.O. policy is a policy of world suicide. It seems to me that it must lead only to that. It is worth while to remember then, that other countries contemplate "going nuclear." so that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, to-day it is a question of disarmament or suicide. I believe, however—this is a purely personal opinion—that, the situation being what it is, the deterrent does in fact deter; and, of course, the missile bases are ancillary to the deterrent.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, asked if we trust the Russians. I think that I have answered that by some previous remarks: of course, most emphatically we do not trust the Russians. I say this remembering that while we were in trouble over Suez Mr. Khrushchev seized the opportunity to threaten us with rockets. That hardly squares with all

  1135
  Mr. Khrushchev's other statements that Russia does not mean war—but it may be that Mr. Khrushchev does not mean everything he says. I think that perhaps he says many things for effect. There is an old proverb about the appeal from "Philip drunk" to "Philip sober".
  I would conclude by saying that if one reads the history of Russia one sees that the traditional Russian policy is not war, but progress by means of absorption and infiltration. Anyhow, if we seek peace, as things are it seems to me that the deterrent—though I agree a horrible necessity—must be our best bet. But the deterrent theory is subject, perhaps, to one objection. I have a most profound distrust of the scientists. I remember that in one of Shakespeare's plays dealing with the Jack Cade rebellion one of the rebels remarked:
  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
  It may yet be that somebody will remark "The first thing we do, let's kill all the scientists"—because where they are leading us, I tremble to think. But, as has happened with other weapons, some day some scientist in some country may discover the antidote to the nuclear weapon. That may sound rather an exaggerated statement, but sixty years ago who would have thought nuclear weapons and Sputniks possible? The existence of an antidote to nuclear weapons is no more incredible than the existence of the nuclear weapons themselves. If there is to be a race between the scientists of different nations in the discovery of the antidote, and if Russia gets there first, she will have a space in which she can attack with impunity, knowing that she can defeat retaliation. That is a possibility of the future. But for the present we have to rely upon the deterrent to save us from the horrors of war.
  5.13 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in the course of his speech moving the Amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that he was reserving certain subjects for the foreign affairs debate next week, and it seems to me that those words of his illustrated the complex situation in which your Lordships' House is placed in debating defence in its broadest aspect without
  1136
  also debating foreign policy, and perhaps your Lordships will excuse me if I remind the House of two facts. The first is that defence is the servant, and not the master, of foreign policy; that is to say, that defence needs must be the consequence of some foreign policy and not the creator of policy. The second is that our defence policy and our foreign policy are both governed by the economic strength of the country. The background of our defence policy is the failure of the post-war world to reconcile the Communist admitted aims of world conquest with the Western fears of armed aggression in fulfilment of those aims. So long as that threat exists, it is indeed the duty of any Government to take steps to protect the people and their homes and industries; and the issue over which this debate ranges is whether, in the circumstances, this Government are fulfilling that trust in the best possible way.
  In defence, we must aim not at perfection but at the attainable; and in judging the Government's proposals for defence we are at once faced with the limitations imposed by our very honourably restricted economic strength. I use the word "honourably" as indicating that the weakness of our economic strength is largely due to the fact that we poured out not only blood but treasure during the war years; and since the war years all Parties have contributed to a rising standard of life for our people which was not envisaged in the pre-war years. The results of those limitations of which I have reminded your Lordships are two-fold. First, we cannot have, as the White Paper admits, conventional forces, even with our N.A.T.O. Allies, on a comparable scale with Russia; and secondly, we cannot afford to be a great, lone, nuclear Power. This inability is admitted and is allowed for in our Anglo-United States alliance, our joint efforts in production and maintenance and in joint usage control. Accepting those limitations and the results that flow from them, I should like to pay tribute to the courage of the Minister of Defence in bringing out into the open two very grim facts. The first is that there is no complete defence—only retaliation—against full nuclear attack; and this goes for both sides. The second is that Russia could overwhelm us at any time with conventional weapons and conventional forces (200 divisions;

  1137
  conventional forces we would use the deterrent.
  There is considerable controversy over what is called the "grey area". When does a minor war become a major war? I think that a minor war would become a major war when this country saw that the result would be defeat. One cannot define all the circumstances. A man was asked if he could describe an elephant He said: "I cannot describe an elephant, but I know one when I see one." It is the same here: I think we should know when a war was a major war.
  I submit to your Lordships that the White Paper is really a declaration to Russia that there will be no acceptance by this country of unilateral defeat from conventional weapons and conventional forces—or nuclear; and if there is to be annihilation it will be bilaterial annihilation: in fact, "If we go, she goes, too." That seems to me the most effective deterrent at the present time. The alternative to the acceptance of that deterrent must mean that, being unwilling to save ourselves by use of nuclear weapons from defeat due to military preponderance which we cannot match, we therefore accept Russian occupation, Russian domination and become a Russian satellite. That is the logical conclusion if we do not accept the need for using the deterrent in the last resort.
  As my noble friend, Lord Coleraine, said, there is growing up an emotional state in many people's minds—sincere, but I think illogical—which is finding expression in the cry for unilateral repudiation by Britain of the nuclear weapon. I understand that the Labour Party have, new difficulties—the "Victory for Socialism" movement, the "Ginger Group"—and they are bringing great pressure to bear upon their Leaders to move away from the patriotic stand originally taken by the Labour Party Leaders when, for example, they initiated the missile range in Australia. I sincerely hope that this pressure group will be resisted and we shall not have the sort of cry, "Whose finger's on the ginger?" sweeping a rough the country so that no one knows where the possible alternative Government stands on this particular point.
  Once you refuse to accept this view of surrender to Russia's overwhelming might, it is logical that you range your
  1138
  self behind Her Majesty's Government's policy of possession of the deterrent. I said just now that I think the Labour Party Leaders are with us there. What the official Opposition are doing by their Amendment is that, while accepting this need for ultimate nuclear force, they are criticising the timing of Her Majesty's Government; and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, wants to delay our efficient possession at the earliest practical time until after the Summit talks. They say: No missile bases, and suspend trials of the hydrogen bomb until after the Summit talks.
  I would submit four questions to the noble Earl who is to reply for the Labour Party. The first is: If the Labour Party requirement in their Amendment is conceded, is Russia likely to delay her preparations? I think the answer to that is to be found in what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said in 1955:
  "It is no use telling the Russians we should not be the first to use the hydrogen bomb … I have never found that a generous gesture brought any response from the Russian side."
  My second question is this: If the talks fail, should we not have weakened ourselves in the race of safety-seeking by the extent of at least months of valuable time lost? My third question is: Is not Russia likely to be more realistic at Summit talks if we talk from strength, and increasing strength, rather than from weakness'? My fourth and last question is: If the talks fail, and we had suspended trials of the hydrogen bomb before those talks, could any Government here, in cold blood, with all this enormous weight of emotional propaganda, ever restart the manufacture and trials of nuclear weapons? I suggest that the freedom of any Government would be seriously impeded if, having stopped, we then tried to re-start.
  It is because of the answers I give myself to those four questions—answers which f believe would be shared by many—that I support the White Paper put forward by the Minister of Defence. But I should not have given this support to the White Paper if the document had omitted certain vital paragraphs on the hope of disarmament. Without those paragraphs, I believe that the White Paper would be worthless and hopeless, because in accepting the hope of disarmament lies the only hope for the

  1139
  future safety of ourselves and our children. There is no future in a world where two great sections are competing to get the edge on each other to achieve a balance of destruction. It is necessary at the present time, but there is no long-term future in it. The peoples of the world—one has only to read the Press or talk to people one knows to realise this—are stretching out their arms to find a hope of security. They are looking to the Summit talks to achieve that increased security.
  In real disarmament is all hope for humanity. I believe that to talk of European disengagement without first a disarmament programme is to risk the break-up of N.A.T.O. and the United States disengagement from Europe. If we can achieve, by agreement, first the control of manufacture and trial of nuclear weapons; secondly, a reduction of conventional weapons, and, thirdly, an agreement on positioning of forces, we can then talk, and maybe more fruitfully, about disengagement in Europe. In seeking disarmament, those in charge of policy will have to forget prejudices from past events. They will have to discount the super-caution of military experts, or they will find themselves bogged down at the very beginning. They will have to take some risks for the worthwhile possible prize of success.
  Before sitting down, I should like to make one suggestion to Her Majesty's Government for consideration. I believe it is worth considering whether the Government set-up gives disarmament the best chance of success. The Foreign Secretary, his Ministers at the Foreign Office, and his advisers, have to interpret the caution and the reservations of traditional policy of our Allies and of our Service Chiefs—that is their job. But those piloting disarmament have the duty of challenging and forcing justification of those very things—the reservations of traditional policy, the traditional policy of our Allies and the views of our defence chiefs. I believe that we are expecting too much in what I would term mental gymnastics in expecting Ministers at the Foreign Office and their advisers to be able to do both those things at the same time. I believe that we may have to think of a Minister with a special responsibility for disarmament negotiation.
  1140
  The idea is not new. We have seen it in America, not with great success, I agree, between Mr. Stassen and Mr. Dulles. It is not new here. To-day we have Mr. Maudling in the Cabinet, with a special responsibility for promoting the Free Trade Area. He has to deal with the Foreign Office and with the Board of Trade. He does not take away from those Ministers their executive responsibilities; they maintain their positions. But if it is important enough for the Free Trade Area to have a special Minister, I think it is worth considering whether the issue of disarmament is not also worthy of a special Minister. Apparently, the Government realised that the appointment of Mr. Maudling had the effect of making the public appreciate the great importance they attach to the European Free Trade Area, and its negotiations and achievements. If the Free Trade Area is worth it, how much more so is disarmament! One man might succeed where the mass of Government weight might fail; and if such a man failed, the electors of this country would know that at any rate the Government had tried to the point of special ministerial responsibility.
  I will conclude with this thought. Neither this Government nor any other Government will take the risk of disarming to the extent of laying this country open to material obliteration by unresisted nuclear attack or moral obliteration by Communist conquest. I believe that this Government are seeking peace truly, but are at the same time fulfilling a duty, however unpopular and misrepresented it may be, in giving to our peoples the greatest measure of security obtainable in this terribly complex age and this threatened world.
  5.28 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I should first of all like to align myself with the plea for lifting defence policy entirely out of Party politics—but I happen to be one of those who do not believe in Party. The twenty-five years I have sat in this House have convinced me that we might be better governed if it was not all "Party, Party, Party".
  The few remarks I wish to make will not take long. That this Report on Defence is an advance on that of 1957, I

  1141
  suppose nobody will deny. It has a wider vision which, as a well-known weekly paper has pointed out, caused the Government to recognise the threat of Russian submarines leading to the belief that there was a use for the Navy and sonic way in which it could be employed. Apart from this, when I look closer into the Report, I do not think there is very much advance on the Report of 1957. If your Lordships turn to paragraph 4 in the Report you will find that the Minister of Defence falls back on the comforting assurance that Russia has no answer to medium-range ballistic rockets, and further stresses that the West is continuing to increase its lead in nuclear weapons. My Lords, do we know that? We seem to have heard that statement year after year, only to find it proved wrong. What proof have we that the Russians are not also in this position?
  As to the Russians' ability to retaliate, the Russian Minister of Defence obviously does not concur with his British counterpart, for only last week he made a statement when he was addressing some celebration in connection with the armed forces. He said:
  "We have close, long and extra-long range rockets which can carry hydrogen charges to any point on earth."
  Would not it be safer and better to accept that statement and regard it as true? It is better to be prepared for the worst than to find yourself weak when you want to be strong. Is it known what goes on in the scientific world behind the Iron Curtain? Paragraph 11 of the Report says that:
  "Russia has been making great strides in the field of nuclear weapons and rockets."
  Then it switches off and stresses the overwhelming superiority of the conventional forces of Russia and her satellites, and says there are 200 active divisions facing the West, as well as 20,000 planes.
  My Lords, to me there can be no doubt that this superiority of the Russians face to face with N.A.T.O. forces, in which we include 50,000 or 60,000 of our own young countrymen, must justify an attack by nuclear weapons if the Russians make one move towards us. It is only fair to the N.A.T.O. forces and to the men employed there—many of them, as I say, our own countrymen—that we should not allow them to be overwhelmed by a Russian advance of several hundred divisions while people somewhere in the rear
  1142
  and safety argue whether we ought to use the nuclear weapon or not. Again to quote the Soviet Defence Minister:
  "Russian armed forces must be ready to deal a crushing blow against any aggressor who launches a surprise attack upon the Soviet Union."
  We know that S.H.A.P.E. relies upon its nuclear weapons to hold off the Russians, but I suggest that if we are not prepared to use them for this purpose we should do one of two things—either strengthen our conventional forces or withdraw them altogether. I feel that this Report falls rather by vacillation. We are led up the garden path one moment, and then the glimmer of hope is extinguished on the ground of political expediency or economy.
  We come to sea power, in which I happen to be interested. We are told:
  "The Government has reviewed the composition and disposition of the Royal Navy",
  and the White Paper goes on to say that British naval forces must be prepared for three main tasks. It gives those tasks. The first is in peace time, which we need not now discuss; then, in limited war, to protect sea communications: and in global war to make an effective contribution to the naval forces of the Western Alliance. Then follows a reference to Russia's formidable submarine force, and on that subject the Government say that they are now devoting the Navy to the anti-submarine campaign. This comes back to the old protection of sea communications. They need not pretend it is a new discovery; it was all recognised 500 years ago.
  Then we come to the distribution of various weak squadrons dignified by the name of Fleets which are to be stationed in various parts of the world. When we look at the First Lord's statement and go through it carefully, we shall find that, when all these are disposed of and arranged for, we have very little to veer and haul on. Then follows a real shock. The Report goes on to say that the plans for the Reserve Fleet are being revised, and continues:
  "It is proposed to follow the principle that the Reserve Fleet should comprise only sufficient ships to keep the active Fleet up to strength allowing for accidents and long refits".
  What an anti-climax! No reserve against the inevitable unforeseen happenings of war. My Lords, some principles are good

