Sitting of 11 March 1958

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

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:—
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (U.S.A.) Order. 1957, be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Commonwealth Trade
    Mr. M. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in conjunction with interested Scottish trade and commercial associations and the President of the Board of Trade, he will invite selected representatives of each of the Dominions in turn to come to Scotland with a view to increasing her trade with the Commonwealth.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): While my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is primarily responsible for making official arrangements for Commonwealth trade representatives who visit this country under the sponsorship of their Governments, my right hon. Friend will be very glad to co-operate in making them welcome to Scotland at any time, and so, I know, will the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great amount of good will there is in all the Dominions towards Scotland, and will he, not the President of the Board of Trade, take
    206
    the initiative in this matter? Does he realise that by some bold imagination we have a chance here of helping Scotland to help herself?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware of the considerations that my hon. Friend mentioned, but this is a matter primarily for the President of the Board of Trade.

    North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Capital Expenditure)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the fact that the capital expenditure on the generation of electricity by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has exceeded by millions of pounds the amounts approved by Parliament, if he will take immediate steps to withdraw his sanction for new schemes and to halt schemes in course of construction unless they are nearing completion.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The reasons why the completed costs of the Board's schemes have in the past exceeded the estimates given to Parliament when the schemes were approved have been most carefully examined but these increases do not, in my right hon. Friend's view, justify taking the action suggested by my hon. Friend. Clearly, my right hon. Friend must consider new schemes on their merits and once a scheme has become operative the Board has a statutory duty to proceed with it.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the twelve schemes completed were approved by Parliament at a cost of £21 million, but that they cost £44 million? Is he also aware that the eleven schemes now in progress were estimated to cost £60 million, that they are still uncompleted, and that the estimated completion cost is £98 million? In the interests of the Board, as well as of the people of Scotland, is not it desirable that the Board should stop and rest awhile consolidating?
    Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that the second part of the supplementary question follows from what my hon. Friend said. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries pointed out that constructional works take a long time to complete. Undoubtedly in the early stages the Board had less experience of these matters than it has now, but the

    207
    mere fact that the estimates have been exceeded in the past is not a reason for not going on with schemes at present.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of this is not the responsibility of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board but is due to changes in prices? Further, is he aware that the greatly increased cost of interest is landing the Hydro-Electric Board in much greater capital expenditure?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, I am aware of both those things.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is not it the case that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible to Parliament for the Hydro-Electric Board, and not the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, but the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended that these figures should be given to the House of Commons. It gave the figures in its Report and my right hon. Friend has made arrangements to lay a statement in the Library showing the estimates and the ultimate out-turn.
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has noted that the balance sheet and accounts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for 1957 record a small profit in spite of increased purchases of electricity, much less than a full year's benefits from increased charges for electricity, £2,292,118 charged against revenue for redemption of capital, £798,677 for capital depreciation and £4,929,706 for interest on borrowing; and if he will now therefore withdraw the request to the Board to reduce capital expenditure on distribution to which reference was made in the House by his predecessor on 10th July, 1956.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The present restrictions on the Board's total capital expenditure do not specify separate amounts for expenditure on distribution. They were fixed in relation to the total amount of capital investment that the country can afford and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to withdraw them.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is not it amazing that the country can afford excess expenditure of £60 million and £70 million on generation while my constituents and
    208
    others in the Highlands are unable to get that to which they are entitled under an Act passed by this House—electricity connections—and that the Board should be able to take advantage of a request made under the credit squeeze policy to avoid expensive connections?
    Mr. Macpherson: My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that the Board intends to spend rather more in the current year than it did in the past year.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Can my hon. Friend ask the Board to arrange some programme when various people will be likely to get electricity connection in the more remote areas, as at present it appears that many of them will have to wait for many years?
    Mr. Macpherson: No doubt the Board will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

    Forth Road Bridge
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a firm decision has yet been taken as to how many lines of traffic the Forth road bridge will carry abreast.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. Two 24 ft. carriageways each capable of carrying two lines of traffic will be provided. There will also be two 9 ft. cycle tracks and two 6 ft. footpaths.

    Diligence
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason for the delay in remedying the state of diligence in Caithness and Sutherland which has been under active consideration by the Lord Advocate and at least two Committees since November, 1953.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: As my hon. Friends knows, the problems to which he alludes are not confined to Caithness and Sutherland. In 1956, my right hon. Friend's predecessor appointed a Committee to undertake a complete review of the law and practice of diligence. My right hon. Friend understands that the Committee has made good progress and he hopes to receive its Report within the next few months.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is not this delay of nearly five years bringing the law of Scotland into complete disrepute? Is my

    209
    hon. Friend aware that in the Highlands of Scotland creditors are unable to sue for money owing to them, that the Queen's Writ does not run in the Highlands, entirely due to the unreasonable delay of nearly five years? What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?
    Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect the Secretary of State to take action just at the moment when a Report is about to be received.

    Rent Act, 1957
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedure he will adopt to ascertain whether his warning to landlords is effective; and what measures he will adopt if it fails.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): As my right hon. Friend has already indicated, he will continue to watch the position closely, but he does not propose to add at this stage to what he said in the debate on 3rd March.
    Mrs. Mann: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of doing anything and that if he had had, he would have done so before the Kelvin-grove by-election? Are not his statements mere propaganda? If he is to watch anything closely, is not it the evictions which he intends to watch?
    Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend has no power to call for returns on what is essentially a matter between the landlord and the tenant. I cannot add to what he said in the debate.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Joint Under-Secretary say what powers the Secretary of State has to take action to deal with problems arising from the Rent Act, without new legislation?
    Mr. Browne: That is an entirely different question, but I remind the hon. Member that if he and the Labour Party are sincere and really believe that there will be trouble, they should withdraw their threat to nationalise homes and to pay inadequate compensation for them.
    Mr. Ede: That is a promise, not a threat.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of hardship to tenants particularly aged people contained in new agreements made under the Rent Act, 1957; and if he will set up a tribunal to deal with cases of hardship and evictions.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: A new tenancy agreement of a decontrolled house is a matter of negotiation between landlord and tenant, but my right hon. Friend has made it clear on several occasions that he looks to landlords to act reasonably.
    Mrs. Mann: If a landlord refuses to negotiate—and many are refusing to negotiate—will the Secretary of State intervene at that stage to prevent old people being evicted? Would not it be a very small request that he should establish a tribunal just to deal with urgent cases?
    Mr. Browne: This matter was very fully debated and the Government made their position quite clear in what my right hon. Friend said on 3rd March. After very careful examination, it is my view that if there is hardship and if there are evictions the Labour Party, with its nationalisation proposals, will be largely responsible.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the Under-Secretary appreciate the inconsistency of what he is saying? He says that the Labour Party promise to municipalise houses is causing houses to be sold, while his right hon. Friend says that they are not being sold, but relet. Does not he see the inconsistency?
    Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend has corrected the figure to 25 per cent. not relet, but that is still a very high percentage. It was not a promise, it was a threat.
    Mr. Ross: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that it is not very much use placing reliance on the reasonableness of a set of people who even supplied the Secretary of State with quite wrong figures, which he took no opportunity to verify, and which may be even more wrong than he has admitted?
    Mr. Browne: That is another question and my right hon. Friend has quite properly made a statement on that.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of the protests he has received from the tenants at Merrick Gardens, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Govan, in regard to the operation of the Rent Act, 1957; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend had last week a letter from one tenant who has entered into an agreement with his landlord but regards the new rent as excessive. The reply sent by his Department drew attention to recent Government statements on the working of the Rent Act but indicaed that my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in an agreement between landlord and tenant. My right hon. Friend also had a letter from another tenant in November containing a protest in general terms not calling for a reply.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State fully aware of the nature of the increase which has been imposed on this tenant; that, prior to the Rent Act, she was paying £40 a year including rates, and that she is now faced with the payment of £191 including rates? Does he regard that as reasonable, and does he realise that there were no negotiations here whatsoever, but that this was imposed, not only upon this tenant, but upon every single tenant in the area which I have indicated?
    Mr. Browne: I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he would expect me to comment on an individual case without full investigation. My right hon. Friend looks to landlords to act with humanity and intelligence.
    Mr. Woodburn: Could the Minister clear up some of the confusion on this matter? At one time, the Government are saying that they intend to do something to prevent landlords from abusing their powers, but the next time we have a Minister making a declaration that they do not intend to alter the terms of the Act. Under what powers can they interfere with landlords once they have given them power to take this inhumane action?
    Mr. Browne: I am not at all sure that that is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's Question, but the answer is contained in
    212
    columns 861 and 862 of HANSARD of 3rd March, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a statement.

    Houses (Reletting)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far the 3,267 houses which were relet during a specified period last year included council houses, exchanges of tenancies, and transfer of tenancies obligatory under the Acts.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): This figure, which I quoted in the debate on 3rd March as a sample of the houses decontrolled under Section 11 (2) of the Rent Act, 1957, does not include council houses or transmissions of tenancies by succession under the Rent Acts. I regret that the related figure, which I quoted at the same time, of the number of houses becoming vacant, which was supplied to me by the Glasgow Property Owners and Factors Association, should have been 4,310 instead of 3,310; this makes the percentage of houses relet in this sample 75 per cent. instead of 98 per cent. This mistake was brought to my notice by the Association yesterday evening, and I have taken this first opportunity to ask the House to accept my apologies.
    Mrs. Mann: Does not that indicate how wrong it is for the Secretary of State to place any reliance whatever on the property owners of Glasgow, on either their promises or on the figures they submit? Could not any man in the streets of Glasgow have told him that 98 per cent. was a fantastic figure?
    Mr. Maclay: I remind the hon. Lady that I emphasised very clearly at the time that this was a sample and did not represent the figures for the whole of Glasgow. I have pointed out that as soon as the Property Owners Association realised that a mistake had been made, it got in touch with me; and I have informed the House at the first opportunity.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State sure that the property owners are not misleading him on this question? How many houses which were free to be sold have been relet and how many were transferred to other tenants by obligation?
    Mr. Maclay: No, I think not. The Answer I gave was very carefully examined. The figures did not include council houses or transmissions of tenancies by succession under the Rent Acts, which is the point which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Probation Officers (New Salary Scales)
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why there has been such delay in preparing the Statutory Instrument embodying probation rules to authorise new salary scales agreed upon by the Probation Officers' Committee of the Scottish Joint Industrial Council on 25th October, 1957.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend made these Rules on 27th February, bringing the new scales into effect as from 1st July, 1957. The delay arose mainly because on 15th November the Negotiating Committee added a recommendation about scales for senior probation officers, and the application of these scales to women proved difficult.
    Mr. Steele: Why is there always this delay when dealing with Scottish probation officers, when the English Minister can always deal rapidly with probation officers in England? Can the hon. Gentleman give the date from which the new scales will operate and can he say whether the delay will have any effect on retrospective payment?
    Mr. Macpherson: I cannot answer for previous occasions. I cannot affirm or deny that there has been delay in the past. I can only give, as I have given, the reason on this occasion. The Scottish basic scales back-date to 1st July and the senior officers' scales to 1st March.

    Jetties and Vehicular Ferry Service, Harris
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what request he has received from Inverness County Council for financial assistance for the construction of jetties and the provision of a vehicular ferry service between Kyles Scalpay and the Isle of Scalpay in Harris; and what reply he has made.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): No such request has been received.
    Mr. MacMillan: Would not the Joint Under-Secretary give a little prompting to the county council, in view of the fact that the service is desperately needed in the islands, that young people are drifting away and that this provision of a vehicular ferry service would quite revolutionise the whole system of transport between the islands, which is now highly inconvenient and very costly to everybody concerned?
    Lord John Hope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will have been noted.

    Fishing Industry, Barra and Eriskay
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Herring Industry Board is taking to develop herring processing in the Isle of Barra; what financial aid is being given by his Department towards the cost of construction of a pier at the north end of the island and in Eriskay; and what other measures he is taking to revive the fishing industry in the two islands.
    Lord John Hope: The Board has taken no steps because it does not consider that a processing plant on Barra could be economic.
    No financial aid for either pier and no special measures with regard to the fishing industry are contemplated at present.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a pretty deplorable record for any Department to have to publish? Is he aware that there is no manufacturing industry on the island, that there is no regular insurable employment, and that there is only small-scale crofting, which provides no livelihood for the men concerned, who have to go to the ends of the earth in the Merchant Navy in order to get jobs at all? Cannot he take some sort of action and initiative, as one of the proprietors in this area, to promote a revival of this industry which fits naturally into the way of life of the area
    Lord John Hope: Nobody can gainsay the economic facts of life on the island as they exist. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we should be very

    215
    glad to see more advantage taken by the Barra fishermen of the facilities at Oban for storing and marketing lobsters under the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.
    Mr. MacMillan: The question relates mainly to herring fishing, and the Herring Industry Board has a responsibility here for which the hon. Gentleman is answerable in this House. Will he approach the Board and ask it to reconsider the whole question of reviving the fishing industry in Barra, in view of the fact that the Herring Industry Board has been complaining of the shortage of herring to meet the requirements of the market?
    Lord John Hope: The important fact about herring, as far as Barra is concerned, is that they are not now found where they used to be.

    Robert Burns (Bi-centenary Celebrations)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage visitors to come to Scotland in connection with the celebrations for the bi-centenary of Robert Burns.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Tourism is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State keeps in very close touch with him and with the Scottish Tourist Board, which intends to give the celebrations of the bi-centenary all possible publicity.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the best possible publicity that he could give to this celebration would be to help us to get a Burns stamp? Is he aware that millions of letters will be going out from Scotland to all parts of the world between now and 25th January next year, and that that would be the best way of drawing attention to it? Will he, as the hon. Member who represents Dumfries, where Burns is buried, impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland and the reactionary Postmaster-General the need for doing something in this way?
    Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for the Postmaster-General, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will take steps to impress it upon him himself.
    Sir T. Moore: Adverting to the Question on the Order Paper, would my hon. Friend also inform these visitors that they will receive a warm welcome from the hon. Member for Ayr, in whose constituency this unique poet was born?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, and also in the constituency in which this unique poet died.

    Road Construction Schemes, Western Isles
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what road construction schemes are now proceeding with financial aid from his Department in the islands of Barra, North and South Uist, Harris, and Lewis, respectively; and what reply he has made to Ross and Cromarty County Council's most recent request for grant-aid for the construction of the Tolsta-Ness road in the Isle of Lewis.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information requested in the first part of the Question. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend has received no request for financial assistance for the construction of a road between Tolsta and Ness, but he informed the County Council of Ross and Cromarty in July last that he did not think that the inclusion of such a road in its development plan would be justified.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the islands there are over 2,000 people unemployed, mostly men, and that the figure now stands at about 33 per cent., which is several times the next highest in Scotland? Is not it a fact that if construction could now proceed on some of these schemes, it would give employment to a considerable number of people in the islands? Why does not the hon. Gentleman take the initiative in this matter instead of waiting for a backward county council to do it? In reference to the second part of the Answer, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the construction of this road would open up some of the best land in the area for land settlement, would open up the tourist industry,

    217
    would be a great economy in transport and improve employment in the whole area? Will he take the initiative himself in view of the difficult situation in regard to unemployment?

    Island

    Scheme

    Cost

    Grant

    Comment

    £

    Per cent.

    Barra

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil.

    South Uist

    A.865—Reconstruction of 6 bridges

    16,000

    100

    Highway grant—crofter county scheme.

    Uskavagh Road

    43,000

    75

    Township road grant.

    North Uist

    A.865—Construction of North Ford Causeway

    452,000

    90

    75 per cent, highway grant, 15 per cent, township road grant.

    Newton ferry access road

    8,500

    75

    Township road grant.

    Lochportain township roads

    25,000

    100

    Estate responsibility of Secretary of State,

    Harris

    A.859 and A.868—Reconstruction and resurfacing of Tarbert pier road.

    32,000

    100

    Highway grant—crofter county scheme.

    Scalpay roads

    42,000

    75

    Township road grant.

    Quidinish roads

    23,000

    75

    Township road grant.

    Lewis

    B.895—Gress bridge

    5,600

    60

    Highway grant.

    A.857/B.8027 junction improvement

    3,400

    75

    Highway grant.

    West Cromore road

    1,600

    85

    Township road grant.

    Carloway-Garenin road

    4,100

    85

    Township road grant.

    Adabrock road

    2,500

    75

    Township road grant.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Restrictive Trade Practices Act
    Mr. Leaveyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the progress of his Department in carrying out the responsibilities laid upon it by the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Board of Trade has now called up for registration all the restrictive agreements covered by the Act. Directions have been issued to the Registrar to bring before the court about 200 registered agreements; another direction will be issued shortly.
    Mr. Leavey: While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him if he is aware that whereas the mere arrival of this important Act on the Statute Book undoubtedly did have a most useful effect in loosening up some of these agreements and arrangements, none the less there is a general feeling that the Act has lost some of its
    Mr. Macpherson: The answer to both those supplementary questions is the same—the initiative rests with the county council in these matters.
    The following is the information:
    impetus and significance because of these delays; and whether he feels that anything could or should be done at this stage to re-impress upon the general public and those most intimately concerned the significance of this Act, so that it is not lost or overlaid by these delays?
    Mr. Erroll: I think those concerned realise how significant and important the Act is. Of the 200 registered agreements to which I have referred, no fewer than 21 have been withdrawn rather than be proceeded with.
    Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Member's request very reasonable? As, nearly two years after the passing of the Act, no case has come before the court at all, is not the Board of Trade in danger of bringing this Act into complete disrepute?
    Mr. Erroll: No, I do not think so.
    Mr. Wade: Is the Minister aware that one of the consequences of the passing of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act has been a growth in amalgamations designed to avoid the provisions of the Act, and will the President of the Board of Trade

    219
    refer that subject to the Monopolies Commission for a general inquiry?
    Mr. Erroll: It would not be practicable to refer such amalgamations to the Monopolies Commission if they do not constitute monopolies within the terms of the Act.

    Printed Cotton Textiles
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the decision of the Australian Government to ban imports of printed cotton textiles; and what representations he has made to the Australian Government as to the effect this decision will have on the British textile industry;
    (2) what representations he has received from the cotton textile industry about the decision of the Australian Government to ban imports of printed cotton textiles.
    Mr. Erroll: As hon. Members may have seen, the Australian Minister for Trade has announced that licensing of printed cotton piecegoods will be resumed on 1st April. My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Cotton Board and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in respect of orders which may have been frustrated by the temporary suspension of licensing and our Senior Trade Commissioner in Canberra has been asked to pursue this question with the Australian authorities.

    Baths (Imports from Hungary)
    Mr. Barterasked the President of the Board of Trade, his intentions with regard to the authorisation of a supplementary quota for the twelve months' period ending 26th June, 1958, for the importation of baths from Hungary.
    Mr. Erroll: I am sorry that I cannot disclose details of this kind while the negotiations are still in progress; but my hon. Friend may be assured that full weight will be given to the representations which have been made to us by this industry.
    Mr. Barter: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to the fact that there is considerable capacity for United Kingdom manufacturers and to the need for consultation with British industry?
    Mr. Erroll: We give full weight to the representations made by industry but, while there may be sufficient capacity, imports at the present level of about £35,000, in 1957, are quite insignificant compared with the domestic production of £7 million.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this industry, particularly in my constituency, is part of the ironfounding industry which is working short-time and has been for years? Will he consult the industry about any steps of this sort?
    Mr. Storey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Borough of Barking is specifying Hungarian baths for the houses which it is building? Is he aware that in my constituency there is a firm which would be only too pleased to manufacture these baths and will he consult the Ministry of Housing and Local Government about what steps can be taken to restrain local authorities which are building subsidised houses from preventing British firms from tendering for fittings?
    Mr. Erroll: That is an important point. There is a later Question on the Order Paper addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.

    Shopper's Guide
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the publication, the Shopper's Guide, is a quarterly periodical with a subscription of 10s. per annum which is not in immediate supply at either stationers' shops or bookstalls; and, in view of the subsidy which he is paying towards this periodical, what information he possesses concerning the number of its circulation and its methods of distribution, and the extent to which this publication is used as a guide by the average shopper.
    Mr. Erroll: The special Government grant of £10,000 to the British Standards Institution is a contribution towards its general work for the domestic consumer and is not specifically for Shopper's Guide. I understand that about 23,000 copies are distributed to subscribers to the associate scheme of the Consumer Advisory Council of the Institution.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that when his right hon. Friend answered a Question a few weeks ago it was

    221
    specifically stated that part of the subsidy was for the Shopper's Guide? Is he aware that when I endeavoured to obtain a copy of this periodical from my stationers, I found it was not available? Cannot he insist on a better distribution in return for the subsidy which is being paid?
    Mr. Erroll: The method of distribution is, quite properly, decided by the Consumer Advisory Council. The advantages of this method are that distribution is very cheap and efficient.

    British Motor Trades Association (Agreement)
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct the Registrar of Restrictive Practices to bring the Restrictive Practices Court immediately the distribution scheme agreement of the British Motor Trade Association.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend will very shortly issue a third direction to the Registrar about cases to be taken before the court and he will deal with this matter then.
    Mr. Jay: Is not it urgent to get a decision on this agreement. If it is legal under the Act for manufacturers collectively compulsorily to raise a levy for enforcing higher prices, surely the Act means almost nothing at all?
    Mr. Erroll: I asked the right hon. Gentleman to wait a few days until he sees the third direction.
    Mr. Lindgren: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that garages in various parts of the country are becoming as much "tied" as licensed premises and that something should be done if the convenience of motorists who desire to purchase proprietary goods is to be served?
    Mr. Erroll: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I ask him to wait a few days until he sees the third direction.

    Flick Knives
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that young people within school ages have occasion to use flick knives for employment or industrial purposes; whether he is aware that a boy aged 13 years recently
    222
    pressed a flick knife against the clothing of another boy near the region of his heart, and stabbed a 13-year-old girl in Leicester; and whether he will now prevent the importation of these knives
    Mr. Erroll: We have no such evidence. The answer to the other parts of the Question is in each case "No, Sir."
    Mr. Janner: If the Board has no such evidence, why are not steps taken to prevent these knives getting into the hands of youngsters? Is not the President of the Board of Trade yet aware that there is concern about this? The Leicester Mercury, which has made a careful and close study of the matter, and other papers indicate that there is this grave concern. If the President of the Board of Trade has advised the trade not to sell them, there must be some reason. Does he propose to allow further assaults and perhaps murders to be committed with those instruments without doing something?
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said in the House that traders have responded well to the appeals to confine the sale of flick knives to persons known to have a legitimate use for them.

    Butter
    Mr. Templeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the recent application to his Department by the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Boards for the imposition under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, for an anti-dumping duty on imports into the United Kingdom of butter originating in Sweden, Finland, Austria and the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Erroll: This application is still under consideration, and I cannot make any statement about it at present.
    Mr. Temple: Is not the Minister aware that the spring flush will shortly be with us and any action which is to be effective this year must be taken speedily?
    Mr. Erroll: We fully appreciate the need for speed in this important matter, but there are a number of considerations which we must take into account before arriving at a decision.

    World Trade
    Mr. Croninasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage proportions of world trade were the United Kingdom's shares in 1951 and 1957, respectively; and what was the highest figure for the United Kingdom's share after 1951.
    Mr. Erroll: The United Kingdom's share of total world imports and exports—excluding Eastern Europe, U.S.S.R. and China—was 11·7 per cent. in 1951 and 10·3 per cent. in the first nine months of 1957. The highest figure for the United Kingdom share after 1951 was 11·3 per cent. in 1952.
    Mr. Cronin: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the steady decline in Britain's share of world trade since his party took office is a source of dismay and apprehension to everyone concerned? What does the Government intend to do to remedy the situation?
    Mr. Erroll: The hon. Gentleman should remember that total world trade has gone up and he should not be deluded by percentages.

    Trade with Mexico
    Commander Maitlandasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve trade between the United Kingdom and Mexico.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend since his return has taken the opportunity on a number of occasions to make known to industrialists the opportunities which exist in the Mexican market in the hope that they will follow up his own visit. The services of the Board of Trade and of our Embassy in Mexico are at the disposal of those who contemplate entering this market. In addition, Her Majesty's Government are inviting a number of important Mexicans to visit the United Kingdom so that they can be in no doubt of our ability to meet their requirements.
    Commander Maitland: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that British bankers are taking full advantage of the opportunities offered by trade with Mexico?
    Mr. Erroll: I should like to look into that point.
    Commander Maitlandasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will indicate the value of exports from the United Kingdom to Mexico and the value of the imports from that country during the last three years to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Erroll: The figures are published in Account No. 4—page 347—of the "Accounts Relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December, 1957, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Monopolies Commission
    Mr. Prenticeasked the President of the Board of Trade why his Department referred only two new matters to the Monopolies Commission in 1957 and referred nothing to it during the second half of the year; and whether he will make a statement of Government policy on the future employment of the Commission.
    Mr. Erroll: The references made to the Commission in 1957 were those which in the Board's view were required by the public interest; the Board will continue this policy. With the passage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act the scope for making such references has been reduced.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for many months raw material prices have been falling, without any corresponding benefit to the consumer? Is not this a situation in which attacks on monopolies should be stepped up and not slowed down?
    Mr. Erroll: While raw material prices have fallen, certain other costs have risen.

    North-East Coast Development Area
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that he does not intend to de-schedule the North-East Coast Development Area under the Distribution of Industry Acts.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. The Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, made specific provision for de-scheduling and I cannot give an assurance, whether in regard to this Area or any other, that my right hon. Friend will not make any proposals to Parliament for such action.
    Mr. Jay: Will not that Answer cause a lot of anxiety in these cases? Would not the present moment, when the shipbuilding outlook is more uncertain than at any time since the war, be an unwise time for any action?
    Mr. Erroll: My Answer should not give apprehension to those Development Areas which are now enjoying unprecedented popularity.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that unemployment is increasing through, out the whole of the North-East and that there is great apprehension at present about possible unemployment even in the mining industry, apart from shipbuilding and other industries? Further, is he aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, subscribed to by nearly all the hon. Members for North-Eastern constituencies, asking the Government to give urgent attention to this matter?
    [That, in the opinion of this House, to de-schedule the whole or part of the North East Development Area would he prejudicial to the continuing diversification of industry in that area; and that so long as a large proportion of the working population are employed in a small number of basic industries, employment in the area will remain dangerously vulnerable.]
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend was putting forward the suggestion, which he said needed careful consideration. In that consideration he intends to be guided by the terms of the Motion tabled by hon. Members.
    Mr. Popplewell: Does not the Minister realise that the statement made the other week by the Minister has created grave apprehension and that the statement now made by the Parliamentary Secretary will accentuate that apprehension in the North-East? Does he realise that several ships are now laid up on the Tyne, that many of the light industries that have gone to the Tyneside are now working short time and that in the engineering industry in particular several people have been paid off because there is no available work in their industry on the Tyneside? Cannot the Minister again give the assurance for which we are asking?
    Mr. Erroll: This statement, or suggestion as it was, has undoubtedly given
    226
    hope to those unfortunates who are unemployed outside Development Areas.
    Mr. Jay: If the Minister really doubts that there is anxiety in the area, will he go there and see the people for himself'?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes. I shall be very glad to do so when I get a suitable opportunity.

    Pharmaceutical Preparations
    Colonel Beamishasked the President of the Board of Trade how many commodities and groups of commodities produced in the United Kingdom are listed in the wholesale price index, published monthly in the Board of Trade Journal; what has been the average percentage increase in price, counting 30th June, 1949, as 100; and what has been the rise in the price index of drugs and pharmaceutical preparations.
    Mr. Erroll: Index numbers for 114 commodities and groups of commodities produced in the United Kingdom are listed in the latest monthly article on wholesale prices in the Board of Trade Journal. The price index for all manufactured products—other than fuel, food and tobacco—was 41·6 per cent. higher for January, 1958, than at 30th June, 1949. The index for drugs and pharmaceuticals has risen by 6·6 per cent. over the same period.
    Colonel Beamish: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that had the pharmaceutical industry not been so strikingly successful in keeping down wholesale prices in the last decade the annual drug bill would be many millions of pounds higher?
    Colonel Beamishasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a table showing the annual value of exports of proprietary pharmaceutical preparations since 1948.
    Mr. Erroll: Precise statistics are not available, but I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Trade and Navigation Accounts which give the statistics for the total of all drugs, medicines and medicinal preparations, and for the total of those classified as "proprietary medicines, not elsewhere specified", which are thought to include the bulk of proprietary preparations.

  PAYMASTER-GENERAL
  Mr. Croninasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to relieve the Paymaster-General of some of his burdens, having regard to the circumstance that he is continuously occupied to a major extent with matters appertaining to the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Power.
  Mr. Mulleyasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he proposes to make to fill the vacancy of Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the increasing and necessary absences of the Paymaster-General from the House and the increasing volume of financial business.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The present arrangements are working well and are, I believe, to the advantage of this House. I am not at present, therefore, proposing that an appointment should be made to the office of Economic Secretary to the Treasury. But arrangements of this sort have to be kept under constant review and an appointment can be made at any time if the need should arise.
  Mr. Cronin: Are not the multitudinous preoccupations of the Paymaster-General likely to prejudice the success of the European Free Trade Area negotiations, having regard to the fact that those negotiations are proceeding rather badly for the United Kingdom as it is?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the Paymaster-General has managed this affair with extreme skill and with the general approval of his colleagues in all countries. It is an advantage that in this matter he should be so closely connected with the Treasury. He has been able to carry out his other duties to the general advantage of the House.
  Mr. Mulley: While appreciating the work done by the Paymaster-General in connection with the Free Trade Area, may I ask whether the Prime Minister does not think that it would be of more advantage if the Paymaster-General did not have to concern himself with routine Treasury matters? May I, further, ask whether the reluctance to appoint an Economic Secretary is due to lack of suitable candidates on the Government side of the House or to the fact that the
  228
  Prime Minister is afraid that such a candidate might lead to another batch of Treasury resignations?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member misunderstands the working of the Treasury system. The Economic Secretary does not deal with routine matters, which are dealt with by the Financial Secretary. He deals with the larger questions of economic policy, with which this matter of the Free Trade Area is very closely allied.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  Mr. D. Howellasked the Prime Minister if he will now review the work of co-ordinating public relations at present carried out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with a view to ensuring that the present system is the best and most economical.
  The Prime Minister: I keep all these arrangements under review. I am, however, satisfied that at the present time the existing arrangements for the coordination of information services are effective and economical.
  Mr. Howell: Can the Prime Minister give the House any examples of the successful co-ordination of public relations carried out under the personal direction of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to justify his existence?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The whole structure has been much improved and is working very much better than it was before.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Will the Prime Minister ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to look into the question of the Chief Information Officer of the Treasury appearing on television—commercial television, as it happens—with a view to expounding certain facts of an economic character? Will he consider whether it is desirable for information officers in the public service to appear on television any more than that they should give first-person interviews to the Press? Will he take account of the fact that this is a new, and as I think an undesirable, departure in the use of public information officers?
  The Prime Minister: This matter had already been called to my attention and I am looking into it. I do not think it is so much a matter of the Chancellor of the Duchy as a matter of general policy for which I am responsible, and of what are to be the Treasury Minutes guiding the duties of civil servants. I am looking into the matter.

  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  Mr. Beswickasked the Prime Minister what progress he has made towards his declared objective of a Summit Conference.
  Mr. Mellishasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the present position of the negotiations for a Summit Conference.
  The Prime Minister: Considerable progress has been made. But I would point out that a Summit Conference is not an end in itself. The end which we pursue is agreement. As hon. Members will know, there has been a recent further exchange of correspondence between the Soviet and United States Governments. The purpose of this correspondence is to try to reach agreement on the conditions under which preparations for a Summit Conference should take place—what President Eisenhower has called
  "really decent preparation that would appeal to reasonable men".
  I am anxious that preparations should start soon, but until certain basic issues in the Soviet position have been clarified, namely, on the Soviet attitude towards the composition of the agenda and towards the purpose of the preparatory talks, this is unfortunately not possible.
  Mr. Beswick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the interest of the public in this matter is equalled only by its mystification as to what is happening? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, is it a fact that the preparatory discussions concerning the Summit Conference are by-passing the United Kingdom at present and taking place between Washington and Moscow, and if so, why? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, for our part, we shall not insist as a prior requisite that there should be agreement on the reunification of Germany?
  The Prime Minister: On the first supplementary question, leaving out the preliminary trimmings to which no doubt the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reply, there has, of course, been a large number of communications by the Soviet Government to such a large number of countries that the correspondence has become somewhat complicated. What we are trying to do is always to consult each other in the alliance, and I am trying to keep the Commonwealth fully informed before answering the particular communications that happen to be addressed to us. I agree that nothing would be more desirable than if we could get further clarification and positive results. I have made my position clear both in this House and outside.
  The second supplementary question helps me to clear up a point which is important. It is a very important matter and in doubt. We have never asked that there should be agreement on any question before it is included in the agenda. We have said that if we are to make an agenda likely to lead to an ultimate agreement it is wise that the items should at least be discussed and agreement reached to see which ones seem the most hopeful and which ones can lead only to a general discusssion. We have never made any agreement that in any prior discussion there should be agreement, but only preparation likely to lead to a good conference.
  Mr. Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman any even approximate idea of the timetable—or is it intended to have the Summit Conference when the West is in the lowest reaches of a trade slump?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that question is very relevant to the one to which it was a supplementary.
  Mr. Bevan: The original Question was
  "To ask the Prime Minister what progress he has made towards his declared objective of a Summit Conference."
  I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had formed even an approximate idea of the timetable.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has not been fair to himself. He has not restated what he said. The purpose of his supplementary question was to drag in this matter of the economic situation. I would regard this as a

  231
  political matter which ought to be proceeded with as soon as possible without regard to the economic situation.
  Mr. Fell: In view of the initiative which was taken by a former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), will the Prime Minister consider relieving the Foreign Offices—which perhaps have not got the complete confidence of the people in every country concerned—from the burden of deciding on the agenda and have a conference between himself, President Eisenhower and whoever is to represent the Soviet Union, initially without any agenda, to try to come to some agreement, without any agenda, and to try to formulate their ideas and tell their Foreign Offices what to put on the agenda?
  The Prime Minister: I would of course consider that, but I should not have thought that a Summit Conference of three, four, or whatever is to be the number of participants to try to fix an agenda would be a good way of proceeding. There are tragic precedents in this matter.
  Mr. Mellish: Last week, in an exchange between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, there was some doubt about Russian proposals for a conference of Foreign Secretaries. It was stated that a Note had been received from Russia saying that Russia was prepared to have a meeting of Foreign Secretaries to discuss the question. My right hon. Friend asked whether, if a Question was put on the subject, it could be answered? May I ask where we have got from that?
  The Prime Minister: There were really two questions and I want to be quite frank about them. These are very important matters in which there is great public interest and in which I personally take the deepest possible interest. One question is, what should be the machinery? Whether it is a case of ambassadors starting discussions and Foreign Secretaries going on with them, or of the Foreign Ministers doing the whole thing without previous ambassadorial discussion, I do not think is very important. Either form of machinery would suit us if we could make progress. The real point is whether the meeting is to be limited to fixing the time and date. There is, perhaps, the question of composition, which is important. Having an
  232
  agenda, not selected with the purpose I have in mind, but by writing down everything one can think of on a bit of paper and perhaps each side trying to veto the other—I do not call that a real meeting. What we want to do in that form of meeting, whether it is of ambassadors or Foreign Secretaries, or both, is to get some work done which will make the work of the Conference, when it meets, have a good chance, a reasonable chance, of achieving something.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Would the Prime Minister agree that some of these basic matters, which apparently are holding up preparation for the Conference, might be discussed through diplomatic channels rather than by public correspondence?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This is always the difficulty. It is one we find in our own affairs. When someone writes a letter, who is to write the reply? There has been a great interchange of letters and at no stage has it been possible to stop the letter writing, but I observed that the President himself expressed the view that some more rapid system could be devised.
  Mr. Grimond: When the Prime Minister said earlier that we were not insisting on agreement about an agenda, by "we" was he referring to the West as a whole or to Her Majesty's Government? Will he make it clear whether there is any discrepancy between the American attitude and ours, that urgent steps are being taken to clear it up, even to the extent of going to Washington itself?
  The Prime Minister: When I said "we" I meant that we have to consult all the countries of N.A.T.O. which are involved. Those who perhaps will not be directly represented at the summit meeting have an almost greater right to be consulted. This is a process in which we try to reach an approximate view, but I should have thought on the main principle that the character of the preparations should be such as to make a fruitful conference. On that we are all agreed.

  DEFENCE POLICY
  Sir J. Duncanasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken within the last fortnight to arrange that talks shall take place between him and the

  233
  Opposition from time to time on defence matters, with a view to forming a national bi-partisan policy on this matter.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir; but I would wish to keep the possibility in mind. Indeed, I should give most sympathetic consideration to any approach which the Leader of the Opposition might wish to make.
  Sir J. Duncan: Arising out of that reply, and while recognising that the time may not be appropriate, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will take advantage of any approach that may be made, as many of us were very impressed by the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in the defence debate a fortnight ago?
  The Prime Minister: I also was very much impressed, but these are matters on which—perhaps I might be allowed to say this, very sincerely—there are tremendous disagreements in some parts of the House. I should have thought there was a great deal more agreement between the two sides than sometimes people think. I thought that as a result of the defence debate a fairly wide measure of agreement, on some propositions at any rate, was reached. If I can be of any service in making that sense of national agreement greater, of course it must strengthen our position as a country.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates that, speaking personally, I do not suggest it is possible in the present state of feeling on defence matters to obtain a bi-partisan policy? I think that is not realism at present, but nevertheless, would not it be useful from the standpoint of hon. Members in all parts of the House if the Minister of Defence from time to time asked a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House interested in defence projects to come to talk with him, without impinging on security, so that they might know the facts about defence, although of course decisions about defence must obviously be left to the Government? Is not that possible?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly sympathetically convey that to my right hon. Friend. In regard to the original
  234
  Question, I think I remember such discussions in the Parliament of 1945. I think they arose on the initiative of the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill).
  Mr. Bellenger: Does the Prime Minister recollect that some years before the war certain Members of Parliament belonged to the Committee on Imperial Defence, or appeared before that body from time to time? Might not that be one way of resuscitating the desire which is evident on both sides of the House, not for a bi-partisan approach, but for collaboration in defence matters?
  The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a somewhat different question. It is true that Lord Balfour, who was one of those who originated the idea of the Committee on Imperial Defence, was invited in 1916, although he was out of office, to remain a member of it. That is not the operating structure, but the principle remains. I am sure all wish to try to concentrate on the highest common factor of agreement, which is to our national interest, rather than always to concentrate on the points on which we disagree, leaving out, of course, a certain amount of agreement which takes a wholly different philosophical approach to the whole problem.
  Mr. McAdden: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if in this House we can prove by application of a study of these problems that we can arrive at an agreement to defend ourselves, that might hold out greater hopes of reaching an agreement on a Summit Conference to consider how we might defend the world?
  The Prime Minister: That certainly is by no means to be neglected.

  HOMELESS FAMILIES
  Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister what further action will now be taken to set up an inter-departmental committee to examine the problems arising from homeless families and make recommendations.
  The Prime Minister: After consultation with the Ministers concerned, I have come to the conclusion that what is needed is an effort to improve existing arrangements rather than an inquiry by

  235
  an inter-departmental committee. My right hon. Friends the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and of Health are considering how best this may be achieved and propose to have discussions with the local authority associations.
  Mr. Lipton: While regretting that this idea, which was put forward a month ago, has been turned down, may I ask the Prime Minister—who has the reputation of being a good family man—to spare a thought for many families facing eviction next October? Also, as a contribution to a better atmosphere, will he disown a disgraceful Tory pamphlet, issued by the Central Office, which said that we on this side of the House want to see the old people thrown on to the streets?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite a different problem than that in the Question, originally asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), to which the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has again called attention. As I pointed out, the Committee, I think, did some useful work on a particular aspect of this problem when I was Minister of Housing and Local Government. A great deal of work has been done on different aspects. There is the problem of people who are very difficult to look after in one way or another. I am informed and believe that still to be the case, but another Committee would not help us. What we had better do is to see how far we can get by collaboration with all those concerned in carrying out the recommendations of this Committee.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: May we take it from the reply of the Prime Minister that his attention has not been called to the pamphlet in which these charges were made against the Opposition? Will he take a look at it and disown it as soon as he can?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that arises on this Question; it is quite a different topic.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND)
3.31 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to the power of the courts to order payment of interest on damages.
Under the present law in Scotland, interest on damages runs automatically at a rate of 5 per cent. from the date of the decree decerning for payment of damages. This decree is distinct from the fixing of damages which, in a jury case, may occur some time before the date of the decree. If asked, the court may back-date the interest, but there has been no case in which it has been backdated to a date earlier than the date on which the amount of damages was fixed. This is because, as the law in Scotland now stands, the general rule is that interest runs only on a "liquid" debt, and damages do not become liquid until they are fixed. The Law Reform Committee for Scotland was asked to consider this position and, in its Third Report, recommended that powers be given to the courts to award interest from the date of citation.
In making this recommendation, the Law Reform Committee had in mind the theoretical consideration that when the court makes an award of damages it decides, in effect, that the defender should have admitted the claim when it was made, and that he should have then have paid the appropriate damages. But it felt that a more important reason for making the change was that it would remove the interest which a defender at present generally has in delaying proceedings. It also pointed out that owing to the congestion in Scottish courts, there may be a considerable delay between bringing an action and the ultimate decision. At present, it is common for this period to be between eighteen months and two years.
My proposed Bill is limited solely to bringing about that change recommended by the Law Reform Committee. Its application is limited to Scotland, where the change is generally desired. I trust, therefore, that the House will grant leave for the Bill to be introduced.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Willis, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Leburn, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Hannan, Commander Donaldson, Mr. Malcolm MacPherson, and Mr. Steele.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND)
Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to the power of the courts to order payment of interest on damages, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 82.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rates of national 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.
  Resolution agreed to.

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

Clause 1.—(HIGHER RATES OF NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS.)
3.37 p.m.
The Chairman: The Amendment in page 1, line 15, after "substituted" to insert:
"subject to the provisions of subsection (6) of this section"
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), and that to which it is a paver, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
(6) Regulations may provide that in discharge of any increased liability of a person under this section there shall be credited to that person, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the amount of any payments made by that person during the fifty-two contribution weeks immediately preceding the occurrence of the liability being payments made in respect of charges under section one of the National Health Service Act. 1951, or under sections one or two of the National Health Service Act, 1952
are both out of order, as this clause deals only with contributions.
Mr. Frederick Willey: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I ask for your protection and assistance? The Government have decided that those of us who are members of Standing Committee A, which is considering the Slaughterhouses Bill, will meet at 4 o'clock this afternoon. It so happens that another Standing Committee is also to meet at that hour. As a consequence, 90 hon. Members will be detained in those

239
Standing Committees. It also happens that, because of the nature of the Bills being discussed in Standing Committee, those hon. Members who are concerned with those Bills are also particularly concerned with the Bill now before this Committee. Is there any way in which you can safeguard the rights of the House as a whole and ensure that those of us particularly interested in this Bill can attend here to join in the debate on it?
The Chairman: There is nothing that I can do about that. Those hon. Members will be allowed to come here and vote in a Division—I have no doubt that the Chairmen of those Standing Committees will then adjourn the Committees—but I have nothing further to say.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Further to that point of order, Sir Charles. While appreciating your difficulty in ruling on such a matter, surely we could have an expression of opinion that it is an affront to this Committee that such an exceptional number of hon. Members should be prevented from taking part in either one or other of their duties to the House. May I ask whether, to avoid a Division taking place in Standing Committee as well as in this Chamber, we can ensure that there is some staggering of any such Divisions? It is physically impossible for an hon. Member who wishes to take part in a Division in Standing Committee also to take part in a Division of this Committee, should they run concurrently. Can you say that special time will be granted for Divisions on the Floor of this Chamber in order to give full opportunity of voting to hon. Members in Standing Committee.
The Chairman: That is quite beyond me, I am sorry to say.
The next Amendment is that standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), in page 1, line 25. I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if his Amendments in page 2, line 2, to leave out "they apply "and insert "it applies"; in line 8, to leave out "Northern Ireland and"; and in line 17, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line were taken together.
Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25,
240
to leave out from "Crown" to "shall" in line 1, page 2.
I agree that this Amendment, Sir Charles, and those that you have indicated, go together. Their effect, if carried, would be to remove from the Bill the references to Northern Ireland. The question that I want to put to the Government and to the Committee is simply whether it is necessary, whether it is desirable, to apply the onerous provisions of the Bill to the most distressed area in the United Kingdom? We ought to examine what would be the effect upon the Northern Ireland economy if the additional charge that is now proposed were to be laid upon the progress of that region.
The Government, in bringing the Bill before the House, justified it on the grounds that the cost of the National Health Service had risen, and must, in equity, be met by laying some of the additional cost on contributors to National Insurance as distinct from taxpayers. The same argument was used when the Act of 1957 was before the House last year. I want to know, and I hope that the Government are prepared to tell us, what happened in 1957. The Act of 1957, by Section 5, provides that
"… no limitation or restriction imposed by virtue of any enactment on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall preclude that Parliament from passing legislation for purposes similar to the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act."
In other words, all the 1957 Act did was to permit the Parliament of Northern Ireland, if it thought fit, to raise part of the cost of their Health Service from contributors to National Insurance.
What happened? I do not profess to know, and I should like to know. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health will be in a position to tell the Committee what happened when that Act was passed. Did the Northern Ireland Government avail themselves of these provisions? Did they levy a charge upon contributors to National Insurance in Northern Ireland? If so, why? What was the increase in the cost of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, and how did it compare with the increase in cost of the Health Service in England, Wales and Scotland? Were the increases much the same or greater or smaller? Where the additional charges, if any, imposed

241
on contributors to National Insurance in Northern Ireland proportional to the increases? In short, what did they do about it in every respect?
Next, we want to know whether the costs have gone up since. What has been happening with regard to the National Health Service in Northern Ireland? Are its costs increasing in the same sort of measure as they are here? Have the Northern Ireland Government been able to find a method of economy which makes the rise less? Are they content with a less efficient or satisfactory Service than pleases the people of England, Scotland and Wales? We are entitled, on this Clause, to know what is the situation in Northern Ireland in respect of the treatment of the sick under the three parts of the Health Service.
What is Northern Ireland likely to do now? Have the Northern Ireland Government approached the United Kingdom Government and asked for power to increase what they may have levied upon National Insurance contributors by virtue of the 1957 Act? Are the United Kingdom Government—I hope that they are not—exerting any pressure on the Government of Northern Ireland to do it in this way rather than the other way? What approaches have been made by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Northern Ireland Government?
This Measure, if adopted by Northern Ireland, would have an effect even more injurious there than in England and Wales. Northern Ireland has only one thirty-seventh of the population of the United Kingdom, but it has nearly one tenth of the unemployment in the United Kingdom. Last month, more than 10 per cent. of the workers in Northern Ireland were unemployed. More than 11 per cent. of the registered men workers were signing on at the employment exchanges.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Before the right hon. Gentleman becomes too deeply immersed in these statistical references to employment in Northern Ireland, he should, if he will forgive my saying so, make clear to the Committee what is the basis of the assumption on which he is proceeding. Does he not realise that, except for two narrow categories, the question of legislation in Northern Ireland in this
242
context is one for the Government of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Parliament and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the House of Commons under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920? I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is approaching his Amendment on a misapprehension of the constitutional relationship.
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Marquand: I do not think that I have any misapprehension at all. Before we say that the provisions of the Bill shall, or may, apply to Northern Ireland, we want to know whether it would he a wise step, whether the conditions in Northern Ireland are such as to justify it.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to tell the Committee whether he thinks that, if his Amendments were carried, they would deny to the Northern Ireland Parliament the right of legislating over the general field in respect of an increased National Health Service contribution, if it so desired?
Mr. Marquand: If it be that it would make no difference at all, then I do not understand why it is put in the Bill. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that the adoption of this Amendment would make no difference whatsoever, and the Northern Ireland Government would still be able to do it, why put it in the Bill?
Mr. Walker-Smith: Because, as I shall explain in a few minutes, if I catch your eye, Sir Charles, there are two limited categories only in respect of which they might not be able to legislate but for these clarifying words. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not really think that he is in order in pursuing his observations, except in that limited category.
Mr. James Griffiths: That is for the Chair to say.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I will make a submission to the Chair in due course, if that would be of help to the Committee. All I am trying to do at the moment is to assist the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) not to fall further into error than he appears already to be doing.
Mr. Marquand: I had assumed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman

243
had it in mind to address some remarks to the Committee when I have finished what I have to say. I shall be prepared to listen to him with great care, of course, but I should be glad to be allowed to proceed now. No doubt, Sir Charles, you will call me to order if I should commit any breach of order such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested.
Are the Government, in putting into the Bill the words which I suggest should be left out, conveying to the Northern Ireland Parliament the opinion that it should legislate in respect of the categories to which the Minister has referred? If that were not so, why put it in the Bill at all? My question still remains: has the Minister indicated to the Government of Northern Ireland that there is need for them to use the powers they have to increase the contributions paid by National Health Service contributors?
The Minister may argue—perhaps he has it in mind to do so—that people who are unemployed, as 10 per cent. of the workers in Northern Ireland are, do not pay contributions, and would not, therefore, be required to pay the increased Health Service contribution provided for here. That is perfectly true. I suggest that the prevalence of a high level of unemployment reduces the annual earnings of the workpeople concerned and makes it a great deal more difficult for them to pay these contributions at such times as they are working and putting stamps on their cards. An increase in Income Tax, I suggest, would not hit these unemployed workers of Northern Ireland when they are in employment anything like so severely as would the proposal in the Bill.
Many of the workers in Northern Ireland are engaged in seasonal industry, and many more work part-time. Under the Bill, part-time workers would be required to pay as large increased contributions as full-time workers, thus militating against the employing of part-time and seasonal workers, making it more expensive for employers to employ them, and, thereby, reducing still further their chances of getting what employment they can at the moment. Already, the people of Northern Ireland are suffering heavily from unemployment. If the Bill
244
be passed and the Northern Ireland Government choose to exercise the powers conferred by it, unemployment in Northern Ireland will become not better, but worse than it is even in the present difficult situation.
On the whole, families are larger in Northern Ireland than they are in this part of the United Kingdom. In view of the fact that Northern Ireland workers have larger families to maintain out of their wages, subject, as they are, to periodic unemployment, the burden now proposed to be laid upon them would be unfair and unjust.
We ought to say at this point to the Northern Ireland Government, "We think that, on the whole, you ought to stop there. We do not want Northern Ireland to become an even more depressed area than it is at present. We suggest to you that if you do not use the powers available to you to levy charges on National Insurance contributions we would be able to come to your rescue through the general tax fund of the United Kingdom". In that way, the United Kingdom would make an additional contribution towards preventing Northern Ireland from remaining a depressed area—the most depressed area in the whole of the United Kingdom.
This Amendment would have the effect, if carried, of at least helping Northern Ireland by means of the general body of the revenue of the United Kingdom as a whole. It would tend to prevent Northern Ireland from becoming even more depressed than it is now. Reflecting on these matters, I hope that those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland here—whom we are glad to see in the Committee this afternoon—will add their voices to ours and will urge the Minister not to turn a deaf ear or a stony face to the plea that we are making and that they will say to him, "This is a reasonable proposal".
Furthermore, I hope that they will give the Committee the benefit of some of the information which they doubtless possess of the way in which the Health Service is working in Northern Ireland—whether it needs additional help or whether they are satisfied with it as it is. Are they satisfied with the provision for hospitals which exists in Northern Ireland, or do they want to improve it? If they do, in what way do they want it improved?

