Sitting of 13 February 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Bread and Flour (Standards)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which interests have now made representations to him about the report on bread and flour by the Food Standards Committee.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I have so far received representations from manufacturers, local authorities and an organisation concerned with advertising.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say when he is likely to finish consideration of this matter and be in a position to make a public announcement?
    Mr. Soames: I have asked for all representations to be in by 17th February. The date of my announcement will depend on how many there are. I shall, of course, have to consider them, but I will make an announcement as soon as possible

    European Foul Brood
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will prohibit the movement of bees in and out of the New Forest and make a stand-still order to cover a district of a radius of five miles round any infected apiary, in view of the spread of European foul brood from the New Forest and surrounding districts; and what representations he has received on this matter from the Wiltshire Beekeepers' Association.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. V. M. F. Vane): I have no reason to think that an extension of the present arrangements for controlling the movement of bees, that is to say movement of hives, when European Foul Brood disease is discovered, would be effective enough to justify the hardship which it would cause. There is in any case no evidence that the New Forest area is now a serious source of infection. On the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend has received a resolution from the Wiltshire Bee-keepers' Association in the same terms as the hon. Member's Question.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am grateful for that reply, and would be more grateful if the Minister would keep closely in touch with bee-keeping organisations like the Wiltshire body from which he has received representations from time to time.
    Mr. Vane: We are always in touch with such organisations.

    Rabbits
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he gives to rabbit clearance societies about dealing with rabbits on common land; and if he makes a grant towards destroying such rabbits before they spread to adjoining farm land.
    Mr. Soames: My Department deals with rabbits on common land. The Divisional Pests Officer should be informed if rabbits on commons are causing trouble to adjoining farm land.
    Sir A. Hurd: To avoid duplication of the matter, would not it be better if the local rabbit clearance society were authorised and paid by the council to deal with rabbits on common land adjoining its area? It seems to me that at the moment there is a good deal of overlapping, and it is not always very effective in the result.
    Mr. Soames: My Department is responsible for doing this on common land. It is always possible to make arrangements, and indeed in many instances it has been possible to make arrangements for the local rabbit clearance society to act, so to speak, as agents

    905
    of the Department and receive a payment from if. If my hon. Friend knows of any instances where he thinks this should be done and is not, and agreement could be reached, perhaps he will let me know. I will then look into it. But I know that in many instances it has been done.
    Mr. Snow: Is the Minister aware that many fellows like to go rabbiting over the weekend? Why should not they have their sport protected?
    Mr. Soames: There is plenty of scope for killing rabbits in this country, but we want to get this pest down and held down.

    Beef Cattle
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has considered the Lincoln Red Cattle Society's pioneer recording scheme for beef cattle, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Lincoln; and what steps he is taking to encourage similar schemes designed to assess the commercial value of different breeds and of different systems of livestock management.
    Mr. Soames: I was glad to hear of the Lincoln Red Society's initiative in starting a recording scheme. The National Agricultural Advisory Service has been demonstrating, in various parts of the country, the value of weighing cattle and will, with the support of the Agricultural Improvement Council, continue to encourage this most promising development in livestock management.
    Mr. de Freitas: Would the Minister go as far as saying that there is the possibility that a scheme like this, if nationally administered and centrally regulated, might have as much benefit for beef production in the future as the milk recording scheme had for milk production in the past?
    Mr. Soames: I think that there is tremendous scope here. This is beginning in a small way with one breed society. I regard it as a self-help scheme and something which the agricultural industry will be doing very much in its own interests. Any encouragement that we can give I will gladly see is given.

    Toxic Sprays (Report)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be in a position to present the Report of the Study Group on Toxic Sprays.
    Mr. Vane: Although the Group is still receiving evidence, it is considering the outline of its Report, which my right hon. Friend hopes will be completed some time in the summer.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now almost exactly a year since the names of the Study Group were announced? Will he try to get the Report out in time for some action to be taken with this season's cropping?
    Mr. Vane: We appreciate the urgency, but it is a complicated subject and it is better to do this thoroughly.

    Pig Meat
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in view of the urgent necessity to stimulate British agricultural exports, he will remove the present regulations which prevent the export of British pig meat to Denmark.
    Mr. Soames: Her Majesty's Government impose no restrictions on the export of British pig meat to Denmark but my hon. Friend may have in mind the restrictions which are imposed on all imports of pig meat into Denmark. These are a matter for the Danish authorities, and I do not think that the present export prospects for British pig meat in the Danish market are sufficient to warrant any special representations at this stage.
    Mr. Farr: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a very onesided policy which allows the Danes to export to this country over half our bacon requirements? In view of the declared necessity to explore every export market for British agricultural goods, will my right hon. Friend see whether he can get the Danes to relax their present restrictions?
    Mr. Soames: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the fact that we are getting considerably increased opportunities for industrial exports to Denmark, under the Convention, but I do

    907
    not think that we can seriously expect to sell pig meat to the Danes until we can bring our costs of production down to the region of theirs.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that British processors claim that they can export British pig meat and put it on the Danish market at prices lower than those which the Danish producers are charging in their own market today?
    Mr. Soames: The fact is that our own pig producers are subsidised, whereas the Danish pig producers are not.

    Flood Damage, Stockbridge
    Mr. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that dwelling houses in High Street, Stockbridge, are flooded, that their ground floor accommodation is unusable in consequence, and that High Street has been flooded continuously for three months; and whether he will arrange for immediate action to be taken to carry off the surplus water.
    Mr. Vane: I know about the flooding in Stockbridge, and greatly regret it. I understand from the Hampshire River Board, which is the responsible authority, that it is giving urgent consideration to the problem. I will write to my hon. Friend when I have further information.
    Mr. Smithers: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 27th October, his predecessor told me that at a board meeting the following week the river board was considering what remedial measures would be practicable? Can he give me some indication when it may be possible to do something to alleviate the misery in which my constituents have been living since last October?
    Mr. Vane: I appreciate the difficulty, but in this case there are engineering and technical difficulties. There is the high water level in the river and the fact that the chalk subsoil is so saturated that there is no way of dealing with this problem until the level of the Test drops a little

    Cat and Dog Meat
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with the Minis-
    908
    ter of Health with regard to his joint responsibility for regulations governing the marketing of prepacked cat and dog meat as unfit for human consumption, in view of the fact that the staining of unfit meat is not compulsory.
    Mr. Vane: As canned meat for dogs and cats is clearly not intended for human consumption and is sterilised in the process of canning, my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, do not consider that any other safeguards are necessary.
    Mrs. Braddock: In view of the fact that this prepacked meat is now sold in ordinary grocers' shops and is well displayed along with other canned meat, should not something be done to mark upon the tin the fact that the meat is unfit for human consumption?
    Mr. Vane: I would have thought that the descriptions on these tins of meat, and the pictures of cats and dogs which are normally on them, would be sufficient warning to purchasers of what the contents were intended for. Secondly, under the Food and Drugs Act, which is concerned with the labelling of food for human consumption, my right hon. Friend has no power to require the kind of extra inscription which the hon. Lady has in mind.
    Mrs. Braddock: This is a very serious matter. I do not know whether the Minister realises what is happening. If there are no powers to deal with the matter, will he go fully into the question with the Ministry of Health to see whether it would be advisable to take some legal action to ensure that these tins are clearly marked "Unfit for Human Consumption"?
    Mr. Vane: I realise that this could be a serious problem. There is no accounting for tastes, as is shown by the fact that, although we stain methylated spirits with a colour in order that everybody can recognise it, there are still a few people who try to drink it.

    Barley
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that, owing to weather and other conditions, the barley harvest this year is likely to be as much as 1 million tons more than last year's

    909
    harvest, and that the price paid to the farmer will in consequence be so low that the Exchequer will be faced with a deficiency payment of between £30 and £40 million; and what action he is taking in anticipation of this.
    Mr. Soames: It is too early to forecast with confidence the acreage, the yield, or the market price, and therefore the deficiency payment, for barley of the 1961 harvest. But a million tons more barley would require a combination of an unprecedented increase in acreage and a very high if not record yield. Discussions on barley marketing are taking place between the Agriculture Departments, the farmers' unions and the trades concerned.
    Mr. de Freitas: Even if the figure is 50 per cent. out, is not the position obviously serious enough to warrant the Minister taking some steps, in the interests of all our people, to discourage the sowing of barley in the spring and also to hasten the calling of an international conference on barley exports?
    Mr. Soames: We had a Question relating to barley exports last week, and I have nothing further to add to what I said in my Answer. As to the discouragement of barley sowing, there is still a lot of winter wheat being put in, and I cannot tell what the acreage is likely to be.
    Mr. Stodart: Whether or not we have this greatly increased acreage, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great benefits, both to producers and taxpayers, which would result from an incentive being given to keep barley off the market at harvest time, when it depresses the price? Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the principle of the wheat marketing system to barley and oats?
    Mr. Soames: It is a difficult time of year for me to give a categorical reply to that suggestion. I can only repeat that discussions on the matter are taking place at the moment.

    Forestry Commission (Houses)
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Forestry Commission houses are occupied by industrial employees of the Commission; what proportion of the in-
    910
    dustrial grades employed by the Commission occupy Commission houses; and how rents of Forestry Commission houses compare with rents of council houses in the same area.
    Mr. Soames: About 3,400 Forestry Commission houses are tenanted by industrial employees of the Commission; this represents 30 per cent. of the Commission's total industrial staff. The rents of these houses are usually very close to those of similar houses owned by local authorities in the same areas.
    Mr. Hilton: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has not been in his present office for very long, but is he aware that many Forestry Commission houses are situated in very remote areas and lack modern amenities? Is he further aware that they have service tenancies, or are tied cottages, so that the workers have no right to remain in their cottages once their employment with the Commission ends? Is it not unreasonable to charge them rents similar to those of council houses in the same area? Will the Minister look into the matter in order to see whether more realistic rents can be charged for these Forestry Commission houses?
    Mr. Soames: The rents for the more modern houses are naturally higher than those for the older ones. A considerable modernisation programme has been going on, and within the next five years we hope that all the Commission's houses will be modernised. In Norfolk, which I think the hon. Member has in mind, the average weekly rent of a sample of local authority houses was found to be 23s. 6d" while, on the average, tenants of similar Forestry Commission houses were charged 17s. 6d. a week, which is 6s. below the local authority average.