  1143
  and some are bad. This one, I suggest, is rotten. In peace time it is easy to form some estimate of what you want, but how are you to estimate what you will require in war? What do you do—sit down and do a little estimate of what the losses are going to be in a war fought with weapons we have not fought with before and in very different circumstances? Is it to be some little calculation like this: if we lost 60 ships in two months in 1939 when attacked by 40 submarines, how many will be lost in 1958 when we are attacked by 400 submarines? Is it something like that formula, I wonder.
  As the White Paper says, we are dependent on our sea communications for our food supplies and economic life. Surely the feeding and maintenance of our own population is one of those independent British responsibilities of which the Report speaks. For that I submit we should prepare. We know we have not sufficient ships or planes, and yet we squander them by getting rid by sale or gift of vessels which have yet an active life, or could have an active life in many fields of warfare. I noted yesterday that in another place a statement was made that the Admiralty "does not wish to hoard old ships". Let us remember that half a loaf is better than no bread. I do not think any military man could not make use of a vessel, regiment, battery, whatever it might be, in those circumstances. He would rather have something than nothing. We had the Home Guard who were worth something. There may be many of your Lordships who crossed oceans in convoys during the war, and I feel sure that when you came on deck and looked around it gave you a feeling of assurance to see a certain number of vessels escorting the convoys. I protest that there is a place for every sort of ship that can fire a gun, that has an engine and can steam. It is a great mistake to say that they are old and must therefore be thrown away. All through history we have had small and old ships carrying out work of a most useful description.
  The Amendment we are discussing asks your Lordships to reject the official White Paper. I find myself in the quandary that, although I am entirely in favour of being armed to the teeth, I am, on the other hand, greatly struck by the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord
  1144
  Alexander of Hillsborough, who had such a long term as First Lord of the Admiralty and Minister of Defence. I consider that the proper protection of Britain and various parts of the British Commonwealth is of first and foremost importance, and therefore I propose to vote for the Amendment. I should, however, like to make it quite clear that I am not trying to attack any of the Service Ministries. A hobbled horse cannot gallop. If he does not go fast enough for you, do not vent your spleen on him; go for the hobbler.
  5.42 p.m.
  LORD WISE: My Lords. I notice that I am number eleven in the batting order, so, as is customary with number eleven, I shall be brief. I should not have taken part in a Defence debate had not East Anglia come very much into the picture during the last few days. I will deal with that point in a moment or so, but before doing so I should like to say that I consider the first portion of the White Paper ill-timed. There is much in the first few paragraphs which could have remained unwritten and unpublished. I rather hesitate to think what the position of the Prime Minister will be, if and when the Summit conference takes place, and he is tackled on some of the matters which have been mentioned in the first few paragraphs of the White Paper.
  I have nothing to say about the routine conventional portion at the end of the White Paper, but there are one or two points in regard to the first paragraphs of which I want to make note. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, spoke about mutual distrust between the Western nations and the Soviet Union—that matter is referred to in paragraph 2. I am not so sure that there is this distrust between the peoples of the Soviet and of Britain and the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. Statesmen may distrust statesmen, diplomats may distrust diplomats, foreign offices may distrust the members of other foreign offices; but so far as the people of these countries are concerned I do not think there is any distrust at all. In fact, so far as the Russian people are concerned, we are at present trying to foster additional trading relationships with them; we are cultivating social and educational relationships, and we are trying to get together, just as we should do as people of the world. We may not agree

  1145
  with Communism, its principles and its doctrines, but the Russians have to live their lives and we have to live ours. We should brook no interference with our mode of life and the converse applies to them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, took us back twenty-five years. I am going to take your Lordships back to an earlier date, which will be well within the recollection of some of the older Members of your Lordships' House. With what favour we looked upon Russian aid to ourselves in 1914–15, and with what favour in the Second World War did we look at their heroic defence of Stalingrad and the bolding up of the German forces in the East! That and an event which took place around Britain were, in my view, the turning points of the last war. I do not think for one moment that having been Allies in two world wars, our two nations can turn so quickly right about face and become enemies.
  The noble Earl who has just sat down referred to a shock. Paragraph 5 must have given us all a shock, because in that paragraph we are referred to a long period of waiting, before we undergo mutual annihilation; and we are also promised an indefinite period for the cold war. My noble Leader has referred to the question arising in Paragraph 12 in regard to a major or a minor war. I think it is obvious to anyone that directly war in any shape or form breaks out, nuclear weapons will be used at once by either side. We cannot imagine that the Russians: are so simple as to suppose that if they attacked us with conventional weapons we should not attack them in reverse with nuclear weapons.
  The point I want to make in these brief remarks concerns ballistic missiles. It is within the knowledge of Members of your Lordships' House that the agreement with regard to these missile sites was first mooted in March last year in Bermuda. It has now reached fruition, at a time which, in my view, is most inopportune. How we can go to the Russians at a Summit conference, with this document in existence, and possibly in operation, I fail to see; because immediately they can ask, "On whose behalf are these missiles established in Britain, and against whom are they directed?" The answer is obvious.
  1146
  Apart from that aspect, one may say on behalf of us folk who live in East Anglia that we wonder why East Anglia is always chosen for this sort of operation. We are smothered with the bomber bases of the Americans; we have flying over us, every day and all day—and most of the night—heavy bombers laden with hydrogen bombs or their parts. We get an American plane dropping a petrol tank, to the disarrangement of all our lives; and now we are faced with these ballistic missile sites. I could name many better places where these sites could be put. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, this afternoon was anxious for these sites to start operating. I suggest that one might be put near the village of Teynham, in Kent, or elsewhere. Sussex is another county which very much supports Her Majesty's Government. Why not have a few sites in Sussex?—the lot, if they like. I should be just as pleased, though I see that noble Lords on our Front Bench are looking round as much as to say, "We do not want them in Sussex".
  However, I hope that what we on this side have said about the suspension of these missile bases will be taken note of by Her Majesty's Government. I believe that that is extremely important, in view of the tension which is prevailing at the moment and of the hopes which we set upon the Summit conference. I shall be very distressed if at the present time any action is taken by this country which is likely to irritate or upset the negotiations that are taking place in regard to the Conference. I commend to the House paragraph 6 of the White Paper, which says:
  "There can, however, be no such confidence or peace, so long as the arms race continues. Means must be found to halt and reverse this process."
  My Lords, the nation looks to Her Majesty's Government to provide the means.
  5.53 p.m.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, the problem of the nuclear deterrent has been argued from all angles and I do not propose to weary your Lordships by going over all that ground again. There is, however, one aspect of it which I believe it is most important should be stressed from these Benches, as so far the arguments have come entirely from the Front Benches.

  1147
  The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, stressed the horrors of nuclear warfare and, I thought, rather indicated that the realisation of those horrors was almost a prerogative of his side of the House and his Party. I can assure the noble Viscount that that is not the case and that I, and I know that other noble Lords and, in fact, the whole country are completely aware of the ghastly horrors which would overtake us should a nuclear war, unhappily, develop.
  The whole point of the nuclear deterrent is that it is a possible way of preventing war. We all realise that if a major war starts, inevitably it will "snowball up", as has been said by many noble Lords, into nuclear warfare with ghastly and disastrous results. This argument may well prevent that. It is a possible way of preventing it. There are two important aspects here. One is that it carries much more weight if it can be said that it comes from the whole united country. I rather wonder whether noble Lords opposite and the Leader of their Party are as far apart as they seem from this theory of a deterrent. I understand they accept the necessity of nuclear weapons, though they accept it as unwillingly as we all do. Also, it is only three years ago that the Leader of the Party opposite said that it was of no use to tell the Russians that we should not be the first to use this weapon. In fact (to remove the negative) he was prepared to say that we could be the first to use it—which is all that is being said now, and said not on behalf of this Party but on behalf of N.A.T.O. and the Western nations, as is clearly stated in the White Paper. We are merely adding our guarantee to a policy that has already been agreed. My voice carries no weight at all, but I would appeal to the Party opposite to try to remove this matter from Party politics and carry out the hopes of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
  I should like to come now to another aspect of the White Paper: the importance of the conventional forces which are essential for backing up any other deterrents there may be, and also against the insidious growth of the cold war all over the world. Owing to their small size, the strength of our conventional forces depends a great deal upon the perfection of the organisation. In the debate
  1148
  in your Lordships' House last May, mention was made of integration, and the setting up of a defence administrative Committee. I said at that time that I realised that this was a very complex problem. I still appreciate that and I do not expect any regular reports or press for any details; but I believe it would be of great interest if my noble friend who is to reply could give us some indication as to how this Committee is faring; also whether the visits to overseas commands which were envisaged in the speech of his right honourable friend the Minister of Defence at that time have been carried out, and whether they are having any results.
  Personally, I am doubtful whether integration, in the real sense of the word, can go beyond the higher levels of command and, at the other end, I would hope, the permanent affiliation of formations of the three Services. A beginning has been made in this matter in the formation of the Naval Fleet and Marine Commando as a group, and I am extremely glad that this part of last year's White Paper has been so effectively implemented. I would suggest that it is possible to enlarge on this policy: to have a small brigade group of the Army working in the closest contact, in the same way as the Marine Commando is with the Royal Navy. I know why that Marine Commando is in existence and of the help it is giving to making the best overall use of our forces. I merely put that suggestion forward as a possible extension and in order to illustrate what I mean by integrating our Forces by permanent affiliations between the Services.
  I should like now to go to paragraph 53 onwards of the White Paper. Here it is important. I think, not to be led away into detail, which, as has already been stated, is much more appropriate to the debates on the Service Estimates which will take place shortly. In paragraph 54 there is, I consider, a very important statement, where it is said:
  "The Royal Navy have completed the selection of those to be retired. Over 90 per cent. of the officers concerned, and 100 per cent. of the ratings, are voluntary applicants. The Army and the Royal Air Force, where the problem is larger, are not so far advanced; but it is already clear that it will likewise be possible to deal with a high proportion of the redundancies in both Services on a voluntary basis."
  I do not know whether I am reading too much into these sentences, but it