245
I hope that the hon. Members from Northern Ireland will contribute to the debate and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do more than make mere debating points.
We are serious about this matter. We care for the welfare of Northern Ireland. We are sorry to see it in the sad plight in which it is. We are sorry to think that while the Government have been in office for the last seven years their plight has not improved, but become worse. We hope by this Amendment that we can do something to help our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Walker-Smith Mr. Walker-Smith rose——
Mr. J. Griffiths: Surely the Minister does not wish to deprive us of the opportunity to discuss this matter.
Mr. Walker-Smith: My normal practice is:o wait to hear the speeches of hon. Members before intervening, but on this occasion the speech of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has shown such a gross misapprehension not only of the constitutional position which exists between this country and Northern Ireland, but even of the nature and purport of the Amendment which he was supposed to be explaining, that I think it would be more helpful if I intervened now.
Without any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that I have never heard a speech so little related to an Amendment since one of the Ministers in the Labour Government of 1945 read, in reference to an Amendment, the brief which had been carefully prepared by his Department in reference to the succeeding Amendment.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. Surely the Minister is referring to the case where his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General read a speech relating to an Amendment different from that before the Committee.
Mr. Griffiths: If we are to have Parliamentary precedents, it is fair to have them on both sides.
Mr. Walker-Smith: My recollection is that it was not the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who did this; it was another of his colleagues. But as the right hon. Gentleman to whom I refer is no longer a Member of this
246
House, I do not think it would be right to refer to him by name. Therefore, it would perhaps be helpful to the Committee if I reminded hon. Members—although I am sure that the majority of them have no need to be reminded on this important point—of what is the precise constitutional relationship between the Government of Northern Ireland and ourselves in this context.
The Government of Northern Ireland have powers under the Act of 1920 to legislate in Northern Ireland for domestic purposes—such as introducing National Health Service contributions in respect of persons residing in Northern Ireland. That is within their jurisdiction, save only in respect of certain specific categories.
Mr. Griffiths: We made a constitutional change the other day in the 1957 Act in which we instituted a separate National Health Service contribution. Could we be told whether the Northern Ireland Parliament have also made that constitutional change?
Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. In Northern Ireland the same stamp is being used as we use here. It is endorsed for Northern Ireland purposes, but that is done within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Government. It is not for this House to legislate, or even to seek to advise, as the right hon. Gentleman was purporting to do, the Northern Ireland Government in respect of matters which lie within their statutory jurisdiction under the Act of 1920.
However, there are—and this is where the slight complication arises—three specific categories which are excepted from that general jurisdiction. They are these: First, Crown servants; secondly, foreign-going seamen; and, thirdly, persons serving in Her Majesty's forces. There is not and could not be anything in the Bill to compel the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate for increases. Equally, from the constitutional point of view, obviously there is nothing to compel them not to so legislate. That must be so, because these are matters which are constitutionally within the domestic jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament.
The object of the words in the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment seeks to omit is very narrow. It is simply to perm it the Northern Ireland

247
Government, if they so wish, to legislate in respect of the excepted categories comparably with what we are doing here.
I am asked: what is the intention of the Northern Ireland Government? I understand that it is their intention to introduce legislation providing for the same increases in the National Health Service contribution as are proposed for Great Britain. But it is not for us in this House to seek to inhibit them in their general intention, which is one within their own statutory jurisdiction.
I was asked about the 1957 Act and the relevance and purport of Section 5, which would be omitted from the Bill if the Amendments were carried. Section 5 of the 1957 Act was necessary because, otherwise, Northern Ireland could not have had completely comparable legislation—that is to say, they could not have provided for contributions to be paid by two of the categories I have named, namely, the Crown servants and the foreign-going seamen. So far as the third category, the Armed Forces, is concerned, they have not and never have had the power to legislate for contributions, and the 1957 Act, as hon. Members will see if they will be good enough to look at it, did not give them such power, because that is expressly reserved by Section 5 (2) of that Act. Nor does subsection (3) give them such power.
4.0 p.m.
The Clause makes it clear that the position now is as it was under the 1957 Act. If the Amendment were accepted and the relevant words were left out the position would be in doubt. It might well be that the Government of Northern Ireland could bring in comparable legislation simply by relying upon the provisions of Section 5 of the 1957 Act, without any express words needing to be incorporated in the Bill. That would depend upon the interpretation of the words:
"for purposes similar to the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act."
I should like to know the intention of the Amendment. It cannot be what the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is, because his intention goes far wider either than the terms of the Amendment or than would be constitutionally possible for the House. If his intention is to leave the
248
position in doubt it is a remarkable intention, and I should like to know the reason for it. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that without the words there would be no power to legislate to increase the contributions of these two specified categories of Crown servants and foreign-going seamen, I should like to know why he singles out those two categories for special treatment. I ask him to accept the fact that those are the only categories which the Amendment can affect.
That being so, I submit that the right hon. Gentleman's speech went much wider than the terms of the Amendment or the constitutional——
Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. In moving the Amendment, my right hon. Friend deployed his arguments and he was not ruled out of order, Sir Charles. Since the speech of my right hon. Friend was in order, I would ask you to rule that he should not be instructed by the Minister as to what is in order.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Before you deal with that point, Sir Charles, I should like to point out that I never suggested that you did not rule appropriately—or fail to rule appropriately—in this case. I did not suggest that what the right hon. Gentleman said was out of order. It was clear to me that you were giving him ample opportunity to bring his observations within the context of the Amendment.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that the Amendment has not and cannot have anything to do with the very wide issues which he sought to deploy. It is concerned with a very narrow point. It goes only to the question whether the Northern Ireland Government shall or shall not be given a clear indication that they are entitled to legislate over the whole field including the two specified categories—foreign-going seamen and Crown servants. In my submission, it is quite obvious that the position in Northern Ireland should be similar to that which obtains here in respect of that Government's right of action. Whether they act or not is a matter for them, but the position should be made as clear as it can be within the terms of the Bill.
Mr. E. Fletcher: I have rarely heard a more specious argument than that of the Minister. He could not have listened

249
to the very powerful and cogent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand).
I have a copy of the 1957 Act, with which the Amendment deals. The Amendment suggests that Section 5, in so far as it relates to Northern Ireland, should not be written into the Bill. I am not concerned to argue whether or not a constitutional point is involved in regard to the relation between this country and Northern Ireland, but if such a point is involved it is competent for the Committee to consider it. Section 5 of the 1957 Act provides that
"no limitation or restriction imposed by virtue of any enactment on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall preclude that Parliament from passing legislation for purposes similar to the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act"—
that is, the Act of 1957. Today, we are faced with an entirely new situation. The Government have introduced a Bill to increase the National Health Service contributions, and they are seeking to make that operative both in regard to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
Mr. J. Griffiths: To some people in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Fletcher: Our argument is that in passing the Bill we should not make those contributions payable by certain people in Northern Ireland. We are constitutionally entitled to argue that matter.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee vehemently opposed the Second Reading of the Bill. We divided against it, and were, unfortunately, beaten, owing to a temporary majority on the other side. We are opposed to it in principle. The majority carrying the Second Reading was inflated by a number of representatives of Northern Ireland constituencies. We are seeking to protect and preserve the rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
I listened very attentively to the Second Reading debate, and I have since read the HANSARD report of it, and I cannot find a single mention of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that any Member on either side of the House referred to it. This is, therefore, virtually the first opportunity that we have had to consider to what extent it is reasonable that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred
250
to the operations of the New York City Council, but that has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. I mention that fact only to indicate the scope of the Second Reading debate.
We approach the situation in regard to Northern Ireland with a clean sheet. I was not a part to the Act of 1957, or to Section 5, which gave the Northern Ireland Parliament certain rights. Looking at the question de novo, however, I am convinced that we must consider whether it is reasonable, fair and just to make these increased Health Service contributions payable by people in Northern Ireland.
No constitutional question arises out of the Act of 1920. I do not think that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman would dare to deny that it is competent for us, as a matter of constitutional theory and practice, to legislate whether or not Section 5 of the principal Act should not be extended to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Walker-Smith: That is perfectly true, but it only affects and can only affect these two narrow specific categories of Crown servants and foreign-going seamen.
Mr. Fletcher: I dare say, but I say that it would affect more. I am not sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right or wrong, but let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that there are only two limited categories that it might affect. I would still prefer to protect those two categories than protect none at all. I would still hope that if we make a sufficiently emphatic and dogmatic protest about those two categories, that will in itself have some effect on whether the Parliament of Northern Ireland should decide to apply the Act generally to other categories. Therefore, this is a matter of some great importance.
It is for those reasons that my right hon. Friend deployed arguments to show that the situation in Northern Ireland is totally different from the situation in Great Britain from an industrial, economic and political point of view.
Mr. J. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is only a caretaker Government in Northern Ireland at the moment.
Mr. Fletcher: Exactly. The Government of Northern Ireland is only a caretaker Government. There is not a Government there with a proper democratic right to represent the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to look to this House for their protection and for the safeguarding of their constitutional liberties, and that is what we are trying to do.
For the right hon. and learned Gentleman, by innuendo, to attempt to suggest that my right hon. Friend's speech was out of order in traversing this important question was most ill-advised and most disrespectful to the Chair. It was a totalitarian view. He had obviously failed to observe the vital significance of what my right hon. Friend was saying. My right hon. Friend was arguing, if I understood him correctly—and I support him—that the situation in Northern Ireland is totally different from the situation in England and Scotland. It is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any Member on the Government Front Bench getting into the habit of assuming that economic and industrial conditions in Northern Ireland are the same as they are in this country. We all know that they are profoundly different.
Serious problems of unemployment exist in Northern Ireland. There are serious problems of family conditions, family insurance and the size of families in Northern Ireland that do not operate in this country. I feel sure that we would be remiss in our duty if, now that we have got the opportunity which this Amendment provides of considering how this Bill operates in Northern Ireland, we did not take the fullest opportunity of ventilating the grievances of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: Nobody else does it for them.
Mr. Fletcher: True, nobody else does it. We have constitutional obligations to do it, and I for one am anxious to exercise my constitutional rights and duties. I feel very sorry for the people of Northern Ireland, and I want to take every opportunity that is open to me to protect them. It is no objection to this Amendment for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that this Amendment may only apply to limited categories of people.
Mr. Walker-Smith: It can only apply.
Mr. Fletcher: I do not mind whether it can or whether it cannot. Even if, strictly, it can only apply to limited categories, I should have thought that, a fortiori, it is all the more important that we should do everything we can to protect the rights of those limited categories of people in Northern Ireland whom we can protect. If we do that and we convince hon. Members opposite of the justice of protecting the people of Northern Ireland, if we do it in respect of limited categories of people, I believe that that will have a moral persuasive effect which will extend far beyond the limited categories to whom it may have a limited, strictly legal application.
4.15 p.m.
I do not want to reiterate the very serious hardships and economic conditions under which the people of Northern Ireland are suffering at the moment.
Mr. Mellish: Why not?
Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to trespass upon the time of the Committee. I merely adopt the arguments of my right hon. Friend. I feel that the speech of the Minister of Health was totally unsatisfactory. He failed to apply himself to the really serious motives that are behind this Amendment, and I hope that, on reflection, he will see the wisdom and justice of accepting this Amendment.
Sir David Campbell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health has dealt with the main points raised by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), but there are one or two points to which he did not refer because they fall outside the scope of the proposed Amendment.
With permission, I should like to say something by way of reply to some of the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) made quite clear to all of us what is behind the strictures which have come from the benches opposite. He referred to the fact that elections are pending in Northern Ireland. I do not propose to make an Election address here——
Mr. Mellish: Why not?
Sir D. Campbell:—though I think that the speeches from the benches opposite were made deliberately with that purpose.
The Section to which the Amendment applies merely means that the Government of Northern Ireland will have full powers to introduce whatever rates they think fit for all other than members of the Armed Forces. In fact, it has been announced that the Northern Ireland Government intend to introduce at an early date a Bill which will impose necessary increases. The present rate of contribution in Northern Ireland is the same as it is in the United Kingdom as a whole, and it is the intention of the Northern Ireland Government, if they are returned to power, as, of course, they will be, to introduce a Bill similar to the one which is before us.
The only matter which is doubtful is whether the Northern Ireland Government have the power to introduce these increases with respect to officers of the Crown—postal clerks, Customs and Excise officers, and so on—plus foreign-going seamen. The Government of Northern Ireland have no power to legislate in respect of National Health contributions of members of Her Majesty's Services serving in Northern Ireland, and they never did have that power. The question narrows itself down to whether we should remove the doubt as to the competence of the Northern Ireland Government to legislate in respect of officers of the Crown and foreign-going seamen. That is the entire scope of this Amendment.
Turning to one or two of the other points which have been raised, I am glad to be able to assure the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East that the National Health Service in Northern Ireland is of a very high order. I do not say that improvement could not be brought about in hospital accommodation and certain other branches of the Service, but, generally speaking, the quality of the Service is as high as the Service in the United Kingdom as a whole and can compare exceedingly favourably.
The costs of our Service have increased, of course, and, as in this country, to meet those increased costs the Government will act rightly and properly when they introduce a Bill to increase the charges. The Minister has stated categorically that he
254
will introduce these increases. The Northern Ireland Government have thought it right and proper that the increased costs should be met to some extent by means of additional contributions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland. We on this side of the Committee are just as concerned about the grave unemployment situation in Northern Ireland as hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. However, the suggestion that not to increase the male worker's health contributions by 6d. a week is not one which would help us to solve our problem of unemployment.
Mr. Albert Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the effect on the part-time workers in Northern Ireland, upon whom this Increase will bear most heavily?
Sir D. Campbell: We have a number of part-time workers in Northern Ireland, just as there are in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is true that an additional 6d. a week means something to the part-time worker, but it is not of such tremendous weight as the hon. Member would seem to suggest.
We are all grievously concerned about this unemployment. It is a matter with which the Northern Ireland Government are doing their best to deal. They have been in close consultation with the Government here, and they are working on schemes which, I trust, will help us in dealing with this grave problem.
I would suggest to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that there is one way in which they may possibly help us, and that is by using their influence with the trade union movement. I am all in favour of trade unions and of the trade union movement, but I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members opposite should use their influence to see that trade unions do not fight one another and so give rise to strikes and, thereby, to further unemployment.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is going a little beyond the Amendment.
Sir D. Campbell: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, but the right hon. Gentleman did drift very considerably away from the Amendment.

255
I merely say, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that this Amendment, if passed, would leave in doubt whether a small category of persons in Northern Ireland could have their National Health contributions increased by the Government of Northern Ireland whereas it leaves the great majority of the people, and certainly those who are unemployed or on part-time work, entirely at the mercy—and it is the mercy—of the Northern Ireland Government, which have the interests of the unemployed very much in mind. It seems to me quite wrong that hon. Members should ask us to support an Amendment which would have the effect of leaving out two small groups of persons in Northern Ireland from the legislative competency which the Northern Ireland Government possesses.
Mr. Mellish: It is always a privilege and a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell), who is a very popular Member, and if I criticise what he has said it is not to be taken as a criticism of him as a person. It is simply his politics that we do not like.
It is good to hear the problems of Northern Ireland being discussed in this Committee. It is a pity that Members representing Northern Ireland are the most silent Members. It is a great pity that they come all this way from the other side of the water only to say nothing when they come here, especially as they have more problems than we have. An opportunity of this kind should be very welcome to them.
Mr. J. Griffiths: In a debate the other day on unemployment we gave an opportunity to Members from Northern Ireland to take part, and most of them did take part. We gave them the opportunity to raise this tragic problem.
Mr. Mellish: I am glad to hear that, because I think that the Northern Ireland people are a great people.
The purpose of this very simple Amendment, which the Minister tried so hard adequately to explain, is to protect at least some of those people. Of course, we are glad to take the opportunity to express general opinions on the problems to which the Amendment is related.
256
I think that the individuals concerned would be relieved if this Amendment could be carried. I would remind hon. Members from Northern Ireland, if they are still listening, that the argument, "This is only 6d. extra" is not a really valid one. It is an argument which can go on and on. The contribution could go up 3d. in another month's time, 6d. in a month after that, another 3d. three months after that. Whenever one of these increases is made the argument is always that it is only 3d. or only 6d. This 6d. is imposed on top of the already very heavy payment which now amounts to nearly 10s. a week, which has to be found by every man or woman who is insured.
This is a very substantial amount of money. I should have thought that hon. Members from Northern Ireland would have been only to pleased to have strenuously opposed the imposition of this burden on the workers in Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of part-time employment in Northern Ireland, far more thy here, and salaries are very bad indeed.
The whole trouble with Northern Ireland is that it is a country where politics are quite different from what we in the rest of Great Britain understand politics to be. They are not conducted on the basis of the Tories on the one hand and Labour people on the other and with a few Liberals floating about. Over there, politics are based on religion. People do not vote on the basis of being Tories or supporters of the Labour Party. They——
The Chairman: If we start on that subject we shall get into trouble.
Mr. Mellish: I was only making the point, Sir Charles, that in this great political assembly, when we discuss matters of this kind, we should remember the rather sad position of our kinsfolk in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Harry Randall: I am sure that my hon. Friend will know, for example, that among Post Office employees in Northern Ireland there is a greater number of part-time postmen than in the postal services in any other part of the United Kingdom. A sad feature of this is that these part-time postmen in Northern Ireland are unable

257
to follow any other occupation and have to depend upon their pay from the Post Office.
Mr. Mellish: That is an illustration of the scene. I have said that there is more part-time employment in Northern Ireland than there is here. There is that special problem of the postmen in Northern Ireland. In England there are part-time postmen only at Christmas time, when there is a special demand on the postal services.
These people are being asked to pay a greater contribution without any protest being made by any of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland. They are not protecting them, and we on this side of the Committee try to do so. I have very little Irish blood in me. It is four or five generations back. I do not see why I should bother about Northern Ireland, but, still, we do our best for it.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, South said he did not want to read an Election address to us. I wanted to ask him: is it being said by his party that if it gets back to power it will impose this 6d.? Is that what members of his party are saying? Are they telling the people in Northern Ireland that? Whether he denies or admits it, I must take it from him, but I can only say that Elections in Northern Ireland, so far as I can judge, are not fought on issues like that.
As I said earlier, when you, Sir Charles, ruled me out of order, religion is the only issue. I say it only in passing. It is a terrible thing that in this day and age there cannot be rows simply between Tories and Labour people, and that, instead, there are rows about whether people are Catholics or Protestants. What I object to is that at the end of a General Election we here are pestered with a large number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland who are not elected because they are Tories, but who are elected on the basis of religion. I object to it very strongly, and I think that many of my hon. Friends do, too.
Every time an Election is fought we in this country are handicapped by having, as a start, a dozen or so hon. Members from Northern Ireland who are elected——
The Chairman: We must leave religion out of these matters.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Mellish: I will not go on about religion, Sir Charles.
My party objects strongly to the purpose of this Bill. I would not have minded if people in this country or in Northern Ireland received greater benefits from the National Health Service through this extra 6d. The Minister implied on Second Reading that they would do so, but I know what will happen. There will be substantial cuts, to a great extent hospital management committees and regional boards will find that they will not be able to continue their existing services, and there will be a standstill in future development for at least a year because of the Minister's policy of cutting the amount of money available to them. So, on the one hand, we shall pay more and, on the other, we shall get less.
The Minister can "muck about" with figures as much as he likes. His main argument is based on the Estimates. I know that he will say that there will be an extra amount this year but it is, in fact, a cut, and he knows it. Thirteen thousand pounds for the South-Eastern region——
The Chairman: Order, order.
Mr. Mellish: This relates to Northern Ireland, Sir Charles, because if that is happening here it will be happening there. I am arguing that the extra 6d. should be opposed by the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. They should say that it is wrong. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland are looking wistful and wondering what it is all about. They should get up and say something.
Mr. G. B. H. Currie: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has referred to some of us as sitting here wistfully wondering what it is all about. There is a great deal of truth in what he says in that respect, because the hon. Gentleman ranged so far and wide of the compelling reasons for moving such an Amendment that, in the end, we wondered precisely what he wanted to do. His right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) explained admirably the purpose of the Amendment, namely, to make Section 5 of the 1957 Act no longer applicable to Northern Ireland.

259
Two things emerge with clarity. The first is that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make an electioneering speech because there is to be an Election in Northern Ireland. The other was that for the first time the Socialist Party in the House of Commons has come out into the open and has said that it is its policy, as a party, to remove from the Government of Northern Ireland their power to legislate on vital domestic matters. That is the effect of the Amendment. The powers of the Northern Ireland Government are to be reduced by limiting their power to legislate on matters relating to Health Service charges. That is a grave constitutional issue and one which, I hope, will be appreciated by the people of Northern Ireland who read the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate.
To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, and to be completely impartial, let us examine what the Amendment proposes to do. It proposes to remove from the Northern Ireland Government their power to legislate for the increased National Health Service charge relating to foreign-going seamen and also to servants of the Crown other than those in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces have always been outside the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and that Parliament have never sought this power. They have, however, sought to clarify its legislative capacity as regards Post Office and other servants of the Crown following peaceful pursuits.
Supposing this Amendment were to be accepted by the Committee, and as a result Section 5 of the 1957 Act were no longer applicable to Northern Ireland, what would be the position? No doubt a test action would have to be fought some time to decide whether or not the Government of Northern Ireland had power to impose an additional charge in respect of the Health Service contributions. We do not want this position of ambiguity. We do not want the matter to be left unclarified. We want, here and now, in the way the Government have suggested, to put this beyond doubt so that we shall not have to fight any legal actions. Therefore, I am glad that the matter have been ventilated.
Reference has been made to unemployment in Northern Ireland, and it is recognised by those who sit opposite that those
260
of us on this side of the Committee are as gravely concerned as they are about unemployment. Since this question has been raised, however, may I point out that three weeks ago Scottish and Welsh hon. Gentlemen opposite were asking whether similar measures for the relief of unemployment could be introduced in the distressed areas of Scotland and South Wales to those which the Government of Northern Ireland have introduced over the past few years. I therefore hope that some appreciation will be shown on the other side of the Committee of what has been done by the Government of Northern Ireland.
Finally, there is no point in the Amendment put by the Opposition. It is purely a political gambit, and in my submission it should be rejected out of hand.
Mr. John Diamond: I am sure, Sir Charles, that you would like us to have the opportunity to deny the remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) that this Amendment is a purely political gambit. He could not have been listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), or he would not have permitted himself to use such an expression.
What we are concerned with on this side of the Committee is to protect those who have no others to protect them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to feel that they are entitled to come here and assist in legislation on behalf of some free citizens who will be ruled in a particular way if their views are supported. They cannot conceive of the possibility of their views being defeated.
In the present situation, when Northern Ireland is without a democratically elected Government, it is up to those of us on this side of the Committee to step into the breach, and, in a democratic fashion, attempt to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland who are citizens of the United Kingdom.
This argument would not find favour on the Government Front Bench, where the Minister, not being able to controvert the powerful arguments put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East, rose immediately my right hon. Friend finished his speech

261
and before allowing any other hon. Member to participate in the debate. He is entitled to do that if he wants to rule the Committee in this way. II is a way to veto free speech in the House of Commons, an attempt to veto the Ruling of the Chair, as you will have observed, Sir Charles, by suggesting that you will allow the discussion to go too wide. Who, having sat under your fair chairmanship, would ever suggest that it was possible for you to allow the discussion to go too wide?
Having suggested that, and having attempted to answer a point of order addressed to you by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths), it is clear that the Minister would not favour this kind of argument. Unable to deal with the arguments, he attempted to shut up the Committee by speaking straight away and by saying that my right hon. Friend was grossly misinformed. It has turned out that the only person grossly misinformed is the Minister himself.
We are dealing with a most important category of persons, foreign-going seamen. The House of Commons saw fit, a few days ago, to interrupt most important business and to divert its whole attention for three hours to dealing with one foreign-going seaman. Here we are dealing with a number of such men who have no one to protect them, no Parliament in Northern Ireland to look after them, and with Northern Ireland Members apparently only too anxious to support the Government, irrespective of the arguments, and leaving it to this side of the Committee, to those who believe in democratic procedure and who do not believe in these increased contributions, to support these men.
In those circumstances, having regard to the affront to the Committee and the affront to the Chair and the lack of reply to the arguments, I sincerely hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will protest and will divide on the Amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion and I shall detain the Committee for only a few moments. I intervene principally on account of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). He has not
262
been fair to Members for Northern Ireland constituencies who sit on this side of the Committee. He said that he would have liked to have heard more from them about Northern Irish affairs, but there are many matters, of which health is one, about which we are largely inhibited from speaking because they fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. If we spoke about them, we should be ruled out of order.
However, the hon. Member said something which I thought very unfair—if I may say so without any feeling of animosity—which was that in Northern Ireland Members are elected on the basis of religion. I entirely disagree with that. On the contrary, the religion of the minority is represented, and there is much less animosity on that score than there has been in the past, and I deplore any tendency to inflame it. Also, the members of the religion of the minority enjoy the social services, such as the Health Service, which are of a standard much higher than that enjoyed by their co-religionists on the other side of the Border, in the Republic of Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said that he would have liked to have heard something about how the Health Service in Northern Ireland worked. I will only say that we have a Health Service of which we are very proud. We have a first-rate medical school in our university and our hospitals are well staffed and, particularly on the clinical side, can stand up to hospitals anywhere in the world. I am extremely proud of them.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was a little disparaging about the Government of Northern Ireland, whom he called a "caretaker" Government. I want to set his mind at rest. More than half the new Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland have been returned unopposed and they are pledged to support the Unionist Government of Northern Ireland. Among those 27 Members are the Prime Minister and five of his Cabinet colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Member need have no apprehensions that the affairs of Northern Ireland will not be carried on with the same efficiency and humanity as in the past.
Mr. E. Fletcher: Would it interest the hon. Member to know that I am repeatedly asked to raise questions in the House about injustices in Northern Ireland, questions which would be out of order? It is merely because of that that I took this opportunity, which does arise on a matter which is in order, of trying to express some of the grievances felt by the citizens of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hyde: I appreciate that the hon. Member is asked to raise these issues. I have been asked to raise issues affecting English constituencies and I endeavour to do so. The odds are even there.
Mr. R. E. Prentice: When the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) rose, I thought that he intended to speak in the same tone which he adopted in the debate on 24th February, when the House of Commons debated unemployment. According to HANSARD, he concluded by saying:
"My conclusion on this subject is that, unless the cold breezes of financial austerity which are blowing from Whitehall, and which have been blowing for the past year, are somehow tempered to the shorn lamb of Ulster's economy, our unemployment figures are likely to reach unprecedented heights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1958; Vol. 583, c. 135.]
In other words, he was asking the Government to make Northern Ireland a special case and to discriminate.
Mr. Hyde: It is only right that the hon. Member should bear in mind that those remarks were directed to the operation of the credit squeeze.
Mr. Prentice: I understand that, but it is logical to apply the same sort of reasoning to the subject with which we are dealing this afternoon, because the purpose of the Amendment is to discriminate in favour of Northern Ireland.
Much has been said about the fact that Stormont can legislate for itself on these matters, but last year, when this Parliament raised the National Health Service contribution, Stormont followed and we have been told this afternoon that it intends to follow suit again. The Amendment is an attempt to discriminate.
I suggest—and it has not been denied by speakers from the other side of the Committee—that there is some relationship between this matter and unemployment in Northern Ireland. The effect of the Bill on Northern Ireland will be only
264
small, but the situation which now exists there is such that we ought to be supersensitive about any effect, however small, however marginal, on the unemployment situation in an area where, we have been told, the present unemployment figure is more than 10 per cent.
This Bill is one of a series. Last year, there was legislation which raised the National Insurance contribution and in November there was a further rise. This is the third increase in less than a year. What will be the effects on an area suffering from heavy unemployment? I think that there will be three. The first is that great hardship will be imposed on those people who are hanging on and who themselves may be unemployed next week or the week after. One of the worst aspects of a depressed area is that those who are in work never know when it is their turn to be out of work.
There are people who are worried whether they will be put off at the end of this week or next week, and there are very few whose wages allow them to scrape something together for a reserve of savings to cushion the effect of unemployment when it comes. On these people, and particularly on the part-time workers who have been mentioned already, a cut of 6d. in their take-home pay is serious and ought to be considered.
Secondly, there will be an adverse effect on the purchasing power of working-class families in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it is only 6d. if there is one wage earner, and perhaps 1s. or 10d. if there is more than one, dependent on whether they are men and women and that sort of thing, but the purchasing power of these families will be seriously affected in an area which is already depressed——
Mr. A. Evans: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of the policy which was behind the earlier increase was that it was an attempt by the Government to restrict the amount of money in the hands of the consumer?
Mr. Prentice: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it is a bad policy for the whole of the United Kingdom, and particularly bad for a depressed area like Northern Ireland.
Mr. Raymond Gower: Could not the hon. Gentleman spread this argument further? He is really saying that

265
the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives cannot do things so well as this Government.
Mr. Prentice: I suggest that the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of this country cannot do things as well as a Labour Government in this country would do them.
Thirdly, apart from the actual effects of this proposed increased charge upon the economy of Northern Ireland, the acceptance of the Amendment would be a gesture on behalf of this Government. It would show that in something they had discriminated. In the debate on unemployment, both the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade said how concerned they were with the employment situation in Northern Ireland. The people there are now waiting to see whether that concern will be translated into something practical. This is a very small step which we are proposing, but it would be one by which we could show that we had discriminated in favour of this area, and it certainly should be supported by those hon. Members opposite who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: We cannot hope to settle the political and economic destinies of Northern Ireland on this Bill. The political destiny of Northern Ireland rests in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. As I said in a public meeting in Belfast the last time I spoke there, so long as politics in Northern Ireland are fuddled with Pope and partition no sense will come out of it. That is all I have to say on the general position of Northern Ireland.
I want to know what will be the effect of the Amendment on Crown servants in Northern Ireland. Did I understand the Minister to say that if the Amendment were carried it would preclude the Northern Ireland Government from levying a contribution on Crown servants in Northern Ireland, or would the effect of passing the Amendment be to facilitate the levying of an additional contribution on Crown servants in addition to that which would be levied by the British Government? I am anxious to discover whether the Amendment would enable the discrimination to be made in favour of Crown servants in Northern Ireland or whether it would enable it to be made against them.
266
In either case, I am afraid that I cannot agree to an Amendment which does discriminate, one way or the other, in relation to Crown servants in Northern Ireland. My interest in Crown servants in this country is much too great for me to want to support an Amendment which will relieve them of a contribution which the rest of Crown servants in this country might have to pay. Still less would I assent to an Amendment to impose a higher contribution in respect of Crown servants than is imposed on them here.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged. I had hoped that I had made it clear. I am in the slightly paradoxical position of being asked to interpret an Amendment which has been moved from the other side of the Committee. Indeed, I have incurred the displeasure of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) for so doing, which he expressed in somewhat less than his customary temperate language. But I cannot resist the temptation to reply. The position is this.
If the Amendment is rejected, it is clear that it will be open to the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate in respect of Crown servants and foreign-going seamen, if in their discretion they so desire. If the Amendment were carried, the effect would be to place the issue in doubt, dependent on the precise interpretation of Section 5 (1) of the 1957 Act.
Mr. Niall MacDermot: I do not rise at all in my capacity of Irishman. Unlike some other Irish Members who have spoken, I come from south of the Border. I only rise on one point which the Minister made in his first speech on this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he understood from the Government of Northern Ireland that it was their intention to introduce a Bill similar to the one which is now before this Committee. In other words, it is their intention to impose a similar increase to those we are to have here. We understand that the Northern Ireland Government have their own Health Service, quite independent of our Health Service. The question I want to ask is what exactly is the relationship—not constitutionally but administratively—between our Health Service and the Health Service in

267
Northern Ireland that should bring about the remarkable coincidence that just at the time when we find it necessary—if we do find it necessary—to impose these increases for the financing of our Health Service in this country, the Government of Northern Ireland are finding it necessary to impose a precisely similar increase of precisely the same amount and covering precisely the same classes of person for the purpose of financing their own Health Service in Northern Ireland. It seems an extraordinary state of affairs.
I appreciate that it is not for the Minister here to answer for the administration of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, but, quite clearly, there is and there must be a close administrative relationship between the two Governments and the two services for the Minister even to be apprised of this fact. Further, we see that the Minister is most sensitive to the possibility that as a result of our Amendment being carried, if it were carried, some doubt might arise as to what was the exact scope of the power of the Government of Northern Ireland to impose similar increases relating to Crown servants or foreign-going seamen in Northern Ireland.
He told us that what, in fact, happens in Northern Ireland is that they use our stamps, surcharged with "Northern Ireland." Is it really the case that what lies behind the Government's opposition to this Amendment is the fact that if it were carried it might be necessary for the Government of Northern Ireland to print their own stamps and study and work out their own scheme? In other words, what is the truth of the matter? Have they really got their own Health Service, and are they really free to decide matters for themselves, or is the truth of the matter that they are administratively compelled to follow sheep-like in our wake; that is to say, a rubber stamp? If that is the position, we should know about it.
I therefore ask the Minister if he will clear up this matter and explain to us why it is that at this moment, when our Government find it necessary to ask for these increases, the Government of Northern Ireland should ask for precisely similar increases and for precisely the same purposes.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Marquand: I thought that the speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was excessively legalistic. It sounded not so much like a speech from a Minister of Health as from an Attorney-General; and perhaps there is more than one good reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the Attorney-General and not the Minister of Health.
I have never been so pleased with the fate of any Amendment which I have moved during a Committee stage in this House. It was addressed to a rather narrow and technical point, which was all that the scope of the Bill permitted me to do. But it has succeeded in its object. The debate upon it has elicited some information about what is happening in Northern Ireland. It brought several hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland into the Chamber and drew speeches from no less than three of them that we were glad to hear.
I said nothing about the Election, but all three of the hon. Members could not keep off the subject. It became clear that this topic is likely to be an issue in the Northern Ireland Election. I hope it will be. If my Amendment has achieved that it will have served a useful purpose. It is apparent from our discussions that the Northern Ireland Government should think a long time before imposing this new tax on the insured workpeople of Northern Ireland. The moving of this Amendment has served a useful purpose, but I do not wish to be misunderstood. I should not like it to be considered in Northern Ireland that we wish to inhibit the Northern Ireland Government from following the good practices of Governments in this country.
We were pleased when the Northern Ireland Government followed the example of the Labour Government in 1946 and started a National Health Service. We were delighted when they followed our example and nationalised road transport and when they followed our example in many other respects, including in their agriculture policy. There is every hope that when a change of Government takes place in this country—as it will before long—the

269
Government of Northern Ireland will have the opportunity of following a good example again. I do not wish to be misunderstood, and so I feel that now we should be content with the debate which has resulted, and having expressed our point of view make clear that we want the people of Northern Ireland to debate this issue for themselves.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hesitate to delay the Committee by entering into this debate at so late a point, but I think it as well that all of us, including myself, should understand what the Committee is doing. Apparently, there has been a good deal of doubt expressed about the meaning of the Amendment. Before we debate the question of its effect, it seems to me that we should look at the Bill to see what is its effect in relation to these matters. It seems to me that we have to approach it looking first—because this is the relevant point—at Clause 2 (2) for what light it throws on the Amendment we are now discussing. That subsection says:
"This Act, except subsection (3) of the preceding section, shall not extend to Northern Ireland."
If, therefore, we leave out Clause 1 (3) the Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland at all and these increases could not be levied in Northern Ireland unless a Northern Ireland Parliament so decided.
If my right hon. and hon. Friends wish these increases which we are now seeking to impose on the citizens of the United Kingdom not to be automatically imposed by this Bill on the citizens of Northern Ireland, the simple thing to do would be to eliminate Clause 1 (3) and make the consequential Amendment in Clause 2 (2). Then we should have the result that in Northern Ireland the contributions chargeable would be those now chargeable by reason of the principal Act, but this increase would not be chargeable in Northern Ireland unless separately enacted by the Northern Ireland Parliament. That is the objective of the present Amendments, and I do not see what the difficulty is or why there need be any ambiguity.
We on this side of the Committee believe it unjust, tyrannical and oppressive that at this moment of time these charges should be added to contributors in England. We may not have succeeded in persuading the Government—we have
270
probably succeeded in persuading the country, but that will not matter until after the next General Election—and we get nothing for our own people——
Mr. E. Fletcher: At and after the Election.
Mr. S. Silverman: Yes, at the Election first, and after the result of the Election puts my right hon. Friends on the benches opposite and the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on these benches we shall be able to relieve the contributors in this country from this unjust and oppressive strain on their pockets—this extra poll tax.
We are now at the Committee stage of this Bill, and if we can relieve anybody there seems no reason why we should not do so, even though their circumstances are the same as ours. But in Northern Ireland they are suffering from an even more oppressive Government than we are. Their total of unemployed is higher than ours has yet reached. Whether that position will remain at the time of the next General Election I would hesitate to say, but I am not optimistic. At present, Northern Ireland has a higher degree of unemployment than we have. To that extent, to impose this extra burden on them is a responsibility from which the Northern Ireland Parliament ought not to be relieved. It is for them to decide, and for them to take the responsibility in their own General Election for making an additional charge parallel to the additional charge which we are making. There is no reason why this Committee should impose this extra burden on Northern Ireland which has its own Government and which insisted on having its own Government and on having certain powers reserved to it.
Mr. Hyde: It is untrue to say that Northern Ireland insisted on its own Government. We wanted to come under the Parliament and Government of Westminster, but it was forced on us by the Act of 1920.
Mr. Silverman: That is a controversy which it would be out of order for me to pursue. I am sure, however, that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention will be received with delight in Dublin where they are of opinion that Northern Ireland wishes the partition as

271
it now is and to retain its own Government. If it is the wish of Northern Ireland to retain its own Government, it is right and proper that that Government should take the responsibility of putting this extra burden on Northern Ireland citizens rather than that the burden should be undertaken by this House.
Sir D. Campbell: This Bill and this Amendment have nothing whatever to do with the powers of the Northern Ireland Government regarding the increasing of National Health contributions, except to put out of doubt whether there is jurisdiction to legislate in respect of the contributions of officers of the Crown or foreign-going seamen.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse me any more than I have already been confused by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Government Front Bench. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that if we did not enact Clause 1 (3) and if we left out of Clause 2 (2) the words, "except subsection (3) of the preceding section", the effect would be to leave the Northern Ireland Parliament free to decide for itself whether it would pass in Northern Ireland legislation parallel to the Bill, which would then apply only to the United Kingdom. Surely that is correct.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member was not here when I made my speech. I tried to explain then the position if the Amendment were carried. It would be that the position of the Northern Irish Government, in respect only of these two limited categories, which is all we are dealing with today, would be doubtful. It would be dependent upon whether the permissive power contained in Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1957 carried forward for these purposes or not. It would be a question of doubt and legal interpretation, which would be unsatisfactory.
Mr. Silverman: Let us approach the matter on that basis. I should not have thought there was much doubt about it, but one does not need to be dogmatic on the point, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that without these Amendments there would be doubt. No Government would proceed to attempt to collect the additional poll tax
272
if they thought that the authority to do so were in doubt. If the Amendment I suggest were made, the doubt would have to be cleared up in other ways. In those circumstances, the only place where the doubt could be cleared up would be the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which would then have, what I am sure it always wished to have, the exclusive responsibility of deciding whether in these two classes of case the additional impost should be collected or not.
It is impossible to imagine that if this part of the Bill which I have suggested might be left out were in fact left out the money could be collected in Northern Ireland unless the Northern Ireland Parliament so enacted. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that, because if he does not he would not have drawn his Bill in this way.
Mr. Walker-Smith: It is a question of the effect of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. It is clear from the line the hon. Gentleman is taking that he missed not only my speech, which is a deprivation easily to be borne, but the very excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie), who explained the position very precisely to the Committee.
Mr. Silverman: I missed a great many of the speeches, and I regret it. I apologised at the beginning of my speech for not being in and for delaying the Committee so much about it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me disrespectful of his own speech or of anybody else's speech if I say that I prefer to look at the words of the Bill, to relate them as best I can to the law as it is without them, and then to see how far we can get in that way. I thought it was sufficient for my argument to adopt what the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said. Unless his Bill had been drawn in this way there would remain doubts about the authority to collect this additional money. He said so repeatedly. If there were no doubt, it is impossible to understand why the words are there at all.
If we take the words out there is then a doubt. If there is a doubt we cannot collect the money. If the doubt is to be resolved, the only way would then be the

273
legislation in the Northern Ireland Parliament that the Northern Ireland representatives appear to be very anxious to avoid for reasons which I think we can understand.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Currie: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is a very old friend of mine, and for whom I have a great respect as a debater, but I do not think he does himself justice, having missed the earlier speeches. Does he not agree that the whole matter is governed by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and the powers of the Northern Ireland Government which were vested in that Government by that Act?
If he agrees, does he not further agree that there is complete authority in the Government of Northern Ireland to legislate on the National Health Service contribution? If he does, does he not also agree that if there is doubt about matters on which the Northern Ireland Government can legislate—and that is what we are trying to resolve—the matter will have to be determined in the courts? It could not be resolved by the Government of Northern Ireland without resort to the courts. If the Northern Ireland Government have not that power under the 1920 Act, nobody could put the matter right except the House. I agree that it might well suit hon. Gentlemen opposite if the matter were to be taken to the courts for determination, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is probably better that it should be determined here and now on this Amendment.
Mr. Silverman: All I am concerned about is to save the hon. Gentleman's Northern Ireland constituents from an unjust impost from which I cannot save the citizens of the United Kingdom. I gather from what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if this Amendment were accepted there would be a chance of saving some of them and if it were not accepted there would be no chance of saving any of them. That is why my hon. Friends put down Amendments which I am supporting.
In spite of the extremely careful and lucid argument of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie): which may, for anything I know, be correct, I would prefer to leave the gathering of the impost of doubtful legality rather than to
274
make it certain that it could be legally collected. I would rather the Government could not do so; I would rather place as many difficulties as I could in the way of collecting it. If any responsibility has to be borne in Northern Ireland for the collection of a further poll tax, it is better that it should be borne by the Northern Ireland Parliament who can get the support of the electors for what they have done, rather than they should shelter behind the House of Commons and say," It is not our fault. We had to collect the money because the Imperial Parliament at Westminster told us we must "—which is the position if the Act is unamended.
The Committee would be very well advised to accept the Amendment and to, leave the Northern Ireland Parliament to wrestle with the position as it would then be.
Mr. Gower: I do not think we should allow this discussion to pass without comment on the remarkable theory, put forward by the party opposite, that it is good to delegate to a country or community like Ulster the right to legislate for itself so long as it legislates in accordance with the wishes of the Opposition. That is a quite remarkable theory, which makes nonsense of the professions of many hon. Members opposite that people in territories in other parts of the world should have self-government.
Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member, I am sure inadvertently, has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. What we are pleading for is that if possible this power to exact further tax shall be exercised in Northern Ireland, if at all, by an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament. We want to give them full permission to use it if they desire.
Mr. Gower: That is where I think the hon. Member is making a mistake. The position is that nothing in this Bill, nor in these Amendments, can affect in one small degree the right of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to legislate in respect of its own residents. Whether there should be a Health Service at all, or higher charges, in Northern Ireland—whatever we do here—in respect of domestic residents is a decision for the Parliament of Nothern Ireland. There are certain special categories which were

275
mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) which are outside that. It is on that narrow field only that we are having this discussion.
Dr. Horace King: Without following the legal intricacies presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I have followed the debate, and I do not think anyone on either side of the Committee wants to interfere with the ultimate right of the Northern Ireland Parliament to make their own decisions about health charges. We take the view, on the other hand, that the Northern Ireland Parliament has an opportunity of which we shall be deprived, of saving the unemployed in Northern Ireland—the maimed, the lame, the cripple, the blind and the poor of Northern Ireland—from bearing this latest poll tax. The purpose of this debate is to attempt to convey to the people of Northern Ireland the desire of hon. Members on this side of the Committee that the poorest people there should not suffer this new imposition which is being made by this Government. I hope my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a Division.
Mr. W. Griffiths: Whatever may be the legal position about the rights of the Northern Ireland Government under the Government of Ireland Act, we know of two facts. Unhappily, Northern Ireland is having a particularly rough time economically. A higher proportion of people there are unemployed than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
I understand that my hon. Friends are seeking to provide an opportunity for the Government of Northern Ireland to exempt their people in the present difficult circumstances from what my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) rightly characterised as a poll tax. It is a fact that in these matters the Government of Northern Ireland invariably follow the pattern laid down at Westminster. I have seen nothing in the representation of Ulster in this House during the time I have been here that would lead me to believe that those hon. Members are enthusiastic supporters of social reform. They were among hon. Members opposite who opposed the original Act in all its stages. People in Northern Ireland who have benefited from the National
276
Health Service have done so despite the attitude taken by the representatives of Ulster.
The Government of Northern Ireland invariably follows the pattern laid down in Westminster, but the pattern of legislation for the National Health Service was laid down by a Labour Government in the original Act of 1946. Therefore, the people of Ulster have enjoyed these benefits up to now because of the design of the Labour Government, despite the opposition of their elected representatives from Ulster. That does not stop Ulster Unionists, whenever the question of internal affairs of Ireland is discussed, from pointing out that the social services in Northern Ireland are infinitely better than those of Eire. That is true, but the reason does not arise from any action those hon. Members have taken. If there is a General Election in Northern Ireland, I hope that the words we have put on record will be avidly read and that they will draw the correct conclusion.
Amendment negatived.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
"not being earlier than the first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixty."
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Government to obtain a mandate before they impose these charges. It has been said on other occasions that Amendments may be moved for this purpose. Today, we see a striking example of a Conservative Government having made certain promises regarding the Health Service in the last Election failing to keep their pledges.
It should be recalled that we have had four Ministers of Health in this Parliament. I do not know whether the present Minister of Health, since the Election, has read the document entitled, "United for Peace and Progress." I read it at the time of the election to see what the then Opposition were doing, and I have refreshed my memory on it. It is an astonishing document. Perhaps, after the debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will read what is in page 25 of that document, under the heading "Good Health", to see what his Government promised to do if they were returned with a majority.
The Minister will see under that heading a recital of the improvements the