    Polaris Submarine Base, Scotland
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he is represented on the liaison committee which has been set up in connection with the Polaris base at Holy Loch.
    Mr. Vane: My right hon. Friend is not represented on the liaison committee, nor has he any responsibility in the area.

    911
    The Ministry's scientific staff have, however, been using their expert knowledge to help the Departments concerned and the Committee.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister explain why the name of his Department is on the list issued by the Admiralty and tell us what this scientific committee will do there? Obviously it has some connection with his Department. Is the Committee going to investigate the possibility of radio-activity from the fish? Will he give a guarantee that if there is any damage to the fish, fishermen in the Clyde area will be fully compensated?
    Mr. Vane: Fish is one thing; in order to get the main information he seeks, he should address a Question to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord.
    Mr. Rankin: Is he is charge of fish now?

    Milk Deliveries
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that milk delivery firms are considering stopping Sunday deliveries, and that this will result in hardship, particularly for babies and children, having regard to the fact that milk will not be delivered from Saturday mornings until the following Monday morning; and whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that milk is delivered on every day of the week, including Sunday.
    Mr. Soames: I am aware that one or two milk distributors propose to experiment on a limited scale with deliveries on six days only per week. This is primarily a matter between the dairyman and his customers. While I shall watch the results of the experiment with interest. I do not think that action on the lines proposed by the hon. Member is called for.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that his reply will cause considerable anxiety to consumers, especially in view of the fact that nowadays rounds are zoned so that in some cases milkmen deliver only in the afternoon? Secondly, is he aware that pasteurised milk will be delivered to babies about 1½ days later than it should be? Is he aware that this is a serious matter, apart from the question of the inconvenience to the general
    912
    public on the days in question? Will he see what he can do to persuade milk distributors not to undertake this kind of experiment, which is bound to cause hardship to consumers in the various districts?
    Mr. Soames: As the experiment has not taken place, I think the hon. Gentleman is prejudging the situation when he says that it is bound to cause hardship. The milk distributing industry has a long record of service to the public, which is almost unequalled in any other country, and I do not believe that it would take any step which would diminish the sale of milk.
    Sir B. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Health regarding the position about pasteurised milk being available particularly where there is no refrigerator in the home? Is he aware that babies will not be able to get pasteurised milk and may be given some other kind of food which is not suitable?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman inferred that there would be a delivery on Saturday morning and not another until Monday afternoon. I do not believe that will necessarily be the case.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Overseas Television Services (Films)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he now proposes to set up a Government film unit to provide topical news and feature material for overseas television services.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): This possibility is under consideration by the Central Office of Information in relation to the production programme for the financial year 1961–62.
    Mr. Mayhew: The Minister assured me some little time ago that it was under consideration. Would he not agree that there is a definite gap in our overseas information service and that the sooner it is filled the better?
    Dr. Hill: The need has been for an additional news film unit to supplement the capacity of the contractors. It will not be long before a decision is reached.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what estimate he has made of the increased cost to the National Assistance Board which will arise from the 1s. per item imposed on medical prescriptions; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): A little over £1 million a year.
    Mr. Thomas: In view of that staggering figure, is not it perfectly clear that people who are just over the borderline for receiving National Assistance will be faced with a terrible bill for medical prescriptions due to the legislation now being considered?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: As the hon. Member is aware, the people who, as he claims, are on the borderline can apply to the National Assistance office. In fact, in case of emergency they may go in person and receive payment for the prescription charge which has been made.
    Lord Balniel: Is my hon. Friend considering the suggestion that a review should be undertaken of the hardship provisions relating to the prescription charges a month or so after the new charges come into effect in order to ensure that the arrangements are working smoothly and efficiently?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    Guardian's Allowance (Personal Case)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why Mr. and Mrs. Duxbury, of Blackburn, have been refused a guardian's allowance in respect of their two grandchildren who are now in their care.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Since no claim for guardian's allowance has been made in this case, there has been no formal determination by the adjudicating authority. However, as I have told the hon. Lady, it would appear from the
    914
    information I have that the conditions for the allowance, which are laid down in the National Insurance Acts and regulations, are not satisfied.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I have made a claim to her in this case on behalf of the grandparents? Is not she fully aware also that the mother of these two children was murdered by her husband and that he is now serving a term of life imprisonment? Is not she aware that I brought to her notice a request by the grandparents, who are taking charge of these children, that they should be given a guardian's allowance because they are only working people and cannot afford to do this? Is not it quite intolerable that a guardian's allowance should be refused in such a case? If the right hon. Lady has not the power to act under the National Insurance Acts—and she shows no particular willingness to do so—will not she seek powers to amend the legislation?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend and I have the greatest sympathy with this very tragic and practically unique case. But, as I explained to the hon. Lady, in the first place such an application must be made by the parents. This benefit is an orphan's benefit. [Interruption.] I am very sorry, but the hon. Lady rightly puts it when she says that the law does not provide for the classification of children as if they were orphans where there may be a surviving parent who, for many and varied reasons, is unable or unwilling for the time being to accept responsibility. We have every sympathy for this unique case, but, as the law stands, with a surviving parent the children cannot be classified as orphans.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not the fact that in her reply to me the right hon. Lady quoted two cases where, exceptionally, a guardian's allowance could be paid when one parent is still alive? If the hon. Lady is taking the technical point that no formal application has been made, if I can get Mrs. Duxbury to apply, will she give humane consideration to making an exceptional grant in this case also?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have already said that we have every sympathy with this case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members will be aware that we

    915
    have to keep the rule as well as everyone else. The law provides for certain exceptions which I outlined to the hon. Lady; where a child is adopted or illegitimate, where the marriage of the parents has been terminated by divorce or where one parent is missing at the date of the death of the other and the person claiming the allowance is not aware of the whereabouts of the surviving parent and has failed, after all reasonable efforts have been made, to discover them. As the law stands, although I have every sympathy, and so has my right hon. Friend, we cannot count these children as orphans.

    War Pensions (Personal Case)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why Mr. Fogarty, of Blackburn, who was discharged from the Irish Defence Force in 1942 as medically unfit with a duodenal ulcer, and was admitted into the British Army seven months later and who served for seven years during which he was treated for functional dyspepsia, has been refused a war pension although he is now seriously disabled as a result of a series of stomach operations.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Sharpies): I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot award a war pension to Mr. Fogarty because the independent pensions appeal tribunal decided in 1958 that his disability was not attributable to and had not been aggravated by his service in the British Army.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not there something very wrong with the Army medical examination if a man who has been discharged from one defence force with a duodenal ulcer can be accepted as A.l in the British Army a few months later? Is it not obvious that a man in that condition who served for seven years in the British Army, and whose service included action in Normandy in 1944, is likely to have had his condition aggravated by that service? In view of the fact that in 1958 the tribunal did not have all the facts before it, will not the Minister review this case again and give the man the benefit of a reasonable doubt?
    Mr. Sharpies: I must remind the hon. Lady that the pensions appeal tribunals
    916
    are completely independent of the Ministry and my right hon. Friend can exercise no control over their deliberations. If her constituent feels that the decision of the tribunal was wrong in law, he can write to the secretary of the tribunal for leave to appeal to the High Court.
    Mrs. Castle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    National Assistance
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what extent under his regulations National Assistance is granted in the case of a single man in receipt of 15s. above the Assistance Board's subsistence standard as a result of additional income through part-time employment in cases where he is sharing accommodation with a fully-employed brother.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The assessment of need in an individual case under the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations depends on the circumstances of such a case and is, by Statute, a matter for the National Assistance Board. I understand that the hon. Member has a particular case in mind and that he wrote to the Chairman of the Board on 8th February about it.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are men who have to suffer the added indignity of having to rely on an elder brother, fully employed, to buy such things as boots because the National Assistance Board refuses to make a grant as these young men are 15s. above the subsistence level? If I send her the facts, will the hon. Lady look at this matter again?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I would be prepared to look into the matter, but the hon. Member will be aware that these cases vary and they are assessed on their merits by the National Assistance Board.

  COAL

    Productivity
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Minister of Power what has been the improvement in the level of labour productivity for the last three years in the coal mining

    917
    industry; and how this compares with the change in productivity for industry as a whole.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): Colliery output per manshift in 1960 was about 12½ per cent. higher than in 1957. Although complete figures for last year are not yet available, it is estimated that output per manhour in manufacturing industry increased by about 12 per cent. over the same period.
    Mr. Ginsburg: I note that reply but, because the comparison the Minister has made refers to manufacturing industry, is it not the case that over 1960 productivity in the mines has improved rapidly compared with industry as a whole, which is in fact standing still, and does not that reflect great credit on the miners of this country and the leadership of the National Coal Board?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman asked about a comparison between 1957 and 1960, which shows the result that I stated. As he suggested, that is satisfactory, but anyone who knows the mining industry will agree that a further move forward in productivity and output per manshift is vitally necessary in the future.
    Mr. Gunter: I take it from the last part of the Minister's Answer that he will not expect an improvement unless greater security is given to the mining industry over the next few years?
    Mr. Wood: The measure of security in the mining industry is that demand looks like being higher than the amount of coal likely to be produced.

    Domestic Supplies
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Power what general direction he has given to the National Coal Board in order to obviate a shortage of domestic fuel.
    Mr. Wood: None, Sir. So far as the supply position is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) on 6th February.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that this uncertainty in the mining industry causes a great deal of apprehension? Will he consider giving some
    918
    real guidance by way of plans, particularly to the coal mining industry?
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend made quite clear last week, although there might be certain shortages of certain items in some parts of the country, there is no general shortage. Therefore, it would be quite impossible, even if there were not a great many other objections, to consider giving a general direction to the Board.
    Mr. John Hall: Will my right hon. Friend please check the information he is receiving about a shortage of coal supplies? Is he aware that I have a letter from the High Wycombe and District Coal Merchants Associations, which says:
    " it is about time the N.C.B. told the public the truth of their coal supplies".
    It indicates that there is a considerable shortage of domestic fuel in different parts of the country. Will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Wood: That confirms what I have said, that there are certain shortages from time to time, but they are matters for the Board and the trade, and if they are put before the Board it takes steps to put them right. My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but there is no general shortage of coal in the country.