  1149
  does stress in the sentence referring to the Navy the question of selection, and selection is not mentioned as regards the other two Services. While I realise the great importance of volunteering, I consider that it is also important that there should be some form of selection, so that in the other two Services there is not too high a proportion of first-rate people going out on retirement.
  Then I come to paragraph 55, which deals with the actual retirements. I think the time is approaching now when the full impact of these retirements will begin to be felt, and I hope that my noble friend who is to reply will be able to give some information as to how the Advisory Board, under the chairmanship of Sir Frederic Hooper, is carrying out its work, and whether the Resettlement Committees have started. I understand that one of these committees is being set up in each of Scotland and Wales, and nine in the regions of England. I realise that this is a matter for the Ministry of Labour, but it stems from last year's White Paper and it is most important to the officers who are going to be retired, the speed of whose re-employment will have a great effect on the morale of the three Services. The employment of the ratings, other ranks and airmen is, I understand, giving no great problem. This was expected. But I am still worried about the middle group of officers—namely., those aged from forty to forty-five and above—and I should like to know what results have been achieved by the Ministry of Labour's business training scheme and also by the courses which are held at the Polytechnic for, I think, more senior officers.
  The officers who will be retired while serving overseas are inevitably going to present a very difficult problem indeed, and I wonder whether the visiting travelling boards which were envisaged have actually gone out to stations abroad and been helping the officers in the problem of finding employment. Equally important is the fact that officers must be given a firm date on which they will be retired. Six months' notice was spoken about last year, and I hope that this will be an unalterable rule. I would also suggest (and I do not think it would cause too great an inconvenience in the Services concerned) that if within the six months an officer obtained a firm offer of a job, he should, if it were conceivably possible,
  1150
  be allowed to take it, even though he had not reached the actual date of his retirement. And then one must inevitably put in a plea for financial assistance—that it should not affect, if it could be done, the amount of his gratuity and other emoluments.
  I should like to stress again the great importance to the morale of the three Services that all those who have to retire should get worthwhile employment; and I should also like to say that, with very rare exceptions, these men have something very worthwhile to give to the industry to which they are hoping to go. Finally, I would, as I think has been done before, ask your Lordships to take note of the words at the head of the first page of the White Paper, which I wholeheartedly endorse.
  6.8 p.m.
  LORD FREYBERG: My Lords, I rise to support the Resolution moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft—namely, "That this House approves the Report … set out in Command Paper No. 363."From the course of the debate on defence in another place it would seem that those who are in Opposition are themselves divided in their opinion. They have my sympathy. There is no difference in any of our aims. We all hope for the same thing: total peace. But we are divided in the methods to be employed. They want to achieve total peace by disarmament, and we want certain safeguards before we disarm. I feel, as many of your Lordships have said earlier in the debate, that this is a most important time in the history of our country. If we are wise in our next stage there is every reason why a further world war should be prevented for another generation through the balancing fear of mutual annihilation. As has been pointed out, no country can hope to gain anything by war. But, equally, there can be no mutual confidence or peace unless we can slow up and stop the arms race.
  We must not underrate the practical difficulties, however. Russia has been making great progress in nuclear weapons and rockets, but her basic strength lies in her overwhelming superiority in conventional arms. The Western nations, on the other hand, rely for defence upon the deterrent effect of their vast pile of nuclear weapons. Although the democratic nations will never start a war

  1151
  against Russia, it should be made clear that, should Russia launch a major attack on the free nations, even with conventional weapons, they—the free nations—will hit back with their strategic nuclear weapons. So much for the threat of nuclear war.
  There is an important matter to which I should like to direct your Lordships' attention. To what extent has our experience in the last war enabled us to solve the problems of attaining effective cooperation between the contingents from the independent nations that form the British Commonwealth? In the Middle East there were, as we all know, British, Indian, Australian, South African, and New Zealand forces. As soon as the fighting began in the Middle East, we found that we were out of step, as it were; at sixes and sevens. The lessons of World War I had not been thought out—in fact they had never been considered.
  Things were so bad, according to their official historian, Mr. Gavin Long, that, in the case of the Australian forces, when they went to send their troops to the Middle East they had to ask the Director of Australian War Memorials to search the archives for a copy of General Bridges Charter of 1914. General Bridges was the first Commander-in-Chief of the first Australian Imperial Force. After two years a system was evolved and was made to work; but in the days of Greece and Crete, in 1940 and 1941, the senior British Commanders failed to take Blarney or me into their confidence or to understand our special status or our responsibilities. While this was going on our Governments were complaining to us, with justification, that we were not keeping them sufficiently in touch with our problems.
  I trust that the Defence Minister will take notice of these problems, because in any future war one-third of the British Forces will be from the Commonwealth countries overseas. These forces must be used to the best advantage possible, and we must have a proper system of promotion to the highest positions of command and on the staff; and such positions should be open to all commanders, irrespective of their country of origin. Finally, my Lords, there is at least one factor that gives us reason for hope. In
  1152
  World War II both sides had gas but neither the Germans nor the Allies would use it for fear of gas retaliation. If chemical warfare was a deterrent, how very much greater will the deterrent effect be of nuclear war! My Lords, I beg to support the Motion.
  6.15 p.m.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, everyone who is taking part in this debate will, I am sure, share my feelings that we have a very grave responsibility in speaking on this matter at all. Particularly do I think that those of us who feel conscientiously that they must be critical of the Government's policy as set out in this White Paper should do so only if they have sincere convictions to that effect. This, after all, is a Government policy Paper, laid before Parliament for its approval, and it is one of the most important documents that has ever come before a British Parliament.
  We are bound to ask ourselves in considering it: Does the policy embodied in this Paper provide the best method that can be devised at the present time and in existing circumstances for preserving the peace and for reducing the risk of war? Is the policy of the nuclear deterrent represented now by this new group of weapons the best means that we can see of preventing war beginning? If one feels, after much reflection and heart-searching, that it is not the best policy for achieving that purpose, then surely the honest thing to do is to say so. I do not quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, whom I so admire, would have one do if one feels very sincerely that this policy contains greater risks than some alternative policy might do. Surely expressing one's view should not call down denunciation as a Party politician.
  The noble Lord spoke of the East Fulham by-election. As he knows, all those many years ago I happened to be the candidate who was successful in that election. It was an accident that that election took place two or three days after Hitler took Germany out of the League of Nations and turned the whole emphasis of public thinking in the direction of foreign policy and disarmament. It is true that Mr. George Lansbury, who was a life-long pacifist, was for a short time at that period, in the depleted state of our Party in the House of Commons, the

  1153
  Leader of the Opposition. I was never a pacifist. I was a soldier in the first war, and in the second war I served under Mr. Churchill in the Ministry of Supply on the munitions side. I have never taken the view that it is wrong to fight for what you feel is worth fighting for. And I still take that view. The important thing, in an issue of this gravity, when any decision is an ugly one—and the decisions that we have to take are extremely difficult—is to ask whether the policy set out here is the most likely to achieve the object that we all have in view, which is disarmament and peace.
  LORD COLERAINE: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene just for a moment? I hope that the noble Lord did not take anything that I said about the conditions twenty-five years ago as a reflection upon him. I certainly did not intend them so to be. The noble Lord has asked: What should we do if, holding this sincere conviction, we do not express it? The only thing I would say, with great: respect to the noble Lord, is that if by taking a certain public line he gives encouragement to movements outside this House that are based largely on panic, largely on inexperience, then I think the Opposition is doing great harm.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I do not think that all the people who share some of my views—and I certainly do not share all theirs—are actuated only by panic. Look at the people who are in these organisations: they are not panic-mongers. Many of them are men of great standing and much thought; and it is possible for people, without any degree of panic, to come to these views. Fear, yes; but which of us does not fear the awful outcome of nuclear warfare? We should fear it.
  I do not wish to detain the House more than is necessary to say this in the minimum number of words, but several speakers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Winster, put their fingers on the terrible risk involved in this policy; the risk of stating that, if Russia launches a major attack with any sort of weapons. N.A.T.O. policy is to retaliate with full nuclear strength. N.A.T.O. responsibilities are widespread and we all tend to see the picture from where we stand, but the fact is; that an attack could be launched anywhere on the periphery of
  1154
  N.A.T.O. territories. And what is a major attack? Nobody can define it, because what begins as something which does not look like a major attack can easily seem to be a major attack within an hour. The terrible risk involved in this policy is that an enemy, particularly if the enemy is devoid of certain scruples that we might have, would take the line that, as nuclear war appeared in view of this policy statement inevitable, they would strike first and knock us out before we could strike. That that is a very real danger, everybody who has thought about it must agree.
  I know that many military thinkers—one group of them has been quoted today—believe that the advantage of initiative in attack is so overwhelming in the case of these devastating weapons that the first half-hour may easily decide the whole issue. I do not know whether that is true or to what degree it is true, but if the people who are in control of Russian military policy should believe that to be true, then they would be right in advising that in view of developments their proper course is to strike while they can strike. They will see America as their major enemy. They will see us merely as a junior partner, being used as a base, and they will knock out that base before the major enemy comes to grips. That is the position into which the policy of this White Paper is putting this country, and I see no escape from that conclusion.
  It is the gravest risk that we have ever taken and it seems to me that it is a risk which we have no right to take if there is any possible alternative at all. No one in his senses wishes to throw away defences for the sake of it, but is there anything we can do at this time to make some progress without running this hideous risk? We do not know the level of Russian nuclear armaments. We do know that since this statement appeared two of the largest nuclear explosions of all time have been recorded in Russia. We were completely taken by surprise by the Sputnik satellite. I think that few people, even within the inner circles of atomic science, realise how far Russian development has gone. We do not know what massive action we are inviting by putting this down as our policy. Moreover, as I said a moment ago, would an attack on Turkey because of some dispute in that part of the world be

  1155
  regarded by N.A.T.O. as a major issue? Who can tell until the time comes and the circumstances are revealed? Meanwhile, this position goes on.
  There is another danger mounting. The time is rapidly approaching when not only Russia and America, and to a lesser extent Great Britain, possess nuclear armaments, but other smaller, less-experienced Powers and Governments will be in possession of these weapons. Think what would have happened at the time of the Suez attack if Colonel Nasser had had even the smallest nuclear bomb. What would happen if in the near future in the South American States nuclear weapons were part of the normal armament? It is a race against time, because it seems to me that unless we are able to get a far-reaching agreement between Russia and America, in which we participate, to stop this madness before these weapons spread and to embark upon disarmament as the only course of sanity, then the destruction of the world by nuclear warfare is almost inevitable. If one believes that, one cannot escape the conviction that almost any policy is better than this one, if it has a hope of securing some advance down the road to disarmament.
  I listened with great attention to the graceful and thoughtful maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I was waiting for him to come to this point, but somehow he did not. I was disappointed. Is there any other course that is worth taking a risk for?—because we take an enormous risk in following this one. I believe that there is. I believe that it falls once again to Britain to take the stand, as we have done before. Perhaps our long civilised history and our great political experience may save the world even yet. I believe that we should try to break the deadlock between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. thought that in sonic of the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday I detected a pretty full realisation of this responsibility. Those of us who have been often in the U.S.A. know what a difficult instrument their political system is and how hard it is for us to see clearly how things will turn out. It seems to me that the state of mind of their present Secretary of State is most unhelpful in this matter. It will not profit us at all
  1156
  to go on repeating those old things. The Russians must be well aware of the hideous risks to them, just as we are, and I do not believe that there is no possible way of reaching agreement. But I do believe that the chances of an effective conference taking place within measurable time are remote if it is left to Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Dulles. Had we not better take some risks to try to get this conference on its feet? Because once it starts it may go a very long way.
  What are the topics upon which there is some possible hope (I go no further than that) of agreement with the Russians? I think that they would be disinclined to see nuclear armaments spreading about the world. I think that they may see the dangers as clearly as we see them. We might come to an agreement about that. I think we might conic to a workable policy on the lines of halting the tests and of the Polish proposals, so that there is a disengagement of hostile forces in a most inflammatory area. One of the great dangers is that East German troops may become engaged with N.A.T.O.'s troops over some boundary or other dispute about Berlin or other area, and in the heat the thing may go off. If we could get those chances made less probable by a withdrawal of foreign troops it would be something in itself; and it may be that it would lead to an exploring of other possible areas of agreement which would lead in the end to less tension and a general reduction of armaments.
  It seems to me that this policy is worth taking risks for. It may also lead us to what I think is long overdue: that is, a further discussion with the Americans as to the proper deployment of our various rôles in defence policy. For my part, I think it is foolish for Great Britain to seek to become a nuclear Power. I do not think we have the economic resources to pursue that policy and I think we could do much better otherwise. We must do it by agreement, if we can. Should we not be wiser to devote our economic strength to other purposes: to Z.E.T.A., to the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes and to a building up of the resistances to Communist aggression on the economic front? For I do not believe that the Russians hope to conquer the world by force of arms. I think they might possibly expect