277
present Government proposed to make. They were going to build more hospitals and provide more beds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must examine what he has done in the light of these superlative promises that were made. Several questions, of course, would not arise, but I would remind him of his mean proposals regarding staff, the latest regarding radiographers.
In page 25 of that document it was said that preventive work was to be of such a character that, presumably, the Conservative Government would reduce every morbidity rate and mortality rate to such an extent that there would really be no need for a curative Health Service. I do not exaggerate, for summing it all up, the document said:
"we rank them …"
"Them" being hospitals, staffs, beds and preventive work—
"higher than free wigs and free aspirins".
That is a most curious statement in what should be a dignified appeal to the country.
In parenthesis, I should say there must be someone at the Conservative Central Office with an unpleasant form of wit, because wigs are given only to those who have a complaint of a tragic character, alopœcia. We have only to look round the House to see that we do not give wigs to balding men, but only to those with a pathological condition. For the Conservative Central Office to insert that sentence in the appeal is revolting. The document said that they rank these things higher than free wigs and free aspirins. This is a chicken coming home to roost.
What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House only last week? He told the House that under a Conservative Administration—after they had said this in "United for Peace and Progress"—the average cost of a prescription last December was 6s. 1d., in December, 1956, it was 5s. 6½d. and in December, 1955, it was 4s. 7½d. As to free aspirin, I might remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that 43 per cent. of the drugs prescribed in this country are of a proprietary kind, and have no relationship to free aspirin.
5.30 p.m.
I have to mention this, Sir Gordon, before you may rule me out of order, to prove to the Committee that the
278
promises on health policy made by the Conservative Government have certainly not been kept. In fact, promise and performance have nothing at all in common.
Again, in this pamphlet, there is no mention of charges. A preventive Health Service was promised, and these other promises were made, but the people were not told that the cost of the prescription would be taken out of their own pockets. They were not told that there was to be a charge on prescriptions. They were not told that there were to be two increases—and, maybe, more, before the Government go to the country—on the contributions. Therefore, I say that the people have been grossly betrayed. The Government have not kept their promises. There has been a complete departure from Election pledges.
For this reason we have put down an Amendment that would postpone the implementation of these provisions until after the next Election. The Conservatives will then have an opportunity to go to the country to explain the health policy that has been followed during their term of office and to ask whether they should impose a further charge. I might also say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the light of what he said yesterday, that he might await also the Hinchliffe Report.
In the Second Reading debate I reminded him that this was a panic Measure; that the Government had been forced to do this by the Treasury so that they could save their face over the rather difficult business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer retiring. I told the Minister then that he should first of all have looked at the whole Department with a view to decreasing costs, in order to see if he could possibly raise this £32 million elsewhere. This Amendment will give the Government plenty of time—until July, 1960—to try to prevent waste in some other directions, or to go to the country to ask permission to impose these charges.
Mr. Gower: I respectfully suggest that this is very near, at any rate, to a wrecking Amendment. I do not think that the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) can seriously pretend that this Bill is at all

279
practicable if such a date is put in. Indeed, such a date is inconsistent with the title of the Bill. Without arguing the merits of the Bill—because those have been discussed, and decided on Second Reading—I suggest that it would be inconsistent with the decision of the House on Second Reading now to insert——
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it in order for the hon. Member to invite the Committee to reject an Amendment on the ground that it is out of order, after you have called it?
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): No, it is not in order to pursue that argument.
Mr. Gower: I am not suggesting that it is out of order. I said that it came preciously near to being a wrecking Amendment. Had I said that it entirely destroyed the Bill, I would have said what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I say that if this Bill, the principle of which has been approved by the House, is to be workable, it is essential that this Committee should reject the Amendment.
Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has said that the House has accepted the principle of this Bill. That, of course, is true, but with an important exception——
Mr. Randall: The country has not.
Mr. Silverman: That is the second point, to which I shall refer in a moment. At present, I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman's argument that the House has accepted the principle of the Bill, and that, therefore, this Amendment comes near to being a wrecking Amendment, as being inconsistent with the Measure's purposes.
If I may say so respectfully, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because the Bill provides that the increased charges shall come into force on a day to be appointed. The date that shall be appointed has never been considered either by the House on Second Reading, or, so far, in Committee. Neither the House not the Committee is committed on that point at all. My right hon. Friend's Amendment is intended to define that date in accordance with the circumstances——
Mr. Gower: "The appointed day," which is the phrase used in the Bill, implies that there will be a date appointed within, the near and reasonable future.
Mr. Silverman: I do not know that that is so, but, even if it were, there would be room for a lot of difference of opinion as to the word "near," and as to the word "reasonable." The Committee is really not committed at all. If the only difficulty that the hon. Gentleman feels in supporting this Amendment is its alleged inconsistency with what the House has already decided, I hope that I have relieved his anxieties and that we may now see him in the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment.
The Committee is absolutely free to limit the Minister's discretion. In the Bill as drawn, he has an absolutely free and unfettered discretion to appoint any date he chooses. We say that his discretion should be cut down; that he should not be entitled to impose this further poll tax until after the country has had an opportunity of considering the matter and endorsing it——
Mr. Gower Mr. Gower rose——
Mr. Silverman: I do not want to refuse to give way, and if the hon. Member is really anxious to intervene, I shall.
Mr. Gower: The hon. Member would not concede this power, in other words, in the lifetime of this Government?
Mr. Silverman: What I think the hon. Member really fears is unspoken, and I will put his real fear into explicit words. What he and the Government are afraid of is that if the Amendment were carried the Bill would never become operative at all. That is what he means by saying that it would not become operative in this Parliament. I can assure him that the next Parliament would have nothing to do with it. That is exactly what he wishes to avoid, for exactly the same reasons as my right hon. Friend wishes it to happen—for exactly those reasons.
In principle, there are the soundest reasons for waiting. It is not only this Act about which the electorate have had no opportunity of expressing any opinion at all. They have had no opportunity of expressing any opinion about the principal Act, either. The principal Act is the 1957 one. By the principal Act, a charge, a contribution for the National

281
Health Service was imposed for the first time. Before 1957, there was no charge at all——
Mr. A. Evans: No specific charge for the Health Service.
Mr. Silverman: No. There were charges under other social security Acts, and those charges were intended to meet the obligations of the other social security Acts. No doubt, in arranging their finances, the Government used their funds in such ways as they thought advisable, as they were advised to do, and as they secured parliamentary sanction, but, in the beginning, from 1946 until 1957, there was no specific charge for the Health Service at all. That was the conception of my right hon. Friends when they formed the Labour Government. That is what we meant when we said that we were establishing, for the first time in the history of the country, and almost for the first time in the history of the world, a free National Health Service.
We were taunted for it by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They said that we were deceiving the people in saying that it was free. We did not mean that it was free in that sense. Of course doctors had to be paid. Of course the administrative expenses had to be provided for. Of course the chemicals, drugs, nursing services and all the rest had to be paid for. What we were saying was that this should be regarded as a general national charge payable out of national charges, and not payable out of a specific contribution levied on people who might need the services of the Health Service. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite could never reconcile themselves to that.
After the scheme became law, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite went up and down the country claiming that there had been no better friends of a free National Health Service than the Conservative Party. They showed their support for it, while the Measure went through, by voting solidly and without exception against the Second Reading. They voted on a whole series of Amendments designed to embarrass, cripple and cut down the Service, through a long, difficult and complicated Committee stage. They did the same thing on the Report stage. They fought the Bill tooth
282
and nail, line by line—almost word by word—and they did a most unusual thing for people claiming that they were in general support of the principle, even voting against the Third Reading.
Then they went to the country. They won two General Elections. When we sought to persuade people to vote against them, and not to give them the powers they are now exercising because they would use them in the way they are now using them, they went into paroxysms of rage and synthetic indignation. They said that there was not a word of truth in it. They had no intention, they said, of making any attack upon the Health Service. They had no intention of increasing the charges. All this was a wicked Socialist lie, designed to prevent people from "voting for prosperity". They won.
The principal Act of 1957, which it is now proposed to make even worse, is not merely a thing about which the electorate has had no opportunity of expressing a view. Far more than that, people have expressed their opposition to it, at the invitation of the Conservative Party and those who are now the Conservative Government. They said to the people, "Vote for us because we are not going to do it". When people vote for them on that basis, it is fair to say that, so far from the people having had no opportunity of approving this Measure, they had, years before it was passed, expressed their opinion against it.
Mr. Gower: No, that is not true.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) says that it is not true. Is it not?
Mr. Gower: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman is not being accurate, to put it in that way. He knows perfectly well that the vote in 1955 for the present Government followed, not preceded, the imposition of charges imposed in 1953.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman has not been following. He does not even trouble to know what the facts are. I said at the beginning, and nobody challenged me, that the words of the Act are perfectly plain, that a charge was imposed for the first time by the principal Act, namely, the Act of 1957. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying

283
that I have not stated the position accurately? Of course I have stated it accurately.
Mr. Gower: Prescription charges were put on in 1953.
Mr. Silverman: We are not talking about prescription charges. The hon. Gentleman has not even read the Act.
Mr. Gower: I have.
Mr. Silverman: Then he has not understood it.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wishes to be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). He will appreciate, as the Committee does, that, in the idiom of these things, what we are discussing today is a contribution. The term "charges" is used, as he suggests, for things like prescriptions and appliances. That is the point that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. Silverman: Yes, but the only thing which the 1957 Act did was to charge a contribution for the first time. What this amending Measure does is to increase that contribution. Before 1957, there was no contribution. The Conservative Party told the electorate that it did not propose to make further charges. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the Conservative Party meant by that that it would not increase the charges but it would, go on to charge a contribution instead, it is a great pity that his party's Election manifesto was not more clearly and honestly drawn. What everybody understood from it was that, first, the Conservative Party would not increase the charges properly so called, and, a fortiori, would not impose new contributory charges, which had never been imposed before.
The hon. Member for Barry has assisted me in establishing my point that the electorate, at the invitation of the Conservative Party, decided in 1955 against this Measure. It decided against the 1957 Measure and, a fortiori, against this Measure. This is a fraud. It is a quite deliberate deceit. It is a betrayal of trust.
Mr. Randall: Without a mandate.
Mr. Silverman: It is more than that. It is an act in direct defiance of the mandate they asked for and obtained. The Minister ought not to smile. When he faces his constituents at the General Election, if he ever does, he will not find that they are much amused by it.
This is part of the Government's general campaign to reduce the purchasing power of ordinary people in any way they can. They do it by raising the charges for babies' milk. They do it by raising the charges for school children's dinners. They do it by raising contributory charges under a whole series of social security Measures. They do it by the Rent Act, and they do it by withdrawing subsidies on food supplies. In every way they do what is their direct intention, as borne out by the Cohen Report. The objective of the Government in this matter is to make it less and less possible for people to have money with which to buy things. That is their remedy for inflation, the only remedy they know. It is exactly what their policy has always been.
It is not as if these extra charges were to supply a special fund out of which the financial burden of the medical services was to be discharged. Nothing of the kind. There is no special fund and there never has been. It is simply and solely what one of my hon. Friends described earlier as a poll tax designed to take money out of the pockets of the poorest so as to relieve the pressure on goods, which is the Government's only remedy for the economic crises in which they find themselves.
How can it be right, in those circumstances, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have the opportunity of fixing an appointed day to begin to collect these charges before the people who gave him his power on the pretence that he would not exercise it for these purposes have had the opportunity of considering the new situation? It may well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that these charges are right in themselves. It may well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Government and hon. Members opposite believe that their policy of dealing with our economic crisis is the right one. Certainly, they have always believed it all the time I have known them. They have never had any other from the days of 1931 onwards—and even before that.

285
It may well be that they would even try to make a case for saying, "We were right to pledge ourselves not to do it in 1955 and we are also right to do it in 1957 and 1958 in spite of these pledges because of the circumstances obtaining". But if the circumstances have changed, then the trustees must go back to the beneficiaries and ask for new authorities. They must not do it in advance. They must not use a power given them for one purpose in order to achieve the exact opposite of that purpose. This is the act of a fraudulent trustee and will continue to be that unless the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.
I say to the Government, "Go to the people you have deceived and ask them whether they will condone the deceit. Go to the people to whom you lied and ask them whether they will give you power now to change the situation and to do what you promised not to do. But do not use your last few moments of precarious power to exact a further charge from the pockets of people you promised not to rob."
Dr. King: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) opened the debate and charged the Government with betraying a selection of promises I was reminded of a poster that appeared in the country to the effect that the Conservative Party fought for the social services. It is a poster, I venture to suggest, that that party will never have the impertinence to put on the hoardings again. Indeed, at that time every Election platform asked the question: whom did the Conservatives fight for the social services?
This is a simple Amendment. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) suggested that it was a wrecking Amendment. We simply seek to delay the provisions made in the new Bill until after the electorate has had an opportunity of saying whether it approves of what the Government are doing in this and similar Measures. It is true that we might wait in the hope that another place, which is always interested in the welfare of the poor, might interfere and delay the Bill until the country has had an opportunity of declaring its opinions on Government policy, but we do not think that that is likely.
It may be good to increase the poll tax element in the social service charges.
286
Within the last twelve or eighteen months the Government have imposed new poll tax elements in the social insurance and the Health Services. If the Government do it three times, then this addition to the poll tax element is no longer a matter of detail. It is not a matter of adding a penny to 8d. and making it 9d. The increase in the poll tax element is becoming so great that we are having not a quantitative charge, but a qualitative charge. Those of us who believe that poll taxes are bad, and that the country will support us in the view that poll taxes put an unfair burden on the poorest, have a right to say to the Government, "You should not levy a poll tax of this heavy nature without getting a mandate from the country to do so". The country may approve.
The hon. Member for Barry thinks that one of the reasons why the Government won the last Election was because of the prescription charges. If he is so confident that this kind of policy is one that will have the backing of the electorate, let him vote with us for the Amendment. There is no urgency for the money. This mean little Bill provides a mean little sum for a mean Government. The amount involved is less than we handed out in largesse to the richest people at Budget time. I urge the Government to accept the Amendment and to delay this Measure until the people have had a chance of saying whether they believe in the principles of the Government or not.
Mr. Walker-Smith: At least on this occasion I am not in the paradoxical position in which I was on the last Amendment of having to devote most of my speech to seeking to explain to hon. Members opposite the effect and intention of the Amendment which they had seen fit to put upon the Order Paper. The effect of this Amendment, at least, is clear. Having said that, I have exhausted the praise which I can reasonably and conscientiously bestow upon it.
Although its effect is clear, it is unwarranted, ill-conceived, mischievous and altogether undesirable. Nor has it been improved, I am bound in all honesty to say, by the advocacy of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has also had a different rôle during the discussion of this Amendment from his rôle in the last one. On the last Amend-

287
ment he did not come into the Committee until nearly the end, but was in no way restrained from making a very long contribution, raising points which most of us thought had already been disposed of. On this occasion he has certainly been here all the time, and he has spoken at great length. However, I must say that the merit and persuasiveness of his argument was in inverse ratio to the length of time taken in expressing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I feel that that is the case, and so do my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman indulged in a great deal of strong and intemperate language, but it was not persuasive advocacy to those who are looking at the Amendment in an objective, reasonable and detached way.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that at this moment he is looking at the matter in an objective and detached way? I assure him that I had no hope whatever that my argument would persuade him.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Then the hon. Gentleman is not disappointed. I am looking at the Amendment in the way in which it is the duty of us all to look at it. The House has come to a decision on the principle of the Bill, and here we are concerned with the question whether its implementation should be deferred for a very protracted period. In regard to that matter, the need and justification for this modest increase in the contribution arises from present circumstances and, indeed, from the past and continuing trend of the mounting liability upon the Exchequer. It was put forward on the basis of present justification and present action both in the Ways and Means Resolution and on Second Reading, and the House approved by majorities of 72 and 56 respectively. I say, therefore, that there is no justification for deferring the implementation of the Bill.
Mr. Houghton: If the Bill is so fully justified, and if all the circumstances surrounding it are so plain, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee what the row in the Cabinet was about?
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member must exercise his own very considerable ingenuity in connection with this entirely hypothetical question.
288
I want to deal with the argument behind the Amendment, as I understand it. If it were not for simple administrative and practical reasons—the preparation of the stamps, and so on—the increases would have come into effect upon the date of the coming into operation of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne says that it is entirely at discretion when the appointed day will be. In Acts of Parliament it nearly always is, but if the hon. Member wants some comfort I can tell him that there is no intention of delaying the appointed day. Our intention is to bring the scheme into force at or about the beginning of July. The date is not specified in the Bill because, when making rather complex mechanical preparations, it is unwise to tie oneself to a statutory date which is binding in all circumstances.
Mr. Silverman: I was not criticising the Measure for leaving the Government a free and unfettered discretion to fix the appointed day. I agree that that is the usual way in which the matter is dealt with. What I was afraid of was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has now stated, namely, that he would fix the appointed day too soon. The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that it is not fixed too soon.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate that the right hon. Lady's Amendment seeks to defer the appointed day for no less than two-and-a-quarter years. I say that there is a need and justification for the Measure, and that it should be deferred only for the minimum time, which is about three months. That is the point between us.
I have examined the precedents showing how matters of charges within the Health Service have been dealt with in the past, from the point of view of their having been imposed upon an appointed day or having come into force immediately. I wanted to see whether there was a deferment of their coming into operation beyond the date of the next General Election, or not. I looked at the two obvious precedents which took place in the days of the Labour Government. First, there was the power to impose charges for prescriptions and, secondly, the power to impose charges in respect of teeth and spectacles.

289
In the first case, the power derives from Section 16 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1949, which went through the House when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was Minister of Health. The Section gave power to make regulations imposing charges for prescriptions, and the power was taken straight away, with effect from the coming into operation of the Act, on 16th December, 1949. There was nothing in that Act to defer the implementation of the power until after a General Election or after any interval at all. The power was taken straight away.
In the second example, which concerns the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) more particularly, the power to make regulations imposing charges for teeth and spectacles derives from Section 1 (3) of the National Health Service Act, 1951. There again the power was taken at once, with effect from the coming into operation of the Act, and not from an appointed day; still less after a deferment, and even still less after a deferment beyond a General Election. It was taken from the coming into operation of the Act on 10th May, 1951.
Mr. Marquand: The difference between those examples and this is that on those occasions there was no difference between the two sides of the House.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Whether or not there was a difference between the opposite sides of the House, there were acute differences between hon. Members opposite.
Mr. S. Silverman: As there are in the Cabinet now.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman discovered, to his cost, that when a Member of the Labour Party wants to do the right thing he is very severely embarrassed by the opposition of his colleagues, who wish to restrain him. We all have in mind the circumstances of those days. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reminded the House in vivid terms of some of the more colourful passages in the resignation speech of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
Miss Margaret Herbison: Where is the Chancellor today?
Mr. Walker-Smith: Where is the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale?
Dr. King: The right hon. and learned Member has not answered my hon. Friend's point about the differences between the situation in those days and that which exists now. In that situation the Opposition were wholeheartedly in support of the charges made by the Government, and they would have liked to see more.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not recall anybody asking for any further charge than was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman at that time.
Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw no distinction at all between a Measure passed with the general support of the House—Government and Opposition alike—and a Measure passed in the teeth of the united and fierce opposition of one side of the House, when it is in Committee?
Mr. Walker-Smith: As I explained, and as the hon. Member, with his long experience of Parliament, knows, in dealing with the principle of the Bill we are bound by the decision of the House taken on Second Reading.
On the occasions to which I have referred I have proved that there was no deferment, although in the second case the Parliament concerned was only just over one year old. The charges for teeth and spectacles actually became operative almost immediately after the Bill was passed, on 21st May, 1951.
It has been said that we have no mandate for this charge, and that in our Election manifesto we did not say that we would impose it.
Mr. Silverman: You said the opposite.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I join issue with the hon. Member on that question. Moreover, the 1945 Election manifesto of the Labour Party contained no reference to the fact that they would take power, before another General Election, to impose charges for prescriptions.
Mr. Silverman: We did not then have a National Health Service.
Mr. Walker-Smith: That exactly illustrates the absurdity of the argument. Perhaps the hon. Member will apply his mind to these facts. There was a National

291
Health Service by 1950, but nothing in the Labour Party Election manifesto of 1950 which said that the party would take power to impose charges for teeth and spectacles. The party opposite did that within just over one year of being returned to power. The Amendment is a matter of sheer humbug and hypocrisy on the part of hon. Members opposite.
Dr. Summerskill: I am shocked at the fact that the Minister has completely avoided the argument. He spent most of his time criticising my hon. Friend for an excellent speech, and then decided to waste time dealing with certain procedural points in which the Committee is not very interested. He then proceeded—and we are accustomed to this sort of thing on the part of hon. Members opposite
when they are short of arguments—to there was charge hon. Members on this side of the Committee with something that was done in the past. I accept all that he has said in that respect, but can he equate that with the fact that during the last two years the Government not only imposed a prescription charge but increased contributions, last year and again now Three charges have been imposed in the last two years.
In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not even been courteous enough to apply himself to the arguments which have been adduced, we must divide the Committee.
Question put, That those words there inserted:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 201. Noes 245.

Division No. 56.]

AYES

6.10 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Ledger, R. J.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Lewis, Arthur

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lindgren, G. S.

Awbery, S. S.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lipton, Marcus

Bacon, Mist Alice

Fernyhough, E.

Logan, D. G.

Baird, J.

Finch, H. J.

McCann, J.

Balfour A.

Fletcher, Eric

MacColl, J. E.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Foot, D. M.

MacDermot, Niall

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

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McGhee, H. G.

Benson, Sir George

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

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Beswick, Frank

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

McLeavy, Frank

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

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Blackburn, F.

Greenwood, Anthony

Mahon, Simon

Blenkinsop, A.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Blyton, W. R.

Grey, C. F.

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

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

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

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Bowles, F. G.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mason, Roy

Boyd, T. C.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mellish, R. J.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Messer, Sir F.

Brockway, A. F.

Hastings, S.

Mikardo, Ian

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hayman, F. H.

Mitchison, G. R.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Healey, Denis

Moody, A. S.

Burke, W. A.

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

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Herbison, Miss M.

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

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Holmes, Horace

Mort, D. L.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Houghton, Douglas

Moss, R.

Carmichael, J.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Moyle, A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Mulley, F. W.

Champion, A. J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Chapman, W. D.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Oliver, G. H.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hunter, A. E.

Oswald, T.

Clunie, J.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Owen, W. J.

Coldrick, W.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Cove, W. G.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pargiter, G. A.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Janner, B.

Parker, J.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

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

Paton, John

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

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

Pearson, A.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Pentland, N.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, Rt. Hon A. Creech (Wakefield)

Popplewell, E.

Deer, G.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Prentice, R. E.

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Diamond, John

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire. W.)

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Probert, A. R.

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

Kenyon, C.

Proctor, W. T.

Dye, S.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Randall, H. E.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

King, Dr. H. M.

Rankin, John

Redhead, E. C.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Wheeldon, W. E.

Reeves, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Wilkins, W. A.

Reid, William

Steele, T.

Willey, Frederick

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Storehouse, John

Williams, David (Neath)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Ross, William

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

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

Royle, C.

Sylvester, G. O.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Short, E. W.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Winterbottom, Richard

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Tomney, F.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Woof, R. E.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Viant, S. P.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Skeffington, A. M.

Watkins, T. E.

Zilliacus, K.

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

Weitzman, D.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Sorensen, R. W.

West, D. G.

Mr. John Taylor and

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

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

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Aitken, W. T.

Duncan, Sir James

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Alport, C. J. M.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

Joseph, Sir Keith

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Arbuthnot, John

Errington, Sir Eric

Keegan, D.

Armstrong, C. W.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Ashton, H.

Fell, A.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Atkins, H. E.

Finlay, Graeme

Kimball, M.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.

Fisher, Nigel

Kirk, P. M.

Baldwin, A. E.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lagden, G. W.

Balniel, Lord

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Barber, Anthony

Freeth, Denzil

Leather, E. H. C.

Barlow, Sir John

Gammans, Lady

Leavey, J. A.

Barter, John

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Leburn, W. G.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

George, J. C. (Pollok)

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

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Glover, D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Godber, J. B.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Good hart, Philip

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Gower, H. R.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Llewellyn, D. T.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

Bingham, R. M.

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

Longden, Gilbert

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Green, A.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Bishop, F. P.

Grimond, J.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Black, C. W.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Body, R. F.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

McAdden, S. J.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Gurden, Harold

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Hall, John (Wycombe)

McKibbin, A. J.

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

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

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

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Maddan, Martin

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hay, John

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

Bryan, P.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

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

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R,

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Campbell, Sir David

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Cary, Sir Robert

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Channon, Sir Henry

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Marshall, Douglas

Cole, Norman

Hill, Mrs E. (Wythenshawe)

Mathew, R.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Maude, Angus

Cooke, Robert C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Mawby, R. L.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hirst, Geoffrey

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

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hornby, R. P.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Moore, Sir Thomas

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Currie, G. B. H.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Neave, Airey

Davidson, Viscountess

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

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

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hurd, A. R.

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Deedes, W. F.

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

Nugent, G. R. H.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Oakshott, H. D.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Iremonger, T. L.

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

Doughty, C. J. A.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Osborne, C.

Drayton, G. B.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Page, R. G.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

294

295

Partridge, E.

Sharples, R. C.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Peel, W.J.

Shepherd, William

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Vane, W. M. F.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Wade, D. W.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Speir, R. M.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Pott, H. P.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Powell, J. Enoch

Stevens, Geoffrey

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Wall, Patrick

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

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

Ramsden, J. E.

Storey, S.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Rawlinson, Peter

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Redmayne, M,

Studholme, Sir Henry

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Wills, C. (Bridgwater)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Teeling, W.

Wood, Hon. R.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Temple, John M.

Woollam, John Victor

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Roper, Sir Harold

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

Mr. Hughes-Young and

Scott-Miller. Cmdr. R.

Thorn-on-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. I want to make a protest or, behalf of hon. Members who are serving on Standing Committees at present sitting upstairs, and who, in effect, are not being allowed by the Government to take part in the debate in this Chamber on this Clause. This Clause deals with vital matters, but we are being prevented from dealing with them now because
Standing Committees are now sitting upstairs. I would ask you, Sir Gordon, whether some arrangements could be made whereby the large number of hon. Members who are in Standing Committees can be acquainted with the progress of proceedings in this Committee.
The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot take cognisance of that matter.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 243, Noes 204.

Division No. 57.]

AYES

6.20 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Channon, Sir Henry

Goodhart, Philip

Aitken, W. T.

Cole, Norman

Gower, H. R.

Alport, C. J. M.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Graham, Sir Fergus

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Cooke, Robert

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Cooper-Key, E. M.

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

Arbuthnot, John

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Green, A.

Armstrong, C. W.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Grimond, J.

Ashton, H.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Atkins, H. E.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Gurden, Harold.

Baldwin, A. E.

Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Balniel, Lord

Currie, G. B. H.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Barber, Anthony

Davidson, Viscountess

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Barlow, Sir John

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Barter, John

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Deedes, W. F.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hay, John

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Doughty, C. J. A.

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

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Drayson, G. B.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Bingham, R. M.

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

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Bishop, F. P.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Black, C. W.

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

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Body, R. F.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hirst, Geoffrey

Boothby, Sir Robert

Errington, Sir Eric

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

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hornby, R. P.

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

Fell, A.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Finlay, Graeme

Horobin, Sir Ian

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Fisher, Nigel

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

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

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craighton)

Freeth, Denzil

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J-

Bryan, P.

Gammans, Dame Ann Muriel

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Hurd, A. R.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

George, J. C. (Pollok)

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

Campbell, Sir David

Glover, D.

Hyde, Montgomery

Cary, Sir Robert

Godber, J. B.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Iremonger, T. L.

Mathew, R.

Shepherd, William

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Maude, Angus

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Mawby, R. L.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Medllcott, Sir Frank

Speir, R. M.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Stevens, Geoffrey

Joseph, Sir Keith

Moore, Sir Thomas

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Keegan, D.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Storey, S.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Neave, Airey

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Kimball, M.

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

Summers, Sir Spencer

Kirk, P. M.

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Lagden, G. W.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Oakshott, H. D.

Teeling, W.

Leather, E. H. C.

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

Temple, John M.

Leavey, J. A.

Osborne, C.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Leburn, W. C.

Page, R. G.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

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

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Partridge, E.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Peel, W. J.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Longden, Gilbert

Pott, H. P.

Wade, D. W.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

McAdden, S. J.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Ramsden, J. E.

Wall, Patrick

McKibbin, A. J,

Rawlinson, Peter

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

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Redmayne, M.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Maddan, Martin

Ridsdale, J. E.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

Rippon, A. G. F.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Roper, Sir Harold

Woollam, John Victor

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr, R.

Mr. Hughes-Young

Marshall, Douglas

Sharples, R. C.

and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Coldrick, W.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Hastings, S.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hayman, F. H.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Cove, W. G.

Healey, Denis

Awbery, S. S.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

Bacon, Miss Alice

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Baird, J.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Holmes, Horace

Balfour, A.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Houghton, Douglas

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

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

Deer, G.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Benson, Sir George

Delargy, H. J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Beswick, Frank

Diamond, John

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

Dodds, N. N.

Hunter, A. E.

Blackburn, F.

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

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Blenkinsop, A.

Dye, S.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Blyton, W. R.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Boardman, H.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

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

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Janner, B.

Bowles, F. G.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

Boyd, T. C.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

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

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Fernyhough, E.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Brookway, A. F.

Finch, H. J.

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

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Fletcher, Eric

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Foot, D. M.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Burke, W. A.

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

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Burton, Miss F. E.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Kenyon, C.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Greenwood, Anthony

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Carmichael, J.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

King, Dr. H. M.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Grey, C. F.

Ledger, R, J.

Champion, A. J.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Chapman, W. D.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Lewis, Arthur

Chetwynd, G. R.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Lindgren, G. S.

Clunie, J.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Lipton, Marcus

298

299

Logan, D. G.

Parker, J.

Stonehouse, John

McCann, J.

Paton, John

Stones, W. (Consett)

MacColl, J. E.

Pearson, A.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

MacDermot, Niall

Pentland, N.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

McGhee, H. G.

Popplewell, E.

Sylvester, G. O.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Prentice, R. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

McLeavy, Frank

Price, j. T. (Westhoughton)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Mahon, Simon

Probert, A. R.

Tomney, F.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Proctor, W. T.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

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

Randall, H. E.

Viant, S. P.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Rankin, John

Watkins, T. E.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Redhead, E. C.

Weitzman, D.

Mason, Roy

Reeves, J.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mellish, R. J.

Reid, William

West, D. G.

Messer, Sir F.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Mikardo, Ian

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Wilkins, W. A.

Mitchison, G. R.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Willey, Frederick

Moody, A. S.

Ross, William

Williams, David (Neath)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.)

Royle, C.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

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

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mort, D. L.

Short, E. W.

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

Moss, R.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Moyle, A.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Mulley, F. W.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Winterbottom, Richard

Oliver, G. H.

Skeffington, A. M.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Oswald, T.

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

Woof, R. E.

Owen, W. J.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

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

Sorensen, R. W.

Zilliacus, K.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Sparks, J. A.

Mr. John Taylor and

Pargiter, G. A.

Steele, T.

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule.—(PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTI TUTED IN FIRST SCHEDULE TO NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRI BUTIONS ACT, 1957.)
Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, column 1, to leave out "70" and to insert "65".
The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in page 3, line 12, column 1, leave out "65" and insert "60"; the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment in line 13, column 1, leave out from the beginning to end of line 14; and the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), in line 26, at the end to add:

11. Employed men over the age of 65 1s. 5d.

12. Employed women over the age of 60 1s. 1d.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir Gordon, I think that that would be for the convenience of the Committee. It would mean dealing with the greater contribution payable by employed men as well as
the rate of contribution payable by employed women. I take it that, as we shall be discussing so many Amendments together, it will be possible to have more than one Division at the end, if we think fit?
The Deputy-Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means has agreed to Divisions on the first and second of the Amendments if that would meet the convenience of the Committee.
Mr. Houghton: There is no humbug or hypocrisy about the Amendment which I wish to submit. It is an Amendment after the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own heart. It is practical, it is objective and I hope that it can be argued with moderation.
I have always said that I do not like to apply the term "poll tax" to a social service contribution. Certainly I do not like it in connection with a National Insurance contribution, because it is directly linked with benefits, and benefits depend upon contributions and contribution records. This is a different kind of contribution. It ought never to have been given the respectable title of contribution, because the National Health Service contribution is unrelated to benefits. It has no connection whatever with the rights of the individual contributor or non-contributor to the benefits of the Health Service. That is where it differs fundamentally from the National Insurance contribution.

301
Here, if a person deliberately evades the payment of a National Health Service contribution, it does not disqualify him from the full benefits of the scheme. That was made clear at the time of the introduction of the increased contribution in the Act of last year. That alone exposes this contribution to serious criticism. On the whole I think people who pay genuine contributions expect them to be related to their title to benefit and, as I say, I believe this is a convincing reason why this should never have been called a contribution. It is in fact a tax, but it is not a tax levied on the community as a whole; still less is it a tax which is graduated to assumed ability to pay.
Mr. William Shepherd: But if I make a contribution to a charity, I do not necessarily benefit from that charity.
Mr. Houghton: These are matters of opinion, but on the whole I think that, in our system of taxation, extra-budgetary levies in respect of social services are generally based on the use of the term "contribution" in relation to entitlement to benefits. Since this is so closely connected with the National Insurance contribution, my criticism is the more pointed for that.
I was saying that a person who deliberately evades contributions is not in any way disqualified from benefit. It is true that one cannot easily evade the National Health Service contribution without evading the National Insurance contribution, because they are rivetted together and covered by the same stamp, and there are severe penalties attaching to non-payment of National Insurance contribution. If ever the sins of a contributor were visited on the widow, there is a clear example of it in the penalties for the evasion of the payment of National Insurance contribution.
This Amendment relates to one aspect of what I think is the inequity of this contribution. The general principle is that the contribution to the National Health Service shall be paid by all persons paying, or liable to pay, a National Insurance contribution, so that the liability to pay towards the National Health Service is put fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who contribute for National Insurance, and no others.
302
That is a serious inequity. It discriminates for this purpose against all those who are contributors under another scheme. In connection with the people who reach retirement age there is an especial unfairness about this contribution. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule the Committee will see that the proposed contribution of 1s. 10½d. is to be paid by:
"Employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment."
So here we find that a man who has reached the age of 65 and a woman who has reached the age of 60—women are dealt with lower down in the Schedule—and who have retired have no liability to pay the National Health Service contribution, for the simple reason that they have no liability to pay the National Insurance contribution. But a man or woman who postpones retirement, and who is under the obligation to pay full contributions under the National Insurance scheme, must in order to earn the increments to the pension, pay the National Health Service contribution in addition to the National Insurance contribution.
Here is a special levy on those who postpone retirement. It may be argued that those who do so, and who will therefore gain a higher rate of pension, should pay contributions during the period of postponed retirement, since by paying those additional contributions they are entitled to the extra pension. But the conditions under which the extra pension may be earned are very rigid. There is no credit for sickness or unemployment in the case of a person who has postponed retirement. The twenty-five contributions must be paid; there are no credits given. So, in this respect, the person who postpones retirement pays contributions under stricter conditions than the one who has not reached retirement age and is contributing in the normal way.
I am not quarrelling with that at the moment. I fully understand that a person who has postponed retirement, and who thereby hopes to earn a higher pension, cannot earn it merely by going sick or being unemployed for lengthy periods during the time of postponement. Again, it is something which is related directly to contributions paid. Why, however, should

303
this additional tax be put upon them? Why should a person who postpones retirement, and who pays contributions in order to earn the additional pension, be put under this imposition when a person who has reached the same age and has retired has no similar contribution to pay. I see no reason why, because of that, he should be caught by the National Health Service contribution.
A person who retires and who then re-enters full-time employment without exercising his rights conceded by recent legislation, need not re-enter insurance. He can allow the earnings rule to reduce or even to extinguish his retirement pension, and he can continue in full employment, earning full wages and liable to neither the National Insurance contribution nor the National Health Service contribution. I see nothing fair in that. Of course, it is true that the man who, once retired and without reentering insurance, goes back to work and earns more than is permitted, without a reduction of his pension and whose pension may be completely extinguished by his earnings, is not earning increments for his pension, but, then, he is not paying for them.
That is why the Amendment seeks to relieve all men over 65 and all women over 60 from the payment of this additional contribution. It surprises me that this matter was not debated at the time of the original Act. It seems not to have been, but this is a point which the Committee should now notice. Although not covered by the Amendment, a similar anomaly arises in connection with married women who may opt out of paying the National Insurance contribution if they do not think it to their advantage to pay for a pension in their own right. But the married woman, because of circumstances of her own, probably connected with the age relationship between herself and husband, who may consider it necessary to contribute to the National Insurance Fund, has at the same time to contribute to the National Health Service, whereas another married woman who has opted out of the National Insurance contribution does not have to pay the National Health Service contribution.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not regard this argument
304
as humbug and hypocrisy. It is directed against the fundamental unfairness of the scheme. Why should those who are paying National Insurance contributions—and those alone—pay National Health Service contributions, and why should the differences between liability to National Insurance contributions determine differences in liability to pay National Health Service contributions? The Act is riddled with unfairness where an additional tax has, for the purposes of the Government, been riveted to a National Insurance contribution which has nothing whatever to do with the National Health Service contribution.
Among men and women of the same ages there are three sets of people. In the case of men, there are those over 70 who pay neither National Insurance contributions nor National Health Service contributions and who can earn as much as they like, because they are beyond the effect of the earnings rule. There are men between the ages of 65 and 70 who have retired, but who may re-enter full-time employment and be subject to the operation of the earnings rule, but who will pay neither National Insurance contributions nor National Health Service contributions. Finally, there are men between the ages of 65 and 70 who have not retired, who have postponed retirement, but who pay National Insurance contributions in order to earn a higher pension and who are taxed to pay the National Health Service contribution.
6.45 p.m.
Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been searching his vocabulary to find suitable words to express himself, I call this stuff and nonsense. It cannot be justified on any equitable basis of taxation according to the principles which we have adopted in this country. When a contribution of a modest amount is first levied, it may be small in relation to the resources of the great mass of the contributors and it may be thought unnecessary to graduate it according to incomes, earnings, or assumption of ability to pay. After all, if we are asked to pay 6d. we do not trouble to modify it for particular income groups and so on. We say that 6d. is something which everybody can pay.
However, the Government then begin to build it up and up and it becomes

305
6s., 7s., 8s., 9s., 9s. 11d. and then another 6d. is added to make it 10s. 5d. That is a contribution very different from the modest beginnings of the National Insurance contribution and its forebear, the National Health Insurance contribution prior to the 1946 Act. We seek to put this matter right and to deal with this narrow grievance. There are other aspects of the contribution and how it depends on other classes of contributors with which it is not now my purpose to deal.
We ask that the Government reconsider this aspect of the scheme. We are now adding to the original scheme of last year and following the same principles. As some of my hon. Friends have already said, we cannot be sure that there is not another increase in the contribution to come later. We have heard certain principles of financing the National Health Service which have been enunciated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and which will mean further increases in the National Health Service contribution. In fact, I regard that as almost inevitable—by reference to some of the things which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the financing of the whole Service and the relationship between the amount of the contribution and that to be borne by the Exchequer and so on, all related to what Beveridge had in mind, or plans of sources of income incorporated in the original National Insurance Act. I am certain that a further increase in contribution is to come.
That is all the more reason why we should re-examine the principles upon which the National Health Service contribution is based. I have drawn attention, I hope reasonably, to what seems to us to be an unfair feature of the scheme. Unfortunately, the rules of order preclude us from doing more than amend the Bill and that explains why we cannot go the whole hog and seek to amend the Schedule of the original Act. The evil of this Bill—perhaps "mischief" is less offensive—is that it says that it is a Bill to increase the rates of National Health Service contributions and, as was said on Second Reading, to give some kind of flimsy authority to the Government to go on with it.
Therefore, during the Committee stage, we have to adjust ourselves to the rules of order, which deny us the opportunity
306
of moving an Amendment which would go counter to the whole purpose of the Bill. Nor can we amend the original Act even in the particular manner that I have prescribed. I mention that so that there should be no misunderstanding as to our attitude in the matter. It might otherwise be thought that having swallowed the camel, we were now straining at the gnat; that having swallowed the 1s. 4½d, we were now boggling at the 6d. I wish it to be made plain that we are objecting to the whole of the contribution, although we can only seek to amend the addition proposed in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will give us a reasoned reply to this, because, as far as I can see, this is a matter which has not been fully debated before. There is nothing, I suggest, to preclude the right hon. and learned Gentleman from accepting modifications of the National Health Service contribution to meet these criticisms, even though that departs, for certain people, from the main principle of the original contribution—that it is an adhesive to the stamp of the National Insurance contribution.
I trust, therefore, that these arguments will carry some weight with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I know how impervious he is to argument. When he was saying, a little earlier this afternoon, that we on these benches were sometimes prevented from doing what was right because we were restrained by forces within our party, I was moved to ask him whether in this case he was doing right or whether he had been restrained. We are still without a complete understanding of why this Bill comes to the House at all.
I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading on that matter, but it is unfortunate that we are discussing this Bill in blinkers. We have neither seen the shape of the Budget nor the Estimates for the Health Service. We are asked to take everything on trust, that it is clearly desirable, that it is justified and that a united Government have brought this before a united party for the consideration of the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as we do that that is not the case.
There have been ructions in the Cabinet over the purpose of this Bill or matters connected therewith. There must

307
have been; what else could there have been a row about, were it not for the belief on the part of some in the Cabinet that this was the wrong way to reduce budgetary expenditure, that this was a fraud on the public, that this was a bogus reduction in national expenditure, a mere transfer from budgetary to extra-budgetary taxation, and the word taxation is clearly applicable to the National Health Service contribution.
Mr. Prentice: I rise briefly to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I feel that he has explained to the Committee in great detail and very clearly the anomalies created by the Act of last year, which are liable to be increased by the Bill now before us, as between those who postpone retirement and those who elect to retire.
I wish to add one other point, which is that the effect of this will be to discourage people from postponing their retirement and I believe that to be a bad thing from the point of view of public policy. I feel that when a man reaches the age of 65 or a woman reaches the age of 60, the question whether to retire or not is a personal one, and it is not for any of us to lay down general rules about it. Some people dread retirement. They love their jobs, and they dread the idea of not having that job to go to. Others are "fed up" with their jobs and want to follow some hobby of theirs and enjoy extra leisure time. Into these personal considerations certain financial considerations are bound to come, such as the question of wages, and so on, but the State ought not to interfere and put a special levy into the scales to discourage people from doing what otherwise would be the best for themselves.
The point is that the Act of last year did bring a special levy into the scale. All people on retirement enjoy the services of the National Health Service. Therefore, it is clearly unfair to those who elect to postpone their retirement to have to pay this special contribution, whereas those who elected to retire, even if they have gone on working, should escape from it. It is unfair, and the unfairness increases when extra charges are put on. For these reasons, I feel that the case before the Committee is un-
308
answerable and that the Amendment should be accepted by the Government.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): Let me start by saying that I entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) when he began his speech by saying that there was no humbug or hypocrisy about this Amendment. I certainly accept that, and I must say, having heard all the speeches this afternoon, that the hon. Member put the case for it in a most persuasive and reasonable manner.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with the point of principle which was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I realise that he could have gone into a lot of figures and cases, but it was the question whether this group of people to whom he has referred are being unfairly treated, as compared with others which he specified, when they are obliged to pay the National Health Service contribution at all. That was his point.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the payment of the National Health Service contribution is, in any case, linked, under the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, with the payment of National Insurance contributions. The two go together, and that is the principle and the framework within which we work. It may be that at certain points it operates unfairly, but I submit that in a limited Bill of this character, which simply has the limited purpose of increasing the contributions, we cannot elect a piecemeal approach to this problem and start tinkering, as it were, with the principle on which the whole thing has evolved.
I realise that, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, that is rather cold comfort, but perhaps I could say to him that the future of the National Health Service contribution—and some hon. Members have expressed fears that it might rise again and that kind of thing—is, of course, bound up with the main Insurance contribution. As the Committee knows, we are at present reviewing the financial basis of the National Insurance scheme. Clearly, it would not be sensible to attempt to deal with National Health Service contributions, relatively so much smaller, in advance of the decision about the main National Insurance

309
contribution. That is about as far as I can go on the point of principle, but I have devoted time to it because I realise that it is the matter which has mainly inspired and guided the hon. Member in the remarks which he has made to the Committee today.
7.0 p.m.
The object of these Amendments is to reduce the National Health Service contributions by employed men over 65 and employed women over 60, who have not retired, from 1s. 10½d. and 1s. 4½d., which is what is proposed by the Bill to 1s. 5d. and 1s. 1d. I realise that the rules of order imposed certain restrictions on hon. Gentlemen opposite and that, had they been able, they would not have accepted the ½d. increase which they had to include in the figures in their Amendments.
The principal argument urged on the specific as against the general case was well made by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who urged that it was a deterrent. He said that although the charge is not very great in terms of money, ought we to apply it to people at a stage in their lives when it is in the national interest that they should, if possible, remain in employment? Was it not unwise to do anything which might have the effect of discouraging them? That is a fair point, but I wonder how far this argument about disincentives may properly be taken.
People go to work after retirement age for three main reasons; first, because they need the money, secondly, because they like their work—and that is a good reason—and thirdly, that they wish to earn extra increments on their pensions. Given those three reasons—and one could think of others—I cannot imagine that this 6d. a week is a real deterrent, especially when one reflects that the number of years that it is likely people will have to pay it is restricted. We could argue forever about the precise point where an additional charge becomes a deterrent and where it is only an irritation if one remains at work because of the additional money secured, or because one likes the job, or because of the additional pension.
Mr. Houghton: I suggest that we call this a "nuclear increase," and then we shall know that it is a deterrent.
Mr. Thompson: If I accepted that suggestion, I might get into trouble in following up the argument.
There are other reasons which I think hon. Members can guess at which do not dispose me to accept the Amendment. There is the administrative aspect, the question of the creation of a special class of persons within the scheme, and the fact that this Amendment brings odd halfpennies into the combined contribution. But I shall not make too much of the administrative inconvenience, because we are all agreed that if a thing is just and right we should not allow administrative inconvenience to prevent us from passing the right legislation. But for the more substantial reasons, which, I hope, I outlined earlier, rather than because of any reasons of administrative inconvenience, I find it impossible to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman earlier, and to which I replied, and if he feels that honour is satisfied and that this rather limited Bill is not the sort of vehicle in which to make a great change in principle, I am not unhopeful that he may wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Marquand: I do not think that we can pass from this discussion leaving the impression that we accept the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary, because to me they seemed completely unconvincing. The hon. Gentleman referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) had to say about men and women who are entitled to retire, but postpone retirement and continue working. He said, no doubt rightly, that when they do this it is because they are attracted by the wages they expect to receive, or by the satisfaction of doing more work—and we are all becoming increasingly aware that if we keep on working we are likely to live longer—or they are attracted by the increments which they can add to their pension when eventually they retire.
I do not dispute that description of the influences which may weigh with a person in these groups, but I do dispute the argument that another 6d. a week on their contribution would make no difference to their choice. That seems to be an argument which completely confutes everything ever written by

311
economists about the relationship between money and what is obtained for it. The economic theory, both modern and ancient, at any rate from the time of Jevons onwards, has always laid emphasis on the marginal utility of what is to be demanded. I cannot doubt that in this matter the doctrine of marginal utility applies as effectively as in any other sphere.
The person who is old and, therefore, by definition less able to work, who is a little more feeble than when he was younger, has to make a difficult decision, whether to continue working, and for how long. In making his calculations about how far it is worth while to get another 1s. 6d. added to his pension he considers the discomfort of getting out of bed early on cold mornings and all the things which weigh when people make up their minds about whether they want to go to work or not when they do not really have to. To a person making such a decision the marginal cost of the extra effort he has to make weighs very strongly indeed, and to him 6d. would be much more important than to anyone else. In any case, he has probably calculated this margin already, and the extra 6d. could tip him over to the point of saying that it was not worth while and the bargain was not good enough. When discussing the National Insurance contribution previously I have said that it is already doubtful whether the bargain is good enough; whether the amount receivable at the end is good enough in relation to the amount sacrificed to carry on work after 65. I think that this additional 6d. will prove a very serious matter.
The part of the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary which surprised hon. Members on this side of the Committee most was the statement that the Health Service contribution is linked with the National Health contribution. This is, indeed, a new doctrine. Last year, when we had before us the Bill to institute a National Insurance Service contribution for the first time, it was made clear that this was a separate contribution and not related to National Insurance; that it was different altogether, something which people were to pay for the Service only, and that it could be devised on a somewhat different principle.
Now we are told that it is inextricably linked. "The two go together," said the
312
Parliamentary Secretary. He went on to say, "This is only a small Measure to increase the National Health Service contribution. We cannot adopt a piecemeal approach. We cannot tinker with the structure." In other words, what the Government told us, not a year ago, in 1957, is changed. There were to be two entirely separate contributions, one for insurance and one related solely to the needs of the Service and under the responsibility of the Minister of Health.
That Minister has been present in all these debates. The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was responsible only for issuing the stamps and seeing that they were put on the books. The Minister of Health had the money to spend for the Health Service. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution, we are now told, is not going to be different. Last year, it was to be an entirely different thing, which was to bring home to the people the cost of the Health Service. Now it is to be indissolubly linked with insurance.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the future of the Health Service contribution was bound up with the future of the National Insurance scheme. It was good news to us, to hear that the Government were taking our advice and were reviewing the structure of the National Insurance scheme. No doubt they are beginning to realise, as we told them in the last debate on the scheme, that they cannot go along on the flat rate basis. No doubt they are working out proposals which will eventually result in a plan for a graduated system of contributions. As I said in that debate, the sooner they do it the better. We can then have a grand debate of the nation on the subject.
To say, after all that has been said in previous debates on the subject, that the contribution which we are now discussing is indissolubly linked with the insurance structure, is very surprising, because we were told only five months ago that it was to be entirely different. The flat rate was said to be quite a reasonable and sensible method by which to collect, because it related to a Health Service in which the benefits to be received were in a way equal for all, in that they depended entirely upon the state of health. Therefore, it was justifiable to have a flat-rate contribution. Now we

313
are told that it is linked with the National Insurance scheme which may be on a graduated basis. It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary has thought up an argument on his own, quite separate from the arguments of his right hon. and learned Friend and quite ignoring what his right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health, the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), told us five months ago.
We find that there has not been a real answer to the admirably presented pleas by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby in the sort of explanation which is now thrown at us, in the hint
that the whole basis is to be changed. The very arguments which were used to try to persuade us to accept the original insurance contribution have now been abandoned and substituted by quite different ones. We are, therefore, obliged to divide the Committee. We feel that our arguments have not been met in the least, and that the arguments put up against us have no value, in the light of what was previously said.
Question put, That "70" stand part of the Schedule:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 194.