    Consumption Estimates
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Power whether, in view of his revised forecast that the target of 300 million tons of coal equivalent for energy consumption will not be achieved until the late sixties, what alteration to the revised plan for coal is necessary as regards the contribution required from the coal industry in 1965.
    Mr. Wood—
    Mr. Warbey: I apologise for the syntax of the Question.
    Mr. Wood: I did not notice that there was anything wrong with it.
    As I told the hon. Member for Sedge-field (Mr. Slater) on 5th December, there are no changes in the estimates of total inland energy requirements which would justify the Board in aiming at a mining capacity of less than 200 million tons in 1965.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the Minister aware that since the original forecast was made the rate of general economic progress of the country has been much slower than was expected and most economists now expect a total energy demand in 1965 of 280 million tons, of which something like 100 million tons may be accounted for from oil and other sources? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that leaves far too little for coal? What assurance can he give the coal industry in view of these figures, particularly taking into account the suggestion made in an earlier question by one of my hon. Friends?
    Mr. Wood: It is difficult to know what basis to take to arrive at the likely energy requirements in 1965. If the last two or three years are taken as a basis, the energy requirement in 1965 will be considerably below 300 million tons. If, on the other hand, this last year is taken as a basis they will be about 350 million tons. Therefore, I think it would be wrong to be too certain, or to aim to be too certain, when 300 million tons is going to be reached. I suggest that there is not any basis for thinking that the mining capacity necessary in 1965 will be substantially different from the estimate in the revised plan, which was a mining capacity of 200 million tons.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Methane
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Power what steps he proposes to take on the report made to him concerning the import of methane gas.
    Mr. Wood: I have not yet received detailed proposals for the importation of methane gas.
    Mr. Roberts: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the report will be presented?
    Mr. Wood: I have had certain information given to me. I am expecting proposals will be put before me and, as I have undertaken on a number of occasions, when they are put before me I shall consider them very carefully indeed.

    Gasification of Oil
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Power if he will state the amount of
    920
    money spentby the gas industry on research in connection with the gasification of oil for the years 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960, and the estimated figure for 1961.
    Mr. Wood: An estimated £146,000 in 1957–58; £249,000 in 1958–59; £227,000 in 1959–60; £290,000 estimated for 1960–61 and £176,000 forecast for 1961–62. These amounts cover some work which will also help with coal gasification.
    Mr. Wainwright: While appreciating the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given, and also knowing full well that research will have to take place and does take place, may I ask him to consider arranging for discussions between the officials of the gas industry and the N.C.B. on the whole question of research? Will he ask the gas industry not to neglect the question of gasification of coal by the Lurgi system?
    Mr. Wood: In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, I am sure the gas industry will not neglect that system because, as the hon. Member knows, two plants are being built and one will go into operation in the fairly near future. As to the main question of research, the gas industry and the coal industry are considering that matter very carefully at the moment in the light of recommendations in the Wilson Report, which was published a month or two ago.
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Power if he will state the number of tons of oil, in coal equivalent, which the gas industry has used for making gas during the years 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960, and the estimated figure for 1961.
    Mr. Wood: Including purchases of refinery gas, the tonnage of oil used was in 1957, 450,000; in 1958, 750,000; in 1959, 890,000; in 1960, 1,030,000; and the estimated use in 1961 is 1,150,000 tons. The coal equivalent of oil used for gas making varies according to the process.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that those figures will cause great consternation among the personnel in the mining industry? Will he consider

    921
    advising the gas industry that the indigenous fuel in this country ought to have favourable consideration in the making of gas for use throughout the country?
    Mr. Wood: The advice which both my predecessor and I have given to the gas industry is that when it takes the view that it is technically or economically beneficial to it to use oil rather than coal it should first discuss the matter with the coal industry to see if there are counter-proposals which that industry can make. That is what it has done, and it would be wrong for me after that discussion has taken place and in cases where the coal industry cannot compete to force competition upon it.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Abbotsinch Airport
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation when he proposes to choose an architect to proceed with the planning of Abbotsinch Airport.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The preparation of instructions for an architect is in hand and my right hon. Friend expects to be able to make an appointment shortly.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend realise that between now and 1963, when the Royal Naval Air Service will leave Abbotsinch, he will have to create a modern airport with all the latest facilities? If he is to do that he must move at an incredible speed. Can the hon. Gentleman say what "shortly" means in taking the first steps towards that speed in appointing the architect?
    Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend fully realises all those matters and will proceed with all the speed that is necessary.

    Scottish Advisory Committee
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation why he has not appointed a representative from Glasgow Corporation to his Scottish Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation.
    Mr. Rippon—
    Mr. Rankin: A satisfactory Answer please.
    Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member has not heard it yet.
    The Scottish local authority associations were consulted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. On this occasion there was no representative of the Glasgow Corporation amongst the names suggested.
    Mr. Rankin: That is rather unfortunate. Did the Minister simply accept that advice and leave the matter as it was? Glasgow has formerly had a representative. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clear up any little background knowledge with which I am unfamiliar?
    Mr. Rippon: Certainly, I am glad to help the hon. Member. The Committee is appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland takes suggestions from a number of bodies, including the Association Of Counties of Cities. On previous occasions a name has been suggested from Glasgow, but on this occasion none was suggested. There are, however, a number of members of the Committee closely associated with Glasgow and its interests will not be overlooked. There are only sixteen members of the Committee and not every district in Scotland can be represented directly.
    Mr. Strachey: Is the Scottish Advisory Committee, with or without the representatives of Glasgow, helping to get into operation the new airport serving Dundee?
    Mr. Rippon: I am sure that it will be very helpful on all matters, including that.

    Airport Landing Fees
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Aviation why he has increased the landing charges for aircraft at London Airport so that they are substantially higher Chan those of any of the other main airports in the world; and whether he intends to continue the extra charge being made for aircraft using facilities at Gatwick when the congestion at London Airport prevents their landing there.
    Mr. Rippon: The purpose of the increase in landing fees is to transfer to the users of the aerodromes part of

    923
    the costs at present borne by the taxpayer. A bare comparison of our landing fees with those of airports abroad can be misleading, because there is no common basis of accounting, levying of charges, or services provided.
    Airport charges are levied by reference to landings made; diversions, which are normally due to weather conditions, are the decision of the operator.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that instead of doing good to the finances of the country it may do just the opposite, in that it may prevent planes from landing at London Airport, which otherwise would have landed there, because landing charges elsewhere are cheaper? Does he think that a plane should be compelled to pay an additional charge for landing at Gatwick when it has been diverted from London Airport? What is the sense in that? What is the reason for it?
    Mr. Rippon: I am not aware of any of the matters referred to in the first part of the supplementary question. There appears to be no reason to suppose that there will be an effect on traffic. The provision of alternative airports involves expenditure, and I see no reason why the taxpayer should have to bear the full cost of the commercial risk of bad weather.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he and his right hon. Friend are doing will eventually cost the taxpayers more money? Why is it that the proposed landing charge is in some cases four times as high as those in other countries? All that he is doing is to drive other countries to raise their landing charges. Will he go into the matter and consider divorcing the civil airport from his own Ministry so that it can be run efficiently and serve the public?
    Mr. Rippon: The second part of that supplementary question raises wider considerations. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), on 5th December, I indicated some of the difficulties in making these comparisons. I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the International Civil Aviation Organisation Manual of Airport and Air Navigation Facility Tariffs, which he will find in the Library.
    Mr. Strachey: Is the Minister satisfied that the real costs of London Airport compare reasonably with those of foreign airports, because surely that is the important question? Is the difference in charges fully to be accounted for by the much greater foreign subsidies?
    Mr. Rippon: Taking all the relevant factors into account, I do not think that our charges are out of line with those of other major international airports. What we have tried to do is to follow the I.C.A.O. recommendation to keep charging proceedures simple. In contrast, for example, at Idlewild there are charges split under eight or more heads.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: If the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) has no objection, I propose to raise this question on the Adjournment because of the unsatisfactory reply.

    Helicopters
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation what is the outcome of the recent talks between his Department and the helicopter industry and civil operators concerning the future programme for large transport helicopters.
    Mr. Rippon: Discussions with manufacturers and operators about development programmes are very frequent. I have no statement to make about any particular talks on large transport helicopters.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Has the Minister read the last report of the Westland Helicopter Company? Has his attention been drawn to the fact that we are falling behind in this race for a large-scale transport helicopter because of a lack of decision as to which one, of three, the firms should concentrate on? What are the airline companies and corporations doing about their plans for a helicopter service?
    Mr. Rippon: I have read the report, but I do not accept that we are falling behind.

    Aircraft Industry (Orders)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation what firm commitments have been made for the supply of aircraft for civil and military purposes; what is the total value of orders placed; what development contracts have been made:

    925
    and what is the estimated cost of these, giving individual projects where possible.
    Mr. Rippon: The total estimated value of orders placed by the Ministry of Aviation since 1st April, 1958, for research and the development and production of aircraft for civil and military purposes is approximately £700 million. Of this amount, about £200 million is in respect of research and development contracts. It would not be in the public interest to disclose detailed information about individual projects.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Has the Minister any more money left to put into the aircraft industry in this country, in particular into firms outside the two large Corporations? Are we to take it as a precedent that the Minister of Health was appointed to his Department to make cuts? Has his colleague, who resigned at the same time, been moved into this Department also to make cuts?
    Mr. Rippon: We provide all the money that is necessary to meet the national requirements.