  1157
  that what they call the capitalist States will get exhausted in armaments and Communism will come in as the companion of despair and distress by the back door. That is what has happened up to now.
  Moreover, we are wasting our immense propaganda resources. What folly it is to cut down expenditure upon the overseas broadcasts, the British Council and the various agencies (whose cost compared with this is so trifling) which are capable of winning men's minds! The object of all military policy in the end is to win the mind of the other man, not to kill him, and to cause him to do that of which you approve and not that of which you disapprove. Yet we throw away these peaceful methods of achieving that purpose in order to operate so ineffectively with these fearful and expensive alternatives. In large parts of the world, partly for this reason, we have lost an immense amount of moral prestige. One of the most crippling blows that Britain has suffered is the loss of her moral position, largely through errors of policy and errors of presentation.
  So I cannot vote for this defence Paper. I find myself quite unable to do so, because it seems to me to take the maximum risks for the minimum reasons when other courses are wide open to us. I wish we could come to an agreement about what to do. But it is not the fault of one side or the other than we cannot agree about this. We agree with paragraph 6: that there can be no confidence or peace so long as the arms race continues. It is to stop the arms race that we should bend all our efforts. I hope that some indications that I seem to see of further thoughts, expressed by the Prime Minister and others on this matter, may prove to be true. There is no time to lose.
  6.35 p.m.
  LORD SALTER: My Lords, in the few minutes for which I shall ask your Lordships' indulgence this evening I do not propose to discuss the general policy described in the White Paper; nor shall I attempt to deal with the basic questions put before us just now in the impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. I propose only to ask a question and to make a suggestion with regard to one feature of Her Majesty's
  1158
  Government's policy on which the White Paper is silent and on which Government spokesmen—even the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who added a little more than those who spoke in the debate in the other place last week—have been either reticent or ambiguous. It has been made quite clear that in the case of a border or minor incident the Government contemplate relying on conventional forces only. It has been made equally clear that they are relying upon the ultimate weapon of the hydrogen bomb as a deterrent against major aggression. The ambiguity is in what has been called the "grey area" intervening between minor incidents and all-out aggression.
  There has, as we all know, been a great deal of thought and discussion on both sides of the Atlantic as to the possibility and desirability of using, but confining ourselves to the tactical use of, the atomic bomb in this vast intermediate area. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for example, referred to the most interesting book by Mr. Kissinger on the other side of the Atlantic. It is still, in my view, not quite clear from the statements made, either by our own Government or by that of the United States, whether in this intermediate sphere we are contemplating resorting to the tactical use of the smaller atomic bomb for limited targets with the intention and with the real hope that a conflict in which even these nuclear weapons were used would not necessarily lead to the use of the ultimate weapon. We have been told that we not only have such smaller nuclear weapons, but that they have ben issued to N.A.T.O. forces. Some statements, both by our own and by the United States Government, suggest, though not without ambiguity, that an intermediate defence policy based upon these smaller tactical atomic bombs and the hope that they will not lead to the launching of the hydrogen bomb is, in fact, an integral part of our general policy. I do not now propose to discuss whether this policy is, in fact, practicable. If it is, and if the distinction could be maintained, its advantages are obvious.
  I wish now to make only a few comments on the assumption that this is, or will be, an integral part of Western policy, and to make some suggestions as to what might be done to reduce the dangers necessarily involved. These dangers are obvious. The first is that

  1159
  a potential enemy will assume that the use or threat of any kind of atomic weapons cannot, or will not, stop at the limited use of smaller bombs for limited purposes. In that case, in pursuing a particular objective for which he might not originally have intended to use the hydrogen bomb, he might resort to it as soon as the West used the nuclear bomb. The second possibility is that the public of the Western countries, believing that there is no valid and maintainable distinction between the atomic and the hydrogen bomb, will frustrate any intermediate defence policy of this kind by preventing the Western Governments from resorting to the tactical bomb.
  Thirdly, as a consequence of this possibility the enemy may believe that Western Governments will be so restrained, and in that belief, whether right or wrong, may embark on an important aggression with conventional weapons from which he would otherwise have refrained. Lastly, since at the best we cannot eliminate but can only possibly reduce the risks of the tactical spreading into the strategic, there is, of course, the danger that a local commander will, in an immediate emergency, resort to the use of the tactical, smaller nuclear bombs in circumstances in which the political authorities of the Western Governments, if they had an opportunity to consider the question, and realising as they would more clearly than the local commander, might decide that the risk of using the nuclear bomb should not be taken.
  As I said, I am not now discussing the merits of this intermediate policy of the tactical use of nuclear bombs. But on the assumption or hypothesis that this is a part of Western policy, I want to suggest two steps which might at least reduce the dangers to which I have referred. The first is that there should be a careful staff and official study, both national and joint, as to the classes of dispute and aggression for which the intermediate policy is to apply and the precise limits of the bomb and the targets in such cases. This would then be followed by precise instructions to the military commanders as to the conditions on which the nuclear weapon might alone be used, including precise rules as to securing authorisation from superior authority, by which I mean political authority. This study would,
  1160
  of course, be secret, as would be the precise instructions given as a result of it.
  Secondly, though I appreciate what the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, said as to publishing such definitions and rules as would fatally handicap us in dealing with an actual emergency. I wonder whether it would not be possible to formulate some clearer agreed statement of the philosophy and major principles of this intermediate policy for the grey area than has so far been made. It could, I suggest, at least go beyond the very bare and tentative indications that have so far been given. I think a fuller statement would be possible and would, at least, substantially diminish the danger, through a misunderstanding on the part of our own public or on the part of the potential enemy, of the tactical leading straight on to the strategic and to the disastrous consequences that are in all our minds. I do not ask that a reply should be given to these questions and these suggestions in the present debate. I ask only that an assurance should be given that they will be considered by the Government.
  6.45 p.m.
  LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should not like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Salter, who has just sat down, on this question of the realms of influence of the tactical and the strategic nuclear weapon, but at the outset I would say that I am in complete agreement with the principle of reliance on the nuclear deterrent as the main means of defence against major aggression. As stressed in and outside Parliament, this country is in no economic position to afford large conventional forces, and must therefore rely exclusively on a policy of interdependence between Western countries, a contribution to collective defence in keeping with her resources and in line with the common defence of the West, a reduction of forces in view of the increasing complexity and cost of modern weapons, and highly specialised, trained, efficient and mobile forces, so that this country can do her share towards total peace whilst maintaining her position in the world and increasing her bargaining power.
  Naturally, I agree with the point of view that our ultimate aim should be disarmament, as was so rightly said by the Prime Minister in another place during

  1161
  the foreign affairs debate. I should like to quote his words. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 582 (No. 56), col. 1224]:
  "It has been argued that both sides should abandon nuclear weapons; if the Soviet get rid of theirs, we should get rid of ours. Even here we must be careful, for if this were not accompanied by corresponding reductions in what are called conventional weapons—terrible weapons, as many of us know—it might again put the West at a fatal disadvantage. The reason is simple. There are over 200 Russian satellite divisions in Europe, facing the West. N.A.T.O. would find it difficult to collect even a quarter of this number over the whole front."
  So whilst the balance of power in conventional weapons leans so greatly on the Russian side there is no alternative, as I see it, but for this country to be at the greatest possible degree of defence readiness so as to deter a major conflict. For this we must rely on our strategic bomber force and on ballistic missiles: but to this question I will return later.
  However, there are other aspects to this problem of defence. There is the question which was asked during the defence debate in another place last week, and which was also referred to in the Press—namely, a definition of the area comprised between a border incident and a major, full-scale attack. Surely, it would not be to our advantage, when we are relying on the nuclear deterrent—as powerfully stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his opening remarks—to inform the Russians exactly how far they can go before we will use this weapon. I believe it is right, though, that, as stated in the White Paper, without ambiguity we should inform the Russians that even if they launched a major conventional attack we would hit back with strategic nuclear weapons. In view of our shortage of conventional armament and forces, there is surely no point in tempting the Soviets into a scale of war which in advance `their knew they could win on account of their numerical superiority in troops and conventional arms, and the knowledge that we would not retaliate with nuclear weapons.
  Last week in another place the Minister of Supply said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 583 (No. 61), col. 496]:
  "A collective defence effort tries to provide for every contingency. Jointly, the whole alliance tries to provide a deterrent to global war, a preparation for conventional war, a preparation for limited war and a preparation for police operations."
  1162
  The question of a deterrent to global war and the form it could take will come to later, as mentioned in my opening remarks. With regard to a joint preparation for conventional war, possibly the noble Earl who will be replying to the debate may be able to clarify that question, for, as I understand the problem, this country, in conjunction with other N.A.T.O. forces, would immediately rely on nuclear weapons in such an attack, as stated in paragraph 12 of the White Paper. It is possible that the Minister of Supply, when referring to a preparation for a conventional war, may have been referring to our contribution to the conventional N.A.T.O. shield which extends from Norway to the Caucasus.
  Apart from the effectiveness of the deterrent, there still remain the dangers of a limited war which, as has been mentioned many times by noble Lords this afternoon, may flare up within the sphere of influence mainly of our S.E.A.T.O. or Baghdad Pact alliances. Surely it is in such areas that one should fear the development of a limited war into a global war, for in the words of the Secretary of State for War in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 583 (No. 62), col. 666]:
  "The danger of global war lies not in the black but in the grey"
  It is in view of such a possible development that I should welcome a statement by the noble Earl who will be replying to this debate—although he may consider it wiser to await the return of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from Manila—on the extent of the effectiveness of our agreements in this matter of collective defence in those areas, with the object, naturally, of assuring the preservation of peace.
  My Lords, it seems evident, and the Government appear well aware of the fact, that we cannot exclusively rely on our central reserve and on the troop-carrying capacity of Transport Command's Comet, Beverley, Britannia and Hastings aircraft, our land and air forces normally stationed in the Middle and Far East, as well as on our seaborne commando force, to guarantee effectively that any limited war in that part of the world will not build up into a war of far-reaching consequences.
  We are right—and this matter is touched on in the Defence White Paper—in not underestimating the potential

  1163
  power of Communist China and the increasing influence it could have in that part of the world. Backed by the rising industrial production of Manchuria, whose size is greater than the combined areas of the British Isles, France and Germany, the very great mineral wealth of China, and also by an order passed by the Chinese Parliament in 1955 which introduced compulsory military service for all men between the ages of 18 and 40 (which is making, I am told, nearly 80 million men liable for service in the army, navy or air force), the new China, with its vast reservoir of over 500 million inhabitants, extended communications and higher technical education, and a country which is so densely populated (for instance, the Kiangsu Province has over 850 inhabitants per square mile), will certainly emerge as a Power with which we shall have to contend to an increasing degree. And such a country is no more than 5,000 nautical miles from London; which brings us back to the question of strategic and nuclear weapons.
  In the first instance, I think we must consider the problem of the desirability or not of the spreading of nuclear warheads to an increasing number of countries. This question was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, but I do not agree with him, in so far as I agree with the principle of the deterrent. At the moment these warheads remain under the full ownership, custody and control of the United States, as stated in the White Paper on the Supply of Ballistic Missiles by the United States to the United Kingdom. On February 25 Mr. Dulles said in Washington, as reported in the Press:
  "It is indispensable that there be bases dispersed around the world. A Communist attack anywhere in the world would be an attack against the United States itself. We are the target."
  And so, my Lords, in view of the proposed extension of missile bases, what is the answer to the increased risk of the use of the deterrent at a misguided moment? Does the statement imply that the United States intend to maintain custody and control of such warheads? Should the United States, on the one hand, and the U.S.S.R., on the other, maintain exclusively the custody and control of nuclear warheads?
  1164
  But do we know the Russian intentions on this matter? Would not possibly the solution lie in the creation of a global authority within N.A.T.O., the North Atlantic Council, whose members would consist of Government representatives of countries supplied with nuclear warheads? Alternatively, would such machinery prove too unwieldy for prompt action, and could the members be maintained in permanent contact for immediate decisions to be taken? These are questions to which answers will have to be found during this period of tension prior to balanced disarmament.
  With your Lordships' permission, I should now like to refer to the question of supply to this country of ballistic missiles by the United States Government, our provision of the sites, and our deployment of the missiles, as well as to our other nuclear strategic weapons. Naturally, I wish the N.A.T.O. shield to be as effective as it possibly can be; in other words, that our power to deter an attack should be as great as possible. But the limited design range of Thor, though there was a statement in the Press that a distance of 2,800 miles had been achieved during a trial; the drawbacks of liquid fuelling; the fact, as stated by the Minister of Supply in another place during the defence debate, that there are improvements to be made in this weapon and that we are also developing a longer range missile of our own, coupled with the vulnerability of above-ground launching facilities—surely these are serious enough disadvantages for alternative suggestions to be considered by Her Majesty's Government. I do not agree with the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Air when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 583 (No. 62), col. 570]:
  "I should have thought that these widely dispersed sites would have provided an unattractive target, because they would be small and contain only a few missiles."
  From that assumption, my Lords, submarines would provide an unattractive target. I do not agree either with the idea that our bomber force could be as vulnerable as our missile deterrent, for, as stated in the White Paper:
  "Measures are accordingly being taken to raise its state of readiness so as to reduce to the minimum the time needed for take-off"—
  and it
  "provides a mobile and flexible form of military power."