Division No. 58.]

AYES

[7.15 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Duncan, Sir James

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Aitken, W. T.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Alport, C. J. M.

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

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Joseph, Sir Keith

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Errington, Sir Eric

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Arbuthnot, John

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Keegan, D.

Armstrong, C. W.

Fell, A.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Ashton, H.

Finlay, Graeme

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Atkins, H. E.

Fisher, Nigel

Kimball, M.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Kirk, P. M.

Baldwin, A. E.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lagden, G. W.

Balniel, Lord

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Barber, Anthony

Freeth, Denzil

Leather, E. H. C.

Barlow, Sir John

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Leavey, J. A.

Barter, John

Gammans, Lady

Leburn, w. G.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

Beamish, Col. Tufton

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Glover, D.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Godber, J. B.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Goodhart, Philip

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

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Gower, H. R.

Longden, Gilbert

Bingham, R. M.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S-)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

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

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Bishop, F. P.

Green, A.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Body, R. F.

Grimond, J.

McAdden, S. J.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

McKibbin, Alan

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

Gurden, Harold

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Maddan, Martin

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

Bryan, P.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hay, John

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Campbell, Sir David

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Cary, Sir Robert

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

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Channon, Sir Henry

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Marshall, Douglas

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Mathew, R.

Clarke, Brig. Terenee (Portsmth, W.)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Maude, Angus

Cole, Norman

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Mawby, R. L.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

Cooke, Robert

Hirst, Geoffrey

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

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

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Holt, A. F.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hornby, R. P.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Neave, Airey

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Nicholls, Harmar

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Currie, G. B. H.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

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

Davidson, Viscountess

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Deedes, W. F.

Hurd, A. R.

Oakshott, H. D.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

Osborne, C.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hyde, Montgomery

Page, R. G.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Drayson, G. B.

Iremonger, T. L.

Partridge, E.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Peel, W. J.

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

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Vane, W. M. F.

Pott, H. P.

Speir, R. M.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Powell, J. Enoch

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wade, D. W.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Ramsden, J. E.

Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Rawlinson, Peter

Storey, S.

Wall, Patrick

Redmayne, M.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

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

Rees-Davies, w. R.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Ridsdale, J. E.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Rippon, A C. F.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Teeling, W.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Temple, John M.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Roper, Sir Harold

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wood, Hon. R.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Woollam, John Victor

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

Sharples, R. C.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Shepherd, William

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Mr. Lego and Mr. Brooman-White.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Messer, Sir F.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mikardo, Ian

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Greenwood, Anthony

Mitchison, G. R.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Moody, A. S.

Awbery, S. S.

Grey, C. F.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Baird, J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Moss, R.

Balfour, A.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Moyle, A.

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

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mulley, F. W.

Benson, Sir George

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

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

Hastings, S.

Oliver, G. H.

Blackburn, F.

Hayman, F. H.

Oswald, T.

Blenkinsop, A.

Healey, Denis

Owen, W. J.

Blyton, W. R.

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

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

Boardman, H.

Herbison, Miss M.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Houghton, Douglas

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Parker, J.

Bowles, F. G.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Paton, John

Boyd, T. C.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pearson, A.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pentland, N.

Brockway, A. F.

Hunter, A. E.

Popplewell, E.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Prentice, R. E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Probert, A. R.

Burke, W. A.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Proctor, W. T.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Randall, H. E.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Janner, B.

Rankin, John

Carmichael, J.

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

Redhead, E. C.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

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

Reeves, J.

Champion, A. J.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Reid, William

Chapman, W. D,

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

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Clunie, J.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Coldrick, W.

Jones, jack (Rotherham)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Ross, William

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Royle, C.

Cove, W. G.

Kenyon, C.

Short, E. W.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

King, Dr. H. M,

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Ledger, R. J.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Skeffington, A. M.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

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

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lewis, Arthur

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Deer, G.

Lindgren, G. S.

Sorensen, R. W.

Delargy, H. J.

Lipton, Marcus

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Diamond, John

Logan, D. G.

Steele, T.

Dodds, N. N.

McCann, J.

Stonehouse, John

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

MacColl, J. E.

Stones. W. (Consett)

Dye, S.

MacDermot, Niall

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McChee, H. G.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Sylvester, G. O.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

McLeavy, Frank

Taylor,-Bernard (Mansfield)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Fernyhough, E.

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

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Finch, H. J.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Tomney, F.

Foot, D. M.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mason, Roy

Viant, S. P.

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

Mellish, R. J.

Watkins, T. E.

316

317

Weitzman, D.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Woof, R. E.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

West, D. G.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Zilliacus, K.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Willey, Frederick

Winter-bottom, Richard

Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.

Williams, David (Neath)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

The Chairman: I suggest that with the next Amendment, in line 10, column I. after "including", to insert:
"men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds and",
might also be discussed the following Amendments:
In line 13, column 1, after "including", to insert:
"women whose wages for the relative contributions week do not exceed ten pounds and";
In line 26, at the end to add:

11. Employed men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds

1s.

5d.

In line 26, at the end to add:

12. Employed women whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds

1s.

1d.

Mr. Marquand: I think that arrangement would be satisfactory to the Committee. While I am on my feet, Mr. MacPherson, may I draw attention to the fact that the numbers in the last Division seemed to be lower than before? I am told that simultaneously a Division took place in a Committee upstairs. I am afraid that you will say, as your predecessors have said, that there is nothing you can do about it, but I hope you will report to the proper quarters the great difficulty in which this Committee has been placed throughout its sitting today by reason of the fact that another Committee is sitting at the same time.
The Chairman: The right hon. Member is right in the first part of his comment. The procedure is laid down, and there is nothing I can do about it.
Mr. A. E. Hunter: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, column 1, after "including", to insert:
"men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds and".
We on this side of the Committee feel that by these continuous increases in contributions the lower-paid worker is being penalised. When we consider the increases in contributions which have been made by the present Administration during the past few months we can see very strong evidence in support of our case in this Amendment.
318
There was a 6d. increase, then a 2s. increase for National Insurance, and now there is another 6d. increase. The lower-paid worker is now paying 2s. 6d. per week increase, and this Bill, unless it is amended, will impose another 6d. increase. Since this Administration came into power insurance has gone up by leaps and bounds. The insurance contribution was 5s. 1d. in 1951 and, if this Bill becomes law, it will go up to 9s. lid. for men and 8s. for women. Since 1951 there has been an increase of 4s. 10d. Those in the lower income groups and lower wage groups have almost 10s. a week taken from them, and that is far too heavy a sum.
The argument of the Minister of Health on Second Reading and the Financial Secretary on the Ways and Means Resolution was that employees could afford the increase because the average was £12 11s. a week. It was unfair for the Government to say that the average wage is £12 11s. a week. It is like taking a group who dine at the Ritz Hotel or the Savoy Hotel, a group who dine in an industrial or factory canteen, or even in the Tea Room of this House, adding them together, and then saying that that is the average amount a person can afford to spend on a meal.
I can give the Minister many examples of several millions of men and women who are earning under £10 a week. There must be 60 per cent., or 70 per cent., or even more, women workers who receive less than £10 a week.
7.30 p.m.
There is the agricultural worker. His wage, settled by trade union negotiation, is £7 10s. a week. That means that he gets £5 Is. less than the average quoted by the Minister. The male shop assistant in London gets £9 a week, and £8 10s. a week in the provinces, so that the one gets £3 11s. and the other £4 1s. below the average stated by the Minister when defending these increased contributions. I could also quote railway workers, nurses, packers, porters, clerical workers—many millions of employees who today

319
still receive under £10 a week. Therefore it is unfair for the Minister to quote £12 11s. as an average wage.
This Amendment, if accepted, would call a halt to increases in the contributions of the lower-paid workers. It is a modest Amendment, by which we seek to get away, for those men and women not earning £10 a week, from the flat-rate principle. It gives the Minister the chance to do that, and I therefore hope that he will accept it.
Dr. King: I want briefly to support the Amendment moved so persuasively and simply by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter). There are three ways in which to pay for our National Health Service. One is by direct taxation, one is by indirect taxation, and the third is by the poll tax contained in this Bill. The difference between direct taxation and the other two is that, whereas the direct taxation is graded according to income, rich and poor have to pay the others equally. Indirect taxes can be left out, because we need not pay them if we are prepared to go without the things on which there is a purchase or similar tax.
We are left, then, with the poll tax, and the worst feature of that tax is that everyone is concerned—the low-paid worker and the Cabinet Minister, the poor widow—about whom I hope to address the Committee later on—and the richest "star," the chief officer in the civic centre and the humblest clerk, the general and the private. All pay their 6d., but it is a different 6d. The 6d. paid by the millionaire is nothing compared with the 6d. paid by the poorest people. That is why this is a simple, honest-to-God Amendment. It seeks to exclude from the Bill all the lowest-paid workers. The Minister may cavil at the £10 limit we have fixed and say that, though he accepts the humanist principle put forward, the limit should be higher—or lower, perhaps.
Let us consider what the married man earning £10 a week has to pay out of his weekly income. He has to pay rent for his house. That has increased, and may have increased savagely if the man is unfortunate enough to be the tenant of a decontrolled house. He has to buy food for the family. The cost of that
320
has steadily increased. He has to provide his household with coal, gas and electricity. That has increased steadily in the last two years. He has to provide clothing for his family and for himself. The cost of that, too, has gone up. The meals for his children in school have gone up.
On top of all those, one would hope that any respectable British citizen doing an honest week's work should have something out of his income to provide for holidays and insurance, and to provide, as indeed he must, for his trade union subscriptions. In addition, he previously had to find about 6s. 9d. per week for insurance charges. Unless modified by this Amendment, the Schedule will mean that in the last twelve months his health and insurance charges will have gone up from 6s. 9d. to 9s. 11d.
I suggest that this is an unfair burden on the poorest workers. It is true that the Amendment gives them very little—merely 6d. a week—but it gives it to those to whom it means very much. I therefore hope that the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration.
Miss Jennie Lee: This Amendment represents for hon. Members on this side only a very simple holding operation, but although it is modest, I fear that there will be very little response from the Government benches. It seems almost impossible for the Government to understand that when first the Health Service was introduced we added to the dignity and status of our country all over the world. There were those who looked rather wistfully towards us and asked, "Is it possible that there can be a spirit of gentleness and a spirit of fair play so widespread in a nation that the whole of that nation is willing to carry the burden of maintaining a Health Service?"
I support this Amendment, but I should like it to go very much further. I do not believe in the insurance principle being applied to the Health Service. I believe that the just and, in the long run, the best thing financially, as well as in every other way, is for the whole of the Health Service to be carried by the Exchequer. However, that goes rather beyond this Amendment.
I am afraid that I am rather without hope of getting any response—although I shall be delighted to get a pleasant

321
surprise—from the benches opposite. All that we on this side can do, therefore, is to make the country aware that there are some Members of the House of Commons who understand what a frightening thing it is when these extra pennies and sixpences and shillings keep piling up on a small weekly wage.
It is doubly frightening to find these extra charges being imposed when, at the same time, whenever there is illness, prescriptions have to be bought. This has been a very hard winter. Very few homes have not had sickness, colds or more serious illnesses for young and old, and I want the Minister to understand that it can all be extremely worrying and frightening.
I see it as most undignified as well as unjust for a great nation like this to act in this way when it could keep great, and be greater still, if it would only spend its money sensibly and not in some of the crazy ways in which it is now spending it. This is a nation that has all the intelligence to know that vast savings could be made on the Health Service far beyond the scraping represented by the charges we are discussing. Again and again, we have pointed out that those things could be done. There is a great racket in patent medicines, not in the way they are being prescribed, but in their cost.
There are exciting and new things that could be done to develop and improve the Health Service, but instead of having the guts to do it, instead of really caring about the poor and the sick, all this miserable Government can do is to start taking a few more coppers out of the pockets of the very poorest people.
Mr. Prentice: This Amendment goes to the heart of our objection to the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) about the Health Service, the principles it enshrines, and the impact it has made on the world. The scheme embodies two great principles. The first is that those who are well should help to look after those who are sick. That is a principle which we established, and it is one from which there has been progressive departure by increasing the charges on medicines, appliances, and so on. The other principle is that people should pay for the Service according to their means, that those better off should
322
pay more than those worse off. The Bill now before us is one of a series which departs from those principles, and that is why we press our Amendment.
This theme entered into many of the speeches on the Money Resolution and the Second Reading debate. I listened to a number of speeches which hon. Members opposite made on the those occasions, and read those that I did not hear delivered, and it seemed to be that hon. Gentlemen were advancing four arguments, all of which can be shot down. I propose now to show how they can be so shot down. The first argument is to say that all that is proposed here is an extra 6d. a week—or 4d. for women or 2d. for young people—and that in itself is insignificant. We are fighting the Measure because it is part of a policy which is being applied by stages.
I entered the House less than a year ago, early last summer, and at that time the weekly insurance contribution for a male worker over 18 was 6s. 9d. a week. This is the third Bill to have come before the House during the very short time since then, and the cumulative effect of those three Bills has been to raise the weekly contribution from 6s. 9d. to 9s. 11d., an increase of nearly 60 per cent. in less than a year. It has had a tremendous impact upon the people with the lowest wages.
The second argument which is continually advanced from the benches opposite is that average earnings in this country are between £12 and 13 a week. This obsession with average earnings is irrelevant to the objections we make. We are not arguing, at least not strongly arguing, on behalf of those with average earnings or more than average earnings. We are arguing on behalf of those with less than average earnings, on behalf of men who are trying to keep a family on £7 10s. or £8 a week.
There are many women workers earning considerably less than that, widows or those whose husbands, perhaps, have left them, women faced with the necessity of keeping their families. I mentioned just now the extent of the increase for men. For women, in the same period, the contribution has risen from 5s. 6d. a week to 8s. or it will be 8s. if this Bill comes into operation. That is a tremendous increase for women who may be earning only £5 or £6 a week.

323
The third argument regularly coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite is based upon their obsession with earnings rather than wage rates. They are always emphasising that people can earn more than their basic wage through overtime, and so on. The fact is that millions of workers can do nothing of the kind, and have no opportunity to do so. Indeed, with the present trend of trade, the number of those able to do so is growing less all the time. It is, therefore, quite unfair to take that into account.
Colonel Tufton Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that there was no basic wage in 1946 when the 4s. 11d. stamp was introduced? Is that his argument, or have I got it wrong?
Mr. Prentice: I share the view, expressed many times, that we are becoming a little tired of the constant attempts by hon. Gentlemen opposite to go back to comparisons with 1946 and 1950. It is not my function, if I may say so, to defend things then; they may be right or wrong. I was not a Member of the House at the time.
Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend might like to be reminded that, in 1946, there was no contribution towards the Health Service.
Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to defend the Government, they should direct their remarks to what is happening here and now, in modern conditions.
The fourth argument that they advance implies that no account need be taken of family circumstances, of the number of children a man may have or the number of his dependents. So far as the Health Service is paid for by direct taxation, those things are taken care of, perhaps in a rough and ready fashion, in the Income Tax system; but this Bill makes no distinction between a bachelor and a man with a wife and four children to look after.
The fact is that, today, millions of people are living in a quite considerable degree of poverty. Hon. Members opposite have become obsessed with the idea that, as they put it, people have "never had it so good". They ignore all the
324
factors which have crept into post-war life, particularly under this Government—the high cost of housing, the burden of trying to pay a post-war council rent, perhaps, or, even worse, the burden. which so many have, of trying to maintain mortgage payments on homes they have tried to buy with interest rates as they are now. There are many factors of that kind which mean that, in millions of families, there is a struggle to make ends meet. There is a constant worry about how to get shoes repaired, or buy clothes.
I remember reading, in a book on the life of Ernest Bevin, of a remark he made in the 'thirties, that for many of his people it was a tragedy when a breakfast cup was broken. There are very many families today to whom that still applies, particularly large families living in post-war houses, when the wage earner earns below the average.
Our principle is that the Health Service should be paid for according to the ability of people to pay. This Bill is a retrograde step, one of many, and we shall oppose it as hard as we can.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. S. Silverman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who said that she did not consider that the insurance principle ought to apply to the National Health Service. I fully agree with that, but let us not suppose that the Government in this Measure are applying the insurance principle. They are not. The insurance principle is applied, by and large, over the range of social security legislation, in pensions, unemployment, and sickness benefit.
Sir Frederick Messer: Financial benefits, not service.
Mr. Silverman: Certainly. Those things may fairly be described as being based upon a kind of insurance principle, with a kind of proportional premium to establish a social insurance fund out of which the risks are met, as an insurance company would meet them. The analogy is not complete or exact, but it is a fair enough analogy to use. This has never applied to the National Health Service, and there has never been any attempt to apply the insurance principle to it.

325
If the Government were applying the insurance principle now, we should oppose it tooth and nail, but we should understand it. Although we should strenuously oppose it, at any rate it could be said that this is the kind of thing one can insure against, and that what was proposed was the establishment of an insurance fund, out of insurance premiums, from which the cost could be met. That would be a wrong principle, but at least it would be a principle.
There is no principle here. The contributions provided for in the principal Act, as increased now by this amending Bill, will not provide an insurance cover; they will not provide a fund out of which finance can be found to bear the charges for the Service. There is no fund. These payments, when they are collected, will not be set aside, as an insurance company would set them aside, on an actuarial basis.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an introduction to some comments on the Amendment. The introduction is somewhat lengthy, and I hope he will come to the point of the Amendment quickly.
Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to you, Mr. MacPherson. If I may say so, you have correctly apprehended the trend of my argument, and for that I take a little credit to myself in having managed, at any rate, to be thus far clear. But the point of the Amendment will not be understood except against the background of the finances of the scheme. That is all my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock had in mind when she made her point about the insurance principle. We could not have moved this Amendment if an insurance principle were being established. It would be a regular contribution from everyone in order to insure against unascertained risk. That is not the position under this Bill at all. This Measure involves merely the collection by the Government of money which will go towards the general finances of the nation. It is a poll tax on the poor in order to relieve the rich of Income Tax and Surtax. It is nothing else.
What is the point of the Amendment seen against that background? The Government are not introducing this universally. The Schedule makes exceptions.
326
One exception it makes that we are seeking to extend or expand is an exception for people over the age of 65. Why should there be this arbitrary age? Why not 64 or 66? We all know the answer to that. It is that the Government do not wish to incur any further opprobrium by increasing the burdens on old-age pensioners.
In other words, the Government accept the principle—which is also the principle of the Amendment—that we should temper the wind to the shorn lamb. Before charging the extra sum one takes into account what one is charging it against, and whose pockets it is being taken out of and what will be in the pockets when it has been taken out. What will be left after this extra sum has been taken out?
The Government have not been entirely oblivious to this principle, but, having accepted it and applied it to old-age pensioners, how can they resist the Amendment? There are many people in this country who are earning less than £10 a week and there are those who are earning £7 a week and who have family and other responsibilities. They are in no better position than many old-age pensioners who are receiving a full pension in addition, perhaps, to other means, or whose pensions are supplemented by the National Assistance Board.
Mention was made of unemployed people. I think that there is an Amendment concerning them on the Order Paper. But there are also the partially unemployed. I speak with some knowledge on this matter, which affects every cotton town in Lancashire. It certainly affects my own constituency, where people are not employed by the week for a weekly wage. The earnings in the factory are apportioned to the output of the looms, which is not within the control of the worker. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) spoke about people who have not the opportunity of working overtime; but there are hundreds of thousands of people who have not the opportunity of earning a full week's wages, let alone overtime. They are the partially unemployed, but they have to pay their contributions. They will be liable under the Bill. Why? They will not be liable on any insurance principle.

327
It is not a contributory scheme. It is not intended to pay for itself.
The Government are proposing to relieve some people, and I applaud them for it. I am not criticising that proposal. They have rightly decided to exempt certain people from the extra charge, but they have not exempted enough. Every one of the reasons which prompted the Government to exempt old-age pensioners is valid in support of this Amendment. It is impossible without complete irrationality to do the one and refuse the other.
In the old days, when Tory Governments wanted to deflate, they did not pursue these indirect methods. They could make an all-out attack on wages. They did not mind if it produced strikes, because, after all, strikes are only another form of unemployment. If unemployment is wanted, a strike will do as well as anything else. So the Government made the direct attack knowing that they would either reduce the wages directly or produce voluntary or involuntary unemployment as a result. They dare not do that today. They do it indirectly. I will not repeat the speech that I made on an earlier Amendment, but this is only another example of the same thing.
The Government do not need these coppers out of the poor box. They do not need to search the pockets of the very poor to get the extra 2d., 4d. or 6d. This proposal is a part of a general scheme. Where one cannot attack the wages directly, the wages in the pay envelope are attacked or the standard of living is attacked through the housewife's shopping purse. There is nothing to be said in favour of it at all. If the Government want to raise the money because we are spending more than we ought to spend having regard to what we collect, there are many readier, wealthier and juster ways of raising more national revenue than by going to people with less than £10 a week and all sorts of family responsibilities and saying, "Come on; another 6d., please".
Will not the Government, even now, think again about this Measure? They will not get much money by resisting the Amendment. It will not make much difference to their expenditure. The surplus will not be very much less on
328
Budget day if they dispense with these extra payments. They will not even have them. The Minister said earlier that he would not be able to collect the money until 1st July, or thereabouts, at the earliest.
I say to the Government, "Think again. As you are sparing the old-age pensioner, spare the people at the lower end of the wage scale. They need it more than you need it. Every additional impost you have made in other ways cries aloud for an exemption in this case". I hope that the Government will not resist these pleas.
Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friends have made speeches tonight which, think, have moved the Committee. They have not tried to adduce an academic argument as to why people earning under £10 a week should be relieved. The only means that we have at our command to mitigate the severity of this Bill is to come to the House of Commons and select special categories of workers who, we believe, would suffer under the Bill, perhaps, more than others.
8.0 p.m.
During the Second Reading debate an hon. Member opposite implied that hon. Members on this side of the House were apt to exaggerate the conditions of the workers. He said "Consider the railwaymen", and he quoted their earnings. I have observed that the Conservative Party always refers to earnings, and never to basic wages. My hon. Friends have pointed out that overtime is not always available, and that some people are permanently on short time. I hope that in future hon. Members opposite will think in terms of basic wages.
It is no exaggeration to say that there are men—and thousands of women—who are earning only £5, £6 or £7 a week. Hon. Members opposite may not be in contact with them, but I expect that the houses of many are them are cleaned by daily domestic workers earning £5 or less a week. They will be called upon to pay 8s. a week.
When I mentioned the figure of 8s. previously the Minister said, "You must remember that this is a health contribution only. You must not think in terms of a payment of 8s. a week." We must be realistic. This is a cumulative matter. People do not say, "Oh, I am only being

329
asked for a small amount as a extra contribution towards the Health Service." The Minister should bear in mind that this extra contribution will be thought of in terms of a payment of 8s. a week and not as a payment of a few extra coppers.
My hon. Friends have asked the Minister to exercise the quality of mercy, but if he finds it impossible to do so I would remind him of what Lord Beveridge said; and he has been called in aid time after time. The Minister will recall that the Beveridge Report recommended that employees should make contributions, but paragraph 287 said that
"persons with low wages … should be relieved at the cost of the taxpayer or the employer."
The Amendment directs the attention of the Committee to persons earning low wages—the people specified in the Beveridge Report. Such people command our sympathy. The figure of £10 is an arbitrary one, but we felt that in inserting it we might command the sympathy of hon. Members opposite, who know that many people are in that wage category, who would suffer great hardship by this increase. Therefore, even at this late hour, I ask the Minister to reconsider the position and to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I have been hoping that we would have heard more about some of the people earning £10 or less. I hoped that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) especially would substantiate the argument that he advanced last week. I am sorry to say that he has not yet risen. It may be that he will do so after I have finished speaking; the Committee likes to have honest arguments put forward. When the hon. Member for Cheadle was talking upon this subject last week he referred to the earnings of porters and ticket collectors as being £9 17s. 6d. and £11 16s. 2d. respectively. He might at least have informed the House then that he obtained his figures from an estimated census and not from records of actual payments.
The hon. Gentleman's figures were calculated not upon an average yearly basis, but upon one week in 1957—the week ended 23rd March. To say that porters and ticket collectors are getting £9 17s. 6d.
330
and £11 16s. 2d. respectively is all nonsense. His figures were taken from an estimate based upon the court of inquiry award. He should have told the House then that that was where he got his figures. The correct figures issued in the census were £10 10s. 7d. for the ticket collector and £8 17s. 6d. for the porter, and those figures included Sunday duty. They applied to a porter working 12 hours on Sunday duty, with all the inconvenience of shift working and night duty. Would the hon. Member like to work a constant succession of shift duties? Would he like to work every Saturday afternoon, when everybody else is enjoying himself?
The correct figures are not as the hon. Member indicated. The porter on the lowest grade earns £7 7s. a week, rising after the second year to £7 11s. 6d. Those figures apply not only to porters, but to 40.000 other members of the railway industry, and include crossing keepers, who sometimes work the clock round. If such people make a mistake involving a loss of life they stand trial at court. Only a few years ago a crossing keeper who was in receipt of this miserable pittance was sentenced to six months' imprisonment because he made a mistake in carrying out his duty.
This situation applies not only to railwaymen, but to miners. Many miners who work above ground are disabled, and cannot do ordinary work. Such a miner receives £8 10s. a week, and he may have to keep a wife and three or four children on it. He is now to be asked to pay an increase in his contribution, bringing the total deduction from his pay up to 9s. 11d. per week. The same consideration applies to shop workers and agricultural workers, who earn a minimum of £7 per week. If such a worker earns anything in addition it is through extensive overtime, and he is penalised for it. Then we have the case of the widow, who may have been left with a home to keep going, with no additional income. In many cases she receives between £5 and £6 a week, or less. Nevertheless, she has to pay the additional charge.
This charge has risen by 2s. 6d. in the last twelve months. Although an easement of £35 million was given to the Surtax payer in the last Budget the Government are asking for another 6d.

331
from the pockets of the poor people. The matter does not bear consideration. As has been said, this is indeed a poll tax.
There has been a very steep increase in the cost of living, and the class of workers to whom we are referring have been penalised because of increasing food prices. A reduction of £300 million in food subsidies works out at £6 per head of the population. If there are four persons in the family such people are penalised to the extent of 10s. a week—and then this miserable charge is imposed, in addition. Moreover, there are all the other charges which they have to pay towards the Health Service. It is no use hon. Members opposite referring back to 1950 and 1951 and saying that it was a Labour Government which enabled these charges to be made. The 1951 Act was brought in with a limited objective for a limited period to meet a specific emergency. There was no intention that this should be a continuing provision.
We also remember how the adjustments were based. Instead of the Exchequer contribution being based on the figure of one-fifth, as was originally intended, the contribution remains on the basis of one-seventh. This saving in the Exchequer contribution has continued, and yet the poorer people who are living on the poverty line have to pay these extra charges. When I refer to the poverty line I do not apologise for doing so. I know people in my own constituency who are drawing very small wages. Surely it is not asking the Minister too much to say that he is prepared to accept the principle involved in this Amendment, namely, to exempt people in the lower-paid income groups from paying these increases.
If the Minister cannot accept the figure of £10, we on this side of the Committee would be prepared to meet him and agree some figure which will do justice. I ask the Minister not to brush this suggestion to one side, not to use the old shibboleth that we have heard so often and to tell us what took place in the years 1945 to 1950, when we were in the midst of an experiment and introduced a first-class Health Service. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to shelter himself behind that sort of thing. Let him be a realist and answer the arguments
332
which have been advanced from this side of the Committee. Let him give some easement and sense of justice to these lower-paid people
Mr. Shepherd: I had not risen to make the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) thought I might make, because I thought it would be better made on a later Amendment. However, as the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to cast doubt upon my statements and even to accuse me of some very disgraceful things, I think I ought to reply to those allegations.
When last week I quoted figures in respect of railwaymen's earnings, which have a relevance to this Amendment, I in no way exaggerated the position. Every statement I made was absolutely true, and I refrained from elaborating my statements which would have made my case stronger. The hon. Gentleman said that the figures I quoted related to one week. It is very important that they are in respect of one week. If one is to do what the British Transport Commission does—to make a census of the earnings of its staff—it must be done scientifically. I invite the hon. Gentleman to suggest means by which this census can be carried out more scientifically than it now is. In my view, it is done in the most scientific manner possible.
It is true that the March, 1957, period was taken into account and that the earnings in respect of the various grades were recorded. In addition, due weight was given to the number of people in the provinces, and due weight was also given in respect of categories. This attempt to obtain a census of earnings was conducted in the most scientific manner possible.
I did not give the whole of the case, as I might have done. For example, I did not tell the Committee last week that labourers on the railway have an average earning of £11 6s. 4d.
Mr. Popplewell: For one week.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman cannot use the argument that I selected one week which was favourable, because there would be no means of deciding which was a favourable week, In fact, I would say that that week was an unfavourable week. I will deal with that in a moment.

333
There are other grades where the earnings are surprisingly high. The hon. Gentleman says that these people work overtime. Let me tell him that I come from a railway town, and I know that to work sometimes at night, on a Bank Holiday and on a Saturday is an indispensable part of a railwayman's life. It is as important as it is for a farmer or for anybody in public service. It is not an exceptional circumstance for a railwayman to work overtime occasionally. It is the normal kind of existence.
8.15 p.m.
This sort of working is indispensable to the running of a railway. If men did not work on Bank Holidays or at night or on Saturdays the railways would come to a full stop. Therefore, when I say that these earnings are a true reflection of what the men are earning, I mean it. Earnings on the railways are a better criterion than earnings in other industries, because working at what to some people appears to be odd times is an indispensable part of running the railways. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the calculations that I have made.
When I mentioned railway porters, I was particularly helpful to the hon. Gentleman because I did not mention senior porters who get £11 6s. 4d. a week. Neither did I mention any of the tips which porters receive. Therefore, I understated my case. I feel that the hon. Gentleman, in trying to show that wages received by railway workers are lower than they actually are, is doing a disservice to the system of recruiting.
Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Member has fallen into the same trap again. He has been using the word "earnings" and he concludes by using the word "wages". We on these benches have been trying to point out the difference between earnings and wages. The senior porter to whom the hon. Gentleman referred is paid £7 11s. a week, and he gets that only after two years' service.
Dr. King: Would the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) tell us whether he is in favour of the Amendment or against it, and why? Does he even know which Amendment we are discussing?
Mr. R. Thompson: The debate on this Amendment has shown the same concern as was expressed so widely by hon.
334
Members opposite in our discussions on the Financial Resolution and again on Second Reading. Indeed, one hon. Member opposite during the course of this debate said quite rightly that this Amendment went to the heart of the whole matter.
The objection of hon. Members opposite to the Bill is that this is a wrong way of collecting the additional funds required to run the service. They feel it is wrong because, as they put it, the increased charge which it is proposed to levy would fall most heavily on those least able to pay it. I think that is not an unfair summary of the views of hon. Members opposite.
Although the general argument has been extensively debated during an earlier stage of the Bill, I do not complain that we should have gone into this matter pretty thoroughly again on this Amendment, for I recognise that this is a very fundamental point indeed—perhaps the most important consideration in the whole Bill.
I doubt whether this is really the place to go once again into the argument of whether to pay for this Service by contributions, by charges, out of general taxation, or, as we do at present, by a mixture of all three. The fact of the matter is that the cost of the Service has increased, and for reasons which we have already stated we consider that the appropriate way of recovering that is by this charge.
What hon. Members are proposing in this Amendment is that we exempt those earning less than £10 a week, and the hon. Gentleman did say he would not be particularly rigid about the figure provided we produce a figure somewhere in the lower income range. The object of the Amendment is to exempt such people from the increased charge.
This would, of course, introduce a completely new situation in our arrangements. National Insurance and National Health Service contributions already provide for a series of flat rates, namely, for men, women and juveniles, and there are refinements for each of those according to whether they are employed, self-employed, and so on. In my judgment, it would be quite inadmissible by a Bill of this restricted character to change, as it were, the whole basis on which the

335
contributions are paid by introducing this new principle which this Amendment seeks to introduce.
Mr. S. Silverman: Has the hon. Gentleman not conceded that principle already in the exceptions already made? That is the point I tried to make, that the new principle has been introduced there. All we are saying is: apply it equitably.
Mr. Thompson: What the hon. Member is saying harks back to what he said in his speech, which was, why have a figure of 65 above which contributions are not payable? Of course, the answer to that is that right from the beginning of the National Insurance scheme there have been retirement ages and everything flows from that.
Mr. Silverman: Unless I am mistaken, the age of 65 does not exempt a man from paying stamps if he goes on working. It is not a question of saying, "If you stop working you shall not pay". That is not said in the Schedule either. The arbitrary figure of 65 has been introduced, no doubt having old-age pensioners in mind; but the exemption is not limited to those on pension. If one is working above the age of 65 one is still exempted.
Mr. Thompson: If one is in regular employment between 65 and 70, and one is a man, one continues to pay the contribution——
Mr. Silverman: But it is exempted here.
Mr. Thompson:—but if one has retired or is only working part-time or occasionally, one does not, and it does not seem to me that that involves any breach of principle.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman has stated the point without appreciating what he is saying. What he has just stated now is perfectly true, that under the social security arrangements, if one is in work, one goes on paying one's stamps whatever one's age, above 65 or not. The hon. Gentleman was trying to use that in order to explain that this Amendment introduced a new principle, but it does not. The new principle is introduced in the Schedule, where exemption from these contributions comes automatically if one is over 65, irrespective of whether one is working or not, irrespective of whether one is paying for stamps or not.
Mr. Thompson: The new principle to which I was referring was the principle that contributions should in some way be affected by the proposed capacity to pay them of the people on whom they are levied; by that I mean the £10 per week line which has been adopted for the purposes of this Amendment.
The argument which has been urged upon many sides all along that the proposed way of financing the Service bears too heavily on those least in a position to pay seems to me to be very far from the whole story. Let us for a moment consider how the cost of the National Health Service as a whole in the year 1958–59 will be borne. We find that during that year 72 per cent. of the total cost of the Service will in fact be borne by the Treasury. That is to say, the money will be found, as hon. Members will appreciate, from the proceeds of general taxation. It will not to that very great extent, 72 per cent., come from contributions.
I think it is apt to be overlooked that the poor man, the lowest paid worker whom we have been talking about today, inevitably pays little in general taxation. He cannot pay much because he does not each much, but the better off man pays progressively more the more he earns. Therefore, he carries in his contribution to the general finance of the country a far larger proportion of the cost of the Service in absolute terms, and, because of high direct taxation, even in relative terms he probably pays more towards it than the poor man. I think that is perfectly right.
Dr. Summerskill: Why should he not?
Mr. Thompson: I think that is perfectly right, but if that is so we should not talk in terms which suggest that a totally unfair and monstrous impost is being laid on large sections of the population when in fact the greater part of the Service is financed from general taxation to which those very people do not make a very large contribution.
As I have said, this Amendment introduces an entirely new principle of contribution by means test. I take the view that this new principle should not be introduced in such a piece-meal or limited way.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. A. Evans: The Minister refers constantly to a new principle. He has agreed that in general taxation and in Income Tax the man with a larger income pays more. He approves of that, and he accepts it as being fair. The Amendment is only a refinement of the principle which he accepts.
Mr. Thompson: I cannot accept that. Beveridge originally accepted the principle of a contribution factor, and the one he had in mind was not very different from what it will be under this proposed arrangement. If we accept that, we should not add an additional complication of a means test above which certain contributions are paid and others are not.
I cannot deviate from the view that this would be an entirely wrong way to seek to alter the basis of the financing of this service, and in the circumstances I must advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment.
Miss Herbison: I am afraid that the speech to which we have just listened shows clearly the difference between the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The Minister has said that it would be wrong to introduce such a new principle in this piece-meal, limited way. All we have been trying to do by this Amendment is to salvage something from this pretty poor Measure.
I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of this discussion, although I was in for the others. I am certain that my hon. Friends would wish, as we wished in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, as we wished on the Second Reading of the Bill, to do something for the lowest paid workers. If the Government did not feel that they could accept what they term a piece-meal and limited way of dealing with the matter, in spite of all the speeches made by back benchers on their own side, surely they could have decided to hold up this Measure until they were able to come forward with one which would suit the times much better?
Many back benchers on the Government side have realised in the various debates that the time has now come when we must leave this flat-rate contribution and adopt a graded contribution. That is the only solution whereby
338
we can stop putting burdens on the lower-paid workers who are unable to bear them. I was interested in the speech of one hon. Member, who has now left the Chamber, who was mixing earnings and wages. We believe it is right, as the Minister seems to believe, that a greater part of the National Health Service expense should be borne by those taxpayers who are able to bear it. We believe that, just as many of the lower-paid workers have been relieved of direct taxation because they could not afford to pay it, the stage has now come when the same workers ought to be relieved of any other addition to these contributions, particularly the addition to the National Health Service contributions. We are dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister and we intend to carry our dissatisfaction into the Division Lobby.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I found it difficult to follow the reply given by the hon. Gentleman. He said, in effect, that this was not the time to help the weak. That is a peculiar attitude of mind. I should have thought any time was a good time to help the weak.
Mr. S. Silverman: Or no time.
Mr. Willis: I should have thought any time was a good time to help the weak, even in a Bill dealing with the National Health Service contributions, and even in the manner suggested by the Amendment. Then the hon. Gentleman argued that there were verious ways of paying for the National Health Service. He said we paid part of it through our taxation, part through charges, part through our contributions. He said that through taxation wealthy people paid more than others, and he agreed that that was right. But surely the logic of that is to apply the principle of the Amendment.
If the principle which he accepted is correct, namely, that the well-to-do should pay more than poorer people, what is the reason for objecting to the Amendment when all that the Amendment does is to say that the contribution to be paid by poorer people, those with less than £10 a week, will be 6d. less than that paid by others? Obviously, that additional 6d. will be found through national taxation. How does he accept that as an argument against our Amendment? The case which he made was a

339
case for the acceptance of the Amendment, not for its rejection.
The hon. Gentleman said that to try to amend a provision in a Schedule was not good enough. It is good enough to amend a Bill in any respect, if the position happens to be the right one and the Schedule is the only part of the Bill wherein to deal with the exact amount of the contribution. Surely the hon. Member does not believe that he persuades many people of the soundness of his arguments in this manner.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Amendment is an endeavour to get something after we have lost the main principle. It is an endeavour to salvage something. It is a method of saying that we have not been successful in impressing upon the Government the strength of our case that there should have been no increase, but that we will endeavour to save the poorest people from the worst effects of the Bill. That is a good thing to do. What is wrong with trying to do that?
The Government themselves ought to have done that. If the function of government is to protect the weak, the Government and not the Opposition should have taken this step. Of course, the function of the present Government is not to protect the weak, but to protect the well-to-do, the reverse of the function of government.
There are already several gradations in the Schedule, a number of provisions which appear to be contradictory. Why should an employed woman who gets the same wage as a man pay less? One could ask all sorts of questions about such anomalies. For a great many of these contradictions in the Schedule there is not much justification, but there is a greater justification for the acceptance of the series of Amendments which we have suggested.
There are many people who earn exceedingly small wages. Hon. Members opposite never seem to realise that 6d. matters to many people. Of course, it does not seem very much to hon. Members opposite. We appreciate that it is something outside their conception that one should have to struggle along and be worried to death at the end of the week because one does not have that additional 6d. That is wholly alien to the way of life of many hon. Members opposite, and I appreciate that they find it difficult to understand such a situation. However, it is important to many people, and it is those whom we want to protect from the worst effect of the Bill.
Having listened to the arguments, I cannot feel that the Government have had the better of the discussion, and I believe there is no justification for their decision.
Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 231.

Division No. 59.]

AYES

[8.40 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Champion, A. J.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Chapman, W. D.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Greenwood, Anthony

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Clunie, J.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Awbery, S. S.

Coldrick, W.

Grey, C. F.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Baird, J.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

Cove, W. G.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Benson, Sir George

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Beswick, Frank

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

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

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hastings, S.

Blackburn, F.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hayman, F. H.

Blenkinsop, A.

Deer, G.

Healey, Denis

Blyton, W. R.

Delargy, H. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Boardman, H.

Diamond, John

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.

Dodde, N. N.

Holmes, Horace

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

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

Houghton, Douglas

Bowles, F. G.

Dye, S.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Boyd, T. C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)

Hunter, A. E.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Burke, W. A.

Fernyhough, E.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Finch, H. J.

Irvine. A. J. (Edge Hill)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Fletcher, Eric

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Carmichael, J.

Foot, D. M.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Janner, B.

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

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Mort, D. L.

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

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

Moss, R.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Moyle, A.

Sorensen, R. W.

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

Mulley, F. W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Sparks, J. A.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Steele, T.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Oliver, G, H.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Oswald, T.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Kenyon, C.

Owen, W. J.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

Sylvester, G. O.

King, Dr. H. M.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Ledger, R. J.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Pargiter, G. A.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Parker, J.

Tomney, F.

Lewis, Arthur

Paton, John

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Lindgren, G. S.

Pentland, N.

Viant, S. P.

Lipton, Marcus

Popplewell, E.

Watkins, T. E.

Logan, D. G.

Prentice, R. E.

Weitzman, D.

McCann, J.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

MacColl, J. E.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

West, D. G.

MacDermot, Niall

Probert, A. R.

Wheeldon, W. E.

McGhee, H. G.

Proctor, W. T.

Wilkins, W. A.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Randall, H. E.

Willey, Frederick

McLeavy, Frank

Rankin, John

Williams, David (Neath)

MacMillan, M, K. (Western Isles)

Redhead, E. C.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Reeves, J.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

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

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Winterbottom, Richard

Mason, Roy

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mellish, R. J.

Ross, William

Woof, R. E.

Messer, Sir F.

Royle, C.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Mikardo, Ian

Short, E. W.

Zilliacus, K.

Mitchison, G. R.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Moody, A. S.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

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

Aitken, W. T.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Alport, C. J. M.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Currie, G. B. H.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Arbuthnot, John

Davidson, Viscountess

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Armstrong, C. W.

Deedes, W. F.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Ashton, H.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

Atkins, H. E.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Holt, A. F.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hornby, R. P.

Baldwin, A. E.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Barber, Anthony

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

Horobin, Sir Ian

Barlow, Sir John

Duncan, Sir James

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Barter, John

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

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

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Errington, Sir Eric

Hurd, A. R.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Fisher, Nigel

Hyde, Montgomery

Bingham, R. M.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Iremonger, T. L.

Bishop, F. P.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdale)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Body, R. F.

Freeth, Denzil

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Boothby, Sir Robert

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Gammans, Lady

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Boyle, Sir Edward

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

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

Glover, D,

Kaberry, D.

Brooman-White, R, C.

Godber, J. B.

Keegan, D.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Goodhart, Philip

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Bryan, P.

Gower, H. R.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Graham, Sir Fergus

Kimball, M.

Carr, Robert

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

Kirk, P. M.

Cary, Sir Robert

Green, A.

Lagden, G. W.

Channon, Sir Henry

Grimond, J.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Leavey, J. A.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Leburn, W. G.

Cole, Norman

Gurden, Harold

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

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Cooke, Robert

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Harrison, A. B, C. (Maldon)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Linstead, Sir H. N.

342

343

Llewellyn, D. T.

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

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

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

Osborne, C.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Longden, Gilbert

Page, R. G.

Storey, S.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &Chiswick)

Partridge, E.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Peel, W. J.

Summers, Sir Spencer

McAdden, S. J.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

McKibbin, Alan

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Teeling, W.

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Pott, H. P.

Temple, John M.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Powell, J. Enoch

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Maddan, Martin

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

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

Ramsden, J. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Rawlinson, Peter

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Redmayne, M.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Rees-Davies, w. R.

Vane, W. M. F.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Marshall, Douglas

Rippon, A. G. F.

Wade, D. W.

Mathew, R.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Maude, Angus

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Mawby, R. L.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

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

Roper, Sir Harold

Wall, Patrick

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Sharpies, R. C.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Neave, Airey

Shepherd, William

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Nicholls, Harmar

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Wood, Hon. R.

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

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Woollam, John Victor

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Speir, R. M.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Oakshott, H. D.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

Mr. Finlay.