    Airport Facilities, North-East
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Aviation what steps are being taken to provide airport facilities in the North-East, additional to those as Woolsington airport.
    Mr. Rippon: None that I am aware of, but the matter is one that I should expect the local authorities to consider in the first instance.
    Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that local authorities are considering this matter and that Sunderland Corporation is prepared to purchase Usworth Airfield from the Ministry? Will he use his good offices to expedite those negotiations?
    Mr. Rippon: Usworth is an Air Ministry airfield and any question relating to it should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member consult his right hon. Friend about this matter? Is he aware that for many years the local authorities have been considering the desirability of having an airfield in this part of the country? Is it not about time that airport facilities
    926
    were provided not only for large numbers of businessmen but also for hon. Members?
    Mr. Rippon: I am well aware of the local interest in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation met a delegation representative of local authorities in the area.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Health what reduction in the number of prescriptions he expects as a result of the increased charge of 1s. per item.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): My estimate will be based on a 2 per cent. reduction.
    Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister be kind enough to tell me the number of prescriptions involved? It is obviously a very serious matter if people are not able to afford to pay for the prescriptions which their doctor thinks they ought to have. Could he tell me the number of prescriptions involved?
    Mr. Powell: Not without notice. The principal factor in the reduction is the elimination of the prescriptions under 2s.

    Disabled Persons (Motor Cars)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Health what would be the cost of providing motor cars for industrially-disabled persons similar to those provided for the war disabled.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): My right hon. Friend regrets he cannot estimate this.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend look into the matter to see whether something can be done to bring the provisions for industrial casualties into line with those covering war casualties? Has it not been a principle of the Government's policy to maintain the benefits for the industrially disabled in line with those for the war disabled? Is there any reason, except perhaps the mean reason of economy, to make a distinction in respect of these vehicles?
    Miss Pitt: For patients dealt with under the National Health Service, there is no distinction between the various categories, whether they are cases of industrial injuries or civil injuries, or any other case. If the hon. Member is arguing that the industrially injured should have priority, I think that there might be similar arguments for other groups covered by the National Health Service.

    Venereal Disease
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increased incidence of venereal diseases shown by recent statistics, he will now initiate a national campaign of popular education and warning in regard to the infectious characteristics of these diseases.
    Mr. Powell: Before deciding what further measures of education ought to be taken, I shall need to study the result of inquiries now being made by my Standing Medical Advisory Committee, by a commission of the British Medical Association and by the Co-operative Clinical Group.
    Dr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this alarming increase, which was revealed in the figures which he gave me recently, is comprised substantially of young people? Is he not aware that many of these young people appear to be quite ignorant of what is a natural hazard but what, to some of them at any rate, I think, appears to be a spare-time occupation? Will not he give a personal lead in encouraging this education, once he receives the report?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. I will try to do so, but the important thing is to understand better than we do at present the underlying causes of this phenomenon.
    Mr. K. Robinson: In order to keep the matter in perspective, will the Minister agree that, while there has been a disturbing rise in the incidence of gonorrhoea, syphilis is still broadly under control?
    Mr. Powell: That is so.
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the statistical table relating to cases of gonorrhoea in the annual report of his chief medical
    928
    officer for the year 1959, which was issued until November, 1960, relates only to 1958; and whether, in view of the importance of this subject, he will ensure that future reports contain more up-to-date statistics.
    Mr. Powell: The main statistical table includes figures for 1959; quarterly figures appear in my Ministry's Monthly Bulletin.

    Haemorrhoidectomy
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if, in view of delays, he will seek information on the intervals between consultations and the date of admission to hospitals in cases of haemorrhoidectomy; to what extent these consultations are arranged privately or at a hospital, respectively; and what is the difference in the delay in both categories of case.
    Mr. Powell: Sample figures obtained in 1958 showed that 16 per cent. of admissions for haemorrhoidectomy were immediate, and that over 85 per cent. were within six months. The types of consultation are not separately distinguished.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does not the Minister think that it would be desirable to find what happens about the 85 per cent., because there is a widespread belief that, if a patient pays his consultant a fee, he can minimise the six months? Would it not be advantageous if the public could be told what the exact position is, by these figures being obtained and published?
    Mr. Powell: I do not think that it is desirable to distinguish hospital admissions in the categories which the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, that would have the apposite effect to that which both he and I want. If there is any evidence at all of undue preference, I shall be delighted to look into it.

    Hearing Aids
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the new transistor hearing set, which has many advantages over the older Medrescemodel, is nevertheless much less powerful, is of little use to seriously deaf persons, and has no adjustment for pitch; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to rectifying these deficiences.
    Miss Pitt: The Medresco transistor aid is not less powerful than the valve aid, but a still more powerful earphone is being developed for the profoundly deaf. The transistor aid, however, has a different quality of tone, and this may be why some users find it less satisfactory. The possibility of modifying the tone is being investigated.
    Mr. Snow: I thank the hon. Lady for that answer. Will she consider issuing an explanatory leaflet to users of existing transistor sets with a view to informing users how best to use their sets?
    Miss Pitt: I will certainly consider that.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Will the hon. Lady tell the House how freely available transister sets are? Are the waiting lists being satisfactorily dealt with?
    Miss Pitt: I cannot give figures without notice, but we have been able to step up the latest issue and, to the best of my knowledge, it is progressing satisfactorily.

    Medicine Doses (Teaspoon Sizes)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health in view of the varying sizes of teaspoons, if he will give instructions that the specific amounts to be taken should be stated in cases where bottles of medicine issued under the National Health Service carry a warning that it is dangerous to exceed the stated dose.
    Miss Pitt: No, Sir. Few patients have appropriately graduated measures, and inaccuracies in using them might be as large as the variation in size of teaspoons.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Lady aware that with the different sizes of teaspoons it is possible that one person's dose may be two, three or even more times that of another's? If there is a notice on the bottle saying that it is dangerous to exceed the stated dose, does not the position I have outlined make nonsense of the notice? If so, can something be done to tidy this up? Is she aware that I have received many letters from knowledgeable people saying that she misled the House last week when she answered a Question about teaspoons?
    Miss Pitt: No, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is misleading himself
    930
    because the notice to the effect that it is dangerous to exceed the stated dose does not appear on any prescriptions dispensed under the National Health Service. It does appear on proprietaries in certain cases which include dangerous drugs. In any event, if a standard measure were available there would always be the individual who put in less than the appropriate amount and there would always be somebody who would contrive to overfill the measure, especially with a heavy liquid.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is there any standard measure called "a teaspoonful" which is recognised in medical circles?
    Miss Pitt: I believe that there is a standard measure, though it is not readily available.

    Doctors' Assistants
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will ask all executive councils for a report on the action they have taken in reviewing assistantships in general practice; and if he will issue appropriate instructions to those councils whose arrangements he consider to be inadequate.
    Mr. Powell: I shall shortly be issuing guidance on this to all executive councils.
    Mr. Pavitt: Whilst welcoming the Minister's further guidance, may I ask him if he is aware that previous guidance has been issued and in a number of cases has just not been followed? Will he ensure that action follows in cases where assistants are still being exploited as more or less underpaid servants of general practitioners?
    Mr. Powell: The circular which I propose to issue will include a request for a report from each executive council.

    Cat and Dog Meat
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Health what protection is given to consumers by his regulations in relation to the sale of prepacked cat and dog meat which is not marked unfit for human consumption.
    Miss Pitt: I would refer the hon. Lady to my hon. Friend's reply to Question No. 9 on today's Order Paper.
    Mrs. Braddock: As the Health Departments have a different responsibility from that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that it is a matter of very serious concern that meat comes into this country from abroad which is definitely unfit for human consumption, that no steps are taken to stain it and show that it is unfit for human consumption, that it goes to factories and is prepacked, and that no statement is put on the tin to the effect that the food is made from meat which is unfit for human consumption? Does not the hon. Lady think that the Department should look into the matter again with a view to seeing what action can be taken to remedy this?
    Miss Pitt: This meat is sterilised, and that means that it does not constitute a hazard to health. Obviously, much of it is either meat from the knacker's yard or meat from the slaughterhouse condemned as unfit for human consumption. In view of this, it was obviously never intended for human consumption. My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider drawing attention to this fact in the health notes which the Department issues from time to time.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Credit Restrictions
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to widespread under-employment and short-time working in British industry today, whether he will make a statement upon the effect of the credit squeeze in its present form to date.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The Government's credit restriction measures have reduced to some extent the pressure of demand at home upon our resources. Under-employment and short-time working, however, are not widespread.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Midlands, for example, over 100,000 industrial workers are employed for between two and a half and four days a week only? Does my hon. Friend propose to allow another
    932
    two months to elapse until the Budget before any further remedial measures are proposed to get these men back to full time work?
    Mr. Barber: I was referring to the economy as a whole. My hon. Friend will agree that, while it is still too early to say what the effect of the easement in hire purchase restrictions in January will be, some improvement has already been reported in the motor industry.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it proposed to take any further measures before the Budget, or have we to wait another eight weeks for that to be done? Does not this represent in the aggregation a huge loss of national wealth?
    Mr. Barber: No. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. We will certainly bear his observations in mind, but it is an exaggeration to say, as he has, that there is widespread underemployment and short-time working in British industry.