  1165
  With our co-ordination of continental radar warning systems, surely our aircraft would be in a position to take off for alternative airfields whilst remaining bombed-up for an offensive sortie at some appropriate time, whilst the missiles would not have such an advantage. These I feel are grounds for preferring a less vulnerable, shorter readiness or more mobile form of nuclear deterrent such as can be provided by missile launching submarines, and that question was touched on earlier on by the noble Lord. Lord Teynham.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on, I wonder whether I might ask him if he would read the book by Kissinger, in which he points out that twenty missiles addressed to this country to prevent our taking those measures would wipe out half the population?
  LORD MERRIVALE: I am well aware of the dangers of nuclear warfare, but I believe at the moment I am right in saying that we are relying on the vast dangers of nuclear warfare from the deterrent point of view. I should also like to stress the advantages of our strategic bomber force equipped with propelled bombs of considerable range.
  We have been told that the cost of our missile bases will be in the region of £10 million, a sum which no doubt could usefully have been allocated to bomber or troop-carrying aircraft, while the American contribution, estimated at £30 million, could have gone towards the supply to this country of nuclear strategic missile-firing submarines. In view of our geographical position and our naval heritage, could we not have made a more useful contribution to N.A.T.O. by the deployment of a ballistic missile submarine force?
  I believe that the strategic value of such a weapon was recognised yesterday in another place by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, when he said that the strategic value is incalculable; whilst possibly Her Majesty's Government could induce the remaining N.A.T.O. countries to provide a static form of shield, extending from Norway to Turkey.
  In conclusion, I believe, first, that we should have aimed at greater mobility when considering the whole aspect of our strategic nuclear missile deterrent;
  1166
  and secondly, in the advantage of having our V-Bomber force also capable of conventional action, which is not a negligible contribution when one considers the importance of what has been called by many noble Lords this afternoon the "grey" area.
  7.2 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, at this hour it would obviously be impossible to attempt to cover the very wide Held that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale has just covered, or the other important aspects of the subject, such as the question of tactical nuclear weapons and whether they can be isolated from thermo-nuclear weapons. All I should like to do is to underline some of the reasons why we on these Benches are moving the Amendment that we have put down in my noble Leader's name.
  That Amendment has three legs, the last one containing the assertion that the Government have not provided effectively for the defence requirements of Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth. I will not go into that matter in detail. We know that it is only sixteen months since the fiasco of Suez, when our defence forces were shown to be inadequate and ineffective in their job. But we are entitled to ask, I think, in view of the emphasis on the central reserve, how the central reserve is to get to where it is wanted—a point referred to in paragraph 40, and others, of the White Paper. Of course, we are told that twenty Britannias have been ordered. That is admirable news. But when in fact will these machines be available, and when will the central reserve be in a position to be lifted from its peace-time stations to the scene of an emergency?
  The second leg of our Amendment urges that the agreement on the setting up of ballistic missile sites in this island shall be suspended until the Summit talks have taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, ended his full and impressive speech with the most sincere hopes that disarmament would become possible, even by small steps, each one leading to a small increase of confidence and a decrease of suspicion. Indeed, paragraph 2 of the White Paper talks of the opposite sides of the cold war, and says:
  "Each fears that the other has aggressive intentions; and no amount of pacific assurances in both directions have so far succeeded in removing these suspicions."

  1167
  That is why we object to the latest agreement to set up ballistic missile bases.
  Lord Mancroft, I think, said that everything that could be done to relieve tension and suspicion would be done. That is a good thing. We know that the Prime Minister has taken a leading part; he has shown himself very willing to arrange Summit talks between the West and East. But does it make sense, if we are going to start important discussions, where mutual suspicion is the chief obstacle to achieving any result, to set ourselves up with more efficient means of attacking the person with whom we are going to negotiate? It is difficult to understand the timing of an operation like this.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: In that case, does not the noble Earl find it equally difficult to understand the fact, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, that the Russians have chosen this moment to set off two of the greatest hydrogen bombs ever known?
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Yes, I find it quite incomprehensible. But I see no reason why this country should follow the example of Russia. If we want to reach an agreement I think we should be ready to go a long way to making the conditions for these negotiations as good as possible. We hear a great deal from the present Government and from the Americans about our expecting deeds and not words from the Russians. Here we are going into negotiations and are prefacing them with deeds—to me it makes no sense at all.
  My Lords, paragraph 11 of the White Paper makes a great deal of the Russians' overwhelming superiority in conventional armaments and military manpower. As we know, that is a big factor. But when Lord Mancroft spoke of the possibility that the Russians would attempt to overrun the West by force, he seemed to me to be putting a false interpretation on the position. No doubt the Government's advisers have written many appreciations of the situation in Europe; no doubt they have assessed what the Russians are likely to do. I was always taught that in writing an appreciation the vital thing was first to get the object right, and that if one got the object wrong then the whole of one's reason
  1168
  ing and actions would be wrong too. In this case, I suggest, with great respect, that Her Majesty's Government have got the object of the Soviet Union wrong. I believe they have said that the object of the Soviet Union is to overrun the West by force of arms and dictate peace. I suggest, on the contrary, that the object of the Russians is to impose, to spread, Communism on all the countries of the West by the most likely means. Surely to invade a country is not the way for them to get the good will of its inhabitants towards their own régime.
  People cannot be forced to think the same as the Russians do, or to adopt their political forms. So that it does not seem likely that the Russians would attempt an armed attack of that kind. Still less do I believe that they would want to scatter nuclear bombs over the Western countries, because that, equally, would frustrate their aim of achieving Communism all over Europe. There would be no point in a Communist régime if there were no living people and no industrial or civilised life. I believe that there is a fallacy about that part of the White Paper which may easily have led to miscalculations in other parts of it.
  The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, made a plea for defence matters to be lifted above Party. As an ideal, no doubt there is a lot to be said for that suggestion. But surely in any political matters the existence of Parties is due to there being disagreements on the object to be achieved and on the methods to be adopted. So I feel that agreement here is more than we can hope for—indeed, as your Lordships will know, there are members of my Party who hold views different from those of the majority. In the speech of my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, we had a glimpse of a slightly different attitude to this matter. Though there was a lot in his very able speech with which I agreed, I could not go the whole way with him. He is not alone in thinking as he does, and we know that many people in all Parties, and people of no Party, are willing to go to much greater lengths than the two official Parties are.
  My Party believe that the possession by this country of the bomb does contribute to keeping the peace; in other words, it does act as a deterrent. But we

  1169
  believe that we should put it to the maximum possible use in obtaining agreement, and in reducing the tension in the cold war. It is a bargaining factor that might well be used. We have seen that the first point on which agreement was very nearly reached in the disarmament field was on the suspension of nuclear tests. That seems to me to be a direction in which we could use our possession of these bombs as a bargaining factor. I should like, in parenthesis, to enter a small protest against the gibe that is always made against those who wish unilaterally to renounce the hydrogen bomb. We heard again from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that that would mean sheltering behind the United States Forces, and he called it "hypocritical and dishonourable." If we turn to paragraph 29 of the White Paper, we read that:
  "Britain is now making an increasingly significant contribution to the Western nuclear deterrent."
  That means that up till now Britain has not made a contribution to the Western nuclear deterrent. Moreover, since the war the Americans have possessed weapons more powerful than we have; and yet I have not noticed any feelings of hypocrisy or dishonour on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It is a silly gibe and a totally false analogy. Those people who believe in unilateral renunciation should be given the credit for holding sincerely the views they do. I feel that I have talked long enough, but I should like to say that all of our Party wholeheartedly agree that the White Paper is objectionable for the reasons we give.
  The Sitting was suspended at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half-past eight.
  8.30 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this afternoon the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle made an appeal in your Lordships' House that the question of nuclear weapons should be kept out of Party politics. If the right reverend Prelate meant that Parties should not exploit the genuine fear of these terrible weapons, I would entirely agree with him. But I think it would be wrong for the major political Parties, which at one time or another will be called upon to form a Government or an Opposition, not to discuss or argue the merits of their
  1170
  case. It would be wrong for any Opposition to act as a rubber stamp to any Government policy. Some noble Lords on the other side of the House echoed this appeal. It seemed to me that they were hinting that the Opposition were acting irresponsibly in questioning, the merits of the present Government's defence policy.
  The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, recalled a period of twenty-five years ago. It is perfectly true that at that time the British Labour Party were then forming Her Majesty's Opposition and were led by George Lansbury, who was a devoted pacifist. It is perfectly true that many members of the Labour Party held strong pacifist views. But those views were not subscribed to by all. Times and views changed, and George Lansbury was followed as the Leader of the British Labour Party by my noble friend Lord Attlee—and I do not think anybody would call the noble Earl a pacifist. The Labour Party throughout that period promoted the cause of the League of Nations. It was the Conservative Party that resisted sanctions on Italy when Italy made its unprovoked attack on Abyssinia. I do not wish to develop a Party argument, but in view of Lord Coleraine's remarks I thought it only right to point out that it was, not only the Labour Party that was responsible for the appalling drift to war in the 'thirties. If anything, the responsibility was far greater on the Conservative shoulders, in that during that period they were the Government and were supported by a large majority in another place. I shall leave that matter as it is.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, this afternoon, in a very detailed speech, has asked us to approve the Government's Statement, Command Paper No. 363. I have studied this Paper most carefully in conjunction with the Estimates that have been issued by the Ministers responsible for the various Defence Departments; I have read very carefully the debate which took place in the other place last week; I listened most carefully to the detailed speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft; and, in spite of his eloquence, and in spite of the eloquence of a number of noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Statement, I frankly find it very unsatisfactory. In every Department there is a drive to reduce expenditure; but what concerns

  1171
  me is that, in this desire to reduce costs, we may well do it at the expense of overall defence, especially the defence of our lines of communication, at the expense of the defence of our Colonies and Dominions.
  The Government seem to believe that a defence policy based largely on a nuclear deterrent will in the end be cheaper and more effective than a defence policy based mainly on conventional weapons but supported by the nuclear deterrent. There has been some doubt as to the position of the Labour Party in regard to nuclear deterrent weapons. I should have thought the position had been made amply clear by the leaders of our Party on a number of occasions. The Labour Party believe that we need the deterrent weapons. It is quite immaterial whether the hydrogen bomb is delivered by an aircraft or by a guided missile. What is of fundamental importance is that we should be complete and utter masters of those weapons, if our future depends upon those weapons, we must be masters of our destiny.
  I believe it is wrong that the nuclear deterrent should dominate our defence policy. I can well appreciate the Government case that if Russia were to attack in Europe it might be necessary to use nuclear weapons. But our interests and responsibilities lie not only in Europe. We are a world power in every possible sense of the word. We are a member of the Baghdad Pact. We are a member of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. We are the main defence of our friends within the Commonwealth—in some cases we are the only defence. Can we imagine in the foreseeable future the use of nuclear weapons if we were called upon to meet our obligations under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, or, for that matter, the Baghdad Pact? We shall need for many years to come considerable forces armed with conventional weapons: and I do not include in the conventional weapons, weapons of a nuclear nature. The Government are quite right when they say that we cannot afford to maintain forces at all the danger spots throughout the world. In fairness to our colleagues in the various Treaty Organisations, in fairness to the Dominions and Colonies, in fairness to the millions of people who live under the protection of the British flag, we cannot drastically
  1172
  reduce our overseas forces unless we can urgently and efficiently reinforce those existing or remaining troops from the central reserve in this country. Speed of reinforcement from our central reserve is of paramount importance.
  May I refer your Lordships to paragraph 33 of last year's Statement? It reads:
  "In view of the increasing strength and efficiency of the Colonial forces and the growing capacity to send reinforcements rapidly from Britain, the Government propose making considerable reductions in these garrisons wherever practicable."
  What I should like to ask the Government is: What is this "growing capacity" to send reinforcements? Bearing in mind that speed is essential, we can leave out the question of sending troops by sea. Before considering the capacity of our aircraft of Transport Command of the Royal Air Force let us consider the vast distances involved. We might be called upon to meet our obligations under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. It is approximately 8,000 miles to Singapore, and that would mean long flights through most difficult conditions. It would require at least 72 hours for a modern aircraft to do the round journey; and that again would mean assuming that the necessary air crews were available.
  What are the resources of Transport Command as we know them? We have a fair number of Hastings aircraft—out-of-date Hastings; we have 47 Beverleys, 10 Comets; and no doubt a few squadrons of Shackletons could well be made available. Even if we take into account the twenty medium-range Britannias now on order, can we be satisfied that the resources of Transport Command of the Royal Air Force are capable of enabling us to meet our obligations under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation? It is perfectly true that we could charter aircraft of commercial airlines, but I submit that this would not make a great deal of difference.
  My Lords, I do not think that I have exaggerated the position. But it could be a great deal graver. Consider the route to the Far East, through the Middle East, India and Ceylon. If we were called upon to support Siam or Malaya under attack, it is highly probable that India and Ceylon would declare their neutrality, and might well refuse us landing and refuelling rights. We might have