8.45 p.m.
Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, column 2, to leave out "1s. 10½d." and to insert "1s. 5d."
The Chairman: This Amendment may be discussed with the Amendments on the next page of the Notice Paper, in line 14, column 2, to leave out "1s. 4½d." and to insert "1s. 1d.", and in line 15, column 2, to leave out "10½d." and to insert "9d.", both in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
Mr. Marquand: These Amendments relate entirely to the contribution now to be levied upon employed men and women. We find ourselves in the same difficulty as that explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that owing to the nature of the Ways and Means Resolution and the Title of the Bill we are unable to do what we should like to do, namely, to eliminate altogether the increased contributions.
Therefore, we propose by our Amendment to leave in the minimum increase possible. We have already explained very fully, in the debates on the Ways and Means Resolution and on the Second Reading, our objection to this increased contribution. Whatever case might have been made out for the contributions which were instituted five months ago, the Com
344
mittee has now no idea what the shape of the Budget is to be, whether a large surplus will be shown or not, or what the estimates are of the yield of Income Tax and Surtax in the coming year. Therefore it is very wrong of the Government to propose to levy an increased contribution upon wage earners, and a flat rate contribution, to which we have already expressed our objection.
There is no additional argument which I can advance at this stage. We have already gone very fully over all the arguments. When we come to a later stage of the Bill and to other classes of contributors, including the ordinary employed contributor, different considerations may apply and they will be in some respects new matter for our consideration. The present examples fall squarely within the two previous debates that we have had, so I do not propose to weary the Committee by making a long speech. I doubt whether any of my hon. Friends will feel that it is necessary to say very much at this stage.
We must however register in the Division Lobby our dislike of the proposed increased contribution. We need not let this occasion pass without saying that we object to the increase just as strongly as before, as we said in our Second Reading and Financial Resolution speeches. I

345
will reserve any further remarks about any particular rates of contribution for later stages of the Bill.
The Chairman: My suggestion was that we should discuss these three Amendments together. When we come to the next two in due course they will not be further discussed, but there could be a Division if wanted.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has been very frank about these Amendments. He has explained to the Committee that he has formulated them in this way in order, within the bounds of order and the limitations imposed by the Ways and Means Resolution and the passage of the Second Reading, to undo as nearly as possible the main purpose of the Bill. The adjustment proposed, which in effect is to limit the increases to only ½d. above the existing level, is obviously derisory and one which no Government would bring forward in a Bill.
There are two main reasons why these Amendments are totally unacceptable. The first is that they would revolutionise by a side wind the traditional pattern of contribution as between employer and employee, and the second is that they take away most of the financial gain to the Exchequer which the Bill is designed to achieve. The pattern of contribution between employer and employee is broadly derived from Beveridge and has been consistently followed up to date in the history of these contributions. Out of the original total of 10d. the employer's share was 1½d. The 1957 Act brought the total contribution to 1s. 8d. with the employer's share as 3½d. Under this Bill the proposed total will be 2s. 4d. with the employer's share 5½d. There has been a reasonably consistent ratio of one to four which the adoption of these Amendments would reverse and make a ratio of four to one for the increase. By a side wind incidental to Amendments like this we obviously could not revolutionise the whole pattern of contributions.
The other main difficulty is the very large diminution in the amount of money which would come to the Exchequer in relief of Exchequer liability. As the Committee knows, the Bill is designed to secure £24 million in the current
346
financial year. If these Amendments, and certain others which are to be discussed, were all adopted, that £24 million would be reduced to £9 million, which is not enough for the purpose we have in mind.
In any event it would not be a net figure because we should have a much larger proportion coming from the employer than at present. The employer's contribution is subject to a double adjustment in order to reduce the gross figure to a net figure. The double adjustment arises from the facts, first, that commercial employers are eligible for tax relief in respect of their contributions and, secondly, that the Government are themselves considerable employers. For both reasons there is on my calculations a substantial reduction from the gross figure of £9 million, itself inadequate, which would be left if these Amendments were accepted.
Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman now telling us that, in addition to rigging the Budget and giving us this extra budgetary taxation, the Government have adjusted the employer's contribution to what they think employers can afford to pay?
Mr. Walker-Smith: No. As I have already pointed out, although the hon. Member must have been listening with less than his usual careful attention, in the Bill the employer's contribution has followed the traditional pattern.
With adjustments for the halfpennies and so on, it has followed the pattern that we inherited from the original Beveridge concept, and we reproduced it in the 1957 Act, and in this Bill. As I say, this proposal would leave the ratio of the employers' contribution to that of the employees' at four to one, which is unrealistic in the context of a Bill like this, which is concerned with only a relatively modest increase.
I think, Sir Charles, as is clear even from what the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that these Amendments are not practical, and not really in keeping with the purpose of the Bill. It will, therefore, be no surprise to him when I say that I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject them.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Prentice: Of the Amendments now before us, I should like to speak briefly on that relating to employed

347
boys and girls under 18. Throughout the debates on the Bill, our purpose on this side has been to draw attention to those groups likely to suffer the greatest hardship from the imposition of the new rates of contribution, but the concentration all the time has, naturally, been upon the older men and women, and the young people under 18 have not, so far as I know, been mentioned at all at any stage.
There are one or two special points in relation to them that ought to be made. For them, as for the others, this Bill is simply one of a series that has increased their weekly payments. Early last summer, the weekly National Insurance contribution of a boy under 18 was 3s. 11d. It was increased by 4d. last year, when the National Health Service contribution was imposed. It was increased by another 1s. at the end of January by the National Insurance Act. This Bill increases it by a further 2d., bringing the total to 5s. 5d. That is an added 1s. 6d. a week, which is a big increase in relation to their earnings. During the same period, the contribution required of a girl under 18 has risen from 3s. 3d. to 4s. 8d. a week.
It is often said in these days that young people of that age are earning good wages. It is sometimes suggested that they are earning more than they know what to do with, but if there is any truth in that about any of them it is not true of very large numbers of young people now out at work. There are two categories of these young people. There are those who are postponing the expectation of earning good wages in order to train at a craft or professsion. An obvious example is the craft apprentice. Perhaps, with my surname, I should here declare an interest in apprenticeships, but, seriously, young men or young women who take up an apprenticeship are postponing their chance of earning good wages, and are consequently bringing home relatively poor money during that time.
A recent report issued by a sub-committee of the National Joint Advisory Council for Industry stressed the need in most British industries for larger numbers of apprentices during the coming years. It said that this would depend on young people being willing to take
348
apprenticeships, and also on their staying the course so that they did not give up during their training. Young people in this position are reminded every day that their friends are earning higher wages in jobs requiring less skill, and they are tempted to abandon the harder course of apprenticeship.
The same applies to young people articled to a profession, and postponing their chance of earning higher salaries. At the same time, we all agree that it is necessary that they should train, and should develop their skill both for their own sake and for that of the community. The nation needs their skill. If one says to a boy of 16 or 17 years of age, "You will be earning good money at 25," that seems a very long time ahead. At that age, every year seems very much longer than it does later in life. We ought not, therefore, as a community, to impose a extra disincentive on these young people. We ought not to reduce further the pay they take home at the end of each week.
The other category are those young people aged, perhaps, 16 or 17, who have adult dependents. They are a minority, of course, because most young people of that age, after paying something for their keep, have what is left over for pocket money; but there are some who, even at that early age, have a serious responsibility in caring for adult dependents.
A few years ago, there was a boy who worked in the office where I was working—he was, in fact, my junior—and, though only 16, he had a widowed mother to support. Her health was not good enough to permit her to go out to work, and that boy used to put nearly all his small earnings into the family budget. Every penny meant something to him. He was often in the position of needing to borrow 2d. a couple of days before pay day, and that sort of thing. To increase the contribution on a flat-rate basis so that it affects young people in these positions of responsibility is really most unfair. It increases their difficulties compared with other young people of similar age who have more money to spend.
Our case against the Bill is that it creates hardship for many categories of people, and I hope that I have reminded the Committee that, among them, are

349
included young people under eighteen years of age.
Mr. Mellish: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). We shall, of course, soon have a Labour Government in power, and we shall introduce our own national superannuation proposals which will wipe away the sort of problems that we are discussing tonight. Our proposals, Sir John, will be based on individual contributions related to people's earnings. These present flat-rate proposals, on the other hand, as my hon. Friend has said, create many anomalies. Although the increases may seem small, the actual amount paid by many families as their share of the contribution for National Insurance is very large indeed.
In my constituency, Sir John, not very high wages are earned. Although, according to newspapers like the Daily Express, high wages are supposed to be earned, it just is not so. There are many people there who work in general factories in which the basic rates are very low, and there is little or no chance of earning overtime. One case came to my notice quite recently. The man's income was £8 10s. a week. The income of his wife was £5 a week, and the income of his son was £2 8s. The total income of that household sounds very high—£15 18s.—but, as a matter of fact, there are dependents, also, an elderly mother and father to be cared for. What do those three people pay by way of insurance contributions?
Under this Bill, the husband pays 9s. 11d. a week, the wife pays 8s. a week, and the son pays 5s. 5d., a total of £14s. 4d. a week deducted from their income for National Insurance contributions. Breaking it down even further, their contribution towards the Health Service is 1s. 10½d. for the man, 1s. 4½d. for the woman, 10½d. for the boy. Their total contribution every week towards the Health Service, therefore, is 4s. 1½d. Where it is so unfair is that, by contrast, to take my own personal case, for instance, my income is a great deal more than the whole of that family's income, yet I do not pay as much as they pay in contributions. The income coming into my family is that much higher. This is the kind of anomaly which makes us
350
feel so strongly about increases on the flat-rate basis applied by the Government. It is not just a matter of party politics.
I should not mind so much if people were going to get real value for money at the end of the day for their 4s. 1½d., or whatever it may be, which is paid as their part of the contribution to the Health Service. I have said it again and again. The Minister keeps shaking his head in disagreement, but I assure him that I am right and he is wrong. I know about these things, but he spends his time in an office being advised only of what is going on. This year, the National Health Service will be cut; the services provided for people will not be as good as they were, and development and improvements will come to a complete standstill. Here there is, on the one hand, an increase in contribution to make what appears to be a better Service and, on the other, a definite cut in that Service so that people paying this money will not even get value for the money that they are paying in.
Not long ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour set up a committee of which he was chairman. He submitted a unanimous report, which I read. It spoke about the problems of young people and the fact that in a few years' time there will be large numbers of youngsters coming on to the labour market. The longer the Government stay in power—I do not know how long this crowd will stay in; I suppose they will stay to the bitter end—the worse the problems of these youngsters will become. Young people leaving school will have a hard enough job to get employment while this Government are in power, producing more unemployment without, at the same time, slapping extra money on to their contribution.
There is a great deal of validity in this Amendment. It is no good the Minister saying that it is ludicrous and that he could not accept it because it is ludicrous. It is just and right that it should be accepted, although I know that hon. Members opposite will stroll into the Lobby and vote against it. All the years that the Government have been in power we on this side have been in the winning Lobby only once, and that was on capital punishment. But I had better not go into that, because I know that I shall be out of order.

351
This is a legitimate Amendment and it ought to be accepted on the financial grounds that I have mentioned. Although we keep talking in terms of a 4d. or a 6d., it is an added burden to an already large contribution being made by these people to the Health Service generally.
Mr. W. Griffiths: I wish the Minister would not keep giving us this nauseating humbug about the Beveridge Report and saying that the component in the contribution is the same as that recommended by Beveridge. That is not the fact.
In the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred, the people who are making a contribution in that house are also keeping certain dependents. As a result of legislation passed by the Government, those dependents, if they fall ill, have to pay a prescription charge. If the old man were a cripple he would either have to pay for a surgical boot or for its repair. If there were need for other benefits from the National Health Service—if, for example, a member of the family had to have dental treatment—they would have to pay for it because of the actions of the Government. At least the Beveridge conception was not one which conceived of a whole range of charges. The Minister and his supporters keep concealing the reality of the matter, which is that, in addition to making them pay more, he is also a member of a Government which has inflicted charges upon the sick and which perpetuates them. It is not right to ride away and talk about the Beveridge contribution——
Mr. Walker-Smith: My reference to the Beveridge Report in the context of this debate was on the pattern of the contribution between the employer and the employee, respectively, I would certainly join issue with the hon. Gentleman's remarks in a much wider context, but they in no way arise out of what I have said in this debate.
Mr. Griffiths: They are very much present in the minds of my hon. Friends. Having opposed the Bill on Second Reading, all that the Opposition are trying, quite properly, to do now, seized as they are with the enormity of the inflictions on the sick, for which the Minister and hon. Members opposite are responsible, is to get a minor mitigation. That is a perfectly proper Parliamentary exercise.
352
9.15 p.m.
We should be failing in our duty if we did not remind the Committee about the humbug of this constant reference to the balance between the employers' and employees' contributions, as conceived by Lord Beveridge in the context of a free Health Service. It no longer is free. Therefore, we have to bear in mind the way in which the increase affects a family such as that referred to by my hon. Friend. We put aside the argument about the raising of money for the National Health Service for the time being. We say that even though the House decided on Second Reading to approach the raising of revenue for the National Health Service in this way, bearing in mind the burdens upon certain families caused by the charges levied upon the sick it is right to seek to minimise the effects of the burden of increased contributions falling upon certain special sections of the community.
The Government are obviously exposed to the charge of not knowing the size of the problem involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, it is only a few months ago that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends brought forward a Bill with a series of other charges. They have now produced this one, which seeks to raise £24 million this year and about £32 million in a full year. It just will not do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey is right to protest on behalf of his constituents and say that, quite apart from the unfair way in which the incidence of these contributions is levied, his constituents are not getting value for money. I prophesy that the Minister will not get away with this attempt to derive a sufficient amount of revenue for the National Health Service. He will be back again asking for a further contribution, or he will be faced—as we told him that he would be last year—with an increasing decay of the Service. I hope that even now hon. Members will think it proper to accept the Amendment, which will at least remove some of the burdens from people who cannot afford to bear them.
Mr. Houghton: What we have missed most in the debate is a speech from the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). The real purpose of

353
this Amendment and those associated with it is to get the right hon. Gentleman back into the Cabinet. We believe that it is because of this Bill that he went out. We are still plugging away at right hon. Members opposite, trying to discover the truth about his departure. The Bill is the outcome of those Cabinet differences, and it would be interesting to know whether the real complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is that the rest of his colleagues were proposing to cheat him of real economies in Government expenditure.
This series of Amendments reduced the increased contributions to a halfpenny. We intended to reduce them to a derisory amount. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) condemned an earlier Amendment on the grounds that it was a wrecking Amendment. It ill becomes hon. Members opposite to condemn Amendments because they are wrecking Amendments; they have moved plenty in their time. Of course this is a wrecking Amendment. Hon. Members opposite realise the difficulties within which we work in trying to defeat a Bill. We are entitled to use every device available to us to obstruct or wreck a Bill with which we disagree. That is an acknowledged part of the duties of Her Majesty's Opposition, and there are no greater past-masters in the art than hon. Members opposite. At least we have not said that we are going to harry the Government night and day and keep them all out of their beds on matters of this kind. We behave rationally and reasonably in our attempts to obstruct and postpone the operation of this Bill.
What is really nauseating about the whole attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that one of these days fairly soon, much of what has been said on this Bill and on its predecessor will have to be unsaid. I believe that the time is rapidly approaching when any Government will have to consider a fundamental change in their approach to financing the social services. The Financial Secretary in reply to an earlier Amendment said that the Government are considering this whole question of financing the social services. It seems a great pity that the Government are changing the existing scheme by increasing the flat rate contributions when they know that they will have to call a halt and change the system.
354
Most people think that the time to call a halt is now, before the Bill is passed, and to consider alternative means. Graduated contributions, of course, are not the only means of financing this and other social services. Other countries have such things as pay roll taxes. Some countries have no contribution from the worker whatever. There is a tax on the wages paid by the employer, and that is taken into account when he is arranging the financing of his business and considering the costs of production.
There are other choices which are open to the Government in their study of the problem. I see that The Times on 24th February said:
"The flat-rate system imposes obvious limits on the possibility of social financing by extra-budgetary means."
That is quite true, though a sinister note is struck in another part of the leading article which suggests that by changing over to a graduated system of contributions it will make it easier for the Government to shuffle more of the expenditure from general taxation to direct contributions. We on these benches would not support a system of graduated contributions which became an abuse of the whole principle of contributions.
Of course, the main criticism of the National Health Service contribution is that it cannot be related to benefits and, therefore, it can be at any level and it can always be said that it is not too high; it can always be said that nobody is paying too much because there is no direct relationship between the contribution and the benefits. That is the mischief of this thing. The Government can stick another 6d. on in a month's time or so, and another 6d. after that. The slogan of the Government will be. "Another little 6d. won't do us any harm."
It is not until the cumulative effects of these things are noticed that we see where we are going. On the principal Measure I moved an Amendment which left the whole of the Bill intact except the money. It took all the money out of the Bill and left the rest without Amendment. That looked pretty good from this side of the Committee, but the Minister made the same complaint, that we had left him without the money. The intention is to leave him without the

355
money. Let there be no doubt about that.
We want to send the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his colleagues in the Cabinet with the message that if they are going to economise they must do it honestly and properly in full view
of the public and not cheat them in this way. That is all I can say on behalf of the right hon. Member for Monmouth.
Question put, That "1s. 10½d." stand part of the Schedule:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 224, Noes 185.

Division No. 60.]

AYES

[9.25 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Aitken, W. T.

Glover, D.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Alport, C. J. M.

Godber, J. B.

Maddan, Martin

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Goodhart, Philip

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Gower, H. R.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Arnuthnot, John

Graham, Sir Fergus

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R,

Armstrong, C. W.

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

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Ashton, H.

Green, A.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Atkins, H. E.

Grimond, J.

Marshall, Douglas

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Mathew, R.

Baldwin, A. E.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Maude, Angus

Barber, Anthony

Gurden, Harold

Mawby, R. L.

Barlow, Sir John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Barter, John

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

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

Nairn, D. L. S.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Neave, Airey

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nicholls, Harmar

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Bingham, R. M.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Bishop, F. P.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Oakshott, H. D.

Body, R. F.

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

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

Boothby, Sir Robert

Holt, A. F.

Osborne, C.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Hornby, R. P.

Page, R. G.

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

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Horobin, Sir Ian

Partridge, E.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Peel, W. J.

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

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Browne, J, Nixon (Craigton)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Bryan, P.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hurd, A. R.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Carr, Robert

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

Pott, H. P.

Gary, Sir Robert

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Powell, J. Enoch

Charmon, Sir Henry

Iremonger, T. L.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Ramsden, J. E.

Cole, Norman

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Rawlinson, Peter

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Redmayne, M.

Cooke, Robert

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ridsdale, J. E.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Rippon, A. G. F.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Kaberry, D.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Keegan, D.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Roper, Sir Harold

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Kimball, M.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Currie, G. B.H.

Kirk, P. M.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lagden, G. W.

Sharples, R. C.

Deedes, W. F.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Shepherd, William

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Leather, E. H. C.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Leavey, J. A.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Doughty, C. J. A.

Leburn, W. C.

Speir, R, M.

du Cann, E. D. L.

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

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

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Duncan, Sir James

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

Stevens, Geoffrey

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

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

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Storey, S.

Errington, Sir Eric

Llewellyn, D. T.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Finlay, Graeme

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

Studholme, Sir Henry

Fisher, Nigel

Longden, Gilbert

Summers, Sir Spencer

Fletcher Cooke, C

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Freeth, Denzil

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Teeling, W.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McKibbin, Alan

Temple, John M.

Gammans, Lady

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Wood, Hon. R.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Wall, Patriok

Woollam, John Victor

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Vickers, Miss Joan

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wade, D. W.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

Mr. Brooman-White.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oswald, T.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Owen, W. J.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hastings, S.

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

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hayman, F. H.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Awbery, S. S.

Healey, Denis

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Herbison, Miss M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Baird, J.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Parker, J.

Balfour, A.

Holmes, Horace

Paton, John

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

Houghton, Douglas

Pentland, N.

Benson, Sir George

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Popplewell, E.

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

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Prentice, R. E.

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Blenkinsop, A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Blyton, W. R.

Hunter, A. E.

Probert, A. R.

Boardman, H.

Hynn, H. (Accrington)

Proctor, W. T.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Randall, H. E.

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

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Rankin, John

Bowles, F. G.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Redhead, E. C.

Boyd, T. C.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Janner, B.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

Ross, William

Burke, W. A.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Royle, C.

Burton, Miss F. E.

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

Short, E. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Carmichael, J.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Skeffington, A. M.

Champion, A. J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

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

Chapman, W. D.

Kenyon, C.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Clunie, J.

King, Dr. H. M.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Coldrick, W.

Ledger, R, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Steele, T.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Cove, W. G.

Lewis, Arthur

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lindgren, G. S.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lipton, Marcus

Sylvester, G. O.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Logan, D. G.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McCann, J.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Deer, G.

MacColl, J. E.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Delargy, H. J.

MacDermot, Niall

Tomney, F.

Diamond, John

McGhee, H. G.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Dodds, N. N.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Viant, S. P.

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

McLeavy, Frank

Watkins, T. E.

Dye, S.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Weitzman, D.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

West, D. G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mason, Roy

Wilkins, W. A.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mellish, R. J.

Willey, Frederick

Fernyhough, E.

Mikardo, Ian

Williams, David (Neath)

Finch, H. J.

Mitchiton, G. R.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Fletcher, Eric

Moody, A. S.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Foot, D. M.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mort, D. L.

Winterbottom, Richard

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Moss, R.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Moyle, A.

Woof, R. E.

Greenwood, Anthony

Mulley, F. W.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Grey, C. F.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Zilliacus, K.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Oliver, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 12, column 1, leave out "65" and insert "60".—[Mr. Marquand.]
Question put, That "65" stand part of the Schedule:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 226, Noes 183.

Division No. 61.]

AYES

[9.35 p.m

Agnew, Sir Peter

Green, A.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Aitken, W. T,

Grimond, J.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Alport, C. J. M.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Neave, Airey

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Nicholls, Harmar

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Gurden, Harold

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Arbuthnot, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Ashton, H.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Atkins, H. E.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Oakshott, H. D.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

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

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

Baldwin, A. E.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Osborne, C.

Barber, Anthony

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Page, R. G.

Barlow, Sir John

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Barter, John

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Partridge, E.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Peel, W.J.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Hirst, Geoffrey

Peyton, J. W. W.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

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

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Holt, A. F.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hornby, R. P.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Bingham, R. M.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pott, H. P.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Horobin, Sir Ian

Powell, J. Enoch

Bishop, F. P.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Body, R. F.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Ramsden, J. E.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Rawlinson, Peter

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

Hurd, A. R.

Redmayne, M.

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Ridsdale, J. E.

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

Iremonger, T. L.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Bryan, P.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Carr, Robert

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Roper, Sir Harold

Cary, Sir Robert

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Channon, Sir Henry

Joseph, Sir Keith

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Sharples, R. C.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Kaberry, D.

Shepherd, William

Cole, Norman

Keegan, D

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Cooke, Robert

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Speir, R. M.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Kimball, M.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Kirk, P. M.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Lagden, C. W.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lancaster, Col. C. C.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Leather, E. H. C.

Storey, S.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Leavey, J. A.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwoortl

Leburn, W. G.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Currie, G. B. H.

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

Summers, Sir Spencer

Davidson, Viscountes

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Deedes, W. F.

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

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Teeling, W.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Temple, John M.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

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

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

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Duncan, Sir James

Longden, Gilbert

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

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

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

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Errington, Sir Eric

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Vane, W. M. F.

Finlay, Graeme

McKibbin, Alan

Vickers, Miss Joan

Fisher, Nigel

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Wade, D. W.

Ftetcher-Cooke, C.

Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Freeth, Denzil

Maddan, Martin

Wall, Patrick

Calbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

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

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

Gammans, Lady

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Glover, D.

Marshall, Douglas

Wood, Hon. R.

Godber, J. B.

Mathew, R.

Woollam, John Victor

Goodhart, Philip

Maude, Angus

Gower, H. R.

Mawby, R. L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

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

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Mr. Brooman-White

360

361

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Oliver, G. H.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oswald, T.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Owen, W. J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hastings, S.

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

Awbery, S. S.

Hayman, F. H.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Healey, Denis

Panned, Charles (Leeds W.)

Baird, J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Balfour, A.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Parker, J.

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

Holmes, Horace

Paton, John

Benson, Sir George

Houghton, Douglas

Pentland, N.

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

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Popplewell, E.

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Prentice, R. E.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Price, J. T. (Westhoushton)

Blyton, W. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, w.)

Boardman, H.

Hunter, A. E.

Probert, A. R.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. S.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Proctor, W. T.

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

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Randall, H. E.

Bowles, F. G.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Rankin, John

Boyd, T. C.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Redhead, E. C.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Janner, B.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Ross, William

Burke, W. A.

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

Royle, C.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Short, E. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)

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

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Carmichael, J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Champion, A. J.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

Chapman, W. D.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Chetwynd C. R.

Kenyon, C.

Sorensen, R. W.

Clunie, J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Coldrick, W.

King, Dr. H. M.

Sparks, J. A.

Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Ledger, R. J.

Steele, T.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Cove, W. G.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lewis, Arthur

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lindgren, G. S,

Sylvester, G. O.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lipton, Marcus

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Logan, D. G.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Deer, G.

McCann, J,

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Delargy, H. J.

MacColl, J. E.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Diamond, John

MacDermot, Niall

Viant, S. P.

Dodds, N. N.

McGhee, H. G.

Watkins, T. E.

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

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Weitzman, D.

Dye, S.

McLeavy, Frank

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

West, D. G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Wilkins, W. A.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Willey, Frederick

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mason, Roy

Williams, David (Neath)

Fernyhough, E.

Mellish, R. J.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Finch, H. J.

Mikardo, Ian

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Fletcher, Eric

Mitchison, G. R.

Willis, Eustace, (Edinburgh, E.)

Foot, D. M.

Moody, A. S.

Winterbottom, Richard

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Mort, D. L.

Woof, R. E.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Moss, R.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Greenwood, Anthony

Moyle, A.

Zilliacus, K.

Grey, C. F.

Mulley, F. W.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. S. Duthie): If the Committee so desires——
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. I feel that I owe you a personal apology, Mr. Duthie. In the discussion on the last group of Amendments, I kept referring to you as "Sir John." In the first place, John was wrong, and, secondly, you are not knighted. I took
362
it for granted that all Chairmen were knights. I do apologise.
The Temporary Chairman: If the Committee so desires, I will put the Question on the next Amendment for the purpose of a Division.
Mr. Marquand: I do not think that we need delay the Committee, Mr. Duthie. We have expressed our opinion already.
9.45 p.m.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, column 1, after "including", to insert "widows and".
Of all groups, the widows have been the most neglected. No body of people has been so consistently forgotten. I am not alone in making this statement. It is reinforced by the observations of the Commission of Inquiry. There is no pressure group for widows. They are far too tired and worn and hardworked to go out to enlist support and to form organisations; very much in contrast with other heavy pressure groups. The result is that they are maltreated.
Consider those engaged in occupations which bring in a reasonable salary. Many such women were working when their husbands died. They found then that they had the children to support and the household, clothing and boot and shoe expenses to meet out of their earnings, from which the Income Tax man took £250 straight away. While their husbands were living the husband and wife allowance was received. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can knit his brows as much as he likes, but I know what I am talking about—it is happening to me at the moment. On the death of the husband, the allowance of £250 is swept away and the widow is left to struggle along on a single woman's Income Tax allowance of £140.
That is the fate of the prosperous widow. There is also the poorer widow who receives what is known as the widowed mother's allowance. It is bad enough for mothers with children, but it is much worse when the mother is also a widow and has to cope with household expenses and the need to satisfy young appetites which eat the plates empty day after day. And as soon as her earnings exceed £3 the "docking" process starts again.
One of the greatest scandals of our present administration is the 10s. widow. Reason after reason has been given for the anomaly of the 10s. widow, but if we examine these reasons we find that they are not reasons, but excuses.
The last time I brought this matter up was 11th November, when I queried why the 10s. widow should be asked to pay 2s. extra to increase the pensions of other women who were getting £2 10s. The
364
reply I got was that the great majority of these ladies were getting 10s. whereas their opposite numbers under National Health Insurance received no pension at all. I got that reply from the Minister of Pensions.
The Minister of Pensions is an honourable man; like Brutus, he is an honourable man but he was far from right. A breakdown of the figures shows that, of the 120,000 widows on 10s., 3,000 are under 40 and have got into the position of having something if they are childless while their opposite numbers who are childless get nothing. There are 27,000 women between the ages of 40 and 50. There is the answer; 30,000 women under 50. Their opposite numbers get nothing at all. To say that an able-bodied woman, even if she is widowed, is far better working and that she should not think that she can hang back on a pension for all time, is a principle to which I would not object, but the right hon. Gentleman was completely wrong when he said that the great majority of these ladies were getting only 10s.
There are 90,000 between the ages of 50 and 60 years of age; 90 to 30 is not the "great majority". What the Minister meant was that the great majority were being maltreated. I asked him to give me the number of widows between 50 and 60 who were getting 50s. His reply was noted by the Press and by other widows. I received any amount of letters, and so, I am sure, did the Minister, from widows between 50 and 60 who said that it was not true and that they knew other widows of 50 with children who were getting the full 50s.
I inquired into this matter and I was told that I just did not understand. How could I, a mere back bencher, follow the logical reasoning of the giant brain on the Government Front Bench? It would appear that the widow who gets 10s. gets it because her husband died under the wrong scheme. The widows of husbands who died under a different scheme get 50s. I do not know if Naughton and Gold made these rules. They seem to be the economics of the Crazy Gang, which is putting a very mild interpretation upon them. One widow may ask another, "How did your husband die?", and the answer may be, "I am sorry, I am going to be very poor, he died under the first scheme". The other widow

365
could say, "I was much more lucky; mine died under the second scheme."
Brigadier Terence Clarke: I asked exactly the same question as the hon. Lady is asking when her party was in power and got the same silly answers that she has received from our side of the Committee.
Mrs. Mann: I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member. I know he did, and I followed his questions closely. When I began my speech I did not exclude either Front Bench. I have my own trouble, and I hope I have the sympathy of the hon. and gallant Member; I hope also that I will have his vote, because, tonight, we are faced with the position that the 10s. widow has not only had to pay that extra 2s. to allow the other widow to draw five times as much, but soon the poor thing will be paying the whole of the 10s. Why should a widow of 51 draw £2 10s. and a widow of 59 draw 10s.? The older widow has to go back into industry to compete with women half her age. Her struggle to get a job is double that of the younger woman. The widow of 51 has five times more on her contribution than the 10s. widow.
Both sides of the House have treated these women scandalously. The Committee should think about its past sins and try to redeem them by not imposing another penny on the contributions of widows.
Dr. King: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) on the very moving plea she has made on behalf of widows. I hope that other hon. Ladies present will join in that plea as the debate proceeds.
This Amendment, like several others moved during the Committee stage, seeks to exempt from the scope of the new addition to the poll tax some worthy group. We hope that if we proceed long enough we may at last reach a group lowly, mean and humble enough for the Government not to want to take from them this extra 6d. Every hon. Member in the Committee who has attended these debates must by now have realised that even if the Bill imposes a fair burden on those who earn an average income, or above an average income, it imposes an
366
unfair burden on the poorer sections of the community.
If hon. Members opposite do not agree that it is an unfair burden, they certainly must agree that it imposes a heavier burden on the backs of the poor than on the backs of the rich. We object to that because we think it unjust. If that general statement is true, surely one of the poorest groups in the country is that for which we are pleading, the widows. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), I have repeatedly urged in the House the case of the 10s. widow and widows differentiated from others merely by the date on which their husbands died.
They get little or nothing from the State. They have to earn a very precarious and difficult living. They would benefit, at any rate, to the extent of 4d. a week if the Amendment were accepted. There is the widowed mother, carrying out the noblest job a woman can do in the community, against exceedingly great odds—especially those women, and I know many of them, who make infinite sacrifices to keep their children on at grammar schools after the school-leaving age. That group would benefit by this Amendment.
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie that both sides of the Committee have always treated unfairly the widow—as distinct from the widowed mother—who has to earn her living. Most of these women cannot hope to get anything like a worth-while job. The older they are when they have to start working—after bringing up a family and looking after a home—the more difficult it is. They do school meals, they work as home—helps, they do any unskilled work that nobody else who wants to make a career will accept.
These widows have to pay the full insurance charges out of their meagre income. Practically the whole of the 10s. that the State gives to the 10s. widow she hands back in what will now be her weekly contribution of 8s. a week. The standard widow's pension is 50s. a week, but to get this she must be over 50 when her husband dies. Therefore, we have many younger widows getting nothing at all after their children grow up; another and older group that gets 10s. a week if their late husbands were

367
National Health Insurance contributors and were married before July, 1948; and another group of still older widows who get nothing, because their husbands died quite a time ago, and were not contributors under the old National Health Insurance scheme.
As I have said, these women are doing drudgery jobs, and very often they cannot find jobs. If they earn over 50s. a week, they lose 6d. for each extra Is, they earn up to 70s., and, after that, a 1s. a week is taken off their pension for every Is, they earn. In the Second Reading debate the Minister made great play of the average earnings of our workers, but I submit that the group we are now discussing is earning only about half that average quoted by the Minister. If the majority of the Committee defends this new charge on those with an average income of about £12 a week, I ask for its pity and its generosity for those whose average income must be nearer £5 or £6, but who yet have to pay a full insurance contribution.
If we talk about the contribution going up merely by a few coppers, let us remember all those widows who, in the last twelve months, have faced weekly increases in their contributions from 5s. 6d. to the sum of—if this Bill goes through—8s. a week. I know that the Amendment will not gain much for them, but we are, as we were on earlier Amendments—though with even more force now—pleading for people to whom every penny means something. The recognition that this group of widows have a grim economic struggle on top of their bereavement is something that, I hope, we shall one day bring into the pattern of National Insurance. Tonight, at any rate, we can take a little step towards helping them by accepting this Amendment, as I hope the Minister will.
10.0 p.m.
Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) put the case very movingly, and I was heartened to hear some sympathetic interjections from the other side. We have tried in these various Amendments to bring to the attention of the Minister certain categories that we believe deserve special attention. So far, we have been unsuccessful. Now, we bring this category of worker—the widow—to his attention.
368
Although my hon. Friend talked about both the widow without children and the widow with children, it is the position of those widows with children that I particularly want to emphasise.
Such a woman is in a very difficult position. She has all kinds of problems. In the first place, she has lost her skill during the time she was married, so that, when her husband dies, she is almost certainly forced into an unskilled occupation or a routine job with very low pay. She has to find accommodation for her children. She has all the worrry and trouble of trying to look after them and arranging for their care while she is at work, which inevitably involves more expense. The good mother also tries to see that her children have, perhaps, a better opportunity than she herself had. The harassed widow is always wondering how she can save a little to help her children.
I remind the Committee of these details, and I am sure that all hon. Members, on both sides, realise the special position of such women. I ask the Minister as least to make this exception tonight, if he can make no other, and regard sympathetically our Amendment to except the widow.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): The effect of these two Amendments would be to reduce the contributions payable by employed widows from 1s. 4½d. weekly to 1s. 1d. I will not make any point about the additional stamps involved or the halfpennies in the pay packet; right hon. and hon. Members opposite know about those problems. The Amendment seeks, once again, to create a new category. In any national scheme, there are always arguments for exempting or giving preference to so many classes of citizens that, unless one takes a firm stand, the scheme can quickly cease to achieve its end.
I appreciate the sincerity with which the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) made her plea for consideration of the category to which she referred, but I am sure that she will agree that, if one is to have a national scheme, one must look very carefully before exempting certain categories, because one never knows where to draw the line.
Dr. Summerskill: Our Amendment shows where the line could be drawn.
Mr. Browne: I shall deal with the purpose of the Amendment. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) made a powerful case for special treatment for working widows. Many of us do not realise what a wonderful manager and brave partner we have until she becomes our widow, and then it is too late to show proper appreciation.
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman can show proper appreciation now.
Mr. Browne: That is exactly what I was going to say. It is too late to show proper appreciation. We must do that now.
I could, perhaps, make a case for widowers, especially those left with young children. But that case, too, would fall on deaf ears. We, as a nation, have accepted to the full the State's moral responsibility towards widows. They really have not been maltreated, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said. The House of Commons has not treated them scandalously. There is, I submit, no case under the Bill for treating them as a separate category in respect of Health Service contributions.
I will not deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie about excessive Income Tax. Although the debate on this Bill, of necessity, goes a little wide, I do not think that I can deal with that.
Mrs. Mann: Will the Joint Under-Secretary deal with the 90,000 widows between 50 and 60 years of age who receive only 10s.?
Mr. Browne: I will deal with the 10s. widow, if I may, in due time.
I would like to look at the position of the working widow. Let us ask ourselves whether she is so much less able to pay than spinsters and other working women that she needs special treatment. Consider the position of this widow. She usually has a home. She usually has her family allowances—[An HON. MEMBER: "And her rent has gone up."] That is another bill. If her husband has qualified for benefit, she receives the widow's allowance for 13 weeks. She receives the
370
widowed mother's allowance and something for the second child and other children.
If this widow is over 50 she receives her widow's pension, unless her children are still at school and she is treated as a widowed mother. If her husband died as a result of industrial injury, she has an alternative benefit which is more than her widow's pension. In all cases, when she goes to work—and we are talking about working widows—she has revenue coming in. She always has a little something extra under the earning rule if she has children. She can opt whether to pay contributions or not. These widows are surely no worse off than many of their sisters, and it would be wrong, in my view, to give them further preference.
Then there are the widows who, for one reason or another, do not qualify for any of the Welfare State benefits to which I have referred. The reason, as the Committee knows, is usually that they were widowed when they were young and childless.
Mr. S. Silverman: They made the mistake of being widowed too young.
Mr. Browne: I do not appreciate that interjection. The Welfare State has decided in broad terms that such widows, who are normally, but not wholly, younger women, should be treated as single women and should return to work alongside their unmarried sisters. To make a case for the Amendment in respect of those widows, one has to give good reasons why they should pay at a rate less than single women. I do not think that this case can be, or has been, made out.
Mrs. Mann: These women have to buy clothes for their children.
Mr. Browne: I have made the case in two parts. Widows with children receive the full benefits of the Welfare State. Widows without children are treated as single women at the expiry of the 13-week widow's allowance period. It has been rightly held by this House that that is so.
Mr. Popplewell: Before the Minister leaves the question of benefits, he did say that the widow could opt out of paying the full insurance stamp. What benefit does she get by paying the full

371
insurance stamp? He says that she can opt out and still get the benefits consequent upon her husband's past insurance contributions. What benefit does she receive by continuing to pay the full insurance stamp?
Mr. Browne: If she is a war widow she can get the retirement pension.
Mr. Popplewell: I am not referring to the war widow. I am referring to the ordinary widow.
Mr. Browne: If she does not pay, she does not receive any pension.
Mrs. Lena Jeger: Is it not the case that if the 10s. widow fails to pay her full contribution she therefore loses her rights to retirement pension? That is the main difficulty of the 10s. widow. To keep in benefit for retirement purposes she has to pay this excessive proportion.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Browne: I was coming to that point. The case of the 10s. widow has been discussed on numerous occasions. In the present Welfare State she is treated as an unmarried woman.
Mr. Popplewell: This is rather a technical point. It is said that if, when the widow reaches retirement age, she does not continue to pay the full amount of her insurance stamps, she loses her retirement pension. Does this refer to the increase which she would receive if she worked when she passed the age of 60? When she reaches that age she automatically receives the widows' benefit consequent upon her husband's past insurance.
Mr. Browne: If the widow was widowed when she was less than 50 she must earn her life pension herself.
I want to return to the case of the 10s. widow. She is treated as a single woman. Because her husband qualified her for 10s., she receives a pension of that amount which is not part of the scheme. It is clear that the case for the 10s. widow is weaker than that for the childless widow who does not qualify under the National Insurance scheme. The 10s. widow is 10s. better off than her sister, whose husband died after July, 1958, without having participated in the old contributory pensions scheme.
372
I think that I have answered all the points that have been raised. I can only recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Member has not answered my questions. Will he get in touch with his Department and let me have an answer to the points put forward?
Mr. Browne: Yes. It is a question of National Insurance and not health, but I will see that the hon. Member receives an answer.
Dr. Summerskill: I had hoped that on this occasion, when the whole Committee had shown sympathy with the widows, the Minister might have given way. I understand why he did not reply, but asked a younger colleague to do so. In view of what I consider to be an inhuman response, I ask the Committee to divide.
Mr. Mellish: I support what my hon. Friends have said. I should think that in my constituency more females are employed than in any other of its size. We know the problem involved. We have vast numbers of women whose husbands have been killed whilst at work—in the docks, for instance—or in the 1914–18 War. They have lived a wretched life under successive Conservative Governments. What they receive today is a pitiful amount, and most of them have to go to work in order to live in a condition of some decency.
To qualify for a pension in her own right a widow must pay 8s. a week in stamps, although she is paying for many benefits which she cannot receive. There is maternity benefit, for instance. A woman of fifty years of age is not likely to qualify for that. This 8s. is a tremendous hardship to these people.
We are back to the old argument. When a Labour Government returns to power they will introduce their national superannuation proposals, when people's pensions will be based upon what they earn and upon their conditions of employment. Such things will then really count.
It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak at the Dispatch Box without understanding what is going on. He has been asked some intelligent questions and does not

373
know the answer to any of them. Apparently all he is going to do now is to write a letter. To whom is he going to write? He had better write to all of us on this side of the Committee and not just to one of my hon. Friends who asked him some questions. We should all like to know whether the Minister makes any discoveries. I wonder what his colleagues who are supposed to advise him are doing.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "This case does not warrant special attention." This case does warrant special attention, for many widows have had a hard time and they are entitled to some relief today.
Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 169, Noes 214.

Division No. 62.]

AYES

[10.22 p.m

Ainsley, J. W.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Oswald, T.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hayman, F. H.

Owen, W. J.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Healey, Denis

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

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Herbison, Miss M.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Awbery, S. S.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Holmes, Horace

Pargiter, G. A.

Baird, J.

Houghton, Douglas

Parker, J.

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

Howell, Charles (Perry Bar)

Paton, John

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

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pentland, N.

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Popplewell, E.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Prentice, R. E.

Blyton, W. R.

Hunter, A. E.

Price J. T. (Westhoughton)

Boardman, H.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Bottomley, Bt. Hon. A. G.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Probert, A. R.

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

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Proctor, W. T.

Bowles, F. G.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Randall, H. E.

Boyd, T. C.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Rankin, John

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Janner, B.

Redhead, E. C.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

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

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Burke, W. A.

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Ross, William

Carmichael, J.

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

Short, E. W.

Champion, A. J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Clunie, J.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Coldrick, W.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Skeffington, A. M.

Collins, V. J, (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Kenyon, C.

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

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

King, Dr. H. M.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Cove, w. G.

Ledger, R. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Sparks, J. A.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lewis, Arthur

Steele, T.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lipton, Marcus

Stones, W. (Consett)

Deer, G.

Logan, D. G.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Delargy, H. J.

McCann, J.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Diamond, John

MacColl, J. E.

Sylvester, G. O.

Dodds, N. N.

MacDermot, Niall

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

McGhee, H. G.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Dye, S.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thomson, George (Dundee. E.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mainwaring, W H.

Watkins, T. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nest (Caerphilly)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Weitzman, D.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

West, D. G.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mason, Roy

Wheeldon, W. E.

Fernyhough, E.

Mellish, R. J.

Willey, Frederick

Finch, H. J.

Mikardo, Ian

Williams, David (Neath)

Fletcher, Eric

Mitchison, G. R.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Foot, D. M.

Moody, A. S.

Williams, W. R. (Openthaw)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Mort, D. L.

Winterbottom, Richard

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Moss, R.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grey, C. F.

Moyle, A.

Woof, R. E.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mulley, F. W.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Zilliacus, K.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oliver, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Nicholls, Harmar

Aitken, W. T.

Gurden, Harold

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Alport, C. J. M.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Nugent, C. R. H.

Anstruther-Gray, Malor Sir William

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Oakshott, H. D.

Arbuthnot, John

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

Armstrong, C. W.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Osborne, C.

Ashton, H.

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

Page, R. G.

Atkins, H. E.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Partridge, E.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Peel, W.J.

Barber, Anthony

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Barlow, Sir John

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Barter, John

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

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

Pott, H. P.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Holt, A. F.

Powell, J. Enoch

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Hornby, R. P.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Bingham, R. M.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Ramsden, J. E.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Rawlinson, Peter

Bishop, F. P.

Howard, Gerald Cambridgeshire)

Redmayne, M.

Body, R. F.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Hurd, A. R.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

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

Rippon, A. G. F.

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

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Iremonger, T. L.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Roper, Sir Harold

Bryan, P.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Carr, Robert

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Sharples, R. C.

Cary, Sir Robert

Joseph, Sir Keith

Shepherd, William

Channon, Sir Henry

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Kaberry, D.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Keegan, D,

Speir, R. M.

Cole, Norman

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Cooke, Robert

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Stevens, Geoffrey

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Kimball, M.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Kirk, P. M.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Storey, S.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Leather, E. H. C.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Leavey, J. A.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Currie, G. B. H.

Leburn, W. G.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Davidson, Viscountess

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

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Deedes, W. F.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Teeling, W.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Temple, John M.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Duncan, Sir James

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

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Longden, Gilbert

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

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

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Thompson-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Errington, Sir Eric

McKibbin, Alan

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Finlay, Graeme

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vane, W. M. F.

Fisher, Nigel

Macmillan, R.Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Wade, D. W.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Maddan, Martin

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Freeth, Denzil

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

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Gammans, Lady

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Wall, Patrick

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

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

Gibson-Watt, D.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Glover, D-

Marshall, Douglas.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Godber, J. B.

Mathew, R.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Goodhart, Philip

Maude, Angus

Wood, Hon. R.

Gower, H. R.

Mawby, R. L.