    Surtax (Married Persons)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated loss of revenue arising from non-aggregation of the income of spouses, for surtax purposes, up to a ceiling of £4,000 annually of the combined income of such spouses.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I regret that the loss cannot be estimated.
    Mr. Nabarro: If it cannot be estimated, will my hon. Friend communicate at an early date with the Minister of Education and ask him why he considers it desirable to try to entice married women, notably university graduates, back to the teaching profession actively, whereas the Treasury is pursuing a policy inimical to that by keeping Surtax at such a level as to cause husband and wife to pay in a group of Surtax which acts as a positive deterrent to the woman returning to work?
    Sir E. Boyle: That supplementary question takes us rather beyond the Question on the Order Paper. I do not know whether enticement is not rather a strong word. The only information

    933
    about the part of a married couple's income which belongs to the wife relates to the wife's earnings. Information is not available about the division of the investment income between husband and wife. That is why I cannot give my hon. Friend a figure.
    Dame Irene Ward: When my hon. Friend is examining all these propositions will he bear in mind that there are many married women staying at home to look after their children and they would also like some inducements in the direction of Income Tax being lowered, so that they can stay at home and look after their children?
    Sir E. Boyle: I assure my hon. Friend that all these matters will be considered at the appropriate time.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Air Station, Brawdy
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a further statement regarding the effects on local employment in Pembrokeshire of the extensions to the Royal Naval Air Station, Brawdy.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): The considerable programme of construction work at Brawdy should provide local employment over a period of about three years. As the work is to be placed out to contract I cannot assess the number of local men who will be employed by the contractor. The number of civilians employed in running the Air Station will continue at about the present level of 200 during, and after, the development period.
    Mr. Donnelly: Will the Civil Lord be a little more forthcoming than that? Could he not make some rough estimate of what this means in terms of jobs at, say, peak periods of reconstruction? Secondly, what does it mean in terms of capital expenditure?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would imagine between 400 and 500 extra men may be employed in peak periods of reconstruction. The cost may be of the order of £3 million.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (SITUATION)
Mr. Callaghan(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the state of public safety in Northern Rhodesia in view of the calling out of Federal troops.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): There is tension in all communities in the territory, who are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference. The call-up of territorials in Northern Rhodesia was decided upon by the Federal Government. The Acting-Governor was informed and concurred in this step as a purely precautionary measure.
Any use of troops in aid of the Civil Power in the territory is a matter for the Northern Rhodesia Government.
Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most disquieting statement, in view of the fact that it is probably the first time in our colonial history that troops have been called out except on the advice of the Governor? Would he make the Government's position clearer on this? Was it their view that the state of tension to which he refers was of such a character that the troops should be called out, and, if that was so, were the Government not incompetent in not having them called out? If, on the other hand, it was the Government's view that it was not necessary to call them out, are they not displaying singular weakness in not telling Sir Roy Welensky what they are doing?
Mr. Macleod: I would have to look into the question of precedent. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to station troops within the territory and their use in aid of the civil Power is a matter for the territorial Government.
I have no hesitation, and nor has the Governor, who is here, in concurring with the Acting Governor in Lusaka that this was a wise measure. There is considerable tension in the territory and there have been a great number of inflammatory statements. In a matter of this kind—and I have often been in this position before—when it is a question whether it is wise to call out troops, I

935
think that it is usually better to take the step of calling them out rather than regret later that you have not done so.
Mr. Thorpe: Is it not a fact that the Monckton Commission's Report, in paragraph 149, maintains that troops have never been called out without the prior request of the Governor? Is it not also a fact that in this case the Acting Governor was faced with a fait accompli and had to concur in a decision that had already been taken? Is it not true that the troops were predominantly white and is he not aware that the minority Report by two former Members of this House pointed out the grave danger of having racially selected troops, because they inflame the situation?
Finally, if there is a threat to security, would it not be better that troops be flown from Kenya rather than troops who might be politically tainted?
Mr. Macleod: Certainly not—in answer to the last part of the hon. Member's question. What the hon. Member has said in relation to the Monckton Report is perfectly accurate.
As to the question whether this was a fait accompli, I do not think that that is the position. The Federal Governor thought it was wise to take this action, but before it was promulgated he conferred with the Acting Governor in Lusaka, who concurred in the action. I think that it was a wise thing to do.
Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that there have been threats against public order both from the European and African Organisations? Is it not wise, therefore, to be prepared and can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever the result of the present talks in Northern Rhodesia, internal security will be preserved at all costs?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, there have certainly been dangerous statements made from both sides, which are deplorable. Of course, I give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks.
Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that we shall want to reserve judgment on how wise this move has been? Meanwhile, we are content if the Minister accepts the charge of incompetence. If he believes that there was a threat to public safety, then the troops should be called out on his initiative or the initiative of the Governor.
936
Coming to the more important point, is it not the case, as the Minister has said, that the build-up of tension is caused by his failure to produce the proposals for the constitutional advancement in Northern Rhodesia when the conference has been running so long?
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: This has nothing to do with the Private Notice Question.
Mr. Callaghan: This is to do with public safety in Northern Rhodesia.
All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that public safety will be better served, not by calling out the troops but by producing proposals for the constitutional advances—and this seems to me to be absolutely germane—in which the Minister is known to believe. While realising the difficult pressures to which the Minister is subject at the moment, will he remember that in reaching his conclusion he will save his own self respect if he sticks by the principles in which he believes?
Mr. Macleod: As far as similar events are concerned, I remember very well only a few weeks ago being criticised for pre-decision in relation to the situation in Buganda when a difficult decision had to be taken and I was told that what I had done was provocative. I did not accept that I was and in the event it turned out well.
I accept that this particular matter will have to be judged by what happens. All I can say is that we were getting constant reports of what was happening from the Acting Governor as well, and I believe that this was a wise decision that they came to yesterday in this particular matter. As far as the proposals for the Northern Rhodesian Constitutional Conference are concerned, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that a plenary session to discuss that matter in particular has been called for tomorrow.

PETER DAVID HASTINGS (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION AND TREATMENT)
Mr. K. Robinson(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health why he is unable to provide hospital accommodation and treatment for Peter David Hastings, who was sentenced at

937
Nottinghamshire Quarter Sessions last week to five years' imprisonment in spite of a medical report stating he was mentally sick and despite the court's expressed willingness to make a hospital order under the Mental Health Act, 1959, had accommodation been available.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I am inquiring into the circumstances in which the availability of suitable accommodation for this type of patient was not brought to the knowledge of the court.
Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister for inquiring into this case, but will he not say, in the meantime, that when a man is mentally sick a prison sentence must never be accepted as a substitute for hospital treatment? Will he also consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see what can be done to remedy this very serious injustice?
Mr. Speaker: The last part of the question is out of order if addressed to the Minister of Health. The rest may be allowed.
Mr. Robinson: I was thanking the Minister of Health for making inquiries. Will he also confer with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see what can be done to set right this injustice and to get the man the hospital treatment he needs?
Mr. Powell: Before I say any more I should like to know the result of my inquiries into this particular case and to see what, if anything, it throws up for action.
Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree—and I see that the Attorney -General is here, also—that it makes one very anxious indeed to hear of a prison sentence of a determinate and long length being used as a substitute for hospital when everybody agrees that hospital is desirable? That being so, I do not know whether the Attorney General or anybody else can help us or not—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be out of order, addressed to the Minister of Health.

WAYS AND MEANS (NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS)
3.40 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: I beg to move,
That the entries of Wednesday, 8th February, on the Question on the Motion in Committee of Ways and Means relating to National Health Insurance being put accordingly; that the Committee proceeded to a Division; that Mr. Paul Bryan and Mr. J. E. B. Hill were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes the chairman declared that the Ayes had it; that the Resolution be reported; that the Report be received this day and that the Committee do sit again this day be expunged from the Journal of the House.
I must start a debate of this kind by saying how impressed I am both with the gravity of the proposal that we are putting forward and with a sense of, perhaps, while not exactly making history, of being involved in it. As, I imagine, other hon. Members feel, there are names which have occurred in the history of this Chamber that have always tended to impress one, and which one has always thought of as being removed, in a rather distinguished way, by a great gulf from oneself. On reading the precedents for such a Motion as this, one has a tremendous sense of coming, in a humble way, into the making and extension of history. I come to this debate, as I hope hon. Members generally do, in that very sense.
The Motion arises, Mr. Speaker, from the necessity that all Parliaments and all parties have accepted for the record of our proceedings, the Journal, to be accurate, and to be not misleading, and for the proceedings that are recorded or are purported to be recorded there to have validity and unquestionably occurred. In this case, we dispute that either condition was fulfilled. We dispute that the recorded proceedings as shown in the Journal were accurate and were not misleading, and we dispute that they validly or unquestionably occurred.
Following the debate on this Motion there is another Motion that obviously places some limits on what might be or should be said in this debate. I will do my best to observe this, but some reference to the occupant of the Chair at the time—of the behaviour of the Chair—must occasionally be made. I

939
will not, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, seek deliberately to involve the House in a discussion of the occupant of the Chair, although, at the same time, I cannot omit reference to what went on. I hope that there will be some understanding of the difficulties facing me in moving this Motion, knowing of the other Motion that is to follow—
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying that; I was thinking about it. I suppose that our rule is that the House can only criticise the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means on the substantive Motion, so the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that on this Motion. On the other hand, the House is now to ascertain facts and, therefore, may describe, if it so desires, what the Chairman did or did not do.
Mr. Brown: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly the balance that I shall try to keep.
For this Motion there are many precedents. Hon. Members who, like myself, have been tempted to consult them will have had a very fascinating weekend. None of them, in fact, exactly reproduces either the circumstances of this case or the consequences of it, but they all have extraordinary similarities. The very first seems to have been in 1621, in the Parliament of King James, when, on 18th December of that year, as it is said in the History of the English Parliament by Barnett-Smith, on page 375 of Volume I:
"… the Commons entered upon their journals the following famous protest, which may well be regarded as one of the landmarks in our constitutional history."
After some other wording there follow the words that I want to read, which are as follows:
"That the liberties, franchises, privileges and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England … "
There are then some further words with which I do not need to bother the House, and then we read:
".. and that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses "—
and I ask the House, and you, Mr. Speaker, to take particular notice of what follows—
"… every member of the House hath, and of good right ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same … "
940
It is a very relevant part of our case that the other night the Patronage Secretary exercised his authority to seek to arrange that every hon. Member of the House did not have freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason—and certainly not to bring to conclusion the same.
On page 376 of the same volume, we read that, the House of Commons having set down this famous protest—one of the landmarks of our history—in which it sought to establish this freedom, King James called a meeting of the Council. He sent for the Journal of the Lower House and, with his own hand, he erased from it the protest of the Commons. Although that may be the first occasion of an erasure of an entry in a Journal, we are not seeking to erase for that reason. Nevertheless, it seems a very useful position from which to begin this discussion—
Mr. Cyril Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman knows what happened to King James's son.
Mr. Brown: Whatever happened to his son could well happen to the hon. Gentleman without any protest from me.
A number of other precedents are set out in the Sixteenth Edition of Erskine May, in chapter 13, page 268. The first was when John Wilkes succeeded in expunging the recording of his own incapacity, it was said, in 1782. The second was in 1833, when Mr. Cobbett made a rather famous attack on Sir Robert Peel, which the House subsequently expunged. In 1855, an attack on the appointment of the Recorder of Brighton was subsequently expunged from the records.
In 1891, Mr. Bradlaugh, through the then Member for Aberdeen, North, succeeded in expunging the record that had been written in in relation to his own position in 1880. The last occasion would appear to be in 1909, when Lord Winterton called Mr. Thorne a drunk, and Mr. Thorne called Lord Winterton a liar. It appears that on the next day both references were expunged.
That these various precedents do not bear complete relevance to our present circumstances, I think I can prove by reading the passage in Mr. Wilke's Motion in 1782 for expunging the earlier reference to himself. It will be very apparent, not least to hon. Members