  1173
  to take a longer route to avoid certain countries in the Middle East. I do not believe that any of the aircraft I have mentioned is capable of flying out reinforcements to the Far East in time to have any immediate effect in an emergency. In the debate on Civil Aviation last December, I put this very question to Her Majesty's Government. If we have the aircraft, and if there are routes available, I hope that we shall be told; but if we have not, then it is a very grave position. I believe that we must strengthen considerably the Transport Command of the Royal Air Force with the most modern long-range aircraft. Until we can give mobility to the central reserve based in the United Kingdom or in Europe, we just cannot afford to reduce our forces that are now stationed overseas.
  In placing this problem before your Lordships, I n lay have given a dark picture by illustrating the problem for a part of the world that is far away. But let me now take the Middle East. Was not one of the basic difficulties of our operations at Suez the lack of transport aircraft that could quickly build up forces and supplies? To-day, if we are to meet aggression—or, better still, prevent it—speed is vital. I may be wrong, but I believe that if there is another war, it is more likely to start from a small incident and gradually to spread until the major Powers are involved. If prompt reinforcement to a danger spot could prevent the spread to a major war, a few squadrons of large-range freighters might have a greater effect in maintaining the peace of the world than the rather obsolete missiles we are going to establish in this country.
  I have spoken at some length on one aspect of why I support the Amendment that has been moved this afternoon by my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I believe that the present Government policy does not take into account fully our needs to defend our lines of communication to the Commonwealth. There are other reasons why I could support the Amendment: the tragic weakness of the Navy and the rather Maginot-line complex of the Government towards nuclear weapons.
  I somehow believe that the Government themselves, in their heart of hearts, are not happy with the position. They have set their hearts on reducing the bur
  1174
  den of the defence expenditure on the national economy. I should like to read to your Lordships paragraph 6 of last year's White Paper. It says:
  "Britain's influence in the world depends first and foremost on the health of her internal economy and the success of her export trade. Without these, military power cannot be in the long run supported. It is therefore in the true interests of defence that the claims of military expenditure should be considered in conjunction with the need to maintain the country's financial and economic strength".
  I believe that those words hold the key to the present defence policy. The failure of the Government's economic policy now reflects on our policy to defend ourselves and our Commonwealth, and our obligations which we have undertaken with so many countries throughout the world. I believe that the poverty of the Government's policy is becoming more apparent month by month. One would have thought that recent by-election results would clearly show to the Government where their duty lies. But it seems, from what the Prime Minister has said, that the Government intend to die at their post, and therefore the country must pay for the folly of the last General Election. I believe that the duty of the Opposition is perfectly clear: we must support the Amendment.
  8.48 p.m.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to the extent of saying that he has made my task a great deal easier, and, I might say, a great deal more welcome, by rejecting the offer made earlier as between Back-Benchers to take this whole debate outside the arena of Party politics. On the occasion of the last Defence debate I felt myself to be among those gently, indirectly chidden by my noble friend Lord Mancroft for straying outside the stricter confines of the subject. So on this occasion I had better say at the outset that I find it virtually impossible to discuss Defence as such, having heard my right honourable friend the Minister himself declare, in words unequivocal, that there is no defence.
  He said, if I do not misinterpret him, that in the event of a nuclear war an attempt would be made to protect the airfields—"defence of the deterrent", was his phrase—but that the, civilian population would have to take more or less what was coming to them. He also said, with equal clarity and equal power,

  1175
  that what we aimed at was to prevent the possibility of such a nuclear war. So I propose to maintain—I hope not too pedantically—that what we have for discussion to-day is not so much a policy of defence as a policy of prevention, a policy of prophylaxy. My noble friend Lord Mancroft said to-day that had the Kaiser and Hitler known clearly in advance what was to be our reaction to German aggression, two world wars might well have been avoided. I should have thought that an even more emphatic deduction could be made to-day in the nuclear circumstances in which we live, so long as—and this is the important thing—our intentions are made clear and are not enshrined and screened in the Socialist mystery, or wrapped in the terms of to-day's Amendment. I not only believe that this prophylactic method is entirely excellent in purpose, but I agree with the Government that it is the only hope we have to counteract the obliteration of all we possess.
  Your Lordships are well aware of the unbalance between 30 N.A.T.O. divisions and 200 Russian divisions, and that a Soviet armoured corps, driving on the Channel ports, would have a bare 300 miles of territory to traverse to its objective, from a standing start behind the Iron Curtain. There is no pretence that I have heard that N.A.T.O., with its present cold war manpower, could withstand a major Russian advance if it were restricted to conventional weapons or even to tactical atomic weapons. Numbers would count, and the numbers of the enemy would be overwhelming. There is the positive claim, implicit in the White Paper, that we can prevent that attack from ever being launched, if we install and develop the prophylactic weapons available to us at this time, and declare our intention to use them in the event of a Russian aggression.
  I am bound to suppose that any wise and peaceable Government in history would have opted to prevent a war rather than to wage it in any conditions, let alone the conditions imposed to-day by the crushing superiority of Soviet force in conventional weapons. And yet today, in certain quarters, there is a windiness—a reluctance to adopt that one measure, at last a forcible means to outlaw major war. How can we expect
  1176
  future generations to understand it? How could we expect our friends and Allies of to-day to understand it, if we were, under different leadership, to shrink from the very act of self-protection, linked with the mutual protection of Western Europe? These are undoubtedly days when it behoves us to hearten and to infect our friends and Allies with our own courage, as we have done before. This is not the time to dishearten them with a show of havering and heartsickness which, in point of fact, does not become us and is not normal to us as a nation. But it is, all the same, endemic in the utterances of some of our public men to-day.
  How are we to account for it; how are we to account for this curious scruple that it is wrong to tell the Russians that we would counter any major advance of theirs with the only equitable weapon we possess? How are we to understand this bland disregard of the Russian threat, eighteen months ago, of retaliation by nuclear missiles on London and Paris, in reply to a small-scale conventional landing in Port Said, in an area not directly concerned with Soviet Russia? They have declared their moral approval of such an action. They have declared their right and their intention to take the very action that some of us would deny ourselves. My Lords, I have sought out some kind of explanation for this very curious state of mind. Living in this epoch one is bound to be aware that a great proportion of Left wing supporters, righteous even at their most ridiculous, genuinely think that everything British imperialism ever achieved was bad and nothing was good.
  Anyone who has read a page or two of history knows that the record of history rebuts that belief; but still it is held by sometimes perfectly charming people. One must tolerate it as one tolerates other amiable lunacies. We can tolerate it so long as it does not lead us into danger, until it leads to an imperialism in reverse, a dis-imperialism run wild. I think it was Chesterton who, in two witty lines, satirised one aspect, as he conceived it, of the old imperialism:
  "Whatever happens we have got
  The maxim gun and they have not."
  I am corrected; it was Belloc in The Modern Traveller. If in fact that was the attitude of some imperial pioneers,

  1177
  then certainly it was unedifying, at least by the standards of to-day. But what I find equally unedifying and far more foolhardy is the slogan which certain supporters of the Party opposite would like to be able to repeat with a sort of hideous satisfaction if they had their way:
  "Whatever happens, they have got
  The nuclear bomb and we have not,"
  Reading the speeches in another place and comments in part of the Press, it is my unwilling, my woeful, deduction, that some of those in the public life of this country respond with more rapture to the sickly smell of surrender than to any other palpable element. It is they and such as they who give a quite false impression to the foreign observer that this is a city stinking of defeatism.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to interrupt to say that the last set of phrases used by the noble Lord is a complete libel upon the Labour movement in this country and all they did in winning the last war—a complete libel on them and their families who suffered right the way through.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Surely the noble Lord is speaking about the men who went to Munich.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: I am speaking of the present day. I think both noble Lords when they read Hansard will find that I referred to certain supporters of the Labour Party.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What is the point?
  LORD ST. OSWALD: If the noble Lords will disavow them as supporters of the Labour Party and disavow the Daily Herald they will be doing their Party a service.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Just as you ought to begin to disavow the people called Tories who were not averse from supporting Fascism when it suited them.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: I must say that none of them is personally known to me. I will continue by saying that it is the few I am describing—and they are few—who have given this extremely false impression to foreign observers.
  LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord says that these people are few why do he and his friends try to exaggerate their numbers?
  LORD ST. OSWALD: I will, if the noble Lord will allow me, develop in the course of the next few minutes the point I was making. To throw away the only effective weapon we have would be defeatism and surrenderism. I could not attempt to make that point more pungently than the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made it three years ago. This whole attitude, this whole policy, would spell surrender, unless we were to be protected by others with the weapons that we were too craven to handle ourselves. That would be a proud posture indeed for the British Islanders! Even if we were to adopt that impossible, that unthinkable, posture, can we seriously assume that our present Allies would be prepared to defend those who were able but not prepared to defend themselves?
  At this point I can only assume that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, was intentionally splitting hairs when he presented his objection to this argument by quoting paragraph 29 of the White Paper, because there is nothing in paragraph 29, in fact nothing in the whole White Paper, to suggest that we have not been making our maximum contribution to the Western nuclear deterrent, which is, after all, what is required of us.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Surely the noble Lord knows that the essence of every alliance is that each partner takes its share, not necessarily the major share; and what I said was that until now we had not taken a major share in the Western Alliance.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: No. I am quite ready to stand corrected, but I think what the noble Earl suggested was that this line in paragraph 29, which he mentioned, suggested that we had not until now been making a significant contribution.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: That is what the White Paper says.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: Not as I read it. It may be open to discussion. What in fact it says is that
  "Britain is now making an increasingly significant contribution …"

  1179
  That does not say that until now we have been making an insignificant contribution.
  The leadership of the Labour Party is not yet tainted by the sort of poltroonery that I have described. I read yesterday in the Daily Herald the forthright article by Mr. George Brown, followed to-day by the sickly article by Mr. J. B. Priestley, full of false pacificism which is really surrenderism. Indeed, I must say that it seems to me miraculous and depressing that anything so spiritless should have come out of Yorkshire. There is a group in the Party opposite referred to as the "Ginger Group" expounding this sort of creed of surrenderism. It might be better defined as the "Opium group" judging by the effect of its commodity on the wits of those who consume it. My great respect for noble Lords on the front Bench opposite requires me to say that, in all conscience, surely they and their colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet can "out-ginger" that bunch.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should think so.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: May I say at once that I derive no satisfaction whatever, still less triumph, from this particular split in the Party opposite—because it is more than a split in a Party. It encourages a split among our countrymen in face of a grave danger, and at a time when grave decisions may have to be taken and when it is imperative that we should be united. What I am going to say next is by way of establishing some sort of Party identity of purpose, because there is still apparent evidence that the leadership itself of the Labour Party is shaken and unsure of its course.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Nonsense!
  LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Viscount says "Nonsense!" Five months ago the attitude of Mr. Bevan was perfectly clear. It would be hard to say that it was equally clear to-day. Five months ago he said that without the bomb a British Foreign Secretary would go naked into the international conference. To-day, Mr. Bevan (I am assuming that he optimistically sees himself in the part) is still reluctant to go naked
  1180
  into the conference, but he seems quite prepared to go in wearing a transparent bikini. Because let us have this one perfectly clear definition; let us answer the riddle: when is a deterrent not a deterrent? A deterrent is not a deterrent if we throw it away. Nor is it a deterrent if we make it perfectly plain to the enemy and to the world at large that, though we have it, we will never use it, or will use it only when it is too late.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Would the noble Lord also say that a deterrent is not a deterrent if it can be destroyed before it is used?
  LORD ST. OSWALD: Is the noble Lord arguing, therefore, that it is better not to have it at all?
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: No.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: Good. I was beginning to think he was supporting the point that his noble friend the Leader of the Opposition thought I was making. The word "suicide" has been merrily bandied about in the past few days, and has found its echo in this debate. But it is those who use it who are peddling suicide in these debates, because what they offer the country is "suicide by inertia." Perhaps I am little qualified to wax prophetic, but I have travelled more than some among many peoples and I am convinced that any Government which led this country to such a dishonourable fate would be remembered, for centuries to come, as the Achilles buttock of Britain.
  Here then, my Lords, is the line-up of our political defence for the next few vital years: the Government of the day and the Opposition, the reserve team. Two teams, their character and purpose described respectively by the authors of this White Paper and by its critics; one facing the future, alert to its dangers, determined to equip the country with the most modern and effective apparatus of a scientific age—a Government abreast of the times; and the other, turning their backs on the future, turning their backs on reality, depending on polythene bathing trunks to make them invisible. If, in the remainder of this debate, noble Lords opposite can persuade me, and (what I confess is far more important), can persuade the world, that my picture of them is entirely false, then I feel