Woollam, John Victor

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Grant-Ferris, WgCdr. R. (Nantwich)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Green, A.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Mr. Wills and

Grimond, J.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Mr. Brooman-White.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Neave, Airey

10.30 p.m.
Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, col. 2, to leave out "2s. 2d."and to insert "1s. 8½d."
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment together with the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in line 22, col. 2, to leave out "1s. 8d." and to insert "1s. 4½d.," and in line 23, col. 2, to leave out "1s. 2d." and insert "1s. 0½d."
Mr. Marquand: Your suggestion is acceptable to us, Sir Gordon.
I will not weary the Committee by explaining again why these figures have been chosen. The object of the Amendments is to draw attention to the very heavy impost which it is proposed to lay upon self-employed persons. Most hon. Members will have an interest in this matter because they are treated as self-employed persons for the purposes of National Insurance and National Health contributions. But it is not on behalf of myself or other hon. Members that I ask the Committee to pay close attention to what it is that we are asked to do in respect of this class. There are numerous persons in this class whose financial position is much more difficult than that of Members of Parliament.
The leaflet issued last month by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance tells us that ministers of religion are normally included in the self-employed class, together with persons trading in partnership, farmers, crofters, independent smallholders, shopkeepers, street traders and hawkers. Hon. Members opposite need not feel that by voting for our Amendment tonight they are voting for themselves. They can feel that they are voting for the class of the community for which they always express strong support, the small independent business man, the crofter, the smallholder and people of that kind.
It is difficult to separate the well-to-do people who are included from the poor persons. People are excepted from payment only if they are working on their own and if they earn less than £2 a week. I can hardly believe it, but that is what
378
is stated. However small may be a person's income, if it is over £2 a week he is asked to pay these contributions, and, unless the Amendment is accepted, will be asked to pay another 6d. a week.
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance will be aware, there is already great difficulty about collecting the contributions from those with the smallest incomes. If the £32 million extra which is required for the Health Service were to be taken, as we think it should be, from the Income Tax payers, the well-to-do among the self-employed would pay their fair share.
The smallholder, crofter or street trader, who has a hard job to make a living at all would be almost exempt from payment of this extra charge, but, as it is, the charge is bound to fall heavily upon some of these groups. Is it wise, in view of the existing difficulties of collection to impose this extra charge? The Conservative Party extols the virtues of the small independent trader and businessman. Does it make sense to impose this penal tax upon them?
We shall be reminded that this is only a small increase of 6d. per week, but what are these people paying already? Men in the over-18 group are paying 11s. 6d. per week, and the increase will bring it to 12s. Boys under 18—one of my hon. Friends described in an earlier debate how one of them carried on an independent business to keep his widowed mother—are now required to pay 6s. 7d., which the increase will bring up to 7s. Id. Girls under 18 are required to pay 5s. 9d., which will go up to 6s. 3d.
These are extremely high rates of tax to impose upon some of the poorest in the community who deserve encouragement, not discouragement, and upon people who are trying to carry on business. To do it at this time is a grave error when there lies open to the Government a simple, fair expedient of placing the charge where it should be, on the Income Tax payer, who pays according to his ability and according to his family responsibilities.
The sentimental case is not so strong here as with widows, but the economic case deserves the serious attention of the

379
Government. How much further will they go in the direction of making it virtually impossible to carry on small business? Do they think that this is wise? Ought they not to abandon the Bill, think it over again and then impose the burden of £32 million on shoulders fitted to bear it?
Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is nothing if not persevering. He is still seeking to undermine the principle and the main purpose of the Bill as accepted by the Committee of Ways and Means and by the House of Commons. It will not surprise him, and hardly even disappoint him, if I say that I am also persevering in my determination not to have the principle of the Bill eroded away by any of the right hon. Gentleman's far-reaching Amendments.
It might be helpful if I indicated the broad picture of the principles and the amount of money involved in regard to self-employed persons in the context of these Amendments.
There are about 1¼ million self-employed men and rather less than a quarter of a million self-employed women, making a total of nearly 1½ million people in this category. The right hon. Gentleman devoted part of his argument to the hard lot of the self-employed juvenile, but, though he painted a moving picture of their distressing position, I am advised that there are hardly any of them at all, so that is really not very material. Their numbers are negligible.
Perhaps I could give the figures of the loss of revenue that would accrue if the Amendment were accepted. While not in the same degree, of course, as the loss that would have flowed from acceptance of the corresponding Amendment about employed persons, it would total about £1½ million a year—certainly not a negligible sum. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly pointed out the very diverse occupations of self-employed people, but the very fact of the diversity and the variety, as he will appreciate, does not make it any easier to discriminate in their favour.
Though they comprise people like crofters and hawkers, of whom he spoke, they also comprise Ministers and Queen's
380
Counsel. Those are both reasons why I personally might feel a certain tenderness towards them. It is true, as he has said, that the Conservative Party does have a special concern for the interests of those people because of the contributions that they make to the stability of society, but we do not succumb to the temptation to destroy the pattern as between employed and self-employed people because of any traditional tenderness we may have for those categories.
We have now, of course, to look at the pattern of contributions in the light of the decision to which the Committee has already come in rejecting the Amendment relating to employed people. We should, I think, get the result that if we now adopted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment we would be open to the charge of having distorted the pattern in this rather narrow Bill, and in the modest adjustment it makes, to the detriment of the employed person.
The position would be this. At present, the employed man pays 1s. 4½d. in respect of his National Health Service contribution. The self-employed man now pays Is. 8d. Under the Bill, as the Committee has now decided, the employed man will pay 1s. 10½d., but if this Amendment was accepted the self-employed man would be paying only 1s. 8½d. We would, therefore, have changed the pattern from a payment of 3½d. less by the employed man to one of 2d. less by the self-employed man. I can well imagine what hon. Members opposite, less moderate and temperate than is the right hon. Gentleman, would say when they got to the hustings. They would say that for the sake of Ministers and Queen's Counsel and the like we had made this very large distortion to the detriment of the employed man. I would say:
"… in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird."
10.45 p.m.
The right hon. Member did not mention, in what otherwise was a very fairly put point of view, that the Bill makes what I think is a reasonable easement of the position of the self-employed. It gives as much easement to them as can be done without distortion of the pattern against the employed person to an extent which

381
would be unreasonable in the context of the modest adjustments in the Bill.
As the Committee will know, in a previous increase of the National Health Service contribution the increase for the self-employed person was equal to the sum of the increases paid by both the employer and the employee in the Class 1 category. That was the case in the 1957 Act. Under this Bill, however, the self-employed, both men and women, will pay only the same increase as the employee. In other words, they will not have to pay. as they have done before, the additional increase of the employer. That, so to speak, will be credited to them, so there is some adjustment of the pattern in their favour.
That is as far as we could reasonably be expected to go, having regard to the narrow context of the Bill and the danger of distortion of the pattern to the detriment of the employed person. Therefore, while certainly respecting the persuasiveness and temperate quality of the right hon. Member's advocacy, I regret that I must ask my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment, if it is pressed to a Division.
Mr. Marquand: This is an outstanding example of a case in which the tax ought to be put on to the Income Tax payers. It is the most outstanding example of all in a situation in which large numbers of contributors should pay more for the cost of the National Health Service and are not asked to do so while an extremely heavy burden is placed on lower income groups. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman came so far as to say that he would relieve the juveniles, I would gladly withdraw the Amendment. He did not accept my case that this is a very harsh imposition on young people. Although he did not accept my case, hon. Members must feel that it is a very harsh imposition. The Minister waved it aside and said they are very few in number. If the Committee is to reject a case on the ground that it affects very few, that is so bad that we must register our protest.
Question put, That "2s. 2d." stand part of the Schedule:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 154.

Division No. 63.]

AYES

[10.48 p.m

Agnew, Sir Peter

Deedes, W. F.

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

Aitken, W. T.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hornby, R. P.

Alport, C. J. M.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Duncan, Sir James

Horsburgh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Arbuthnot, John

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Armstrong, C. W.

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

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Ashton, H.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hurd, A. R.

Atkins, H. E.

Errington, Sir Eric

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

Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.

Finlay, Graeme

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Baldwin, A. E.

Fisher, Nigel

Iremonger, T. L.

Barber, Anthony

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Barter, John

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Baxter, sir Beverley

Freeth, Denzil

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Gammans, Lady

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Bingham, R. M.

Glover, D.

Kaberry, D.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Godber, J. B.

Keegan, D.

Bishop, F. P.

Goodhart, Philip

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Body, R. F.

Gower, H. R.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Boothby, Sir Robert

Graham, Sir Fergus

Kimball, M.

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

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

Kirk, P. M.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Green, A.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

Grimond, J.

Leavey, J. A.

Bryan, P.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Leburn, W. G.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

Carr, Robert

Gurden, Harold

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Cary, Sir Robert

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Channon, Sir Henry

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Cooke, Robert

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

Longden, Gilbert

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

McKibbin, Alan

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Macmillan, Rt.Hn, Harold (Bromley)

Currie, G. B. H.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Davidson, Viscountess

Hirst, Geoffrey

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Maddan, Martin

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

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

Ramsden, J. E.

Teeling, W.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Rawlinson, Peter

Temple, John M.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Redmayne, M.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Marshall, Douglas

Rippon, A. G. F.

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

Mathew, R.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Mawby, R. L.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Roper, Sir Harold

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Vane, W. M. F.

Neave, Airey

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Nicholls, Hartnar

Sharples, R. C.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Shepherd, William

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

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

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Nugent, G. R. H.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wall, Patrick

Oakshott, H. D.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

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

Osborne, C.

Speir, R. M.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Page, R. G.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Partridge, E.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Peel, W, J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Woollam, John Victor

Peyton, J. W. W.

Storey, S.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Studholme, Sir Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Pott, H. P.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

Powell, J. Enoch

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Mr. Brooman-White.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Owen, W. J.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Holmes, Horace

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

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Houghton, Douglas

Palmer, A. M. F.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Awbery, S. S.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Pargiter, C. A.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pearson, A.

Baird, J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pentland, N.

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

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Popplewell, E.

Blackburn, F.

Hunter, A. E.

Prentice, R. E.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Blyton, W. R.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Probert, A. R.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Proctor, W. T.

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

Janner, B.

Randall, H. E.

Bowles, F. G.

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

Redhead, E. C.

Boyd, T. C.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

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

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

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

Ross, William

Carmichael, J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Short, E. W.

Champion, A. J.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Clunie, J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Coldrick, W.

Kenyon, C.

Skeffington, A. M.

Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

King, Dr. H. M.

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

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Ledger, R. J.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Sorensen, R. W.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Soskice, R:. Hon. Sir Frank

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Steele, T.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lewis, Arthur

Stones, W. (Consett)

Deer, G.

Logan, D. G.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J,

Delargy, H. J.

McCann, J.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Diamond, John

MacColl, J. E.

Sylvester, G. O.

Dodds, N. N.

MacDermot, Niall

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

McGhee, H. G.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Dye, S.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watkins, T. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Weitzman, D.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon, H. A.

West, D. G.

Fernyhough, E.

Mason, Roy

Wheeldon, W. E.

Finch, H. J.

Mellish, R. J.

Willey, Frederick

Fletcher, Eric

Mikardo, Ian

Williams, David (Neath)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mitchison, G. R.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Moody, A. S.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Grey, C. F.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Winterbottom, Richard

Griffiths. David (Rother Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Moss, R.

Woof, R. E.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Moyle, A.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mulley, F. W.

Zilliacus, K.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Hayman, F, H.

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Healey, Denis

Oliver, G. H.

Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Wilkins.

Herbison, Miss M.

Oswald, T.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, column 2, to leave out "2s. 2d." and to insert "1s. 8½d."
The Chairman: With this Amendment we can also take the Amendments in line 26, column 2, leave out "1s. 8d." and insert "1s. 4½d." and in line 26. column 2, leave out "1s. 2d." and insert "1s. 0½d."
Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir Charles. In view of the Minister's intransigence, I have little hope that he will prove responsive to the Amendment, but I will persevere. I agree that part of my case is not as strong as I would like; nevertheless, I want to put to him a point which has probably not occurred to him. When I was a Minister I always thought that it was anomalous to call Class III persons non-employed The word "non-employed" includes those who have no employer, but to the person not familiar with our legislation it would appear to indicate those who do no work at all.
There is one category of people in Class III which is hard-working, and should therefore receive some sympathy from the Minister. I accept the fact that many non-employed people live on investments and other private incomes and may very well be parasitical in their approach to life, but I wonder if the Minister has considered the fact that the word also includes unpaid social workers. I know that that designation does not always command sympathy, and such persons are sometimes thought of as people who work very few hours, but it has occurred to me that many such persons are also found among unmarried councillors. Those hon. Members who have served on local councils will agree that such persons work very hard. I do not know whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance disagrees; I imagine that the Minister of Health is not so certain about it as she is.
11.0 p.m.
I see that there is a division of opinion on the Front Bench opposite. Perhaps we have not considered this before. Whereas the definition of a non-employed person includes those who live on investments or other private income, those who do unpaid social work, students,
386
women looking after the home or relatives and doing no paid work, it should also include the person who voluntarily works in a council and has no employer. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary nods her head. I would put this to her——
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): What the right hon. Lady said which caused me to nod my head was that all single women on a council would be non-employed. That cannot be correct. I was a single woman on a city council, but I was employed in another sphere.
Dr. Summerskill: Then the hon. Lady was an employed person. We are talking about non-employed people. I am completely right, I am sure. I am talking about individuals who serve as councillors and are not paid any salary in their spare time. I am thinking of a number of single women across the Bridge who serve the whole of the London County Council area and work very hard but who cone under Class III as being non-employed persons.
The hon. Lady must not quibble. Many single women work but there are plenty of single women who do not work but serve on a local authority. The hon. Lady ought to withdraw now because she is wasting time. She should have known this point in her job without having to argue. The point I am making is that here is a category of people called non-employed who serve the community very well, who are not paid but who pay this very large contribution. I am asking the Minister to reconsider this contribution. The contribution at present is, for women aged 18 to 60, 7s. 3d.; for girls of 16 to 18, 4s. 4d.; for men. 9s. 1d.: and for boys, 5s. 3d. This is for the non-employed. It is a curious anomaly. Here we have a body of people who work very hard indeed and who are unpaid, but nevertheless who have to make this quite substantial contribution towards the National Insurance Scheme.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady is very persuasive on behalf of these non-employed people. The Committee probably detected in her manner of advocacy a consciousness that this was not really a very strong case, although not without sympathetic undertones. I

387
share with the right hon. Lady sympathy and respect for the single women who do social work, and so forth; but I do not think it constitutes a reason to make what I called in the last Amendment an unreasonable distortion of the pattern of contributions in the narrow context of this Bill.
The right hon. Lady has referred to the total amount paid by these women: 7s. 3d. for the total weekly contribution, which under the provisions of the Bill would go up to 7s. 7d. Of that, 5s. 11d. is the National Insurance contribution proper, the rest being the National Health Service contribution with which we are more particularly concerned. I am advised, though this is not my sphere, that all but about 6d. of the 5s. 11d. is for the retirement pension and therefore, so to speak, is a good investment.
Concerning the National Health Service contributions, I spoke at some length during the Second Reading debate, when I said that I thought the contributors generally got a good bargain for what they had to pay. There are about 250,000 non-employed women and about the same number of non-employed men, and here we have the same difficulty—perhaps even more aggravated—that we encountered during the last debate on the self-employed people; the great range and diversity of the positions of the people involved. I can only repeat that the non-employed people have the same moderate easement of their position as the self-employed.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I gather that there are 1½ million self-employed and 500,000 non-employed who pay contributions.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. I understand that there are 250,000 men and 250,000 women.
Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps not now but on some other occasion the Minister can tell me how many people there are in these categories who should pay but do not pay. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about distorting the pattern, but I am sure that this is where
388
the present Bill distorts the pattern. I am sure that the flat rate contribution goes far beyond the non-employed and self-employed people.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think I follow the right hon. Gentleman. If their income is under £156 a year, they fall within the small income exemption limit, otherwise they are liable. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about evasion, that is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be happy to discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the modest adjustment made to help the non-employed is as far as we can reasonably go in the context of this Bill without distorting the pattern, and I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Mr. Popplewell: This category includes people whose earnings are less than 40s. a week. Can the Minister say how many people come within that category? They are mentioned in his circular.
Mr. Walker-Smith: It is of course not my circular but that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I cannot without notice give the hon. Gentleman the number of people falling within the small income exemption limit. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject.
Dr. Summerskill: There are people who fall under hardship, including the category I mentioned, and the women who stay at home to help other people and do not receive any wage at all. I agree that they can opt out if they like. But there is a category of women who work very hard and receive little pay. Under the circumstances, I feel that we should divide the Committee on this Amendment.
Question put, That "2s. 2d." stand part of the Schedule:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 144.

Division No. 64.]

AYES

[11.10 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Green, A.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Aitken, W. T.

Grimond, J.

Neave, Airey

Alport, C. J. M.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Nicholls, Harmar

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Gurden, Harold

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

Arbuthnot, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Armstrong, C. W.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Oakshott, H. D.

Ashton, H.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Osborne, C.

Atkins, H. E.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Page, R. G.

Baldock, Lt.Comdr. J. M.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Partridge, E.

Barber, Anthony

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Peel, W. J.

Barlow, Sir John

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Barter, John

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Beamish, Col. Tutton

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Pott, H. P.

Belt, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Powell, J. Enoch

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

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

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bingham, R. M.

Hornby, R. P.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Ramsden, J. E.

Bishop, F. P.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Rawlinson, peter

Body, R. F.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Redmayne, M.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Kurd, A. R.

Rippon, A. G. F.

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

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

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Bryan, P.

Iremonger, T. L.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Roper, Sir Harold

Carr, Robert

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cary, Sir Robert

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Channon, Sir Henry

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Sharples, R. C.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Shepherd, William

Cooke, Robert

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Kaberry, D.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Keegan, D.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Kerby, Cap. H. B.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Kimball, M.

Storey, S.

Currie, G. B. H.

Kirk, P. M.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Davidson, Viscountess

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Deedés, W. F.

Leavey, J. A.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Leburn, W. G.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Doughty, C. J. A.

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

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.>

Duncan, Sir James

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Teeling, W.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Temple, John M.

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

Llewellyn, D. T.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Longden, Gilbert

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Errington, Sir Eric

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Finlay, Graeme

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Fisher, Nigel

McKibbin, Alan

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)

Vane, W, M. F.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Freeth, Denzil

Macpherson, Nlall (Dumfries)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Gammans, Lady

Maddan, Martin

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

George, J. C. (Pollok)

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

Wall, Patrick

Gibson-Watt, D.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

Glover, D.

Marshall, Douglas

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Godber, J. B.

Mathew, R.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Goodhart, Philip

Maude, Angus

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Gower, H. R.

Mawby, R. L.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Woollam, John Victor

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

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Bowles, F. C.

Cullen, Mrs, A.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Boyd, T. C.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Deer, G.

Awbery, S. S.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Delargy, H. J.

Barrel, J.

Carmichael, J.

Diamond, John

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

Champion, A. J.

Dodds, N. N.

Blackburn, F.

Chetwynd, G. R.

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

Blenkinsop, A.

Clunie, J.

Dye, S.

Blyton, W. R.

Coldrick, W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

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

Craddock. George (Bradford, S.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

390

391

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Fernyhough, E.

Ledger, R. J.

Randall, H. E.

Finch, H. J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Redhead, E, C

Fletcher, Eric

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Lewis, Arthur

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Logan, D. G.

Rodgers, George (Kensington, N.)

Grey, C. F.

McCann, J.

Ross, William

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

MacColl, J. E.

Short, E. W.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

MacDermot, Naill

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

McGhee, H. G.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Skeffington, A. M.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Mainwaring, W. H.

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

Hayman, F. H.

Mann, Mrs. dean

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Healey, Denis

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Sorensen, R. W.

Herbison, Miss M.

Mason, Roy

Steele, T.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Mellish, R. J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Holmes, Horace

Mikardo, Ian

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Howell, Charles (Perry Bar)

Mitchison, G. R.

Sylvester, G. O.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Moody, A. S.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Mort, D. L.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Moss, R.

Watkins, T. E.

Hunter, A. E.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Weitzman, D.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

West, D. G.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Oliver, G. H.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Oswald, T.

Wilkins, W. A.

Janner, B.

Owen, W. J.

Willey, Frederick

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

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

Williams, David (Neath)

Jeger, George (Coole)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

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

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Winterbottom, Richard

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Pargiter, G. A.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Pentland, N.

Woof, R. E.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Popplewell, E.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Prentice, R. E.

Zilliacus, K.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kenyon, C,

Probert, A. R.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Question put, That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 131.

Division No. 65.]

AYES

[11.19 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Currie, G. B. H.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Aitken, W. T.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Alport, C. J. M.

Deedes, W. F.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hornby, R. P.

Arbuthnot, John

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Armstrong, C W.

Duncan, Sir James

Horobin, Sir Ian

Ashton, H.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Atkins, H. E.

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

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Baldwin, A. E.

Errington, Sir Eric

Hurd, A. R.

Barber, Anthony

Finlay, Graeme

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

Barlow, Sir John

Fisher, Nigel

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Barter, John

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Iremonger, T. L.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Freeth, Denzil

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Gammans, Lady

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Bingham, R. M.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Gibson-Watt, D.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Bishop, F. P.

Glover, D.

Kaberry, D.

Body, R. F.

Godber, J. B.

Keegan, D,

Boothby, Sir Robert

Goodhart, Philip

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

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

Gower, H. R.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Kimball, M.

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

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

Kirk, P. M.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Green, A.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Bryan, P.

Grimond, J.

Leavey, J. A.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Leburn, W. G.

Carr, Robert

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

Cary, Sir Robert

Gurden, Harold

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Channon, Sir Henry

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Cooke, Robert

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Longden, Gilbert

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

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

McKibbin, Alan

Craddook, Beresford (Sperthorne)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Pott, H. P.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Powell, J. Enoch

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Maddan, Martin

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ramsden, J. E.

Teeling, W.

Marshall, Douglas

Rawlinson, Peter

Temple, John M.

Mathew, R.

Redmayne, M.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Mawby, R. L.

Rees-Davies, w, R.

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

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

Ridsdale, J. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Nabarro, C. D. N.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Neave, Airey

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Nicholls, Harmar

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Vane, W. M. F.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Roper, Sir Harold

Vickers, Miss Joan

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

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Nugent, G. R. H.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wall, Patrick

Oakshott, H. D.

Sharples, R. C.

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

Osborne, C.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Page, R. G.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Partridge, E.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Woollam, John Victor

Peel, W. J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Peyton, J. W. W.

Storey, S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

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

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Awbery, S. S.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pargiter, G. A.

Baird, J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pearson, A.

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

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pentland, N.

Blackburn, F.

Hunter, A. E.

Popplewell, E.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Prentice, R. E.

Blyton, W. R.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Jarmer, B.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

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

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

Probert, A. R.

Bowles, F. C.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Proctor, W. T.

Boyd, T. C.

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

Randall, H. E.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Redhead, E. C.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Carmichael, J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Champion, A. J.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Ross, William

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

Kenyon, C.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

King, Dr. H. M.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Ledger, R. J.

Skeffington, A. M.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

Deer, G.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Delargy, H. J.

Lewis, Arthur

Sorensen, R. W.

Diamond, John

Logan, D. G.

Steele, T.

Dodds, N. N.

MacColl, J. E.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

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

MacDermot, Niall

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Dye, S.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

McGhee, H. G.

Sylvester, G. O.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nees (Caerphilly)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Fernyhough, E.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Finch, H. J.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Watkins, T. E.

Fletcher, Eric

Mason, Roy

Weitzman, D.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mellish, R. J.

West, D. G.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mikardo, Ian

Wilkins, W. A.

Grey, C. F.

Mitchison, G. R.

Williams, David (Neath)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Moody, A. S.

Winterbottom, Richard

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mort, D. L.

Woof, R. E.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Zilliacus, K.

Hayman, F. H.

Oswald, T.

Healey, Denis

Owen, W. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Herbison, Miss M.

Mr Holmes and Mr. Short.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Fishing Industry (Quick Freezing)
  Fishing Industry (Quick Freezing)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Rent Act
  Rent Act
  Saughton Prison (Accident)
  Saughton Prison (Accident)
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Dancing Cairns Quarry, Aberdeen
  Dancing Cairns Quarry, Aberdeen
  Duke Street, Glasgow (Bridge)
  Duke Street, Glasgow (Bridge)
  Road Junction, Glasgow
  Road Junction, Glasgow
  Police Headquarters, Glasgow
  Police Headquarters, Glasgow
  Students (Assistance)
  Students (Assistance)
  Housing, Glasgow
  Housing, Glasgow
  Duke Street Prison, Glasgow
  Duke Street Prison, Glasgow
  Tuberculosis, Glasgow
  Tuberculosis, Glasgow
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Imports from Hong Kong
  Imports from Hong Kong
  Exports from Northern Ireland
  Exports from Northern Ireland
  Industrial Development, Bridport
  Industrial Development, Bridport
  Patent Office (Comptroller-General)
  Patent Office (Comptroller-General)
  PRODUCTIVITY, PRICES AND INCOMES (REPORT)
  PRODUCTIVITY, PRICES AND INCOMES (REPORT)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Development Areas (Loans)
  Development Areas (Loans)
  Entertainments Duty
  Entertainments Duty
  Unemployment (Local Authority Schemes)
  Unemployment (Local Authority Schemes)
  Income Tax (Family Allowances)
  Income Tax (Family Allowances)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Free Trade Area
  Free Trade Area
  U.S.S.R. Gold (Imports)
  U.S.S.R. Gold (Imports)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Sovereigns (Minting)
  Sovereigns (Minting)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Alkali Act (Warwickshire)
  Alkali Act (Warwickshire)
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Manchester Square, London
  Manchester Square, London
  Town and County Planning Act (Claims)
  Town and County Planning Act (Claims)
  Household Refuse and Sewage
  Household Refuse and Sewage
  Colliery Spoil Heaps, Stoke-on-Trent
  Colliery Spoil Heaps, Stoke-on-Trent
HOUSING
  Rent Act
  Rent Act
  Reciprocal and Pooling Schemes
  Reciprocal and Pooling Schemes
  Temporary Accommodation
  Temporary Accommodation
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  British Goods
  British Goods
CYPRUS
  Mental Hospital
  Mental Hospital
KENYA
  Personal Tax Ordinance
  Personal Tax Ordinance
  Meat Canning Factory, Athi River (Cattle Purchases)
  Meat Canning Factory, Athi River (Cattle Purchases)
  MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (REPORT)
  MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (REPORT)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  River Longford
  River Longford
ROYAL NAVY
  Air Station, Eglinton (Houses)
  Air Station, Eglinton (Houses)
EDUCATION
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Attilio Messina (Nationality)
  Attilio Messina (Nationality)
EMPLOYMENT
  Prices, Productivity and Incomes (Report)
  Prices, Productivity and Incomes (Report)
  Building Workers, Basildon
  Building Workers, Basildon
  Gas Production Scheme, Ballingry
  Gas Production Scheme, Ballingry
BRITISH ARMY
  Dartmoor National Park
  Dartmoor National Park
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl of Romney—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Lambert—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NAVAL REPAIRS IN PRIVATE SHIPYARDS
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who I regret is unable to be here to-day, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (a) how many ships and smaller craft are at present under repair in private shipyards, and what is the estimated cost of these repairs (b) how many times in the year 1957, and in respect of how many contracts, has delay been sanctioned on Admiralty work in private shipyards because of the pressure of work on merchant ships.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, there are at present two of Her Majesty's ships—that is, one destroyer and one submarine—nine Royal Fleet Auxiliaries
2
and twenty-eight smaller vessels in hand for refit, conversion or modernisation in private shipyards, at a total cost of just over £3 million. With regard to the second part of the Question, Admiralty work in private shipyards is, of course, sometimes affected by the needs of merchant ships, but only in one case during 1957 did the Admiralty specifically agree to such delay.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, if there are cases where the pressure of private work in private shipyards causes delay, would it not be advisable for Her Majesty's Government to retain the use of the Royal Dockyards?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is a difficult question. Refit by contract to-day is very exceptional. In the 1955–56 Estimates provision for contract refits was £11 million; in the 1958–59 Estimates it is only £1·8 million.

OVERTIME IN ADMIRALTY DOCKYARDS
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble Leader, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total number of hours of overtime worked in the Admiralty Dockyards in this country for the year ended 31st December, 1957.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the total number of hours of overtime worked in The Admiralty Dockyards in

3
this country during the year ended December 31 last was between 9 and 10 million.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, in view of that figure, have Her Majesty's Government considered spreading the work over to existing Royal Dockyards rather than closing down some of them?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government have considered that very carefully indeed; and we have also considered the problem of reducing the period of overtime. In some cases, however, dockyard overtime is quite unavoidable—for example, on harbour vessels attending on the Fleet, in meeting arrivals and departures and the ebb and flow of tides and so on; and on occasion to ensure the most economical progression of work: for example, when waiting for one job and not throwing another out of balance. A balance has to be struck between the two, and we think in the present contemplated reduction of overtime and in the spread of work we have reached the most economical and satisfactory balance we can obtain.

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to constitute a Council on Tribunals; to make further provision as to the appointment, qualifications and removal of the chairman and members, and as to the procedure, of certain tribunals; to provide for appeals to the courts from decisions of, or on appeal from, certain tribunals; to extend the supervisory powers of the High Court and the Court of Session; to abolish certain restrictions on appeals from the Court of Session to the House of Lords; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is ten years since a measure bearing this title—the Children Bill—came before your Lordships' House. That Bill, which was enacted as the Children Act, 1948, was a large measure of social reform. The present Bill deals with two categories of children who are cared for apart from their parents but not by local authorities or voluntary organisations—those who are fostered for reward and those who are adopted. I hope to show that this is an important measure which can justly claim our closest attention and sympathy. I am most grateful to the various societies and individuals who have written to me about the Bill. I invite your Lordships to examine it with critical care. I say "critical care" because this measure concerns the happiness and well-being of children, and I can think of few subjects of legislation where we need to be more sure that our proposals are the wisest, the safest and the most humane that we can devise.
The first Part of the Bill consolidates and modifies what have hitherto been called the child life protection provisions of the law. The second Part amends the law of adoption in the light of the recommendations made by the Hurst Committee in their Report on the adoption of children. I shall discuss each Part in turn. The child life protection provisions of the existing law are contained in the Public Health Act, 1936, and the corresponding enactments relating to London and Scotland and in the Children Act, 1948. They provide that anyone who undertakes for reward the maintenance of a child under school leaving age apart from his parents must give notice to the local authority. The local authority must arrange for the child and the premises to be visited; may fix the maximum number of children to be kept in the premises; may impose other conditions to be complied with, and may apply to a summary court for an order for the removal of a child who is being kept in unsuitable premises, by unsuitable persons, or in an environment that is detrimental to him. Where the foster parent is a relative or guardian, or where

5
the child's welfare is already the responsibility of a competent authority, the provisions do not apply.
These provisions originated towards the end of the last century, when their primary object was to bring baby farming under public supervision and control. The age of the children within the scope of the law was raised in 1908 from five to seven. I hope that your Lordships will allow me a short excursus. If my memory is right, that was done by the Children Act, for which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was largely responsible; and (if he will allow a personal memory) I seem to remember that forty years ago there hung outside his study a cartoon from Punch picturing as Sir Isenbras at the ford those features with which your Lordships' House is now so familiar. I am glad to feel that as one of his successors at the Home Office I was carrying on the work which he developed so well fifty years ago. The age was again raised in 1932 to nine, and in 1948, on the recommendation of the Curtis Committee, to school leaving age. The provisions were not substantially altered in other ways. They are now out of keeping in some respects with other legislation introduced in recent years for the welfare of children, and a judgment of the High Court in 1954, in the case of Wallbridge v. Dorset County Council, has meant that in England and Wales at least their application is uncertain.
We have not found that any radical change in the existing provisions is necessary. The main purpose of this part of the Bill is the same as that of the existing provisions—to ensure the well-being of children fostered for reward. But besides re-stating the law in a way that avoids the uncertainties arising from the High Court judgment, we have thought it advisable to modify the code so as to bring its general shape, emphasis and method more into line with modern ideas and practice. Thus the Bill lays a more positive duty on local authorities to ensure, the well-being of children fostered for reward, and puts a new emphasis on prevention by empowering the local authority, subject to appeal to a court, to prohibit a child's being received in an unsuitable foster home. As under the existing law, there are exceptions for children looked after by
6
a relative or guardian and for those whose well-being is already the responsibility of a competent authority. The Bill also provides a new exemption for children whose care and maintenance are undertaken for not more than a month, and thus excludes many holiday arrangements to which it is inappropriate that the provisions should apply.
I turn now in more detail to some of the main clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 places in the forefront the purpose of Part I. It says that it is the duty of every local authority to secure that children within their area who are foster children are visited from time to time by officers of the authority; and these officers are required to satisfy themselves as to the well-being of the children and to give such advice as to their care and maintenance as may appear to be needed.
Clause 3 provides the means whereby the local authority obtain the information they need to enable them to carry out their duty. A person who proposes to maintain a foster child must tell the local authority not less than two weeks before he receives the child (unless he is received in an emergency), and the local authority have the power to obtain information about the child or its parents or guardian, or any person who was previously looking after him. At present, the requirement is to give one week's notice in advance. The extra week will facilitate inspection and other necessary action by the local authority before the child is received. This duty placed on people who propose to maintain foster children may be an inconvenience to citizens who are admirable foster parents; but we have simplified the form of notification, making it as short as possible, and some arrangement of this kind is inevitable if the local authority are to be enabled to detect those cases in which children may be harmed either deliberately (there are, unfortunately, a few people who are capable of that) or by ignorance. The local authority can exempt anyone from the duty to give notices.
Clause 4 also deals with the local authorities, and gives them the powers they need to carry out the duty of ensuring the well-being of foster children. A properly authorised officer of the authority is entitled to inspect any

7
premises in which foster children are to be or are being kept. Where premises are used wholly or mainly for keeping foster children—in practice this will usually be a commercial institution, as contrasted with a private house—the local authority can impose requirements on the person keeping the children. The local authority may specify, for example, the number, age and sex of the children who may be kept there, and may make requirements about the accommodation and equipment, the medical arrangements and the staff. The local authority may also prohibit a person from keeping a foster child if they think it would be harmful to the child. There is a right of appeal to a court against any requirement or prohibition, and there are penalties for any contravention of a requirement or prohibition and also for any failure to give notices or information.
Some people are prima facie unsuitable to keep foster children. The existing law specifies certain categories of people who may not keep foster children without the consent of the local authority. The list is now out of date, and we think that Clause 6 now comprehends people whose past history contains some recorded event that would justify special precautions before they are allowed to look after other people's children for reward. The sort of thing we have in mind is if the people have been convicted of offences against children or have had their own powers and rights limited in regard to children. Disqualification is not absolute, since circumstances may have changed or may prove, on investigation, not to be such as to warrant barring the person from keeping a foster child. My Lords, I have dealt so far with conditions and prohibitions on the keeping of foster children. There is also a power, similar to the power under the existing law, to remove a foster child from unsuitable surroundings. This power, in Clause 7, may be exercised only on the order of a court on the complaint of a local authority, and there is provision for a single justice to act in an emergency.
The provisions of Part I of the Bill extend to children kept during the holidays—I repeat, during the holidays—in a school not maintained by a local education authority in England or Wales. In
8
those cases the provisions apply with certain modifications. The school authorities are not required to give particulars of each child, and the local authority do not have the power to impose requirements or prohibitions; but if conditions are so bad as to justify such a course, the local authority can apply for a warrant for the removal of children. In Scotland, where the numbers are much smaller, and the Secretary of State bears the central responsibility for both education and child care, supervision of these children will be exercised by the Secretary of State's child care inspectorate; no special provision is needed to enable this to be done.
In continuation of a provision made in the Children Act, 1948, there is also an extension of all the provisions in Part I to children above compulsory school age if, first, they are already under supervision when they reach the upper limit of compulsory school age, and, secondly, they continue to live with the same person. These children remain under supervision until they reach the age of eighteen or leave the foster home, or for any other reason, apart from age, cease to fall within the definition of a foster child.
My Lords, I now turn to Part II of the Bill, which consists of amendments of the Adoption Act, 1950. It may interest your Lordships if I very shortly remind you of the history of adoption legislation in this country, because the first enactment relating to adoption dates from as recently as 1926. There was a Scottish Act in 1930; and again, I think, if my memory is right, the Scottish Act owes many of its provisions to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. There were other enactments in 1939 and 1949. These Acts were consolidated into the Adoption Act, 1950. In 1953, two Secretaries of State (my right honourable friend Mr. James Stuart and myself) appointed a Departmental Committee to consider the present law relating to the adoption of children and to report whether any, and if so what, changes of policy or procedure were desirable in the interests of the welfare of children.
This Committee, under the chairmanship of the late Sir Gerald Hurst, whom many of my older colleagues will remember in another place, reported in 1954

9
and Part II of this Bill is based in substance on the main recommendations of the Hurst Committee's Report. I desire once again to express my personal gratitude to the Committee for the work that they did. I do not propose to discuss in detail the recommendations of the Report, many of which deal with technical matters, but I would say here that, of the recommendations which do not find a place in this Bill, many will be implemented by means of rules and regulations. Despite the comparative modernity of legislation with regard to adoption, it is already established as a social practice in the community. But experience has shown ways in which there is room for improvement, and I propose now to discuss the principal changes made by Part II of this Bill.
The first important change is in Clause 18, which, amongst other things, provides a further ground on which the court is able to dispense with the consent of a parent to the adoption of his or her child. The proper balance between the best interests of the child and the rights of the natural parent is often very difficult to obtain. Adoption is not a case in which the welfare of the child can be the sole and paramount consideration: we are bound to provide that courts should consider also the reasonable wishes of the natural parent. But there are occasional cases in which a parent has for long shown no sign of carrying out the ordinary responsibilities of a parent and no sign of any intention to do so; yet nevertheless refuses to consent to an adoption which would in every way be in the interests of the child. The Bill provides that a court may dispense with the consent of the parent on two grounds: first, that the parent has persistently failed, without reasonable cause, to discharge the obligations of a parent; and, secondly, that the parent seems likely to continue to do so if the adoption order is not made. I hope that this amendment will commend itself to your Lordships as reasonable and desirable.
Clause 22 contains a number of provisions the general intention of which is to extend or clarify the effects of an adoption order in the interests of the adopted person. These provisions are perhaps better discussed in detail in Committee, and all I will say here is that they extend the circumstances in which an adopted child shall be treated as a child
10
of the family for the purposes of succession to property, and equate adopted children with natural children for purposes of certain insurance policies. There are also provisions in respect of affiliation proceedings.
My Lords, I come to another and perhaps a rather more controversial point. One of the ways in which the existing law has been found to cause hardship in its operation is in its requirement that an applicant for an adoption order must be domiciled and resident in England or Scotland. To those of your Lordships who are not lawyers, "domicile" is roughly equivalent to permanent residence, which may either be a domicile of birth or a domicile which the person himself has adopted—a domicile of choice; but it is permanent residence as opposed to residence for the year. The effect of a judgment in the High Court some years ago on the meaning of "resident" is to rule out people whose time is spent mostly abroad, even though they regard this country as their home. For example, people working in the Commonwealth or foreign countries, or abroad in the armed services, are not eligible, even though they may spend some months at a time on leave in this country. Clause 23 enables these people to apply for an adoption order, provided that they can spend the requisite three months' probationary period in this country.
I have dealt so far with people domiciled in England or Scotland but ordinarily resident abroad. We have also considered people who are not domiciled in Great Britain but who are living here and want to obtain the custody of a child during their stay and to be able, if they desire to leave the country at any time, to take the child with them with a view to adopting him in the country of their domicile. Clause 24 allows them to do this.
My Lords, I am well aware of, and I have tried to consider, the view that this provision may on the face of it appear a dangerous one; but I want to point out at once that the Bill provides stringent safeguards. I also ask your Lordships not to forget that the provision will apply to suitable adopters of British nationality who are domiciled abroad—to Canadians and Australians, for example—as well as to those of other nationalities. A person who wants to

11
obtain the custody of a child—and he will obtain it by what we call a "provisional adoption order"—must satisfy the court of his suitability and must in every respect, except that of his domicile, fulfil all the qualifications required of an applicant for an ordinary adoption order. Furthermore, applications of this kind can be heard only before a sheriff in Scotland, or the judge of a county court or the High Court, in England, so that the more difficult questions of adoption law in other countries, which may sometimes fall to be considered, may be examined by a highly qualified judicial Bench.
Although it is true that there are more people in this country wanting to adopt children than there are children available for adoption through adoption societies or local authorities, there are still many children for whom no suitable adoptive home can be found. But there are sometimes people domiciled abroad who are eminently suitable and willing to adopt these children, and we have asked ourselves whether it is right to continue to prevent the children from enjoying the benefits of adoption, restricting them to a childhood and youth spent in institutions which, however admirable they may be, can never fully take the place of a good home.
For example, several cases are known where some people have quite evidently shown themselves to be admirable candidates for an adoption order. Some were coloured Americans who wanted to adopt coloured British children, for whom there is little prospect of adoption in this country. But when the time comes for these people to return home, the child cannot go with them because the law forbids it. We think that the time has come to change the law. I would emphasise once again that this is not an unrestricted right, that the application is considered by the court, and we can be confident that courts will grant orders only when they are fully satisfied as to the suitability of the applicants and of the home to which the child will go.
At the same time as it introduces the provisions in Clauses 23 and 24, the Bill revokes the provision in section 40 of the Adoption Act, 1950, under which British people resident abroad can, if they get a licence from Bow Street or a sheriff court, have a British child sent to them or take
12
him with them for adoption. The Hurst Committee thought—and the Government agree—that the licensing scheme was unsatisfactory because it omitted the three months' probationary period. If that safeguard is needed where the child is to remain in this country after adoption, it is surely needed where the child is to go abroad. I know that this matter has worried some people—I have in mind especially international social services. I should ask those who are worried about the omission of this provision, which previously existed in Section 40 of the 1950 Act, to consider again our Clauses 23 and 24 and perhaps to do me the honour of considering the argument that I have put forward in this speech.
The last of the major provisions to which I wish to draw attention are those in Clause 35 which apply Part I of the Bill—that is, the provisions for the supervision of foster children—to children who have been placed for adoption, whether in law or in fact, under arrangements in which some agent has taken part, and to all children who are awaiting legal adoption. This follows the pattern of the existing law. In both classes of case the object of supervision is to ensure the wellbeing of the children.
My Lords, I come now to a point where we have not followed the recommendation of the Hurst Committee. As your Lordships may remember, I mentioned earlier that not all the recommendations of the Hurst Committee are dealt with in the Bill, and that many will be implemented by rules and regulations. But a few have not been accepted, and of these perhaps the one which has aroused most interest is the recommendation that in England and Wales an adopted person should be given the right, on reaching the age of twenty-one, to have a copy of his adoption order and be able to find out the names of his natural parents and other information about them that is given in his original birth certificate. In Scotland, since 1930, he has been able to do so at the age of seventeen, but the Committee recommended that the age should be raised to twenty-one. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, perhaps will remember moving a provision in regard to Scotland when that Bill was before another place.
There are arguments for and against making these changes, but since the innovation proposed for England has caused

13
anxiety to some of those with great experience in adoption matters, Her Majesty's Government propose to leave the law as it stands and do not propose to adopt the Committee's recommendation that in England the child should be entitled to this information as of right at the age of twenty-one. We propose to leave the law as it stands in both England and Wales, where the information can now be disclosed only if a court of competent jurisdiction so orders, and as it is in Scotland—that is, as the noble Lord. Lord Mathers, proposed it to the House of Commons some twenty-eight years ago. Accordingly, the Bill makes no provision in this matter.
Thanks to your Lordships' patience. I have outlined the main provisions of the Children Bill. I am confident that its general aims are sure of receiving support. No doubt the detailed methods employed to achieve its objectives will be the subject of careful examination in Committee. I should be the last to claim perfection at the time of Second Reading for any Bill which I introduced; but I am sure that I can ask this House to give this Bill a Second Reading, thus signifying our support in principle for yet another measure designed to safeguard the happiness and security of children who for one reason or another, are denied a home of their own. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like first to associate myself entirely with the thanks which the noble and learned Viscount has tendered to the members of the Departmental Committee on the adoption of children. They sat for a year and a half. They made their Report in September, 1954, and have had to wait only three and a half years (as against the usual seven years) before their Report was put into legislative form. I should like also to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount on having, as Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, set up this Committee and on having, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, introduced the Second Reading of this Bill here—all within a period of five years. That is not bad going,
14
and I am sure it must be a great satisfaction to him to be able to introduce a Bill of this kind which he had the duty of initiating in another place some years ago.
This debate is really an interlude between two days of discussion last week on defence and a continuation of that debate for two days this week on foreign affairs. I would submit that the interlude to-day is not wholly unconnected with the world problems which we have been and will be discussing. Last week we discussed the defence of our way of life by military means, but a number of speakers in that debate emphasised the importance of competition in ideas and in service in demonstrating that what we have to offer in our care for the welfare of the individual, and especially of those least able to take care of themselves, is worth preserving and is something for which it is worth making sacrifices; and that we can set in our domestic life an example which will stand comparison with anything that exists in those countries with whom we are at present engaged in the so-called cold war.
Many of your Lordships will have read the Reith Lectures of 1957 by Mr. Kennan, and I should like to make one short quotation from those lectures:
"Many of us dislike to think of domestic problems as battlefields on which our contest with Soviet power is transpiring; but that is exactly what they are. In a thousand ways the tone and spirit that characterise our internal life impinge themselves on our external fortunes."
So I welcome this Bill, not only on its merits as a further step towards the protection of the most vulnerable section of our nation—children who are virtually parentless—but also because it is a recognition of the fact that, in spite of our own preoccupation with military defence, we have other weapons in this world struggle, and this is one of them. Legislation relating to children is not very much publicised and, judging by the appearance of this House this afternoon, not very popular. It is not glamorous or exciting. It does not lend itself to violent political controversy; and I can promise the noble and learned Viscount that so far as we on these Benches are concerned there will be no violent political controversy this afternoon.
The Bill provides an opportunity for paying a tribute to many people who in

15
the cause of children are working quietly behind the scenes without any hope of honours or reward. It is not often that we have the opportunity of saying a kind word for them; but there are in this country a vast number of people who have given years of their lives, often at considerable sacrifice, in the cause of children. I know of some who have spent thirty or forty years in this single-minded manner, devoting the whole of their thoughts and energies to this one cause; and I would submit that this is an occasion when we might pay a tribute to the work that they have done.
I would say a word particularly on behalf of the adoption societies. In the last thirty years their number has doubled, and a very large number of people are concerned in making those societies a success. This Bill is their reward. It is by no means all they desire: there are some things omitted from this Bill which they would rather have had included, and there are included in the Bill some things which they would rather have had omitted. They are not unique in that respect: we all find ourselves in that position. But they would be the first to admit that, on the whole, this Bill is a very great improvement and, generally speaking, is satisfactory.
In view of the full and careful explanation which your Lordships have heard from the noble and learned Viscount, I do not think it is necessary for me to speak on anything in any great detail. I want, however, to draw attention to the fact that adoption of children is playing a considerable part in the social life of this country. Last year there were some 14,000 legal adoptions, apart from unofficial adoptions, every one of which had to be scrutinised by a competent court and approved; and, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, there is still, contrary to general belief, a considerable unsatisfied demand for suitable children to adopt.
In the last fifty years there has been a considerable amount of legislation on the subject of children, and quite rightly. If your Lordships will look at the First and Second Schedules to the Bill you will get some idea of the large number of measures that have been passed between 1908 and the present time. In this Bill no fewer than twenty-seven
16
Statutes are referred to, either by way of comment or by way of amendment.
The noble and learned Viscount has put his finger on two points in the Bill which will be the subject of considerable discussion and controversy, and before I say anything on those points I should like to make one suggestion which I hope he will see his way to accept. He will observe that the Hurst Report deals most exhaustively, and in a thoroughly interesting manner, with the subject in some 300 paragraphs; the Committee made forty-eight principal recommendations and a number of minor ones. It is difficult for anyone taking an interest in this Bill to ascertain, without an immense amount of work, which of these recommendations have been accepted and which rejected. I have tried, but life is short and I just had to give it up. No doubt the information is available to Her Majesty's Government, and it would be a great help if we could be told which of those recommendations are being accepted, which of them can be dealt with by administration, as the noble and learned Viscount has suggested, and which require legislation.
So I would suggest that we might have a table showing in simple form how the Government have dealt with each of these recommendations. In cases where they have not been accepted, perhaps it would be possible to state in a few words the reasons. If this could be done, I think it might simplify and curtail the work on Committee. It would save some of us from putting down Amendments which are already covered by the Bill, and generally. I think, would increase the interest of noble Lords in the measure besides helping us to understand exactly how far the Government have got in implementing the Hurst Report. If the Government agree to provide this table, I hope that they will do it so as to give ample time for it to be studied before the Committee stage.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has dealt with two main subjects, one of which is in the Bill and the other is not. These were in fact the two matters on which I was going to venture to say a few words to your Lordships. The first, the provision not in the Bill, is the recommendation set out in paragraph 201 of the Hurst Report, dealing

17
with inquiries by the adopted person himself. I myself have given the matter very careful thought and I have come to the conclusion that the Committee were right. They were unanimous in recommending that, at the age of twenty-one, an adopted person should have the legal right to go to the registrar of the court before which his adoption was approved and to see what documents are available there which will throw light on his origin and the circumstances under which his adoption was carried out. The noble and learned Viscount was quite right: there are, of course, two sides to this question. Both sides were put to the Committee, and the Committee were unanimously in favour of giving to the person this right. I recognise that there are grave dangers. There is the danger, as is set out in the Report, of the adopted child using this information wrongfully; of the child breaking into a happy family where his existence was not known, and there are all the other dangers which your Lordships can conjure up—even the danger to the child himself of finding out something which it would be better that he did not know. May I reassure your Lordships on one point? Most of the children are illegitimate, and they know from a very early age that that is so. It is a good thing that they should know that, and should get over such unhappiness as they might feel on the subject and take it for granted as they go on in life. So it is not the discovery of illegitimacy which we may fear. They already know that.
Those then are the dangers. On the other hand, there are some children who have a burning desire to know about their origin, and in such cases if the knowledge is kept from them it may do them considerable psychological injury. They will go through life with a question mark: Who are they? What are they? Where do they come from? That does not apply to many. I think the majority of young people at the age of twenty-one who have been happy with their foster parents would be quite content to leave well alone and not to bother. We have the experience in Scotland where this practice has been in operation as regards children from the age of seventeen upwards. So far as I am aware, no harm has been done and relatively few children take advantage of the opportunity. But in the case of those who do wish to do so, I submit that it would
18
be wrong of us to deprive them of the right to knowledge about themselves and about the origin of their birth.
I know that the Government have considered the matter and have given great weight, as they should do, to the views of those who are taking an active part in the work of adopted children; and I freely admit that those people, who ought to know, take a different view from my own. However, I think it right to put this view before your Lordships. It is a view which is very strongly held by a number of people, and, to put it no higher, it seems to me to be an infringement of human rights to prevent a child from having as much information as is available about his origin. There I leave the matter. I do not know whether it would be possible on Committee stage to have another discussion on it, but I think it might be well worth while to have the matter fully threshed out.
One the second point, with which the noble and learned Viscount dealt—the question of taking children abroad—I am completely in agreement with the view which he put forward and have nothing to add to it. I think that he has put the case fairly. Of course there are arguments for and against. In this case the noble and learned Viscount has disregarded the advice of the adoption societies, and the Government have taken their own line and also the line of the Committee. We recognise that the alternative, in the case of a good many of these children who would otherwise have an opportunity of being adopted and going abroad, is that they should live in an institution. I feel that they should not be deprived of this opportunity. But, having said that, I would add that we must recognise that there is some danger in sending children abroad; and if we grant these provisional orders we must be absolutely sure, so far as human thought and effort can prevail, that these children will be properly cared for in the land of their adoption.
It may be that further safeguards might be considered on the Committee stage of the Bill to ensure that that is so. But, speaking for myself—and this is by no means a Party question—I take the view that, provided we can import into this Bill, either by legislation or by administration, all possible safeguards to prevent

19
children from going abroad and living in wholly unsatisfactory conditions, we ought to accept the provisions of Clauses 23 and 24.
Of course there will be other points, with which I have not attempted to deal on Second Reading, at which we shall look when the Bill is considered in Committee. I have said nothing about Part I, which relates to foster parents, because there is no particular comment I wish to make. I will conclude by wholly welcoming this Bill as marking a further stage in the advancement of the welfare of the least fortunate section of the community—these children—and I hope that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House and another place and will meet with the success which we all wish for it.
3.33 p.m.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, after the two speeches to which we have just listened, happily it will not be necessary for me to attempt to detain your Lordships at any great length. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has dealt with a number of points which no doubt will be fully and further investigated in Committee, none of them points with which I specifically wish to deal. First, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the lucidity with which as ever, he has expounded this rather complicated Bill, some of the language of which is legalistic rather than perfectly clear to the layman. I think the Government are to be felicitated on having brought forward, after this long time, a Bill which certainly carries this important matter considerably further.
The noble and learned Viscount said that this was an important Bill, and I do not think that there can be any possible question of the accuracy of that statement. We have moved considerably forward in the last thirty or forty years in this matter of the care of children. I can remember some thirty years ago writing an article to call attention to the evils of what was then rather prevalent in the form of baby farming, of children, unwanted by their parents, being passed on to foster parents, without any inquiries, for a lump sum of money. In that article I ventured to say that this was tantamount to hanging round their children the label "Please murder
20
baby." I was a little horrified to see that taken up and put on a poster all over London with my name underneath, especially as within a week or two of that my own child was born. As she still survives, perhaps any more may be left unsaid. Although that kind of thing is still not impossible, it is made much more difficult by this Bill, and I think that we can all congratulate the Government on having proceeded a long way to the implementation of the Hurst Committee Report.
It seems to me that adoption is becoming more and more important in these days. Both the noble Lords who have spoken have emphasised that there are more babies wanted than there are available. There is, indeed, a baby hunger among many childless couples in this country, and adoption is obviously the only decent and honourable method of meeting this hunger, apart from the rather distasteful method we discussed in your Lordships' House not so very long ago.
There are one or two points to which I should like to draw attention. The noble Viscount said, very properly, that in several respects the Bill did not follow the Hurst Committee's Report. If I may say so, he dealt extremely fairly with the dual sides of the controversy in relation to Clause 18, about the position of the parents as against the adopters. I know that there are two views either of which can be taken. I understand that the law at present says that consent must not be "unreasonably" withheld. The Bill goes further than that, and I am bound to say, though many with whom I am closely associated would not agree with me, that the words:
"…has persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian of the infant, and if the failure is likely to continue…"
represent a very fair holding of the balance, and I am entirely in favour of it.
As the noble and learned Viscount said, there are one or two points in which the Hurst Committee's Report has not been followed. He mentioned in particular the proposal that the child should be able to find out his natural parents' names. But there is one other point, of considerable importance, to which he did not refer, nor did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—that is. Clause 35, where the

21
period of notice has been lengthened, I am glad to see, to two weeks instead of one. I should have liked to see it Lengthened to six weeks, because two weeks is a very short time for proper inquiries to be made. If a child welfare officer calls several times and gets no answer, it is difficult to remove a child even from unsuitable surroundings. But the Hurst Committee lengthened the time to two weeks and I think that we must base ourselves on that.
There is another recommendation which has not been followed by the Bill and the noble and learned Viscount has not told us why. The Hurst Committee laid down as one of their principal recommendations that all third parties should be made respondents to applications. There is no mention of third parties in the Bill, except in a side-note to Clause 35, which is not part of the Bill. I cannot see why third parties should not be made respondents to an application. Those with whom I have been associated—and I speak with twenty-one years' presidency of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child—feel very strongly on this point. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack did not refer to it. He said only that there are certain things in the Bill which might be implemented by regulation, and, of course, this may be one of hem. I hope he will be able to give us that assurance, at least. If it is the intention that they should be made respondents, it would seem to me to be more satisfactory that that should be part of the Bill. That is the only real criticism I have. I think the Bill is a good one; am pleased it has been brought in, and I have every hope that it will be passed successfully through both Houses of Parliament.
3.40 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the two noble Lords who have already spoken and give a warm welcome to this Bill. I want to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin said: that it would be a great advantage if we could know which of the various recommendations of the Hurst Committee cant be dealt with by regulation, and which cannot. I think that would clear away a great deal of confusion and we should know much better where we
22
stood. One of the most important things referred to by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is that when considering the question of adoption the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. I think I should go even further and say that if the parents are unsatisfactory or difficult, then the welfare of the child is the sole matter that should be considered. That is why I would entirely support what the Bill does in Clause 18, where it makes it possible to dispense with some of the precautions previously taken in the adoption of a child.
One of the points made in the Hurst Report and which, I imagine, is implicit in the Bill is that the child should be told that it is an adopted child. It is a great advantage if the child is told that at a comparatively early age. This will not make any great difference to the development of the child, and if the parents are satisfactory it will accept the fact quite well. But if the information is kept from the child until it is of school age, then it may cause great trouble. I am sure it is right that the child should, as soon as it begins to understand things, be told that it is adopted and that these are not the real parents.
That brings me to the point of whether the child should be told the names of the original parents. There, in spite of the persuasive words used by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I cannot agree with him, but agree with what is laid down in the Bill. I know that the provision in Scotland is different and I know equally well that there has been no trouble in Scotland. Being a Scot myself, I should tend to support what they do in Scotland, but I am bound to say that in this case I think that what is done in England and Wales is preferable. I am sure that the vast majority of children do not want to know the names of the original parents, and that of those who do want to know, a number want to know for the wrong reasons. I am sure it will make for instability in some families if the children know that at the age of twenty-one they can find out who their parents are. I trust, therefore, that there will be no question of weakening on the part of the Government in respect of that matter.