941
opposite, how inappropriate it would be to compare those circumstances with the present. I read from column 1408, in Vol. 22 of the Parliamentary History. Mr. Wilkes said:
" I have now the happiness of seeing the Treasury bench filled with the friends of the constitution, the guardians and lovers of liberty, who have been unwearied and uniform in the defence of all our rights, and in particular of this invaluable franchise. I hail the present auspicious moment, and with impatience expect the completion of what I have long fervently desired for my friends and country, for the present age and a free posterity."
That, obviously, does not apply either to the present Treasury Bench, or to the circumstances of today.
The Motions concerned in these precedents all resulted, sometimes after a Division, sometimes as a result of agreement, in the expunging of the records, but their motives were very different. That in 1782 was carried, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, after having been moved every year for seven years. I am prompted to pause and say to the Patronage Secretary that I hope he realises what a vista is opened for us should this Motion not be carried. Every year, for seven years, at every stage of a Bill—[Laughter.] It might be a good reason why he should have a consultation with his right hon. Friends before I come to the end of my speech. Otherwise, business may be much interfered with.
The Motion which was, in the end, carried in 1782 was carried because the subsequent House considered that what the House had previously done was wrong. It was opposed by Mr. Charles James Fox and also by the Lord Advocate. I do not see the present Lord Advocate here. The opposition of the present Lord Advocate would be a considerable encouragement to my Scottish hon. Friends to think that we are right today.
Those Motions in 1833 and 1855 appear to have been carried simply because the Members then present did not like what had been said and done. I commend the proceedings of those days. There was no question of it being wrong. Nobody had to prove that the record was wrong. Nobody had to prove that it was misleading. All that someone did was to say, "I do not like what was said", and, in consequence, it was expunged—just like that. That could be
942
a very good reason for our doing it today, though I do not rest the whole of my case on that.
The one in 1891 was carried because the House had in the meantime changed its own rules and practices and so expunged what had gone before. This 1891 decision is interesting. It was the one which put Mr. Bradlaugh's position right. It was opposed not by the Lord Advocate, but by the Solicitor-General. I can but think that if we had the Attorney-General doing today what the Solicitor-General did then, the serried ranks of Tuscany would surely vote with us and we should have our Motion. The interesting thing about it is that this, like so many others, was not opposed on a party line, was not opposed on a Treasury Bench line, was not opposed on a Whip from the Patronage Secretary. The Solicitor-General of that day spoke against it, but the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the Marquess of Salisbury's Government, then Mr. W. H. Smith, supported it. It was, in fact, carried despite the opposition of the Administration.
The last of the precedents was that in 1909, and this, in some ways, is nearest to the present case. It clearly arose out of what we like to call turbulence. The grounds on which the expunging of the reference in the Journal was carried, although Mr. Balfour made a characteristically involved speech about it, are set out in an interesting fashion by Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister. Mr. Asquith said that this action was necessary because the record was
" misleading, though accurate".—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1909; Vol. 6, c. 2482.]
It seems, therefore, on that precedent of the House, that I do not necessarily have to prove inaccuracy, but I have to prove the misleading part. I think that I shall be able to do both before the end of my speech, but I ask the House to realise that there is a very respectable precedent simply for proving that the record is misleading without necessarily having to prove that it is not accurate.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I think that the right hon. Member is in a rather difficult position. I am sure that he would not wish to accuse the Clerks at the Table of having entered something in the Journal which they did not believe to be accurate. I think that

943
it would be generous on his part if he would say that he was not questioning the integrity of the Clerks at the Table.
Mr. Brown: So far, I have gone no further than Mr. Asquith. If generosity is called for, why not approach the Leader of the Liberal Party or Lady Violet Bonham Carter? The hon. Member really should not ask me not to say anything ungenerous about Mr. Asquith. I shall deal with the present situation when I come nearer to it. It is of some interest, in view of what the hon. Member has said, to note that Erskine May goes on to say, at the top of page 269, that the reference was then "printed in the Journal in erased type".
I am not myself very clear what erased type is, unless it is some point like that which the hon. Member has raised.
Mr. Asquith went on to say—reported at column 2485—that what he was urging upon the House was not necessarily a logical case but, as there had been injustice, it was the proper course for the House to take. I ask the House to note that. This is one of our precedents. It is not just a matter of logicality. It depends upon the existence of injustice which the House ought not to tolerate and about which it ought to take action.
If—and it is clearly upon the record—where the Journal is accurate, but misleading, there is a case for expunging, how much more should that be the proper course for us to take where, as we claim and as I shall seek to show, the record is both inaccurate as well as misleading? The gravamen of our case today is that what the record asserts was done never was, in fact, done. Secondly, the record implies that the House knew what was happening, whereas that is clearly untrue from a reference to the record itself.
If the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) wishes to persist in his point about whether I am getting at the Clerks, the answer is that that is absolute nonsense, as I hope to show by a further reference in a moment or two.
Sir G. Nicholson: Then I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brown: I do not pick on those whom we pay to do a very difficult job in circumstances which we ourselves
944
make difficult. I understand their problems, but that does not inhibit me from saying that the result which may come out, for reasons not theirs, can be wrong and ought to be removed. That is what I say.
As a matter of fact, if one looks at the manuscript record of our proceedings which was to be found in the Library the following morning, one finds the very best indication of how unclear the whole position was. There were in that record of our proceedings so many alterations and alterations of alterations that it is quite impossible to read the original and it is impossible also to read several of the second thoughts. Plainly, one thing which was not as certain as the Journal would show is that the thing was clear at the moment when it was happening.
There was at the time a good deal of turbulence, as I believe we call it, but, in my view, not extravagantly much. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. I have witnessed very much worse, especially at the time when the Labour Government, with a majority of six, were being harried by the "Boothby Harriers". What we had the other night would have passed for a very mild attack of turbulence in those days.
The noise that we suffered, or, at any rate, those trying to keep a record of our proceedings suffered, arose very suddenly, as reference to HANSARD will show, and very shortly before the end of the debate, completely out of the actions of the Patronage Secretary. The sequence of events went something like this. About midnight, in a debate that was proceeding fairly smoothly on its way, the Patronage Secretary, after quite openly interfering with the course of the debate—by that I mean that he put obvious pressure, which he made absolutely no effort to hide or conceal, upon Members who wished to speak—then proceeded to address the occupant of the Chair. He did that in a way and in a voice which left absolutely no doubt with those round about what he was discussing with the occupant of the Chair. At that time, very many Members were still standing, trying to be called, including hon. Members on the Government side. Not only were there Members on this side who wished to speak.

945
If one looks at the record in HANSARD—at this stage the record is very clear indeed—one will see that numbers of us tried to get reassurances from the Chair and from the Patronage Secretary about the moving of the Closure. Quite naturally and properly, the occupant of the Chair declined to answer questions about future actions. But at that stage, in the middle of all these questions, prompted, I repeat, by the action of the Patronage Secretary, which was so openly and, if I may say so, arrogantly taken, the Patronage Secretary then chose, loudly and openly, to prompt the Financial Secretary to get to his feet, an action which the Financial Secretary clearly had not in mind at that stage.
This was so obvious that I then moved to report Progress, as is shown in col. 579 of HANSARD. I will not weary the House with reading what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Some hon. Gentlemen do not know even now what we are discussing. It is the right of hon. Members to speak even when hon. Members opposite think that they should not. That is what it is about. Rereading the OFFICIAL REPORT now—I do not always think this about all the things that I say—I think that I tried in a reasonable way to bring the Patronage Secretary to realise what was involved. In col. 579 I pointed out to him that he had made not the slightest attempt to save the position of the Chair.
I said:
"He troubled not a little about the risk of bringing you into conflict with this side of the Committee"
I went on, later, to refer to the Patronage Secretary's conversation and to his intention to move the Motion, "That the Question be now put". I referred there and then to the Patronage Secretary prodding the Financial Secretary to his feet. I made it very clear that, in my view, we should have had some assurance that the debate would continue.
The then occupant of the Chair refused that Motion after I had spoken, but various points of order were raised. Throughout these points of order—I think that it is important to recognise this—the Financial Secretary continued to rise, having already been called. In fact, as will be seen from the bottom of col.
946
581 and the top of col. 582, he began his speech. It is quite true that he did not get very far, but he got sufficiently far to have occupied eight lines of HANSARD before another point of order caused him to resume his seat.
Following the subsequent points of order, the Patronage Secretary rose while the Financial Secretary still had possession of the Floor and addressed himself to the House, and only after being interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Siverman) a short time after he had begun did he remember to claim that he was following up a previous point of order. Following this speech of the Patronage Secretary, I rose to the same point of order and made an appeal to him, in the course of which I said:
"We shall be delighted to hear the Financial Secretary at this stage if it is more convenient to him to deal with the points which have 'been raised so far … If that is for his convenience, we are delighted to hear him and to facilitate that course. It would make it so much easier for us, as (he Patronage Secretary can clearly now see the misunderstanding which has arisen, if he will make it absolutely plain that he has not already made up his mind to close the debate afterwards."
A little later I said:
" However, we have been here long enough to know "—
I had previously referred to the fact that the Patronage Secretary and I were not old hands in the House—
"that on an issue of this kind, with this kind of temper and mood abroad, there has not been in our time a Government strong enough or powerful enough to over-ride it, except at tremendous additional inconvenience to themselves and everybody else."
The Patronage Secretary might like to recall that at this moment.
Later, I said:
"I appeal to the Patronage Secretary as a House of Commons man on a House of Commons matter, on a Bill the content of which could not be more telling, more important, or to many people more moving, to rise again and go a little beyond what he said just now. I ask him to assure us that, if we hear the Financial Secretary, as we shall gladly do, he will not then seek to use that as an occasion for closing the debate and shutting out the large number of Members on both sides who still want to continue the debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 585–6.]
Rereading that, I cannot see anything aggressive, unfriendly or obstructive in it.