  1181
  certain that they will be doing a great service to their Party, and to peace.
  9.8 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I should like to start by making my apologies to my noble friend, Lord Aberdare, for having been unavoidably absent from the House when he made what I hear was a most admirable and excellent: maiden speech. I hope that the next time he addresses the House I shall be more fortunate. We are coming in sight of the end of this first day's debate, and may I try to see what, in my view at any rate, are some of the salient points which have emerged from the speeches of noble Lords? It seems to me that anyone who reads this year's White Paper will be struck by the evidence that it shows of continuity of policy. One noble Lord opposite (I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Wise, who is not now in the Chamber) suggested that certain portions of the early part would have been better left out. I cannot say that I agree with that. I feel that on any account, whether people agree with the Government or disagree with it, it is absolutely right that the Government's view should be clearly stated beyond any doubt.
  There is continuity in this White Paper of the policy of last year. As it says in the text of the Paper, it is the implementation of the 1957 White Paper; and my noble friend Lord Mancroft gave what I thought was a pretty impressive list of steps which had been taken: in other words, of decisions which have been reached. We have in past years had numbers of White Papers which did not show the same evidence of decision as, I put to your Lordships, this White Paper does. The continuity is not, I think, merely in respect of the 1957 White Paper; it shows a continuity, by and large, since 1947, the year after the present series of White Papers started and the year in which the Iron Curtain came down. Of course, if you look back at the 1947 and 1948 White Papers you will see a great many changes, and there they are; but I put it to your Lordships that those changes are much more changes of practice—major practice, if you like—and not changes in principle, because the principles on which the 1947 White Paper started off in the days when the Iron Curtain began are principles that have
  1182
  stood the test of the advent of atomic and nuclear weapons.
  Make no mistake, this is a problem of what might start off, of what might touch off, some horrible third world war in which we should all be annihilated. Of course, there is no denying that the fact that we now have atomic and nuclear weapons makes that prospect very much more serious; but it is not a change in principle. World wars have been sparked off by bullets in our lifetime, as in the Sarajevo incident. No doubt in former times they were sparked off by bows and arrows, and it does not follow that because we have nuclear weapons the spark off is more likely to happen. On the contrary, one could argue perfectly well that because of what is at stake the spark off would be less likely to happen than otherwise.
  May I now come to a theme which has been voiced by a number of noble Lords from different sides of the House and which was also voiced, so I read, in another place by the right honourable gentleman the Member for Easington: and that is the need—I would say the urgent need—to get defence matters, and indeed foreign affairs matters, above the strife of Party politics? A number of noble Lords made that point. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle added his voice to that number, and I should like to add mine too, because, looked at in a certain way, differences of opinion, even relatively major differences of opinion such as have been voiced to-night, are, I would say, a luxury which we in this country cannot afford at the present time, however much we may be entitled to Party differences over internal matters. Mr. Shinwell in his speech in the other place, I think I am right in saying, mentioned some joint Party consultations, possibly somewhat on the lines of the old Committee of Imperial Defence; and some noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite in the time when my noble friends and I were in Opposition will remember the several times we made that same point; but, unfortunately, as I think, we got no change. However, there is still time.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I correct the noble Viscount? Several times I invited the Opposition leaders to come and discuss defence, and we did

  1183
  so, but later on they preferred not to, because a little knowledge of the facts somtimes cramped their style.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, my recollection goes back even further than that of the noble Earl. I do not dissent from that, but, having myself sat on the Committee of Imperial Defence for many years before the war, I remember some occasions on which the same sort of overture was made to the Opposition and was declined, except over things that did not matter a bit—things like the Channel tunnel. But I believe that we were both a bit at fault; and is that not a very good reason for our being perhaps more sensible to-day on both sides?
  EARL ATTLEE: The noble Earl will remember that there was a very strong difference of opinion between the two sides. For instance, at that time we were advocating collective security, and you will remember that Mr. Chamberlain said it was moonshine. I am glad that collective security is now acceptable.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I bow to the experience of noble Lords on both sides who had the experience which has never come my way.
  Now I should like to say one other thing about the White Paper itself. As I see it, one can feel in the White Paper the increased relationship of our defence preparations to the Summit talks, and therefore to the ultimate object of our defence policy, which is disarmament and, therefore, preparation for peace. I thought that in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Rea, gave the impression that in his opinion Summit talks were not in sight. If he did give that impression, I would say that he was wrong. I should have thought, though knowing little about it, that Summit talks were more in sight now than they had been for a long time, so that our defence policy must be so framed and shaped that we do everything we can to lead up to useful, conclusive and worthwhile Summit talks. Thus our defence policy should be shaped to lead to eventual disarmament.
  It is very easy to say that, but one can also say that, if we are not careful, our defence policy may lead indeed to disarmament, but not to disarmament all round, which is what all of us, in this
  1184
  House and elsewhere, really want. In my view—and I appreciate how seriously the opposite view has been given—any failure to go ahead now with our nuclear preparations would not in the long run lead to disarmament all round. It might lead to a form of unilateral disarmament; but that would not, I think, produce the result we are all seeking. What we want is parallel disarmament in the two groups, in the N.A.T.O. group and in the Iron Curtain group. That, I am quite sure, is the objective which is aimed at by noble Lords opposite.
  That brings me to a point which was made I thought very rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, when he pointed out that although we talk about "we" half the time we really mean N.A.T.O., because we are committed and obligated to N.A.T.O., and so long as we are members of N.A.T.O. and Western European Union, our policy must be part and parcel of the N.A.T.O. policy and nothing else. So, my Lords, I put it, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye did, that any tendency towards unilateral disarmament, even if it is only a temporary tendency, will not really make for peace in the sense of our own security.
  I believe that the differences that have been voiced on both sides are not nearly so wide as some people might think. We are concentrating on whether or not it is right to establish the Thor weapon over here just now. I do not think anybody in his senses is prepared at this stage, before even any Summit talks have taken place, to contemplate the possibility of a bloodless walkover by the Soviets as an acceptable form of peace. It may be, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, that Russia is not anxious for a military victory but is anxious for an ideological victory. I do not particularly care which way the ideological victory comes, with or without war; I do not want to see it here, and I do not think that we are going the right way if we fail to take the measures of defence that are indicated in the White Paper.
  That is where those who think as I do part company with those who want to call a halt now to the implementing of Thor in this country. In saying that, I do not want any noble Lord to think for a moment that I am not taking full account of the sincerity with which other views have been voiced this afternoon, nor do I necessarily hold the view that

  1185
  the implementing of Thor, to which the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, referred, is necessarily the best technically. It may or may not be so. If it is not right, then what we are doing should be changed; but in this debate we are much more concerned with principles than we are with the merits or defects of any particular weapon, however far-ranging or important it may be.
  While I pay tribute to the sincerity of those who hold opposite views, I must state my view plainly. This campaign for nuclear disarmament, with those associated with it, is the biggest red herring this nation has had to face since the Peace Pledge movement in 1935, and that is saying a lot. In looking at to-day's Times I see that at a meeting at Oxford one of the official speakers, who met with some opposition, asked for widespread refusal of military service. So that nuclear disarmament, like adversity in the proverb, makes strange bedfellows, because some of the people who support nuclear disarmament appear to call for conventional disarmament as well. I would say—and I hope that this is not a wrong thing to say—that when I read accounts of people outside your Lordships' House who take these views and are widely reported as holding them, I feel how very few seem to have any experience of dealing with the practical problems of defence, and still fewer have felt the weight of responsibility which comes to those, like Members of your Lordships' House and of another place, who have a share in shaping Government policy and voting for or against it. Whatever views we hold, we cannot but feel anxiety, especially if we are Christians.
  My view is that the effective preparations for defence outlined in the White Paper are much more likely to lead to worthwhile Summit talks and therefore to worthwhile measures of disarmament. After all, we may dislike the idea of nuclear weapons, we may recoil from the horrible possibilities which they conjure up in our minds, but they are here; they have been invented and nothing we can do can exorcise or remove them from the world of reality. Whether or not we like to see weapons emplaced in this country, we cannot get away from the geographical position of this country or from those problems
  1186
  which are caused by our geographical position in the world; and the same thing, since the greater includes the less, goes for East Anglia. So we have to base our defence policy in such a way as to use our military preparations as part of a peaceful foreign policy. We cannot separate the two.
  I notice that in a lecture at the Royal United Service Institution the other day Sir Stephen King-Hall complained that people talk about defence policy as an adjunct to foreign policy. He said, and I am sure that he is right nowadays, that defence policy is foreign policy. I think—and I hope that I am not presuming in saying this—that some difference of opinion, not only in your Lordships' House but outside, arises from a possible confusion of thought in three directions. First of all, I think we are wrong in regarding nuclear weapons as something basically and fundamentally different from earlier types. I thought in that matter that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was right, but I doubted whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was quite so right. I myself feel—and I think this will be supported by any look that anybody takes at the history of war and weapons—that a weapon has seldom altered the principles of war, however much it may have altered the tactics of the battlefield and however much larger it may have made the battlefield grow.
  Secondly, some of us are attempting, as said, to ignore the existence of nuclear weapons. But they are there; and I think if we try to take a peep into the future we shall see that they will find their place in exactly the same way as the bogies of the last generation, poison gas and bacteriological warfare, have found their place—and not nearly so frightening a place as some of us thought. Thirdly, we are wrong in not realising that with the increased range of weapons which we have nowadays conceptions of sovereignty as we used to understand them have far less meaning than they used to have, at any rate, in Western Europe. For defence purposes a great measure of sovereignty must be delegated, in our case to N.A.T.O. So we come to the conception of Allied effort in production and research, particularly in nuclear weapons, because, as everybody knows and agrees, nuclear weapons are far too expensive and there is far too much at stake to attempt to work separately from the

  1187
  Americans or anybody else. Any undertaking in respect of nuclear weapons must be not a unilaterally British or American matter, or belonging to any other country, but part of the N.A.T.O. operational policy.
  But the opposite is equally true: notwithstanding that we act as part of N.A.T.O. in regard to our nuclear and atomic preparations, our domestic preparations must be our own—I use the word "domestic" in preference to the word conventional "because I think that in some ways it gives a better angle on the problem. After all, most of what are called our conventional preparations are preparations which are designed in order that we can undertake our own responsibilities vis-è-vis this country and the Commonwealth and Empire. In the same way that nuclear operations on a big scale imply a strategical and tactical plan beyond the scope of our own resources, equally the domestic or, if you like, the conventional preparations are well within our own resources.
  There is a further point that, whatever may be the state of invention and research to-day, to my mind the time will almost certainly come when the nuclear and atomic weapons will be broken down, so that those principles can be made to serve tactical weapons on the battlefield; and if we leave nuclear manufacture now, as some people suggest, there will certainly be a point at which it will be absolutely necessary to re-enter the field of nuclear manufacture in order to safeguard what we now call, I think mistakenly, our need for conventional forces.
  So we have these domestic measures which we take on our own. That brings me to welcome most warmly the text in italic printing on page 1 of the Report on Defence. It also brings me to welcome strongly what is said in paragraph 40 about the central reserve. Here again I should like to say how much I agree with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I thought he was absolutely right, and also, reading between the lines, I felt that there were great signs in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the White Paper that the operational and logistic lessons of Suez had been faithfully learned. I am going quickly now because the hour is late. I hope that the Government will realise the
  1188
  strong feeling in this country that the Germans, who after all did not win the last war, should be made to pay their proper share of the costs of Western defence. There are one or two other paragraphs in the Paper upon which I am going to touch very shortly indeed.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I just say that we always appreciate listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, because he is always so fair and quiet. But perhaps he will look back to-morrow morning over what he has said in general, and then consider what the position of the Opposition really is. As I pointed out on January 22, they were the pioneers of N.A.T.O. They were the first to get the real combination; it was they who realised that in those circumstances only National Service would meet the situation. They were the ones who acquiesced in the terrific expansion of the collective army of N.A.T.O. When the noble Viscount is looking at his remarks to-morrow morning, he will realise the contrast I made between being secure through a deterrent up to 1951 and the vast difference there is in the situation to-day, as a result of the new power and discoveries of Russia.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords. I will most certainly look in Hansard to-morrow morning at what all of us have said. But let me say now that I do not think that I have at any time wished to dispute the most important share which noble Lords opposite took in the formation of N.A.T.O. and in National Service. If he looks back at former Hansards I think the noble Viscount will find that he had plenty of support from those of us who were then sitting on the Benches opposite.
  Now may I come to a smaller point? I noticed a curious phrase about the "framework" of Civil Defence. I wonder whether that means the present activity or reduced activity; or does it mean, to put it bluntly, that the Home Office have won this round? I am not going into details of manpower or its handling, important though they are, because my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell dealt faithfully with that subject before dinner.
  I should like briefly to welcome the statements in the White Paper, and the way they were amplified by my noble