23
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, on one point which he made. He said that the third party should be made respondent in adoption cases. It seems to me a pity that that point has not been put in the Bill. Possibly this provision can be made by regulation, but I do not know, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor will tell us something about that. On only one point I found the Bill a little difficult to follow. It is in Clause 25 (2), where it appears from the wording at the end that there may be occasions when the name of the child's natural parents will be given in some kind of document which which will not be kept secret but will be kept among the family's papers, to which the child may have access. Possibly I may have read the clause wrongly, but I should like the noble and learned Viscount to give me some satisfaction on that point when he replies. Apart from those few comments, I have nothing but praise for the Bill, and I trust it will have a speedy passage through this House and through another place.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has been overwhelmed by congratulations, but that will not prevent me from adding my mead of thanks to him for this Bill. I should like to associate myself, too, with the congratulations paid by my noble friend Lord Silkin to the work of the adoption societies. I am glad to say that, on the whole, the Bill is welcomed by the Association of Municipal Corporations. After all, it is the local councils who will have a large measure of responsibility for its administration. For example, in Clause 4 (3) a new power is given to local authorities—subject to appeal, of course—to prohibit a child from being received by a person for reward if the local authority considers the person unsuitable. That is a power which the local authorities have for a long time sought in regard to the administration of the Children Acts. It may be that when we come to Part II there will be some observations to make, but I think they can be left to the Committee stage of the Bill.
The Bill is welcomed because—and this is a fact that is sometimes overlooked—the Curtis Committee was set up as a
24
result of conditions of neglect, and something more than neglect, of children, not in local authority institutions, but boarded out. I will not trouble your Lordships by recalling the details. On a Second Reading of a Bill, it is, I believe, in order to refer not only to what is in the Bill, but to what is not in it. Therefore I feel I am justified in asking your Lordships to consider for a moment the position of children who are already in the care of local authorities and in institutions. If my information is correct, the conditions in some of the large institutions in this country are getting as bad, or nearly as bad, as those described by the Webbs in the famous Report of 1909.
May I give one example? In one institution such was the pressure on the accommodation that the only place that could be found for a new born baby to sleep in was in the drawer of a dresser in the kitchen. I suppose no one is to blame in regard to that matter. The local authorities are not to blame; certainly the Home Office is not to blame; nor are the people running the institutions. It comes down to the question of the lack of adequate accommodation for children in institutions, notwithstanding all that has been done for the boarding out of children by local authorities. In fact, the boarding out policy, which is now the officially recognised policy, may in some measure be a reason for the troubles to which I have referred.
The Children Act, 1948, if my memory is correct, effected a sudden change in administration. Prior to that Act, the masters and matrons—or, if you like to call them so, the superintendents and matrons—of children's homes had direct access to the appropriate committees. But the Act of 1948 superimposed on that administration the children's officer, and placed on the children's officer those responsibilities which up to that time had been those of the officers of the institutions. That, I think, caused a sudden change in administration, because the whole pressure, so to speak, is towards the boarding out of children. Whether that is right or wrong is a question into which I will not enter into at the moment; but how many learned psychiatrists know what is going on in the mind of a child of two, three, four or five? It is these learned psychiatrists who tell us that these children should be boarded out.

25
The pressure for boarding out being so strong—not, I would suggest, because of the cheapness of boarding out as compared to the cost of a child per head in an institution—the necessity for adequate accommodation recedes into second place, in the hope, of course, that things will adjust themselves. But I would repeal that if my information is correct—and I have no reason to doubt it—in some of the large institutions to-day conditions so far as children are concerned were never worse. I know I should give the names to the noble and learned Viscount, but I feel I should be wanting in my duty if I did not mention that this afternoon.
There is one minor point I should like to raise, and perhaps I am being hypercritical. It is with regard to Clause 37, which prohibits anonymous advertisements by persons offering to keep children. Again I may be taking an entirely wrong view. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the children's officers, who work in very difficult circumstances. They are doing an onerous and responsible job. But some local authorities or children's officers advertise children to be boarded out, and a list of the desirable qualities of the children are enumerated in the advertisement. I have always felt that to be somewhat objectionable. We have to realise that children going into a family where there are other children rarely really belong to that family. The other children know that that child is being received for payment. They know it is not one of them, and children, despite the idyllic stories we sometimes read, can be very cruel one to another, and the cruelty might not come to the surface. Therefore, while one welcomes this Bill and welcomes the increased powers given to local authorities, I hope that, so far as the local authorities are concerned, when the financial arrangements come to be considered they will have adequate financial provision to enable them to carry out fully and completely the responsibilities which this Bill places upon their shoulders. With that, I give the Bill an exceedingly hearty welcome.
3.58 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I rise also to welcome this Bill and to congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon
26
it. I do not think that any of our Departments has a longer or more honourable tradition of humane legislation than the Home Office. I believe that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would concur with me in that view had his experience been no more than that of the ordinary politician or even of a Law Officer. But, of course, he knows the Home Office also as Home Secretary, and I think it must have given him peculiar pleasure that it fell to him, as Lord Chancellor, to introduce this Bill this afternoon—a Bill which carries out many of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which he, as Home Secretary, set up. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, said in congratulating the Departmental Committee. The Chairman of that Committee was an old friend of many of us. I also welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about the excellent work of the adoption societies.
There are two major matters concerning that part of the Bill which deals with adoption that have been the subject of some discussion this afternoon. I would say a word on each of them. The first is the provisions now contained in Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, cogently though briefly, gave the reasons that persuaded the Government to put in provisions of this kind. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, agree that it was right to do so. I think that many children who under these clauses may get good homes might otherwise have had to continue to live in institutions. That does not mean, however, that there may not be very good reasons for the most searching examination of those clauses to make certain that the safeguards against possible abuses are adequate, and I am certain that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will welcome such examination.
If I might mention just one matter that strikes me on reading the Bill (I have no suggestion on how it should be dealt with), some of the most important words in the first subsection of Clause 24 are that the court has to be satisfied
"that the applicant intends to adopt an infant under the law of or within the country in which he is domiciled."

27
I was wondering whether it was desirable for the court to be satisfied not merely of the intention to adopt but of the likelihood of such adoption being accomplished, and whether full consideration has been given to the position that might arise if a provisional adoption order made in this country were not, in fact, followed by legal adoption in the country to which the infant was taken. I expect that that matter has been fully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and I think it is a difficult matter. I draw attention to it now only in order to mention one matter on which I think noble Lords in all parts of the House will desire to get as much reassurance as possible, when we consider these clauses in Committee.
The other matter which has been mentioned is the recommendation which was contained in paragraphs 201 and 202 of the Departmental Committee's Report. That is the one important point on which Her Majesty's Government did not follow the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. I am convinced that Her Majesty's Government were quite right in making the decision they did. I agree fully with that decision, and I was glad that it was also supported from the Liberal Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. There are three parties concerned in this recommendation; the child, the natural mother and the adopting parents. I believe that the change in the law recommended by the Committee would not have been in the interests of any of those three parties, and I believe, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government came to a right decision in proceeding as they did.
There is only one further matter on which I would say a word. I may here be pressing at an open door, because my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may be contemplating doing what I now suggest that he should in due course do. When the Bill now before the House has been carried into law, the law of adoption will be contained in the existing Adoption Act. 1950—in itself a consolidating measure—and in Part II of the present Bill. That will make it extremely difficult for any layman interested—and many laymen are interested—to find out what the law of adoption is. I very much hope that. when this Bill is on the Statute Book, my noble and learned friend contemplates a new consolidating Act from
28
which the law of adoption can be more readily ascertained. There is no greater authority on consolidation than my noble and learned friend, and if he tells me this is not practicable I should accept his word, but I should also be surprised. I hope that he will give us a word of hope in that respect. There is nothing more wish to say upon this Bill on Second Reading, though there are various matters which we shall no doubt carefully consider in Committee. I welcome the Bill and I thank Her Majesty's Government for it.
4.5 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting this Bill, which will be of the greatest service and will be one of the revolutionary changes in the treatment of children that have characterised the last half century, and particularly the last quarter century. For a long time, many years ago, I conducted a clinic in Southwark where we had examples of all the horrors to which child life could be exposed; and there were very many. I feel, therefore, all the more glad to be able to speak to-day, very briefly, as I shall, because it means that now the doorway has been opened to the rearing of healthy, well-proportioned and competent children fit to live in our civilisation and to contribute to it. There is nothing particularly valuable about any particular strain of people in this country. We are all very mixed, and one discovers. if one is a doctor, in a poor area or in a wealthy area, that there is a great deal of mixing of population in heredity, and that there is no special class difference one way or the other, except in so far as it is reflected in their upbringing, in the care which is given to them and in the assistance which is available to them to succeed in life.
This Bill is a very great step forward. I am very glad to find that we are going to pass the Bill—for I have no doubt that we shall. I believe that it will be of the greatest service; and I say that after a great number of years of experience in work in connection with children. Few things can do more good than to improve the condition of the upbringing of children. especially those who are likely to be neglected. In the early days of my work in, Southwark the neglected child, the dying child, the

29
rickety child, the malformed child, with very had rickets, almost unbelievable at the present time, was very common. Now it is very much less common; though it still exists; and there are many other evils which do exist.
I am, as I say, very glad to be here this afternoon and to listen to the speeches which have been made, because it means that there has been a complete revolution in the attitude of a great many people towards the care of children and their future. These children are part of the nation, and they should be given the chance to become fully equipped for life, to have all their faculties developed and to bring our civilisation some steps further. I do not wish to speak to-day on the details of the Bill. I think they are a matter for examination when it comes to the right stage for that purpose. but I feel that we might pride ourselves on dealing with this Bill to-day and look forward to the immense improvement that it is bound to bring to the children of the nation, especially those horn in the poorer ranks.
4.10 p.m.
The EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, as I was a foster parent "for reward" for some ten years of my life, ceasing in that capacity only some four years ago, I would venture to offer a few comments to your Lordships on Part I of this excellent Bill. The principal point that I would beg the noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack to consider is one of publicity. For many of the years during which I exercised my foster functions I was totally ignorant of the obligations which the law imposed, even at that epoch, upon foster parents, and I trust that the lapse of time will be held to have condoned my crime; but I did not, in fact, notify the authorities because I was entirely ignorant that such was my obligation.
This state of ignorance still exists. I came across a case of it the other day—good people who were taking charge of a baby under a most kindly arrangement with the parents. It was entirely proper, and there was nothing wrong about it at all: but they had not notified, and had net the least idea that it was their duty to notify, he local authority of what they were doing. Therefore, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to convey to the Home Secretary my urgent plea that
30
the means of publicity available to Her Majesty's Government should be exercised to make the provisions of this Bill, when it is enacted, better known. In this matter I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I would also support the noble Lord in his plea for consolidation. When the last Adoption Act was receiving its Third Reading in your Lordships' House I asked the Labour Government of the time for a consolidation of enactments, and that consolidation was granted. I feel justified in making the same request to-day.
There is a further point on which I fear that the provisions of this Bill will not be adequately known. I would remind your Lordships that it affects a great many parents who take foreign children for the period of summer holidays. As your Lordships are no doubt aware—certainly those who are parents will be aware—to-day it is a common thing for parents in France and England, or in Italy and England, or in other foreign countries and England to exchange their children for the purpose of enabling the children to learn a language. I have sent my children to France, and I have received foreign children, some of them under fifteen years of age, in my house, for the purpose of their learning the English language and English customs and ways. Sometimes this is done on an exchange basis, which would still, I think I am right in saying, come within the terms of fostering "for reward"; sometimes it is done on a simple monetary payment. I am a little concerned at the thought that all these numerous arrangements, if they endure for more than one month, as they commonly do, will be brought within this Act.
In the first place, I am not quite sure how one can make people realise that they have the duty of notification; and in the second place, I am not quite sure how local authority children's officers are going to cope with the rush of work which the Bill imposes. It will come principally during the summer, when we try to give our children's officers, who bear a case-load already heavy, a certain amount of time for holidays and when, therefore, the children's department is short-staffed. If we are now to have imposed upon us the duty of inspecting

31
the numerous homes to which foreign children are sent during the summer holidays, consideration will have to be given to how the necessary personnel is to be found. I am not quite certain whether the period of one month mentioned in the Bill might not be extended to two months. For the reasons which I have stated, I would ask for that point to be considered.
I would also draw attention to Clause 11 which requires a foster parent, on the death of a foster child, to notify the coroner or procurator fiscal. I know that at one time, when there was much baby fostering and much unsatisfactory fostering, when there was no adequate provision for the inspection of foster homes to which children were sent, and when there were few or no local authority officers to carry out that work, such a provision may have been most necessary and important: it may have helped to eliminate "baby farmers". But I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to consider, in conjunction with the Home Secretary and his advisers, whether it is strictly necessary to-day. Speaking as a foster parent, if I had had the great misfortune to lose my foster child, I think I should have felt this additional necessity somewhat keenly. I would ask for consideration of that point.
Finally, as I am a co-opted member of a children's committee, I feel that I should comment on the remarks that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Burden. There, I would ask that the House should preserve in this matter a sense of balance. I hope that all local authorities are well aware of the need to maintain a certain number, indeed, a considerable number, of empty places in their homes to provide for the emergency commitment of children. On the other hand, I am sure that the noble Lord will admit that it is most uneconomic and expensive for a local authority to maintain homes with a 50 per cent. occupancy or less. Yet unless a large number of free places are kept in local authority homes, there may be occasions on which overcrowding occurs.
One must remember that not infrequently a local authority is asked to take into its charge, quite quickly and suddenly, up to half a dozen children
32
from one family, the mother being suddenly taken ill and no other provision existing. If, as might well happen, and as does occasionally happen, several such children are brought into the care of the local authority, some degree of over-occupancy of homes is almost inevitable. In my experience, however, the over-occupancy is mitigated at the earliest possible moment, use being made of that very valuable class of citizen, the temporary foster parents, who are willing to receive foster children at very short notice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, who was perfectly justified in all he said (I have no quarrel with him upon that subject), will admit that this is a matter on which we must preserve a sense of reasonable balance and on which we cannot provide for every possible contingency that might—and occasionally does—arise.
4.21 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I believe that we in this country are entitled to feel a proper sense of pride and satisfaction at the progress which has been made over the past fifty years in the direction of promoting the protection and welfare of children. I think it can be fairly said that this policy has received the common consent of all informed persons of good will. This social policy is now paying some very handsome dividends—dividends which are continuous and growing; and I believe there is no limitation to such social dividends in respect of this corporate social activity. Thus it comes about. naturally, I feel, that this Bill has been warmly welcomed on all sides. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor may rest assured that no one in this House would wish in any way to impede its speedy and smooth passage on to the Statute Book.
As always, the noble and learned Viscount was clear and concise in his explanation of the provisions of the Bill which he properly said he trusted would be approached with sympathy but also critically; and it may well be that on the Committee stage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Conesford, has suggested, there will be occasion to examine certain of its provisions and also to inquire whether some of the recommendations of the Hurst Committee which do not appear in the Bill are likely to be dealt with satisfactorily by rules

33
and regulations. There may he honest differences as to some provisions of the Bill and as regards the absence of some of the recommendations of the Hurst Committee; but I feel that we can be fairly satisfied that there will be no barren controversy but that there will be a desire on the part of all concerned to make the Bill as satisfactory in the interests of the children as it is possible so to do.
As the noble and learned Viscount has said, Part I of the Bill draws into one Act most, if not all, of the current legislation relating to foster children and their care and supervision. It also confers further powers of supervision and removes doubts as to the definition of a foster child which I believe arose from a court decision. Those doubts have generated doubts in the minds of those who have to work the provisions of the law as to the applicability of the regulations and the working code, both generally and. in particular as regards children in boarding schools.
Part I also confers additional powers and obligations on local authorities as well as obligations on persons proposing to maintain a foster child for the first time. In that respect the present period of seven days' notice is extended to fourteen days. Moreover, there is in the Bill an important provision which revises the grounds for the removal of a child from an unsuitable foster home. I gather from those concerned with the operation of this activity that the current provisions, although they are detailed and in some respects very far-reaching, are also in some respects virtually unworkable. It is hoped that the proposals in the Bill will greatly ease the workability of the regulations and provisions.
As the noble and learned Viscount clearly explained, Part II amends the Adoption Act, 1950, which is in itself a Consolidation Act. As several noble Lords have said, the provisions of the Bill are largely based on the Report of the Hurst Committee, and I should here like to join in the tribute which has been paid to that Committee. The Report, although voluminous, is an admirable document, full of comprehensive, penetrating and balanced judgments and wise recommendations. Parts I and II of the Bill deal with separate matters, but in one respect, at least, they overlap. Clause 3 of Part I and Clause 35 of Part II
34
overlap, and it is thought that, as a consequence, some confusion in application may arise. I should like to come back to that particular point a little later on.
All our legislation in connection with foster children or adopted children has insisted that the welfare of the child—his happiness and his future—must rank very high indeed in the priorities. I would myself go so far as to say, with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, notwithstanding the view expressed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that the interests of the child must be paramount, without question. This does not mean that we should disregard the foster parents or the charity of feeling and of kindness which they exhibit when they take on the responsibility of rearing and caring for the child of another. Nor must we disregard the rights and interests of the natural parents: that is to say, those natural parents who accept and discharge their responsibilities. They, too, have their feelings and their parental attributes and rights.
That brings me to the provision of the Bill dealing with the dispensing with the consent of the parents, a matter which is dealt with in Clause 18 (3). This has always been a difficult matter, as I understand. There have been changes either of provision or of emphasis in successive Acts, and there have been two High Court decisions, all of which have left the position and the rights of parents in an imprecise, if not a confused, state; and certainly the question has not in any way been free from doubt. The Hurst Committee themselves were much exercised in the matter and devoted several paragraphs of their Report to consideration of this vexed, and indeed vexatious, question.
At the present time, to enable the court to dispense in adoption applications with the consent of the parents they must have failed in the past and be likely to continue to fail in the future to discharge their parental responsibilities to the child, without due cause. Parents may show willingness to discharge their responsibilities at least by sending the child tokens of affection from time to time, by remembering him on his birthday or at Christmas. At present, an adoption order can normally be made only if the parents consent, but their consent may be dispensed with in certain prescribed

35
circumstances, which, under the present law, derive largely from case decisions in the High Court. A parent's consent cannot be dispensed with if he or she wishes to continue in parental relationship to the child, notwithstanding that the parent may previously have failed completely to provide for him. This occasions great difficulty and injustice, which may very well in certain circumstances amount to cruelty.
In Clause 18 (3) there are, if I may say so with every respect to the noble and learned Viscount, three indeterminates, all of which it appears have to be determined before the magistrates' court may come to a decision whether the consent of the parent can be dispensed with. There are the words "persistently failed"; and then "without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian of the infant"; and there is an additional requirement expressed in the words "and that the failure is likely to continue if the order is not made". This has given rise to considerable anxiety in the minds of those who have had experience of administering the law, in that fractious and neglectful parents may, as they do now, wait until the last moment before they indicate whether they will grant their consent or not. This waiting, as it were until the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute, is of importance by reason of the judgment given in one case, in which it was held that consent must be given at the time the adoption order is made and can be withdrawn up to the last moment before the order is made. That can occasion, as I have said, great difficulty and can seriously impair the proper workings of the provisions of the law and the regulations made thereunder.
It is correct that the clause carries out the recommendation of the Hurst Committee that the word "unreasonably" should not be used; but, as I have said, it brings into the clause the words "without reasonable cause". I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought it would be a little difficult to distinguish between doing something "unreasonable" and doing something "without reasonable cause"; but no doubt the noble and learned Viscount will assist me and other noble Lords to an understanding of the difference.
36
There is also considerable anxiety as to how the magistrates' courts are to construe the words "the failure is likely to continue". This clause seems to me to be so worded as to cast a heavy burden for decision on the court. We must bear in mind that the magistrates and the lay justices are not trained lawyers; they are capable, upright persons doing their duty as magistrates in the best possible way. And they will, I think (and in this I gather that quite a number of persons concerned in the administration of the law hold the same view) find that this clause provides almost a happy hunting ground for lawyers and others. The difficulties which will face the lay magistrates are perhaps likely to be increased by reason of the fact that there is conferred by Clause 21 a new right, or there will be a new right, of appeal from the decision of the magistrates' court as to dispensing with the consent of the parent.
There is anxiety that this clause, as presently drafted, may seriously prejudice the interests of the child, and in some cases the child's welfare may be sacrificed to a notional, unreal and unjustified refusal to consult by a thoroughly unworthy and neglectful parent. If the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could look into the wording of this clause and find means of clarifying it. I am sure that it would be greatly appreciated by those who will have to operate the new law.
Clause 30 widens the powers of local authorities in the case of a child for whose adoption an application has been made, even if the child is not in the statutory care of a local authority. This will remove another difficulty and uncertainty. The Bill also provides recognition of local authorities as full adoption agencies and quite properly imposes upon them the responsibilities and requirements which at present are imposed upon adoption societies. As I have said, Clause 3 extends the period of notice to local authorities from seven to fourteen days in cases where persons undertake the care of a child for reward—that is, foster parents. Clause 35 seeks to do the same for children to be adopted. Here occurs the overlap which is causing perturbation in the minds of those who will operate the law.
Clause 35 seeks to make Part I applicable to children placed for adoption by

37
third parties or in respect of whom a notice of intention to adopt has been given to a local authority. This involves the framing of Clause 35 on the basis of a complex series of exceptions to Part I—namely, by changing the definitions of foster child in Part I, "for reward" and the without-reward basis of placing, and removing certain clauses, subsections or parts thereof which are not relevant to a child placed for adoption—for example, subsections (2), (3) and (6) of Clause 35. In the result—this is the view expressed by those who will be concerned to operate the law—Clause 35 and Part I together become something in the nature of a legal maze. Adoption case workers who are normally untrained in legal complexities will find it extremely difficult to interpret the provisions for themselves or explain them in a simple way to parents, adopters or third parties without legal guidance. There is a feeling that this Clause 35 will prove unworkable in the day-to-day field work because of its complexities. Something much simpler and more direct, even it be longer, is required.
One suggestion has been put forward of a rather drastic character—namely, that the Bill should be re-cast as two separate Bills, one for the supervision and protection of foster children placed for reward apart from their parents, and the other to amend the Adoption Act, 1950, including its separate provisions for supervision of children placed for adoption by third parties and children about whom notices of intention to adopt have been made. How far that suggestion can be acted upon is not for me to say, but I think that we should all agree that when it is a case of social legislation affecting intimate and intensely human and personal matters such as adoption, the law should be clear and simple and easily understandable to the laymen who have to administer it.
Moreover, third parties are sometimes difficult persons, who resent the intrusion of local authorities and authorised adoption societies and agencies and the imposition of their regulatory requirements. There is great apprehension that this clause may become a happy hunting ground for what are graphically described as "sea lawyers". I am sure that if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could look into the question of simplifying in one way or another the
38
provisions of Clause 35 in relation to Clause 3, those concerned with the administration of the law would be very grateful.
I come now to Clause 23, which deals with the adoption of children by people domiciled in this country. This restores the position, generally speaking, to what it was before the decision of Mr. Justice Harman in 1951, and accordingly there can be no objection in principle if proper and adequate safeguards are maintained. But Clause 24, as the noble and learned Viscount said, goes much further. It intends to permit people, whether British or not, who are domiciled in this country to get a provisional adoption order, which would give them the custody of a child whilst in this country and authority to take the child abroad for adoption elsewhere. It is true that it carries a safeguard that an applicant must satisfy all the normal adoption requirements apart from domicile, but this clause goes a long way. While it may in operation ease the situation which exists as regards certain groups of people—namely, where there are more children than persons willing to adopt them—nevertheless, it contains serious consequential dangers. For instance, one would like to inquire as to what regard will be paid to the general protective laws as to children in the countries into which they are to be taken: whether there is any restriction upon the age at which they can be set to work, and what are the provisions in regard to their education and other requirements which we now regard as being normal for the protection of children in this country.
After all, the standard of living and the level of civilisation in the countries to which the children may be taken is an important factor in the making for or making against the interests of the child. I can appreciate one of the points brought up in support of this proposal: that it would resolve difficulties which are being met in regard to coloured persons in this country who would wish to adopt a coloured child. We do not know, but we all hope that there will come a time—though we always welcome citizens of the United States, whether they be coloured or otherwise—when the reasons why there are so many here in this country as our guests may no longer prevail, and that, therefore, the

39
number will be much less. At any rate, if this proposal is to be part of the Bill, it seems that the strictest safeguards will have to be devised.
Then the question arises as to how far, whatever safeguards may be devised, we can effectually enforce them in a foreign country to which the child has been taken and a citizen of which country the child may well become. I know that persons concerned with the administration of the law are much exercised in their minds whether this may not endanger the future of the child; whether a child should be adopted and taken abroad, especially to a non-English-speaking country, where the way of life and the allegiances are in many cases fundamentally different from those of the parents and from those prevailing in this country.
I should like to conclude with a word or two in regard to the absence of any provision in the Bill implementing the recommendation of the Hurst Committee that an adopted child should, when he reaches the age of twenty-one, have the right to know of his natural parents and other circumstances with regard to himself. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Silkin. I admit at once that this is a matter of balance and poise of considerations. We must seek to avoid being doctrinaire about it. There can be advantages in conferring this right upon an adopted child; there can also be disadvantages, both for the adopted child and for his natural parents, as well as for the adopting parents. I feel that one must be completely convinced, without peradventure of doubt or mistake, that the advantages likely to flow from conferring this right will outweigh the risks which it will inescapably involve. No doubt in some cases—maybe in many cases—it would be all right and to the advantage of the adopted child and the other parties; but in many other cases the consequences might well be almost calamitous for the child himself, for the adopters and for the natural parents, or for any one of them. The happiness and the peace of mind of these other persons may be seriously disturbed.
We must remember that years will have passed since the adoption of the child, and the circumstances of the
40
natural parents or parent may have changed completely. The mother may have married or re-married and may have had a family: all sorts of complications, embarrassments, hardships and sorrows might be occasioned. I think it is not putting it too high to say that in quite a number of cases there would be the danger that a happy home might well be shattered. In those circumstances, notwithstanding that the law in Scotland entitles the adopted child to have this information when he reaches the age of seventeen, I think the question must be decided by the dictates of reason and calm judgment rather than by an understandable feeling of sentiment and perhaps emotion. On balance, I think the Government are right in not acting on this recommendation of the Hurst Committee, and in the end I think the advantages will lie in not applying that recommendation.
There are other points, as I have already indicated, that I shall wish to make on the proper stages of the further consideration of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack indicated that some of the recommendations of the Hurst Committee will be dealt with in the rules and regulations which are to be promulgated. Suffice it to say this evening that I, with others, warmly welcome this Bill, and wish it a smooth passage to the Statute Book, amended as may be thought wise and proper.
5.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think that anyone who has had the honour to put a Bill before your Lordships' House could have less reason than I to complain of the reception it received. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I shall do my best to deal with the points that they have raised. If there are any others with which I am unable to deal, I hope that the opportunity will arise either of writing to the noble Lords concerned or of discussing the point in Committee.
If I may take one general point, I was most interested that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, should revert to that passage in Professor Kennan's lectures. In doing so, he has brought a dangerous possible duty on himself, because, if your Lordships will allow me to say so. I

41
gave a lecture in Toronto University in January which turned on the subject of the highest common factor of international relations. I also was inspired by that passage in Professor Kennan's lectures in which he underlined the importance in foreign affairs of removing suspicions which Communist Powers might have of us. I ventured to develop in my lecture the point that the rule of law and the English Common Law, which we had applied not only to ourselves but to every other country, showed the emphasis which we placed on conduct and was some answer to any suspicion that might arise. Therefore, I was most interested that the noble Lord should have pursued the same line of thought with regard to the treatment of the under-privileged and those who constitute the casualties of life. I am most grateful for what he said, and I join with him in the thanks he expressed for all those who work with and for children. The danger is that, after what he said, I might feel justified in sending him a copy of my lectures, when they are published, and that he might feel he had to read them.
On the second point, which the noble Lord raised, the issue of a document of some sort indicating which parts of the Hurst Committee's Report we had put into operation and which parts not, and why, as he will appreciate these questions are easier to pose than to answer shortly, because in some cases it is necessary to explain why there is a slightly different slant. However, I am anxious to help, and I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider it helpful if I tried to get prepared an informal document—not a White Paper, which has all the pomposity of a State document—which I could circulate to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to any other noble Lords who write to ask me for it. I do not say that it will do everything for which the noble Lord has asked, but it will be an attempt to help in that direction. I will certainly do that, and it will be as full as I can make it. I hope the noble Lord feels that that answers the spirit of his point.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I say I am sure that it does, and I am grateful for the offer, which I at once accept. I am sure that every noble Lord who has spoken will do the same.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The next point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised was one which I stated would be a matter of controversy, as indeed it is; and that is the right of adopted persons to know, as a right, when they get to twenty-one, who their natural parents are. The point has been discussed in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, put the contrary view a few moments ago; therefore, I shall not develop it at any length. I have tried, in forming my own view, to follow the line which my noble friend Lord Conesford indicated; that is, to look at the problem from the three points of view—the view of the adopted child himself, the view of the natural parents and the view of the adopting parents.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, it is the first that produces the most difficulty. I have read the letters, as I am sure he has, that have appeared from the adopted children on this point, and I have been struck, as he was, by the desire for a respect for their own human individuality which the writers of these letters expressed. But the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was good enough to agree with me in saying that adoption has become part of our social action and gained a place in the community. In these circumstances, it is difficult to apply the same tests for human rights as one would do if adoption did not exist, because almost prospectively the person who is adopted must take society as it exists with adoption, and accept what makes adoption work best. I have tried to put the matter as reasonably as I can. because I was anxious to meet that point of view and it is a subject to which. as one who is mainly responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights. I have given great attention in the past.
From the point of view of the natural parents, I find the greatest difficulty in seeing the answer to these troubles, with which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has just dealt. At the time of which he speaks the years may have passed, and an entirely different situation and entirely different relationships may obtain. With regard to the adopting parents, the balance of what has been put before me is that the clean break, in the absence of contesting loyalties, would not only make

43
their task easier but would prevent an undermining of a position which years of trust and affection have built up or, what is almost as bad, the fear that the position has been undermined. Therefore, when these views are coupled with the advice that we received from adoption societies, I felt that we had taken the right course. I have repeated these arguments briefly only in order to show Lord Silkin, whose view I value so much, that the matter received grave consideration before we formed this view.
My noble friend Lord Gorell, who told me that he has had to go to an important engagement, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, both dealt with the question of the representation of third parties. That matter can be dealt with by rule. I cannot give any undertaking at the moment as to whether it will be in the rules, because I should like to consider the point they have made and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I should like them to know that the matter is not ruled out, and they will, of course, have an opportunity, should the decision of my right honourable friend not be palatable to them, of raising later the question of the rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asked me about Clause 25, subsection (2), and I should like, if he will bear with me, just to explain what, in my view, it does. It makes clear what names the court is to direct the Registrar-General to enter in the Adopted Children Registers in compliance with Section 18 (1) of the principal Act, the Act of 1950, which relates to England, and Section 20 (1), which relates to Scotland. This is a point which I hope will remove Lord Amulree's doubts. The names to be entered are the name or names and surname stated in that behalf in the application in the adoption order, and no other names. If no name and surname are stated in the application, the original name or names of the infant and the surname of the applicant are to be entered. Those provisions remove the difficulties (which the noble Lord will find mentioned in paragraph 206 and 207 of the Hurst Committee's Report) which have arisen when courts have felt themselves obliged to record in the adoption order an infant's original name or names
44
or the surname of the applicant, even when that was not desired; and they remove also the Scottish difficulty which is mentioned in paragraph 209. So I think the provision is one in favour of, and not against, the view that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree was expressing. That is my view at the moment. However, I will consider it again, and if the noble Lord has any doubts perhaps he will raise the matter in Committee; or, if he sends me a note, I will deal with it when that clause comes before the Committee of the whole House.
LORD AMULREE: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation. I think it does set my mind at rest on that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, as he is perfectly entitled to do on Second Reading, dealt not only with the Bill, to which he was most kind, but with certain matters which he was well aware were not in the Bill. I think he will agree that it is fair to answer him in this way. I will bring his points to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I am sure he will consider them. They are most important ones, although they are not in this Bill. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Burden, in the tribute he paid, despite his doubts, to the work of the children's officers. I think that was an admirable office to create. I had the great pleasure once of dining with Dame Myra Curtis, so I know personally not only what they do but the sort of people they are, and I willingly join with the noble Lord in his praise. I hope he will be content if I say that I will convey his points to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
My noble friend Lord Conesford raiesd an interesting point on the foreign adopter aspect, on the question whether there should also be a provision as to the likelihood of adoption. I certainly thought that would be a matter that the courts would consider, the objective as well as the subjective aspect; but I will look into it again, and here again I will let him know what view we form. I do give him a word of hope on consolidation.

45
The, noble Lord, Lord Latham, raised the question of whether there should not be two Bills. If the noble Lord had to fight for places in the legislative programme he would, I think, on balance be very pleased that he had got one Bill, even if it has two Parts. I was grateful to have the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, and I was interested in the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, because the question of publicity, which was his first point, was very much in my mind. I raised it with those who were advising me, because I think it extremely important, if that part of Part I is to work, that we should try to ensure that the local authorities do their utmost to bring this matter to the attention of all foster parents. I am told that in the cases to which the original legislation was mainly directly, and in the cases where we want to ensure that there is no danger of "baby farming" in the old way, the difficulty will not arise so much, because the children are known to various officials of the local authority. I assure the noble Earl, however, that that point is in our minds.
With regard to the question he raised about foreign children who come for the holidays and the like, I drew attention, when was moving the Second Reading, to the provision for exemptions. I should have thought that if the person who was going to have a foreign child with him dropped a line to the local authority to explain what was going to happen, there would not be any difficulty in getting the exemptions. It is always troublesome when one introduces another regulation into our intensely complicated life. I think I have the story right; it is Wee Willie Winkle, one of Kipling's early stories, which shows how, even in the best regulated sending to somebody else of a child, the most awful things can occur; and the awful effect they may have on the child's mind.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I think it was Baa, Baa, Black Sheep.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had a feeling I was wrong: I knew that I was back in the nursery rhyme field, but I had the wrong one. I am very grateful to the noble Earl. However, it shows the need which justifies the regulations here.
46
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, answered my request in full measure, and gave us a full and critical examination of the Bill, for which I am very grateful. I shall consider carefully all the points he raised. A number of them were legal points, and I am not going to go into them at great length to-clay, though I should very much like to—it is a great temptation to a lawyer. I did not think that the juxtaposition or the non-juxtaposition of Clauses 23 and 25 caused the difficulty, but I think Lord Latham feels that we could, with a further effort, find easier protection for the child to be adopted or waiting for adoption. I will of course, look into that point with pleasure. We have done our best at the moment and I will consider his criticisms on that point.
LORD LATHAM: If I may say so, that is Clause 35.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. I think the noble Lord will agree that we had to find some protection for the child waiting for adoption. We have taken the protection from the first Part of the Bill, and the noble Lord finds that that has a complicated result. Of course I will look at it.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to Clause 18 (3), I think the noble Lord was afraid it would mean that the undeserving parent would be able to throw a spanner in the works. Again, of course, I will look at the point, should like him to consider this thought—and perhaps he will be good enough to discuss it with those who are advising him on the legal position. The three tests are all tests of fact. The first one is that the parent or guardian has "persistently failed" to carry out his obligations. "Persistent" is a well-known word which has been construed many times; I do not think it should present any difficulty. But it is essentially a question of fact whether the person "persistently failed…to discharge the obligations of a parent." When the courts have considered that, and if they find as a matter of fact that he has persistently failed, then they have to consider the second point—whether he failed "without reasonable cause." Again, Lord Latham will take it from me that "reasonable cause" is a well-known legal

47
term; it postulates that there must be an existing cause, and that it is a cause which provides a reasonable excuse for failure.
I think that one answer to his difficulty is that if a person says, "I have failed; I have failed more than once; I have failed persistently. I had a reasonable cause; I had 'T.B.'; I was in great trouble with some other children, "or something like that; or my wife was very ill," that is the sort of thing that might be regarded as a reasonable excuse. It is a matter for the court; it is a question of fact, and it is a well-known phrase.
LORD LATHAM: I think that the lay magistrate will find it difficult to distinguish between without reasonable cause "and unreasonable."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the difference is this. An unreasonable persistent failure is, both as a matter of English and of thought, rather difficult to contemplate. But perhaps the noble Lord would take it in two steps: that you first of all, as you must do, find that there has been a persistent failure to discharge the duties of a parent, and then ask yourself: Was there any cause for his failure? He says what the cause was, and you then consider whether it constituted a reasonable excuse for the failure. Again, I will look at the point, but I do not myself—largely because I have been brought up with the term "reasonable cause," though I must not allow that to blind my eyes to other people's difficulties—quite see the difficulty.
LORD LATHAM: I am most grateful, but I almost feel that the noble and learned Viscount has in his own argument made my case: that a lay magistrate will have the greatest difficulty in interpreting this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, I do not like to claim too much, but he might even read my speech—though perhaps that is too much to ask.
The other point is on the words "likely to continue". That again is a matter that
48
can be answered only by estimating the mental state of the parent. I am fortified by the phrase of a noble Lord in this House, sitting judicially, that the state of a man's mind is as much a question of fact as the state of his digestion. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, on this point is that magistrates must take a common-sense view and apply their own forecast of what the parent is likely to do in the future. I do not think that the parent with whom the noble Lord wanted to deal will get away from it.
My Lords, I am afraid that I have taken a long time, but your Lordships raised a number of points, and I have tried to answer them. There is just one point which I think is most important—it was raised first by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. They said that they would both be inclined to go further than I have gone, and would say that the welfare of the child should be paramount. May I just put the difficulty there? Nobody would deny that it should rank high—I said myself that it should rank very high—but I suggest that one cannot make it paramount, otherwise the result might be (I take an obvious example) that poor parents might lose a child against their wishes because a wealthy couple wanted to adopt it. That would be quite contrary to the spirit in which any of us to-day has approached this problem. I take that illustration only to show why I made the limitation which I ventured to put before your Lordships in my earlier speech.
I again apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time, but the matter has not only aroused interest but produced interesting speeches to which I felt, out of respect for them, I ought to reply.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WATER BILL [H.L.]
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in moving that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill I should like to offer your Lordships an apology. I hope that by so doing I am not trespassing in advance on the ground that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, proposes to traverse on Thursday. My apology is this. Noble Lords who are particularly concerned with this Bill have complained hat Her Majesty's Government have not allowed sufficient time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage for them to consult with their friends in the country who are similarly interested. I apologise, and if I can I should like to make amends by promising here and now that we will allow plenty of time between the Committee and the Report stages to make up for our shortcomings at this stage of the Bill. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Obtaining supplies to meet drought
1.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied that by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any locality exists or is threatened, he may, on the application of any statutory water undertakers who supply water in that locality, make an order containing such provisions for any of the following purposes as appear to him to be expedient with a view to meeting the deficiency, that is to say—

(a)for authorising the undertakers, subject to any specified conditions or restrictions, to take water from any specified source for a period not exceeding six months, or

(b)for suspending or modifying, subject to any specified conditions, and for a period not exceeding six months, any restriction or obligation to which the undertakers are subject as respects—

(i) the taking of water from any source,

(ii) the discharge of compensation water, or

(iii) the filtration or other treatment of water.

50
and the Minister may include in the order such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as appear to him to be expedient for those purposes.
(5) In the exercise of his power to make orders under this section the Minister shall have regard to the interests of all persons concerned in the conservation or use of the water to which the order relates, whether for the purposes of agriculture, fisheries, industry or navigation, or for other purposes.
EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved, in subsection (1) after "locality" to insert: "and after consultation with the appropriate river board". The noble Earl said: I believe it would be proper if at the outset I declare an interest. I have for many years been a director of one of the great statutory companies—the Bristol Water Works Company—and I declare that interest. I think it is inconceivable that there is any direct financial gain to me or them. I would preface my remarks on this particular Amendment by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for having stated, as he has, the difficulty in which some of us have been put owing to the shortage of time. It is obvious that on a technical Bill of this kind noble Lords who have to move Amendments and will want to speak on the Committee stage must consult with associations, boards and groups of people and there has been all too little time to do that. If, therefore, any of these Amendments which I shall propose are not perfect or not in the form in which they should be, that, although it is not an excuse, is the reason.
Noble Lords will see that I have a number of Amendments down in my name, and perhaps it would be wise if, in moving this first Amendment, I said that they really all follow a theme, and that the general theme is that river boards are not receiving, and in this Bill have not received, the mention or attention to which their importance and the statutory duties with which they are charged entitle them. After all, river boards are young bodies. They were born (if that is the correct term) only in 1948 and it may conceivably be that some Parliamentary draftsmen have not yet become fully aware of their existence and have, as it were, "dragged them in" at the end of a clause in a manner which is not commensurate with their dignity or what they have to do.