947
But what happened? After all that and some further points of order, and with tempers at that stage rising and the Financial Secretary getting up at every point to continue the speech which he had begun, the Patronage Secretary again rose, as is shown at the bottom of column 587. We thought that his purpose was to answer the appeal which I had made. He was listened to in silence at that stage, and he began:
"This is a most difficult situation, and I am sorry that we find ourselves in this difficulty."
He went on to say that we would have a subsequent occasion to discuss the matter and then quite suddenly, for a reason which even at this stage is impossible for me to recall, he said:
"I said before that responsibility for moving the Closure is entirely mine, and that it is up to me to risk whether or not it will be accepted. As it is obvious that at this moment we shall not make any progress in this way, I must put the matter to the test. I therefore beg to move. That the Question be now put."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February. 1961; Vol. 634, cc. 587–8.]
The test in his mind was not whether people had things to say—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to try to keep this debate in order. If he is proceeding to explain the precise point of time in the argument at which the ultra turbulence arose, then it is relevant, but if he is seeking to complain of the putting or granting of the Closure at that moment, then it is not relevant.
Mr. Brown: I seek to prove exactly what you said, Mr. Speaker, namely, the point at which it occurred and the circumstances in which it occurred, because I think that it is relevant to what happened subsequently. I will not press it any further. That is how it happened, at the point it happened, and that was the state of the House when it happened.
At that point the Chair immediately accepted the Motion moved, and equally immediately there was uproar in the House which had not existed before that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that hon. Members will speak from their own recollection. It is very clear from the record that at that point there was uproar. There was immediately afterwards considerable uproar. I will go further and say that something approach-
948
ing total chaos ensued. It is from that point that we claim that the inaccuracy in the record arises.
At that point, the Motion had been moved," That the Question be now put". The Chair had accepted it, and it was during that Division that a whole series of points of order were raised, some of them by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). At column 588, the Chairman is recorded as saying:
"The Question is, That the Question be now put."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 588.]
We say—this is the first of our charges of inaccuracy—that that Question was never put, if a Question being put means it must be put audibly. That Question was never heard to be put.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that can be right. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at his own Motion, he will see that that is not one of the entries which is desired to be expunged.
Mr. Brown: I said that it was never put by the Chair. I will move on, if I am transgressing, but I am dealing with these troubled waters for the first time, and, perhaps, may do better the second time, Sir.
I think that it is fair to make this point. It was only during that further point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that we learned that the Division was over and that the Motion was decided. It is interesting to note that, when that was said in answer to a point of order, there was a chorus of "When?" from hon. Members all over the House, who clearly at that stage did not even know what Motion had, in fact, been taken.
This, I am sure, you will accept as in order, Sir. We are absolutely as certain as we can be that no other Motion was ever put at all. After that point, the occupant of the Chair did not rise again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. After that point, the occupant of the Chair never rose again, except to call, in the time-honoured way, "Order, order" for the removal of the Mace from one position to another, and himself to mount the main Chair. Of that, those of us who were present are as certain as we can be of anything.

949
Yet, Sir, the record sets out at that point the Ways and Means Resolution, records it as having been carried and also records that the Opposition put in no Tellers. Every one of us on this Front Bench, including those sitting nearest the Speaker's Chair, and who had not been as involved as some of us were with the whole argument that was going on, will assure you that to the best of our recollection no audible Resolution was put at any time to the House. It was audible to nobody, because there was, in fact, no Chairman on his feet putting a Motion.
As you will see from column 591, Sir, there was a certain amount of private discussion, to which I drew attention, between the Government Whip, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Hughes-Young), and the occupant of the Chair, who turned away from the House and was leaning forward towards the hon. Gentleman, and for some minutes something went on between them. I repeat that in column 591 I drew attention to this and protested that that could not be regarded as the business of this House properly conducted in open session of the House. Nevertheless, the Journal records the business, which could only have been business conducted between the two of them, conducted in that way, as no other business was going on in that way. It records the business as having been conducted and the Motion as having been carried.
Now I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Farnham. In our time, many of us, in one capacity or another, have been asked to write out the minutes of a meeting after an involved and violent discussion, when the outcome was very uncertain. [Interruption.] No, they probably pay somebody else to do it for them. I do not, therefore, in the least attack those who have had to do it in this case for doing it in the way they did. Of course, when one is charged with that duty, the only thing one can do is to record the business of the Executive, the business of the platform, as having been carried in such circumstances.
There is no other course open to one; there is nothing else one can do, but it is the business of hon. Members there to challenge the record if, in fact, they
950
believe it not to be so. We on this side say, and I believe that there are hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who know that I am telling the truth, that we remain convinced that those Resolutions were never validly put, and, because they were never validly put, could not have been validly carried.
Secondly, we say that in any case the record must be regarded as misleading since it purports to give a clear record of something which the House understood was being done, and which it allowed to be done, knowing that it was being done, when, in the clear recollection of everybody present, it certainly did not know what was being done. Even if it could be argued against me that it was done, even if it could be argued that I was not wide enough awake to see what was being done—[Interruption.] Let us treat this rather more seriously. This is one of the occasions of history, is it not? [Interruption.] Yes. One of the great things about the past is that Members took their position as Members of this House so much more seriously than hon. Gentlemen take it today, and it is upon that that our privileges and our greatness are founded.
Even if it could be proved against me that my recollection was wrong, or that I had not been wide enough awake to see what was going on, the very fact that so many did not know what was going on is itself evidence that the record is misleading, because the record purports to show that the House knew what was going on.
Mr. E. Partridge: There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
Mr. Brown: The best thing to do is to leave hon. Gentlemen on the record with their own statements.
I am, therefore, trying to submit and to prove two propositions. The first is that the record is inaccurate, because the Resolution which it purports to show was passed was neither put nor passed. If I succeed in that, the record certainly should be expunged. There is no question about it. This was too important a Measure—the National Health Service Contributions Ways and Means Resolution—to allow a nullity to be the basis for

951
the future of the Bill. Even if I fail in my first proposition, even if hon. Gentlemen opposite thought I should fail in that, it seems, I think, that I must succeed on the second case, and on the second I stand on the precedent established by Mr. Asquith in 1909.
Mr. Asquith's precedent was carried by the support of the Conservative Party. The precedent was that one does not have to prove that it was inaccurate if the record, although accurate, was misleading. I believe it to be inaccurate, but in any case, even if it is accurate, it is certainly misleading, because it presents a position that the House was alleged to know when, clearly, the House did not know what was going on. And so I claim that this record should be expunged, certainly on the second proposition, if not on the first.
It is no answer to say that the House should have been quiet. It is no answer to say that if the House had been quiet, it would have heard. The obvious counter to that is that if the Patronage Secretary had not behaved as he did, neither the irregularities which occurred nor the noise which they caused would have arisen. In any case, the House surely must be in a position to hear. If the House is not in a position to hear what is being done, even though it be by the wilful noise of Members, Standing Order No. 24 applies and it is at that point that the House should be adjourned under standing Order No. 24.
If it is claimed by hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge), that he could not hear because we were making too much noise—that is what the hon. Member said—and if that is the view of hon. Members opposite, they must still support us, because if we could not hear we could not know what was going on. If we could not know what was going on, the record is clearly misleading and, on the 1909 precedent, should be expunged for that very reason, and the hon. Member for Battersea, South should vote with us for it.
The fact is that the Patronage Secretary behaved as he behaved. He closured his own Minister who was seeking to reply. He infringed the right of minorities, on both sides, by refusing them the
952
right to speak on a Measure of great public concern and dispute, which was laid down in the famous protest of 1621 as one of the undoubted rights and privileges of this House.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is now out of order again. He is discussing the merits of the Closure.
Mr. Brown: I was encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by not having got out of order more than I have done. I am grateful to you and will try to get back within order.
The House became incensed at what it thought was its treatment at his hands, especially as, had the debate continued, no great harm could have come to the Government or to anybody else, since to end the discussion at one o'clock in the morning was not imperative. The consequence of all that was noise, uproar, turbulence and grave disorder. I still think that had someone on the Treasury Bench shown a touch or a sense for the mood of the House, we could have been back and proceeded without any trouble at all; we could have had peaceful progress and at some stage we could all have gone home. That, however, was missing that night and so the peaceful progress did not come.
Our submission is that it is surely an infringement of our rights—I mean the right of Members, and not of any one section of the House—and a grave precedent, for both Parliament itself and for our people, that the Journal should be written up and Government business should be declared as carried when so many of us believed that it was not. Unless this action is challenged—I put this with great seriousness to hon. Members opposite; I hope that they will believe me in this—and successfully challenged, we shall have given the Executive—any Executive, at any time—a new and easy way to override this House. What is worse, cynicism and frustration, those twin enemies of effective democracy, already with us, will be still further reinforced.
Whatever the inconvenience for the Government if this Motion is carried—and there will be some inconvenience—it is as nothing compared to the good that the pasage of this Motion will do for the reassertion of the rights of, and