  1189
  friend Lord Mancroft, about what is to be done for the individuals in the Forces, because, whatever our plans are, they depend upon the well-being and efficiency of those people who are in the Forces at any given time. I hope that my noble friends in front of me will not misunderstand when I say that it is a little early yet to put these announcements to the test of whether they turn out to be adequate or not. My suspicion is that the pay is adequate enough. I am not yet quite certain about the allowances, and I feel that we should not be doing our duty on the Benches behind if we did not now express our concern that these measures should in fact be designed to meet the full need that is there. No doubt they will, but we must all see to it that they do. Most of these smaller points will affect the Army, and many of us will be concerned to deal with them in the debate on the Army Estimates when it takes place before very long. The same applies to the points affecting the other Services. We have the three Service debates before us, and no doubt we shall all use them as best we can for the good of the men in the three Services.
  So my Lords, may I come back to the main theme we have all been talking about to-day, and say that I, for one, strongly support the Motion moved by my noble friend, Lord Mancroft. Many of the problems that have to be faced by Her Majesty's Government are not clear cut; there are two views in many cases; but I feel, without the slightest doubt, that the views expressed in the White Paper are, on balance, the right ones. If they are to be properly implemented and lead up to successful disarmament talks in the future, the Government will need not only clear heads but also stout hearts, which I am sure my noble friends in front of me possess in full measure.
  9.35 p.m.
  LORD NATHAN: My Lords, for a number of years in a good many debates on defence and cognate subjects the noble Viscount and I have followed one another; on some occasions he has followed me and on others, like this evening, I have followed him. This evening, therefore, presents a further instance of continuity. He referred to continuity, but perhaps the continuity he suggested in the policy set out in the White Paper on this occasion was due to the fact that
  1190
  this is the only ocasion for a good many years past in which there has been the same Minister of Defence for two consecutive years—an easy and simple explanation of continuity. The noble Viscount made some reference to the Army in various of its aspects. I do not propose to follow him in that, because I think it will be more convenient to deal with questions of detail, or indeed of principle, relating to the Army, as well as the Navy and Royal Air Force, in debates upon those particular subjects on special occasions. And I do not exclude civil defence.
  I admired the dexterity and the adroitness with which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, presented this White Paper to your Lordships. He was unabashed by what would have troubled others—by the difficulties of his case; but then he is accustomed to dealing with difficult cases. He drew the attention of your Lordships, as did the noble Viscount who has just sat down, to the quotation at the head of the White Paper. I will tell your Lordships how this struck me when I read it. I wondered whether it was an indication of the relative importance that the authors of the Paper, contrary to the maxim of Napoleon, attached to the material and the moral, because this quotation was in type so small as to be almost indecipherable to my ageing eyes. I am glad that the quotation is there for those who could read it more readily than I.
  The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and others of your Lordships have made reference to what they have termed the difficulty and almost the lack of public duty in one Party in your Lordships' House questioning upon this matter of defence the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I must confess that whilst I think there is, and should be, a very broad line of general approach common to us all in regard to foreign policy and armaments, it would be wrong to assume, in my view, that the Parties should speak and think alike, without discrimination, in a matter of this kind, upon what has emerged from the inner consciousness of those who happen to sit upon the Government Benches for the time being.
  What is important, I would suggest, is not that these matters should be considered by one Party and the other but

  1191
  coming always to the same conclusions, but that they should not think of them and speak of them in a spirit of partisanship. I think that that is really what, in essence, the noble Lord had in mind. I should think it still worth consideration, however, that there might be created once more some body in the nature of the Committee of Imperial Defence within the ambit of what Mr. Balfour had in mind and the practice which prevailed during his time, and for long afterwards, in the operations of that most important, and indeed crucial, body, which conducted and was responsible for the defence arrangements of the country, at all events up to the outbreak of the First World War. I should think that very well worth consideration.
  In the course of these discussions a great deal has been said about the grey area. When I think of the relative positions in this matter of those who sit on this side of the House and those who sit on the other, it seems to me that we are neither of us in the "white" country or the "black" country; we are both in the "grey" country. But there are different shades of grey—there is a dark grey and there is a light grey. However, we are all. I think, in the grey country; and which are in the dark and which are in the light is anyone's guess. I do not pretend to express any opinion about that, save to say that what is important is that we are relatively so near to one another on a subject of such grave importance as this.
  I think we must all recognise that the Government—any Government—confronted with these problems is in a dilemma, and especially in a dilemma in the present economic situation of the country, when one, at least, of the problems which the Minister responsible has to consider is, as is obvious from the White Paper itself, how to fit our defence policy within the general economic plan of the Government. The degree of success that he has had is a matter upon which there may be more than one opinion; but there can be none but that his policy has been gravely influenced by the economic situation. It is a question whether the economic situation, for which, after all, the Government has a large responsibility, should determine so vital a matter as the defence policy or
  1192
  whether the defence policy should be dealt with as something standing especially on its own.
  The noble Viscount, in referring to the continuity of the White Paper policy, brought back to my mind the debate on the White Paper of last year. Out of that White Paper we had to spell what really was to emerge from it; and spelling out from that White Paper what was really the underlying principle, one found it was "Disarmament". "Disarm or die" was the phrase which emerged from a study of the White Paper last year. This year—here is the continuity—it is not left to us to spell out of it "Disarmament"; disarmament is not merely implicit, it is explicit within this White Paper. And on the need for disarmament, or the vital necessity for it, by all means comparable with honour and safety, there can be no difference of opinion on either side of your Lordships' House. To paraphrase a sentence so well known to your Lordships, but emerging in a different context from a statesman in the other place some seventy years ago,
  "We are all disarmers now."
  The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, discussing the question of disarmament, suggested that it was questionable whether disarmament should be in the hands of the Minister, whoever he might be, responsible for foreign policy. I share that view. It seems to me that it may be very desirable in these difficult and anxious days that there should be, dealing with disarmament independently of the person appointed to the Foreign Office, a special Corps d'élite. I feel that that suggestion is well worth considering.
  In the course of this discussion I have noticed a tendency to speak of the H-bomb as if the central feature of the White Paper were our possession of the bomb as a deterrent. That is not so, of course—and for a very good reason: that the days when the H-bomb was a deterrent are gone. They went as soon as Russia had the bomb and could use it to the same effect, as speedily and in its own judgment, as we could. It then ceased to be a deterrent. The noble Earl, Lord Home, shakes his head, but that is what the Minister of Defence implied in what he said in another place. He did not say anything now about the bomb being a deterrent. He said [OFFICIAL

  1193
  REPORT, Commons, Vol. 583 (No. 61), col. 410]:
  "We have made it quite clear that if there is a major, full-scale attack, even with conventional forces only, nuclear retaliation would be necessary."
  So that what was yesterday the deterrent has now become the instrument of retaliation—the noble Earl again shakes his head, but that is what the responsible Minister said only last week. That is the right term to use if the bomb is now to be used. It has ceased to be a deterrent in argument, in fact, and in practice, and has become an instrument that can be used as an instrument of first offensive or an instrument of retaliation—and that by the other side as well as by our own side.
  Far be it from me to give expression to the views of another nation, but I have recently been in the United States where I had opportunities of discussing matters such as this, among others, not with those speaking in any official capacity but with others—and if they had not been responsible people I should not have mentioned it to your Lordships' House. What I am saying to your Lordships is what they said to me: the deterrent value of the bomb has gone. It went on a particular day—the moment Russia was in a position to use it. What emerges from that fact is that we both have the bomb, and the question now is: which of us—if either—is going to use it? Which of us—if either—is going to bring pressure on the other so as to secure that it shall not be used?
  One of the grave questions of policy to which perhaps not altogether sufficient attention has been given here, and which I heard mentioned time and again in the United States, in private conversations on this subject, is that when that situation arises, and Russia brings pressure to bear upon the Western Powers because of Russia's possession of the H-bomb, will they be able to bring sufficient pressure upon us to induce us to give a sop to Cerberus? In other words, will they be able to bring sufficient pressure upon us to make us give way in this respect or that respect, rather than risk the use of the bomb by Russia? That is not only what I heard in these conversations across the Atlantic; it is the obvious situation. One has only to survey tine position to see that that is
  1194
  the case, and that the whole problem of the H-bomb has altered since the White Paper of last year; and to-day that is indicated more accurately by the statement, which I have mentioned to your Lordships, made by the Minister of Defence on February 26. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald—who made that interesting, fighting and enjoyable speech earlier in the evening—were here, I would say to him, in answer to his question: "When does a deterrent cease to be a deterrent?" that the answer is: "When the other fellow has it too". I think I heard somebody say that that is no argument.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, if I may interrupt, I think that the fact that a weapon has become a method of retaliation does not stop it from being a deterrent.
  LORD NATHAN: My Lords, it ceases then to be a deterrent in the context in which that term has always hitherto been used; it has entirely lost its character as a deterrent in the sense in which for six or twelve or eighteen months that term was used generally within this country and across the Atlantic. The only point is that across the Atlantic they have realised it more quickly and more fully than we have done here.
  I do not want to keep your Lordships unduly at this hour, but I have also read the agreement about bases in this country for ballistic missiles, and I say to your Lordships who may have read it that, as a document, either that agreement does not say what it means or it does not mean what it says. But I should like to ask this question—there may be no opportunity for an answer in the course of this discussion, but perhaps there will be when we come to debate one of the Forces, perhaps the Army or the Air Force. I should like to ask this question: Where are the nuclear warheads to be kept? Are they to be kept in this country or are they to be kept in the United States? How soon will they be available for use, and at whose discretion? Supposing we want to use a nuclear warhead in a submarine capable of discharging it, whom do we ask, how do we ask him, and where do we get it from?

  1195
  I should like to know how far, in practice, what is stated here has been worked out, because it is vital that we should know, if we are to have these bases in this country. It is vital that we should know whether or not the missile can be made effective by the speedy application of the warhead. The document is entirely silent upon that subject. One has to apply an element of common sense to the question of where the warhead is going to be kept, but do the Government really think that it is a wise thing to start now on the creation of missile bases, on the footing of this document, when I understand that, within a relatively short period of time (I think it says so in the Defence White Paper), improved missiles will become available, missiles of our own manufacture requiring or using underground bases in contradistinction to the surface bases required for the American missiles? That is a question to which no doubt consideration has been given, and it is a question to which we should like to have an answer.
  I am somewhat troubled about these missile bases, partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Wise. Some of your Lordships will remember that during the last war Mr. Churchill was very much attracted by a project which was known as "Habakkuk". Habakkuk was a proposal—I am using Mr. Churchill's words—to use artificial icebergs as a stop-gap point for aircraft in the Atlantic. He goes on later to say that for some various reasons this project never became effective. I do not want to see Britain become an American satellite in this context as Habakkuk would to us have been a British satellite. I think that we must stand on our own feet with regard to these weapons. I hope that we may do so.
  It is a very serious responsibility and a really very grave risk that we take, if in this difficult situation—and none of us will underrate its difficulty or its perils—we may at the moment of crisis be dependent either for our supply of
  1196
  bombs or our supply of nuclear warheads upon a nation 3,000 miles across the Atlantic, which may just at that moment find itself in the crisis of its own fate and may say, "Our future is even more important than the future of our brothers across the Atlantic." That is a situation in which it would be deplorable to find ourselves, and I hope the Government may find it possible to relieve the anxiety, to which I give expression with reluctance but with a great sense of responsibility and also a sense of some urgency, because it is a matter upon which, as a question of policy, the Government must make up their minds and inform the public. Do the Government feel in all respects fully satisfied that what we want will be forthcoming when we want it, where we want it, ready for use in our own defence as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?
  My Lords, I will not pursue further at this moment the various points that I have indicated, but I will say that they seem to me to be of sufficient importance to indicate that we should not at this moment commit ourselves irretrievably; and that is the reason I ask your Lordships to support this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  CAMMELL LAIRD AND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with an Amendment.

  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at ten o'clock.