51
River boards are charged with statuory duties in connection with fisheries and pollution. The "clean river" policy, so obviously the right one, is now universally acknowledged to be the wise policy for our rivers, and I consider it to be of paramount importance under that policy that if the duties that fall upon river boards are properly to be carried out, they must be consulted when matters vitally affecting their rivers are proposed. We all know that the point and object of this Bill is to replace Defence Regulations by statutory powers, and in doing so we must be very careful that the new Statute is really complete and covers all the points it should.
I believe it is clearly desirable that before the Minister makes orders he should consult the appropriate river board with a view to obtaining their assistance in considering how water for domestic supplies can best be made available while restricting to a minimum the damage to the interests of that river board. In this connection I would point out that under Clause 1 (5) of the Bill the Minister has to
"have regard to the interests of all persons concerned in the conservation or use of the water to which the Order relates."
Among those interests are fisheries. As it is the river boards who are concerned with fisheries, I submit that subsection (5) concedes the principle that the interests of river boards have to be taken into account. In these circumstances I consider that to enable the Minister to be fully aware of all the competing factors involved, he should be under a duty to consult the river boards concerned before making an order. Therefore I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("locality") insert ("and after consultation with the appropriate river hoard").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD BURDEN: May I say a word or two in support of the case so admirably put by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave? For some years I had the opportunity of serving on a catchment board which under the River Boards Act was merged in the new setup. No one who has had experience of the work of the river boards can have failed to be impressed, first, by the
52
many hours of devoted service which members of those boards give to their work—service which receives little if any publicity and is in a very large measure its own reward; and secondly, by the fine staff of technical officers which the river boards have built up in connection with this work.
As the noble Earl has pointed out, the river boards ask only to be consulted in this matter. They recognise that the last word must be with the Minister; but surely, as their men are on the spot and know the problems arising in regard to pollution, trouble with fish and so on, and in view of the fact that they are the pollution and fisheries authority, it is not really asking too much that, prior to an order being made, the appropriate river board should be consulted, so that the Ministry may have the fullest possible information from the men on the ground. Please let us not have the argument that the "gentleman in Whitehall" really knows best. We have had that thrown at us from the other side many times. Now I throw it back to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in the hope that he will give us the case for which we are asking.
LORD SALTOUN: I have spoken to your Lordships so often on the subject of pollution that I do not need to weary you again this afternoon. I wish only to say that I support this Amendment and Amendment No. 4 to be moved by the noble Earl.
LORD MANCROFT: The main effect of the Amendment will be to require my right honourable friend before making any order to consult with the appropriate river board. I would not for a moment detract from the power, efficiency or worth of the river boards, but I believe that this Amendment goes too wide. There will be some orders with which river boards need not be concerned at all—orders about filtration or other treatment of water or authorised abstractions from lakes, ponds and disused gravel pits which do not connect with a river. In so far as a river board are directly concerned with an order (and this may have escaped the memory of one or two noble Lords) they are already protected by the procedure in the First Schedule, which entitles them to receive notice and to make objections. It is desirable that their representations should be considered by

53
the Minister together with those of other objectors, and it would be both unnecessary and time wasting to require that the Minister should consult them separately. I cannot, therefore, I am afraid, accept: his Amendment.
Some noble Lords have repeated arguments which were put forward on Second Reading about why at least statutory water undertakers should consult the river board before applying for an order. Water undertakers who rely on river abstractions for their supplies are normally, I think the Committee will agree, in close touch with the appropriate river board, and they may be expected to consult as a matter of course when a drought is threatened. After all, drought is the thing which we are talking about throughout this Bill. I believe I can give the noble Earl some comfort. I can give him an undertaking that my right honourable friend the Minister will consider putting some advice to water undertakers on this particular point in any circular which is sent out dealing with procedure under the Bill. I think in point of fact that will meet all the points which the noble Earl has made and will get over the difficulty of this Amendment, which would go far too widely. I see what the noble Earl is trying to do and I think that if he will accept that undertaking it will meet his difficulty completely.
LORD BURDEN: I hope we are not going to step off on the wrong foot again in regard to this Bill, which is essentially a non-Party Bill, with a stonewalling from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Please do not put these river boards simply in the position of objecting after they hear that an order is to be made. That is the essential point of the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has put to us they will have the opportunity of objecting. Surely an appropriate, responsible authority is entitled to more consideration than that from the Ministry in regard to matters which are of vital importance to it. But if the noble Lord will consider putting down an Amendment on Report stage which will give the river board the opportunity of being consulted when there is an order which is of vital importance so far as the work of the river board is concerned, then I am sure the noble Earl will look at the matter again.
54
He will speak for himself; but I personally am not content simply to have this stonewalling on an Amendment right at the beginning of the Committee stage, without any offer of co-operation at all from the noble Lord.
LORD MANCROFT: And I am not content to be accused of stonewalling. I went to considerable lengths to tell my noble friend who is behind me that I would try to meet his point in a way that would meet with his complete satisfaction. If the noble Lord thinks that that is stonewalling, I can only think that he will be in for a shock later in his political career when he sees what stonewalling can be if we set our minds to it. I have offered my noble friend an attempt, by means of the advice we propose to send out, to meet his point completely. I told him. I hope in as conciliatory a way as I could, that the method he proposed for dealing with this matter is not the right way. I suggested an alternative way which I think will meet his point completely; and the noble Lord opposite has accused me of stonewalling. I will not accept that; but I hope that my noble friend Earl Waldegrave will accept the offer I made him.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not want to get involved in these very high-level matters, and I must tell the noble Lord opposite that I shall be happy to withdraw this Amendment on the assurance my noble friend has given me. If my Amendment went too far, he may also perhaps be justly accused of going a little too far in his rebuttal of it. He said that the Amendment went too far when it asked for river boards to be consulted in every case. My whole object this afternoon is to try to get the river boards on all fours with, and on the same basis as, local authorities. It must be that often local authorities are to have statutory notice given to them when they are not actually going to have anything to do with a particular case. They will have consultation and notice, and I should have liked the river boards to be on all fours with them. But after the assurance which has been given by the noble Lord I shall not press this Amendment at the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw
5.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONmoved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) Undertakers who execute works in pursuance of an order made under this section shall remove all such works immediately after the expiration of the period laid dawn in the order under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section or where the period is extended by an order made under subsection (3) of section four of this Act, immediately after the end of the period as so extended and if the undertakers fail to remove all the works within a period of fourteen days after the expiration of the said period, or the said period as so extended, they shall, without prejudice to their civil liability, if any, to a person aggrieved, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds in respect of each day on which the offence has been committed or is continued:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the owner and lessee or occupier of any land in on or over which works are executed agrees in writing to the works remaining in on or over that land."
The noble Viscount said: Before I develop my argument on this Amendment, I should like to apologise in advance for any errors in procedure into which I may fall, and to seek the indulgence of the Committee, which I know they are always ready to give to those who speak here for the first time. I should like also to apologise to the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, because I could not be here for the Second Reading of this Bill; but I have studied the Bill and the discussion on Second Reading, and I fully understand the view of Her Majesty's Government about the scope of the Bill. Lastly, I ought also to declare an interest as Chairman of the Port of London Authority, which, along with other port authorities, is of course very much concerned with the possible repercussions of orders made under the Bill.
May I first make a general observation which has some relevance to the various Amendments which I have put down? It seems to me that when we are converting emergency powers into permanent statutory powers, as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has said, we should take great care and seize the opportunity to examine very carefully the scope of the powers which we are proposing to give to the Minister, and consider whether it would be wise to introduce some checks upon those powers or to circumscribe them in some other way. It is in that spirit that I have
56
drafted (with a good deal of assistance, because I am not much of an expert at it) the Amendments I have put down.
This Amendment, No. 2, is aimed, as your Lordships will see, at only one thing: to ensure that temporary works which are executed to meet an emergency are removed after the period of the emergency has passed. Under subsection (3) of this clause an order may authorise works to be executed; but although the order authorises emergency measures for a period of only up to six months, which can be then extended by a further order to twelve months, nothing is said about removing the works. I fully appreciate that in many cases the works will be inherently of a temporary nature, portable pumps and so on, which would naturally be removed when the emergency was over. But I should think there must also be cases where the works are of a more permanent nature, involving brickwork Or masonry, culverts, bridges and the like; and it seems to me that in that case the Committee ought to consider whether it is not right to have some provision for those works to be removed.
Of course, it may be in some cases that the owners or occupiers of the land will be well content to leave these more Or less permanent works where they are—I will not say against another emergency, because, clearly, if another emergency of the same kind is anticipated that would take the case rather outside this Bill and bring it to something under which the water undertakers should exercise their ordinary powers. But, for instance, it might be that it would create more disturbance to the land to remove the works than to leave them. In that case owners or occupiers may, be very willing that they should be left, and a proviso to that effect has been included in the Amendment.
There surely will still remain cases where undertakers ought to remove works, and that is the whole object of this clause. When I consulted the friends who helped me with the drafting, I was sorry to find that we had created a new offence, because I think that that was something none of us liked to do. At the time we could not see how else we could make the removal of these works effective compulsorily. It has occurred to me since that perhaps it could be done by giving to the owners or occupiers the

57
right, when the emergency was over and if the works were not removed, to remove them themselves and recover the costs front the water undertaker. Then we should not create an offence or introduce any system of fines
It has been suggested that there is no reason for putting this clause in the Bill, because the requirement to remove works that have been erected for an emergency could be written into the order in appropriate cases. We have tried carefully to see how that can be done, and I must confess that we really cannot see it. The first idea is to bring it within the words coming at the end of Clause 1 (1):
"…the Minister may include in the order such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as appear to him to be expedient for those purposes."
I cannot see how an order to remove works at the end of an emergency can be expedient for the purpose of either abstracting water or suspending or modifying specified conditions, and it seems to me that an order that included such a provision might well be challenged.
I thought that perhaps it could be brought into subsection (3) (a), which provides that an order
"may authorise the undertakers for that purpose to enter upon any specified land and to occupy and use the land to such extent and in such manner as may be requisite for the execution and maintenance of the works."
Again I am defeated, because once the emergency has expired undertakers will have no further right to enter upon occupied or used land and maintain works, but there is nothing that says that they have to remove them. If it is the intention that in all appropriate cases the undertaker should be required to remove works, then I suggest that the way to do it is to make that perfectly clear in the wording of the Bill, by accepting either this Amendment or some other appropriate Amendment that will have the same effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After subsection (3) insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD SALTOUN: My first and pleasing task is to congratulate the noble Viscount upon his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. No man is really willing to hold a candle to the sun, and that would be my position with regard to the noble Viscount, whose clear lucidity must
58
remind your Lordships forcibly of his noble father. I hope that the Government will be able to accept, if not this Amendment then a modified Amendment, because I can imagine nothing more hard to bear than the long continued presence of works that are no longer necessary and interfere with a man's own enjoyment of his property.
5.55 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I should like to add my congratulations to those of Lord Saltoun to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on his maiden speech. It is a particularly pleasant duty to me. I think that the noble Viscount knows of my great affection and respect for his noble father, who actually proposed my health at my wedding. The noble Viscount brings not only a distinguished name but also a distinguished office to our deliberations, and I hope that we shall hear from him on many future occasions, not always on a subject so specialised and recherché as that which we are now discussing.
I wish that I were able wholeheartedly to accept the first Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved in your Lordships' House. I can go some way—in fact, a long way—to meet him, but we cannot accept this Amendment; and I think he has guessed why. I do not like the creation of this new and important offence. I would suggest to the noble Viscount that in the great majority of cases the removal of works is most unlikely to be a real or practical difficulty. Experience of what has been done under the Defence Regulations since the war (and this matter has been looked at fairly carefully), shows that the most likely use of these powers will be to authorise pumps and other plant to be taken on to land. Very little, if any, constructional work will need to be carried out, and I imagine that the undertakers will be only too keen to remove their plant when the need for it to be kept there has come to an end. But if, in a particular case, more elaborate works are to be carried out, it is preferable that precise terms of the removal conditions should be considered by the Minister and then embodied in the order. I think that that is the right way to do it.
The noble Viscount doubts whether we can do it in that way. It is open to question, but I am advised that it can

59
be done, as he suggested, under the power in Clause 1 (1) to include in an order "supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions". A similar discretionary power was found to be satisfactory in the Water Supplies Act. 1934, and at the moment my right honourable friend does not see the need to include a mandatory provision in the Bill. What I can do, therefore, is to give the noble Viscount the undertaking that we will include removal conditions in any order where they are shown to be desirable.
The noble Viscount has raised the question of whether the power to make supplementary provisions is wide enough to include removal conditions. I am advised that the Bill as drafted is adequate for the purpose, but if the noble Viscount is not happy about this point I will give him the further undertaking to look at the wording again before Report stage to make certain that I am right. I see exactly what he wants to do, and I think that on the whole the way I am suggesting will achieve his object in a tidier and less ponderous manner than by creating the offence which he has included in his draft. I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment on my giving him this double undertaking: first, that we will include removal conditions in any order where they are shown to be desirable; and secondly, that we will have another look at the wording to make certain that we are right and that what the noble Viscount wants can, in point of fact, be done.
LORD SALTOUN: The noble Lord has referred to the war. One has heard cases of people setting up business with abandoned equipment left by undertakers and collected after the war, and his illustration really does not bear out his argument. I think that the noble Lord might consider that.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am happy to accept the undertakings which the noble Lord has given me in regard to this matter. I am particularly glad that he will examine carefully the wording to make certain that supplementary provisions which provide for the removal of works cannot be challenged as not coming within the clause. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONmoved to add to subsection (5):
"and shall not authorise the undertakers to enter upon or to occupy any operational land of a navigation authority unless the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation certifies that such entry or occupation will not interfere with the efficient carrying on of the undertaking of the navigation authority."
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that entry upon, or occupation of, operational land of a navigation authority shall be made only on the issue of a certificate from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (who, of course, is the Minister concerned with our ports) certifying that the efficient carrying on of the port will not be prejudiced.
I can quite see that this is a difficult Amendment for the noble Lord to accept. I admit that under the provisions of the Bill notice has to be given by the undertaker and that a navigation authority has the same right as anybody else to raise objection. I equally see that the Minister is bound to have regard to the interests of all the parties. But it seems to me that the efficient working of our ports is so vital that we must be careful about the exercise of these powers; and I suggest that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and his advisers, who are in close touch with the problems of the ports, are in a much better position to judge of what would adversely affect them than the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his advisers. No delay need be incurred under this procedure, because the appropriate certificate could easily be obtained within the period of notice of seven days. What I am asking for seems to me really a minimum safeguard.
I should like to call the attention of the Committee to Section 93 of the Water Act, 1935, in which, in not entirely dissimilar circumstances, protection is given to navigation authorities, to river boards and to the railway companies (I presume that that now means the British Transport Commission), and works which interfere with them may not be undertaken without their consent. I am not asking for as much as that: all I ask is that in a matter of this great importance—namely, the continued efficient operation of our ports—the decision as to whether or not this is prejudiced by any

61
proposal should rest with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.
I am not aware whether or not this is a unique provision, but it will not be a unique provision if Her Majesty's Government successfully pilot through Parliament the Opencast Coal Bill, because in that Bill, in admittedly different but, I think, analogous circumstances, the Minister of Power cannot make a compulsory purchase order affecting land occupied by various statutory authorities without a certificate from the appropriate Minister; and in the case of ports, as I say, the appropriate Minister is the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I am sure that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will, as he is bound to do, pay proper regard to the interests of all concerned and weigh them carefully; but is he really in a position to assess the effect of interference on the operations of a navigation authority? Would it not be better, in a matter of this great importance, that the responsibility should be laid on the Minister who is most familiar with the problems of our ports? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD MANCROFT: As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, foretold, I am not in a position to accept this Amendment in the way he has drafted it. I am afraid that it goes a good deal further than we should be able to accept. I see his difficulty, however, and I am in agreement with some of the fears he expresses. Let me see if I can meet any of them. The operational land with which we are concerned is land held by the authority for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking. It is unlikely, I should have thought, that the water undertakers would want to enter on to such land; but if they did, they would have to give notice to the navigation authority under the procedure for making the orders which is set out in the First Schedule to the Bill. The authority would then have the right to be heard by the Minister, and any necessary restrictions on entry could be embodied in the order, or the order could be amended or rejected.
This is as far as I can go. I will now give the noble Viscount my assurance
62
that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will always consult the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation before reaching a decision which affects a navigation authority. I think, therefore, it is unnecessary to have a provision in the Bill requiring one Minister to get another Minister's consent. Moreover (though I should like to take legal advice on this point: I was listening carefully to what my noble friend said), I believe not only that it is unnecessary, but that, in the circumstances, it would be unconstitutional to put into the Bill what my noble friend wants. I cannot believe that any noble Lord bearing the name of Simon would like anything unconstitutional to go into a Bill. However, I take my noble friend's point. I think the procedure I am suggesting will meet it completely, and I hope he will accept the suggestions I have made.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has to meet me on what I agree was a rather hopeless task. I am interested to hear what he said about the unconstitutional nature of what is proposed. I seem to remember a story about the sovereignty of Parliament. But there is also, as I think, the analogous case in the Opencast Coal Bill. However, I do not propose to pursue the question. I am satisfied that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will be consulted in all these cases. I should have preferred, in a matter of such importance, that that Minister could have the last word, but I have no doubt that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will pay due regard to what the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation says. In those circumstances, I gladly accept that assurance and bag leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.7 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved to add to subsection (5): "(including in particular the prevention of pollution)." The noble Earl said: In Clause 1 (5) of the Bill certain interests are specified. The subsection says:
"In the exercise of his power to make orders under this section the Minster shall have regard to the interests of all persons concerned in the conservation or use of the water to which the order relates, whether for the purposes of agriculture, fisheries, industry or navigation or for other purposes."

63
Your Lordships may think it splitting hairs if we say that one of the interests which we feel should be specified in this clause is the prevention of pollution. That is the statutory duty with which the river boards are charged, and for the life of me I cannot understand why it has not been included in this clause of the Bill. I believe that since 1955, when this Bill was first departmentally discussed, the river boards have pressed that this point should be included. I am sorry to say that when the Bill comes to be printed we find that those representations have not been listened to at all. I suggest that this Amendment could do no possible harm—indeed, it could do good. It is designed to ensure that this question of preventing pollution will and must be one of the matters to be taken into consideration by the Minister when he makes these emergency orders. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD BURDEN: I should like to support the case put by the noble Earl. Like many of your Lordships I have had the opportunity of reading a series of pamphlets issued some years ago by the Field Sports Society which gave a description of the horrifying and sickening conditions arising from pollution in a number of our rivers. Since then, to my own knowledge from a perusal of the reports of the River Boards Association, the river boards have been tackling, to the utmost of their ability but against tremendous odds, the problem of pollution from factories and other sources. Now we say to the Government: "Please, in a time of emergency, let pollution be one of the factors considered in connection with any order. Please, after these years of effort on the part of the river boards to bring about a better state of affairs in our rivers, so far as pollution is concerned, do not handicap them in their work, but realise the tremendous effort that they have been making and encourage them by accepting this Amendment." I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: The words of this Amendment which I particularly like are, "including in particular." I shall listen with fascinated attention to the noble
64
Lord, Lord Mancroft, to see whether he is able to give us the reasons why Her Majesty's Government do not wish to prevent pollution.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will be disappointed to hear that I do not propose to fascinate him this evening. In other words, I hope that I shall give satisfaction by accepting this Amendment in principle, if not actually in form. It is not acceptable in its present form, but it touches on a point which I agree needs to be looked into. The reason for not accepting to-day is an entirely technical one. The prevention of pollution can hardly be said to be a purpose for which water is conserved or used. On the other hand, I agree that the taking of water out of the stream so as to reduce the flow may have an effect on the state of pollution of the stream, and is a matter to which the Minister ought to have regard when making an order. So far as the fishery interests of river boards are concerned, they are already covered by the clause as drafted. But I quite agree with my noble friend that it may be desirable to add a requirement that the Minister should also have regard to public health interests. I am therefore prepared to give my noble friend Lord Waldegrave an assurance that we will, between now and Report, consider this point to see whether we can put down an Amendment which will meet the good point he has made.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It would be most ungracious if I did other than at once withdraw this Amendment after the point that we tried to make has been so generously met by the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONmoved, after subsection 8, to insert:
"(9) The Minister shall not make an order under this section to amend the provisions of section one hundred and sixty-two of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932 (which gives the Metropolitan Water Board power to extract water from the Thames subject to certain restrictions) or of any Act or order for the time being in force amending the same."
The noble Viscount said: This is a different type of Amendment. I think the purpose of it is quite plain—to leave undisturbed the present arrangements which govern the extraction of water from

65
the River Thames by the Metropolitan Water Board. I realise that it is difficult in a Public Act of this kind to make a specific exception, but this problem of the extraction of water from the Thames for use in London is an extremely complicated problem and quite a unique one.
Section 162 of the Thames Conservancy Act, to which the Amendment refers, provides that the Metropolitan Water Board shall not abstract any water from the Thames when the flow of water over Teddington Weir is below 170 million gallons a day, or so as to reduce the flow below that figure. To give the Committee some idea of the picture, I would mention that the mean flow—that is, the average daily flow—fluctuates from year to year, and is about 400 million gallons a day against the 170 million gallons limit. But it is an astonishingly variable factor. In times of spate it has gone up as high as 8,000 million gallons, and one day in the last fortnight it exceeded 6,000 million gallons.
In the Thames Conservancy Act Section 167 makes provision for this figure of 170 million gallons to be reduced in an emergency by orders made jointly by the Minister—it would now be the Minister of Housing and Local Government—and by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. From time to time, emergency orders were made under Section 167. It was then found by the parties concerned—that is, the Thames Conservancy, the Metropolitan Water Board and the Port of London Authority—that it was rather inconvenient to have orders made from time to time and varied, and, as a result, two more or less permanent orders were made under the Water Act, 1945. One of these orders covers the period from February to May, and the other the period from June to January each year. During the early period, February to May, when in the ordinary course there is always plenty of water flowing down, the flow may be reduced to 90 million gallons a day. This order has not been frequently implemented, but it does help the Metropolitan Water Board to fill up their reservoirs at a time when there is plenty of water available.
During the second period, the long period, June to January, the order is an extraordinarily complicated one, and I hope the Committee will not expect me
66
to explain it because I should be quite incapable of doing so, and you cannot understand it unless you have a chart or graph, of which I have seen a copy, with lines all over it, which determines in some ingenious way the amount of water that can be extracted by relation to the amount in the reservoirs at any one time or the amount of the flow over Teddington Weir. The effect of this is that, in extreme emergencies of drought, the flow can be reduced to 50 million gallons a day. Of course, in an extreme drought the flow may even go below that figure (it has been, I believe, just under 20 million gallons) and then the Metropolitan Water Board cannot extract any water at all.
The position is that, after full consultation with all the parties concerned. an extremely complicated formula has been agreed. It has worked well and smoothly for a number of years, and I think all concerned with it—the Thames Conservancy, the Metropolitan Water Board and the Port of London Authority—do not wish to see it disturbed. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Viscount has told us that the graph is complicated. Fortunately, the purpose of his Amendment is clear: it is to secure that no order should be made under the Bill to alter the amount of water which the Metropolitan Water Board are authorised to abstract from the Thames. As my noble friend Lord Simon has told us, Section 162 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932, lays down the detailed conditions for abstractions by the Metropolitan Water Board. These conditions have recently been amended, after discussion with all the interests concerned, by two orders under the Water Act, 1945. These orders provide a formula for varying the Board's abstractions according to the flow over Teddington Weir and the amount of water in the Board's reservoirs.
It is unlikely that any further alteration to the Board's powers will be needed, but if it did become necessary the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932, provides its own machinery for making

67
emergency orders. That is in Section 167. I can therefore accept the intention of the noble Viscount's Amendment, but I am afraid the wording will need to be looked at, as an Amendment to the Thames Conservancy Act is not the only way in which an order under the Water Bill could be used to increase the Board's authorised abstraction from the Thames. I can therefore give my noble friend Lord Simon an undertaking that we will look at this matter carefully and put down a Government Amendment to meet his point on the Report stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. In those circumstances, of course, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Supplying water by temporary means during a drought]
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) An order under this section—

(a) shall not authorise the undertakers, except with the consent of the navigation authority, to erect, set up or maintain standpipes or water tanks—

(i) in any street belonging to and repairable by any navigation authority; or

(ii) so as to obstruct the access to or exit from any dock, wharf or other work of a navigation authority;

(b) any consent required by this subsection shall not be unreasonably withheld, but may be given subject to any reasonable conditions;

(c) any dispute between the undertakers and a navigation authority as to whether consent is unreasonably withheld or is given subject to reasonable conditions shall be referred to and determined by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment seeks to give protection to navigation authorities—and it may well be that some other public utilities would like to come under the same umbrella—as regards the obstruction of streets or the approaches to wharves or docks by the erection of stand-pipes or water tanks. I think it possible that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will tell me that it is unlikely in an emergency of this kind that any stand-pipes or water tanks would be put in the approaches to wharves. I agree it is not probable, but because it is unlikely I do not think it is wrong to make provision against those very few
68
cases where a water undertaker might wish to do this.
I would remind noble Lords that in looking at a matter of this kind one does not want to look solely at a port like Liverpool or London. There are ports a long way inland up some navigable rivers which are really in country districts, and they might be affected by provisions of this kind. I would point out to the Committee that there is in fact a similar provision to this in Section 5 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, which deals with the erection of bus shelters, and there is the same provision in the corresponding Scottish Bill which is now before Parliament, the Local Government (Omnibus Shelters and Queue Barriers) (Scotland) Bill. In both those measures there is provision for the consent of navigation authorities and other public undertakers to be obtained before obstructions are put in streets for which they are responsible. It seems to me an eminently sensible arrangement, and I should rather hope that this would be a check upon the inadvertent use of an order which might quite unwittingly cause damage to other interests. It is an arrangement which perhaps the noble Lord would be willing to accept.
I apologise that something seems to have gone wrong with the drafting. Paragraphs (b) and (c) clearly do not link up with the preamble of the subsection. I think the small (a) in brackets should be deleted and (b) and (c) should be replaced by (4) and (5). Subject to that amendment I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD SALTOUN: If I might dot an "i" for the noble Viscount, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the Port of Glasgow particularly is very much inland and might be much in need of a provision of this kind. I once gave in your Lordships' House the result of the disastrous effect of not obtaining proper consents under the war regulations, and it was such a horrible case with such horrible results that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon's father, thought I was exaggerating and said it was dreadful. I was not exaggerating a bit, and therefore I think some clause of this sort is very necessary.
LORD MANCROFT: There are, as my noble friend Lord Simon says, many important interests which could be affected if the water undertakers were stupid about siting stand-pipes and emergency water tanks—fire stations, bus depôts, hospitals, and so on. I do not think it is really necessary to single out navigation authorities for special protection. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, more or less hinted at that. I should have thought that this was really a matter which could be safely left to the common sense of the water undertakers. I do not think it is necessary to go to quite the lengths the noble Viscount wants. So far as land in the ownership of the navigation authority is concerned, they are, under the First Schedule, entitled to notice and will be able to make representations to the Minister. A parallel procedure which provided for disputes to be settled by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation would be out of keeping with the need for speed which is the essence of the whole procedure of the Bill. I would ask the noble Viscount to be good enough to think this matter over. I am prepared to talk it over with him. I would ask him to think over whether leaving it to the good sense of the water undertakers would not really in this case meet his purpose.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I do not wish to imply that the water undertakers would be stupid, but I think it is conceivable they might be ignorant of the effect of putting, tanks or stand-pipes in some particular position. It would be quite easy, of course, for the navigation authority to make representations; but one knows that when a statutory undertaker has set his mind to do something it is often difficult to persuade him against it. I will, however, take away the noble Lord's words of wisdom and cull them over in my mind, and I may take the opportunity later of coming to consult the noble Lord about it.
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that it is just the fact that it is an emergency that makes people careless and rather rough. It was an emergency that caused the disaster to which I was referring.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I will bear that point in mind also before I come to discuss the matter with the noble Lord. I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
6.27 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Restrictions on irrigation
".—(1) If the Minister is satisfied that by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain, a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any locality exists or is threatened he may on the application of the appropriate river board make an order containing such provisions as appear to him to be expedient for enabling the river board to regulate and, if necessary, to prohibit the abstraction of water from any watercourse in the locality by means of pumps or other similar apparatus for the purpose of irrigation and the Minister may include in the order such supplemental incidental and consequential provisions as appear to him to be expedient for those purposes.
(2) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of orders under this section subject to the following modifications:—

(a) references to the area of the river board applying for the order shall be substituted for references to the limits of supply of the applicants; and

(b) notice of the application for the order shall be served on every local authority whose areas lies wholly or partly in the locality to which the order relates and on no other person.

(3) If any person contravenes any provisions of an order made under this section he shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence under the Water Act, 1945:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting, or restricting the abstraction of water for domestic purposes."
The noble Earl said: I confess to feeling some diffidence in moving this new clause, not only because of the comparatively late hour but also because of the fact that what we are asking for here is a new control, which is something that must not be asked for lightly.
I am one of those who greatly admire the facility and grace with which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, changes his hat. He speaks for such a varied number of Departments and never seems to let the interests of those Departments in any way be lost sight of. I myself in this matter am not clad in one hat only. I see its importance from the point of

71
view of the river boards and the water undertakers, but first and foremost my first love must be agriculture. Here is a new agricultural technique, this new mobile irrigation which has come—and come to stay. But I think there is no doubt that at some time or other Parliament will have to consider this matter, and it occurred to me that this was a proper moment on which it might be considered, perhaps almost for the first time in Parliament. I am not sanguine enough to believe that noble Lords will be able to accept this new clause as it stands, but I feel that this is an opportunity to consider a matter which will have to be considered sooner or later.
What is the problem? The problem is that this new technique of agricultural irrigation has been developed whereby farmers who are riparian owners put into the rivers or water courses, be they main rivers or only minor tributaries, modern high-powered pumps which will pump up to 3,000 gallons an hour, or more, with which to irrigate the crops growing on their land. This is not only done, as one might suppose, in the more and districts of the Eastern Counties; it is even done quite considerably by the modern farmer in the Western districts where we grow grass, because it is just these succulent green crops that suffer most when a severe drought occurs.
Let us consider what is likely to be the problem involved. We have a statutory flow of compensation water going down a river, being released from some reservoir. We shall have these emergency powers in the hands of the Minister, once this Bill, which permits the temporary reduction, after due notice and so on, of this statutory compensation flow, has reached the Statute Book. But it is conceivable that the whole exercise will be brought to naught because there will be no water in the river, or far less than the statutory amount which should be there, because, just at this time of sudden and unprecedented drought, the wily agricultural contractor has moved into the area with his mobile pumps and his portable apparatus, and large quantities of water are being abstracted from the river.
The whole basis of any river policy must be "fair shares". There are these enormous numbers of uses to which
72
water has to be put—domestic use; water for human consumption; industrial water; water for agriculture; navigation; fisheries; prevention of pollution by dilution and a number of other causes, all of which are largely controlled by Statute. There is the most careful draftsmanship going into all these new Statutes. Then, in the middle of all this, along comes a new idea, something that is quite a new thing to the established Department—agricultural irrigation, which makes, or may make, a nonsense of the whole thing. Therefore, I feel that we must give consideration to this problem. I shall be happy to be advised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on what is the proper way. I am not prepared to press this particular new clause, but it seems to me that it is a way in which this matter should be raised and considered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD BURDEN: The fact that this new clause has been put down at the instance of the River Boards Association is, I think, an indication of the broad-minded manner in which the Association looks at problems of this kind. After all, those of us who know the composition of the river boards will be aware that agricultural interests—I will not say predominate but, at any rate, are largely represented on the river boards; and if, as the noble Earl has explained, this clause were rigidly interpreted, it might strike a severe blow at some agricultural interests. On the other hand, I suppose one can argue that the uncontrolled abstraction of water during times of acute shortage is a matter which ought seriously to be considered, and that one interest alone should not have the opportunity of looking after its own particular side of the problem. It seems to me that that is the essence of this proposed new clause, and what we should like is some guidance from the Minister in dealing with this problem. As the noble Earl has said, the new clause is not one which we propose to press, but we should like the problem to be looked at and to receive some guidance from the Ministry.
LORD LATHAN: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, answers, there is

73
a point I should like to make. First of all, I must declare an interest—namely, membership of the Metropolitan Water Board. Having regard, as the noble Lord admitted at the outset of these proceedings, to the short time available between Second Reading and the Committee stage (I gather that appropriate facilities will be available to us between now and the Report stage) I must say frankly that I have not had sufficient time to consult the Metropolitan Water Board as to what the effect of this proposed new clause may be. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has indicated that it really introduces a new policy—far-reaching, apparently touching all aspects of the use of water. In those circumstances, it seems clear that we must have time to consider the implications of this new clause. Of course, the Minister will be best able to say, but having regard to the fact that the proposals would affect almost every use of water I should have thought that this Bill, which deals with a limited aspect of water supplies, was clearly not the appropriate place for this matter to be dealt with. No doubt the Minister can give us some guidance on that point.
LORD MANCROFT: I think that if I were to accept this new clause the three noble Lords who have spoken to the Amendment would be three most startled noble Lords because, of course, it goes right outside the scope of the Bill. After all, this is a Bill to enable statutory water undertakers to meet deficiences in the supply of water. There is nothing in the new clause linking the proposed restrictions to areas where the rivers are used or are likely to be used for public water supplies. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot possibly accept the Amendment in its present form.
Let me say this, however. The control of abstraction from rivers in order to safeguard river board interests is a matter which the River Boards Association has been pressing vigorously for some time. Statutory water undertakers cannot abstract water from rivers, either temporarily or permanently, without an order of the Minister. Any control of other abstractions would involve restricting the Common Law rights of riparian owners and is not a step which could lightly be undertaken. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, appreciates
74
that point. It is, however, under consideration in the Department of my right honourable friend, as a result of representations made by the River Boards Association; but I do not think it would be right, even if it were within the scope of the Bill, to make such a fundamental alteration in a minor Bill such as the one we are at present considering. However, if my noble friend Lord Waldegrave can give me some evidence that there are rivers where a control on the lines of the new clause would help to produce water supplies in an emergency, I should of course be happy to consider it.
I am doubtful how far any new power is needed to control abstraction of water specifically for irrigation. A riparian owner has a Common Law right to use water from a river so long as he returns it to the river substantially unaltered in quantity and quality. Irrigation by overhead sprays, as now practised, does not leave any water to be returned to the river. The River Boards Association, may, therefore, like to consider the point that if a riparian owner abstracts so much water for irrigation as to injure the interests of owners lower down the stream, he is liable to proceedings at Common Law. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Waldegrave would like to turn these points over in his mind, and perhaps we might have some discussions to see if we can help him and his friends in any way in regard to this very real problem. I am afraid that I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. Nor is it much good my offering the noble Lord a re-draft, because the principle goes right outside the Bill, and I believe that we should be letting ourselves in for a great deal of trouble if we were to widen the scope of the measure at this stage. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord more assistance than that, but such assistance as I can give, I offer him.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I must, of course, accept that statement, which is quite as far as I expected the noble Lord to be able to go. If, as was implied by what the noble Lord said, this Amendment is badly drafted, I hope that he will accept our apologies—perhaps that was partly due to the hurry in which all this was done. I am sure that we have here a problem which will have to be

75
tackled. I am no lawyer but I cannot doubt that the obtaining of an injunction, under Common Law, for injurious action is a lengthy process. If we are to try to do that in the middle of an emergency operation in drought we may come into difficulties.
Before withdrawing my Amendment, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to make clear my position from the point of view of the agricultural interest. Noble Lords who know me well will know that I have no wish to hamper or restrict agricultural development—in fact the whole of my intention is opposite. But I feel that it is not the kindest thing one can do to the agricultural industry to allow them to develop without control and without any kind of regulation, so that a system, just when it has got going, may have to be stopped. I feel that it is much better to deal with possible dangers in advance, before they arise. That is what I hope will be done. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for saying that he will look into this point, though not in connection with this particular Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Revocation of Defence Regulations 50A and 56
(2) Any order under either of the said Regulations which is in force immediately before the coming into operation of this section shall, unless previously revoked by an order of the Minister under this section, continue to apply as if the Regulation had not been revoked until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty, and the provisions of Regulation 50A concerning compensation shall continue to apply in relation to any order under that Regulation.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty." The noble Earl said: With the Committee's permission, perhaps I may speak on Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together. Here the real point is the six months' orders. I understand that under the present Bill these emergency orders will normally have a currency of six months, but if I have correctly read the clauses which I now seek to amend, they have the effect of extending existing orders for this increased period—up to
76
March 31, 1960. That has two effects which I cannot believe were intended. It has the effect of gratuitously extending orders that are already limited, for no particular reason that I can see. It also has the effect of doing what I am sure Her Majesty's Government have no wish to do—as it were, subsidising inefficiency.
We heard on Second Reading the point—a good one—that these emergency powers, which would be granted only in circumstances of exceptional shortage of rain, were not to be used as a means of letting water undertakings have exceptional powers when they themselves had not used sufficient foresight to provide for water in abnormal conditions. There are now in existence orders which have to do with charges and matters other than exceptional shortages of water and I realise that those must be, continued until some date. I appreciate that the words connected with the date must be in the Bill, and presumably somewhere in this clause; but I suggest that the proper place to put them is as I now wish to move. The effect of what I am now moving is that we shall not then automatically and gratuitously extend orders on variations or reductions of compensation flow. We shall not let these matters run on for more than the six months which is provided for under the Bill, but, if my suggested Amendments are adopted, we shall cover the point of other orders—charge orders and so on—which must be allowed to continue. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, leave out from ("revoked") to ("and") in line 40.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD MANCROFT: When I first saw these two Amendments, Nos. 8 and 9, on the Order Paper, I presumed that the noble Earl had put them down because he and his friends thought that the subsection as drafted could possibly be held to continue all existing orders in force until March 31, 1960—even those which include a provision to bring them to an end before that date. The noble Earl has now confirmed that point. I am advised that there is no doubt about the effect of the subsection as drafted, but, in any case, I am afraid that the wording of the noble Earl's Amendment will not do, because apparently it would have the effect of bringing to an end at March 31, 1960, the provisions of Regulation 50A

77
concerning compensation; and there may well be some claims which cannot be settled or even made until after that date. Possibly the noble Earl may have overlooked that point. In any case, though I am advised (and I believe well advised) on that point, if the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, which I could not accept in any case, I will look at the wording again, now that I have reassured myself in my mind as to what was worrying the noble Earl, to see whether the point is a sound one and whether we can do something to ease it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: That is quite satisfactory, and on that understanding I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Interpretation]
VISCOUNT SIMONhad given notice of an Amendment to insert in subsection (1):
" 'operational land' has the meaning given to that expression, as respects England and Wales by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and as respects Scotland by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is consequential to others which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is unable to accept and therefore I will not move it.
Clause 4 agreed to.

PROCEDURE FOR MAKING ORDERS
1.—(1) The applicants for an order under section one or section two of this Act shall cause notice in writing of the application to be served on the persons specified in the following Table—

All orders

(a) Every local authority whose area lies wholly or partly within the limits of supply of the applicants.

(b) Such statutory water undertakers, if any, as the Minister may direct.

Orders which suspend or modify an enactment.

Such persons (if any) as are specified by name in the enactment as being persons for whose protection it was enacted.

Orders which suspend or modify an agreement.

The parties to the agreement other than the applicants.

Orders concerning the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water

(a) Every local authority in whose area the source, or the site at which compensation water is to be discharged, is situated.

(b) Any river board or navigation authority exercising functions over any watercourse affected by the order and, if any such watercourse is in the Thames Catchment area or the Lee Catchment area, the Conservators of the River Thames or the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, as the case may be.

Orders which authorise the execution of any works.

Every local authority within whose area the works are situated.

6.50 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVEhad given Notice of three Amendments to paragraph 1 (1), the first being to omit "river board or" from paragraph (b) relating to "Orders concerning the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether it is possible for Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 to be taken together. No. 13 is the substantive one, and Amendments 11 and 12 follow upon it. In my opening remarks, speaking to Clause 1, I made clear the point that is behind these Amendments. The short point is that I seek to put the river boards on "all fours" with the local authorities, and to make it a requirement that the Minister must always consult, or give notice to, as the case may be, a river board where, under the Bill as it is worded, he has to give notice to a local authority. It may be asked: why did I not move to add the words "river board" at an earlier point in the Schedule, so that in respect of all orders every local authority and every river board should have notice given to it. I did not do that largely for very technical reasons (I shall not go into them now, and I doubt if I could keep afloat if I did), not unconnected with the Thames and Lee Conservancy Boards and their Works Acts and requirements. I am advised by those who should know that it is best to

79
put the matter this way. I hope that noble Lords will agree with me and leave it at that.
I contend that, as the Schedule is set out (and I remarked on this at Second Reading of the Bill), it rather begs the question so far as river boards are concerned. It says that notice shall be given to any river board exercising functions over a watercourse affected. That begs the question. We cannot always be sure what river course, or source, will be affected. It is a fact that the whole of England and Wales is covered by the thirty-four river boards, and I cannot see why these river boards should not have the statutory notice given to them. If they are not affected, they can make no objection; but if they are affected, they, like others in the Statute, will be protected in the same way as others in the Statute. There is a real point here that is connected not only with compensation water but with the abstraction of underground water, or the increasing abstraction from an underground source. It may well be that an issue will arise concerning the river board as to what abstraction does affect the watercourse. I think the only way that this can be overcome is by the river board automatically having the notice given to it. We should not beg the question as to whether it ought to have the notice given to it or not beforehand.
There are other questions involved here. I am advised that there might well be a dispute on the legal wording of the Schedule as it is now set out. For example, an application may relate to a watercourse which is not a main river, which contains no fish and which, so far as one can be aware at the time, is not polluted. In those circumstances it might be open to the water undertaker to contend that the river board were not exercising any function over that particular river and to say that no statutory notice was required. Those may be considered hair-splitting points. It may be that points of that kind would not arise, but here we are parting with Defence Regulations and enshrining these emergency orders in a Statute. Surely, when we are writing our Statute, we do not want to leave things to chance; we want to make abundantly clear what is going to be done and what ought to be done.
80
Accordingly, I beg to move the first of these Amendments which materially alter the wording in paragraph (b), at line 30, and have the effect of making it obligatory on the Minister to give a notice to every river board when an emergency order is going to be made in its area.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("river board or").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD MANCROFT: What my noble friend seeks to do here is to provide that river boards will get notice of abstractions proposed from any source in their area. Under the Bill as at present drafted, river boards will get notice only of abstractions from water courses over which they exercise jurisdiction. The reason for the Amendment, as I understand it, is that the river boards think that abstractions of underground water near rivers—for example, from boreholes or mines, gravel pits and quarries—may affect the flow in the river. This is, I suggest, a theoretical possibility, but experience in dealing with licences under the Water Act for abstractions from boreholes does not suggest that it is very likely to arise in practice. In any case, before authorising any abstractions affecting underground water-bearing strata my right honourable friend the Minister would consult the Geological Survey, who are his advisers on all underground water matters and who would know, I suggest, much more about the risks in any particular case than the river board.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide an emergency procedure and, in the interests of speed, to which I have drawn attention more than once in the Committee this afternoon, it is desirable to cut down as far as possible the number of notices which have to be given. If I may say so with respect, we have in the course of the debate on these Amendments lost sight of that important purpose of the Bill.
Abstractions from gravel pits and ponds which have no outlet to a river are the sort of arrangements very likely to be made under the Bill. But to widen the scope of the notices to river boards would bring them into a lot of unnecessary cases, with very doubtful advantage to the interests of the river boards; and, for reasons which I have already outlined on previous Amendments I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

81
Abstractions of water from underground are, as the noble Earl has told us, controlled in some areas of the country by licences under the Water Act, 1945. The regulations about service of notices do not include the serving of notices on river board, and I think I am right in saying that the River Boards Association have been pressing my right honourable friend for some time to amend the regulations so as to bring them in, for the reasons I have already been discussing. My right honourable friend, however, has always felt that their interest is too remote to justify amendment of the regulations, and he has asked the river boards to produce evidence that their work has been hampered by their not getting notices. So far as I know no evidence has been produced since the point was last raised several months ago. I think that that serves only to give weight to the argument I have already advanced: that to do this would be cutting across the main purpose of the Bill, which is speed in a moment of crisis. I hope that the noble Lord will not think I have been too harsh against his Amendment, because I can see what he is driving at. I hope he will be good enough to consider carefully the arguments I have advanced, and I hope that one day I may convince him that speed, which we believe to be the essence of the contract, remains all-important.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I entirely agree that the essence of this whole contract is speed. But I am afraid that I am not absolutely convinced that any considerable delay would be incurred, or that any delay at all would be incurred, in recognising that the river boards have grown up. There is no question but that some local authorities may be obstructive. There may be such things—I do not know—as reactionary local authorities, no doubt very small and remote ones, who will say when they receive a notice: "Why do they want these extra orders?" Conceivably, they may be obstructive and delay proceedings. That is very reprehensible but it is conceivable that it might happen. But I do not think it is right for the Minister to say that he will give notice only to local authorities which can prove that they have an interest. By the wording, of the Bill, every local authority will have its notice, and I beg the noble Lord to allow river boards to grow up
82
and be treated as responsible bodies who can be given their due notice. It should not be assumed that they are immediately going to obstruct and cause delay. That might happen only if the notice implied that the order ought not to be made, and that could happen with any of the local authorities notified. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has been very good to me on these Amendments, but I could not quite accept what he had to say on this one without a slight "come-back". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved to insert in the Table, after "Every local authority within whose area the works are situated":
"and in the case of any order authorising the execution of any works in over or under or affecting any watercourse under the jurisdiction of a drainage authority, the authority concerned."
The noble Earl said: This is the last Amendment with which I shall worry your Lordships to-night. I hope that the Government will consent to this point. It is not an important Amendment and again deals with the question of notice. I beg your Lordships not to think that the river boards are asking for notice because of any amour-propre or for the sake of saving face. We feel that we are entitled to have these notices and cannot understand why we are not considered responsible people who are entitled to have notice when any works are going to be authorised. At the moment, every local authority within whose area works are situated has to be notified, and I maintain that every river board should be notified also. These works are on rivers and are bound to be either in an area which is under the direct control of a river board or which comes under a river board in its capacity as drainage authority. I will not delay the Committee, but I would suggest that this is a matter which the noble Lord could look at again, to see whether he can help us to receive statutory notice as of right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD BURDEN: I want to say only two words. This is an Amendment to which the river boards attach considerable importance. We got on with the

83
first Amendment better than I anticipated, and on the last Amendment I hope that we shall get some measure of assurance that the Government will look at the matter again. I am sure that we have not been obstructive, but constructive, and if the noble Lord can help us, it would be greatly appreciated.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Earl's Amendment provides that the drainage authority should receive notice about any order authorising works which affect a water course under their jurisdiction. I can tell him straight away that I accept the spirit of his Amendment, but I am afraid that the definition of "drainage authority" may need looking at in the light of the River Boards Act, 1948. If the noble Earl will accept this undertaking, I will look carefully at the wording. I give him a promise to put down an Amendment at Report stage to meet his point. And do not let me hear any more about stonewalling from the noble Lord, Lord Burden.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am glad that it was not I who said something about stonewalling, because I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting us in this way. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft? I am sure that he has not taken offence at the few words at the beginning of our debate.
LORD LATHAM: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he has any statement to make on the situation which will arise when Defence Regulation 56 ceases to be operative and thus power to make an order to deal with the user of the reservoirs of the Metropolitan Water Board is removed?
LORD MANCROFT: The Ministry has been in touch with the Metropolitan Water Board since we mentioned this matter on Second Reading and a meeting took place last week between representatives of the Board and officers of my right honourable friend's Department. It
84
was pointed out that an amendment of the Bill to meet the Board's needs would be outside the Long Title of the Bill, which is restricted to meeting deficiencies in the supply of water due to exceptional shortage of rain. The Board, however, require an order to operate when there is plenty of rain and plenty of water in the Thames, so that they can have their reservoirs full before a drought arrives. Even if the scope of the Bill could be extended, it would not be much help to the Board to have an order which lasted for only six months at a time, because they would want to be able to rely on having powers for a reasonable period ahead. Similarly, it would not be much use saving the existing order beyond its present expiry date of July, 1958, as it could not be saved beyond the end of March, 1960. The representatives of the Board accepted the position that they must either find a remedy outside the Bill or do without the additional storage provided under the Defence Regulation Order. I am sorry that we cannot help more than this, but anything that we might put into the Bill would be nearly as out of order as is the noble Lord at the moment in raising this question at this stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE BILL
7.9 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.