953
the reinvigoration of, this House and Parliamentary democracy. This is a matter for all Members who care, who care about our rights as Members and who care about the duty of this House to hold the Executive in check if not in subjection. I think that anybody who was here that night knows the situation, knows that the record misleads and believes, as I do, that it is also inaccurate.
For all these reasons, I move the Motion that certain proceedings recorded in the Journal be expunged from the Journal of this House and I ask all hon. Members who care for Parliamentary democracy to support us in the Lobby.
Mr. Frank Bowles: Can you help us, Mr. Speaker, on a legal matter and also a point of order? If a court later found that the Ways and Means Resolution was not carried in the Committee stage, would not the Act based on it be held by a court of law to be out of order?
Mr. Speaker: The trouble is that the court itself would, I think, be in trouble for breach of Privilege. It is a hypothetical situation.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. Allan Green: Nobody will deny, certainly I do not seek to deny, the right of the Opposition, or of any hon. Member on this side of the House, to move a Motion of this kind in these circumstances. We are all careful, I hope, of our rights in this House. We all wish to know what has gone on. If I may say to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), if I might have his attention—
Mr. G. Brown: I am listening.
Mr. Green: The right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable speech, to which I listened with great care.
Mr. Brown: I was listening.
Mr. Green: All the precedents that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted are irrelevant. This is a particular occasion about which he is complaining. The past precedents have very little to do with it, except his undoubted right to raise the matter if he so chooses. If that is true, as I believe it is, it is also true to say that this is no more an historic occasion than any occasion in
954
the House. Each occasion has its mark, great or small, in history. It is not, therefore, of much value to us to claim this to be a greater occasion than it is.
To pass to the next point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, he took his stand ultimately on the case that even if the record was accurate, it was misleading. May I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention? I am seeking to check the facts.
Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive my interrupting? The hon. Gentleman has said this twice. I am listening to him all the time. There are certain other things one has to do, such as sending one's notes to those who have asked for them, as he knows. It is an abuse of the practice of the House to introduce what is intended to be a derogatory reference. The hon. Gentleman knows very well I am listening to each point he makes.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Green: If the right hon. Gentleman feels—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Green: Wait for it. If the right hon. Gentleman feels I have impugned him I most willingly withdraw. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was seeking to satisfy myself that he took his ultimate stand in moving this Motion, as I understood him to do, on a particular statement that, even if the record was accurate, it was misleading. What he is saying—I am sure that he perceives it—is that no record, accurate or inaccurate, is, therefore, of very much value to Members if they do not choose to agree with it. [Laughter.] That is what he is saying. I do not believe that it was really the right hon. Gentleman's intention to say that—
Mr. Brown: I did not say it, either.
Mr. Green: We will leave it to the record.
Let me give my own very humble back bench account of what I perceived myself at the time in question. First, it is not in doubt, I understand, that the Closure Motion was, within the rules of the House, properly moved. I understand that that is not in dispute. The record up to that point, as a record, is not, therefore, challenged.

955
I was myself at the Bar of the House [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] I will try not to mislead hon. Members! I was myself at the Bar of the House, and, that Closure Motion being moved, I went into the Lobby in the expectation of recording my vote. Hon. Members opposite may say that I should not have done that, but the fact is that I did, and I went to do it. In the Lobby it became apparent to me that no Division on the Closure Motion was taking place, for what reason I did not know. I could not know—
Mr. Sydney Silverman: And the hon. Member does not know now.
Mr. Green:—because I was in the Lobby. I do know now—
Mr. Silverman: How?
Mr. Green: —because it is in the record and that part of the record is not challenged. The reason is in the record and that part of the record is not challenged. So I am not, I hope, in any dispute on this matter with right hon. and hon. Members opposite so far. Otherwise, they would have had a Motion down challenging that part of the record. They have not chosen to do so, so I take it that so far I am in agreement with them, and none of us up to this point is misled by the record; nor do we doubt its accuracy.
I came out of the Lobby. I came back again to the Bar of the House, and I listened to the next part of the proceedings. It was perfectly plain to me that, following the acceptance, whether willing or unwilling, of the Closure Motion, the main Question must be put, and to me, observing the scene from my place at the Bar of the House, it was so apparent that the main Question was being put that I went back into the Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the fact.
Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose —
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Green: I know that the hon. Member will permit me to complete my sentence.
I am not—let me make it plain—trying to argue the merits or demerits of moving one of these Motions. I am trying to make it plain—no more than this, because this is all I can speak to; I cannot
956
speak to more than this—that to me, standing at the Bar of the House, it was, in fact, apparent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—so apparent, that I can only say—
Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman doubt the statement of my right hon. Friend that the Chairman never rose to his feet to put the second Question?
Mr. Green: Oh, yes, I am bound to do so—
Mr. Jay: How can the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Green: It was apparent to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I came out of the Lobby again when the main Question was being put, and I accordingly went back into the Lobby—
Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Was it apparent to him that the Chairman rose to his feet to put the second Question?
Mr. Green: Yes.
Hon. Members:: Oh.
Mr. S. Silverman rose —
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Sit down.
Mr. Green: I have put—
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member is misleading the House.
Mr. Green: I am not seeking to mislead the House. I am only trying to state what I saw—
Mr. Silverman: What you heard.
Mr. Green: What I observed—
Mr. Silverman: Did you hear it?
Mr. Green: What I observed—
Hon. Members: Did you hear it?
Mr. Green:—to my own satisfaction. I am not claiming that what I observed was to the satisfaction of other hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did you hear?"] I observed to my own satisfaction the proper processes of this place taking place.
Mr. Silverman: Did you hear it?
Mr. Green: And that is what I observed, and I went into the Lobby to

957
record my vote. I came back again to find to my surprise that apparently Members opposite had not observed the same thing as myself. [Laughter.] All right. Hon. Members do not believe me? Will they believe me on this? I am not disputing by one hair's breadth their personal rights to state what they observed and what they believe—
Mr. S. Silverman: And what they heard.
Mr. Green:—and they, I suppose, feel, according to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that they heard, according to him—
Mr. Gordon Walker rose —
Mr. Green: No, I cannot give way.
Mr. G. Brown Mr. G. Brown rose —
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Green: No.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if the Member who has the Floor does not give way, he cannot intervene.
Mr. Brown: On a point of order. The hon. Member was referring to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "That does not make it a point of order."] Is that not an occasion to give way to an answer to his challenge?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not constitute a point of order.
Mr. Silverman: On a point of order.
Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Member give way to me?
Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. The House is at present debating a Motion which depends on a question of fact. The hon. Member is making a speech in which he appears to be deliberately misleading the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—by using deliberately ambiguous words—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Under the guise of a point of order the hon. Member is making unwarranted charges.
Mr. Silverman: I had not finished that point of order. I do not believe, with the greatest respect, that anything
958
I said was unwarranted. The hon. Member used the word "apparent". I say. and I am entitled to say so, that "apparent" is an ambiguous word in the context.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is quite entitled to say things, but not on a point of order when it is not a point of order.
Mr. Silverman: What I am putting to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is whether, when the House is concerned with a question of fact, there is any way of calling upon an hon. Member who offers evidence on a point to deal with that and not muffle it up with ambiguous words.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a subject for debate.
Mr. Green: It was apparent to me that the processes were going on as is normal.
Mr. Silverman: What did the hon. Member hear?
Mr. Green: And there is in the record an account of what went on. We are now asked by hon. Members opposite to have the record expunged on the ground that even if accurate it was misleading. That was the ultimate point made by the right hon. Member for Belper.
Mr. Brown Mr. Brown indicated dissent.
Mr. Green: I wish to say that I, personally, was not misled by it. That is all I say.
Mr. Brown: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I put this to him? I understood his challenge to me to be on the ground that he heard down there at the Bar—[HON. MEMBERS: "In the bar."]—and observed down there at the Bar of the House what was going on. Will the hon. Member explain in that case what he thinks the record means by saying that there was grave disorder? If he could hear it all the way out there at the Bar, what disorder was there?
Mr. Green: I have no intention of being drawn on to grounds other than that to which I can speak from my own experience. The right hon. Member for Belper is within the recollection of the House as saying that the ultimate ground on which he asked that the record should be expunged was that even if the record

959
was accurate it was misleading. All I wish to say is that I was not misled at the time.
Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Member is now himself misleading. I said two things. First, my claim was that the record was inaccurate and therefore should be expunged. I went on to say—and this is not the ultimate, this is an alternative—that if I failed to carry anybody on that, then there is another ground open, that even though they find it accurate, it is misleading. The hon. Member should try to follow this all through. In my view the ground holds on the first claim, but if it does not hold on the first claim it holds on the second. That does not mean that one is the ultimate and that all the hon. Member has to do is to answer the ultimate. He has to answer both.
4.44 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) has been addressing us both on the customs and events in the House. One of these customs provides that he should be referred to not by name, but as the hon. Member for Preston, South. In this particular instance, I can see the purpose of that rule, because if one were to refer to him by his own name it would be so appropriate as to be rude. The hon. Member intervened, first, to tell us that he did not think much of precedents and that this was not an important event in the history of the House.
Mr. Green: I said, and I think that it is within the recollection of the House, that all events here were important and not just this one. I did not really go further than that.
Mr. Paget: Some events are more important than others and perhaps some people are more equal than others. We get these sorts of sophistications, but within the history of the House—and it is the history of the House that we make on these occasions—this is an event of importance. It is an event of importance because it affects what fundamentally this House is for—the rights of minorities and the rights of opposition. This House is not an instrument of government. This House is a limitation of government. That is why it is essentially a
960
democracy. And if Government business—and this is Government business—can be taken unbeknownst of the House, or at least unbeknownst of that part of the House which is the Opposition, that goes to the very liberties of the country.
This is why I believe that this is a profoundly important occasion. The precedents that have been cited are precedents which have dealt largely with the rights of individual Members. I am not saying that the rights of individual Members are not highly important. Of course they are. The reputation of my very great predecessor, Mr. Bradlaugh, the reputation of that perhaps less admirable character but, nevertheless, great fighter, Mr. Wilkes—these things are things of importance. But they are not of importance in the issue which we are raising today, because the issue we are raising today is not that of the mere individual. It is the right of the Opposition to have their voice heard and their votes taken when an issue comes before the House. When the Government require the consent of the House, that consent must be consciously given by the House.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the hon. and learned Member not agree, also, that it is important that the voice of Government supporters should be heard in the House and that they should not be shouted down and interrupted?
Mr. Paget: I entirely agree that they should not be shouted down and should not be closured by the Patronage Secretary—particularly the Minister of the Government who is seeking at the Dispatch Box to explain to the House, in answer to the Opposition, why the consent of the House should be given. When that is closured by the Patronage Secretary, I think that the point which the hon. Member has just made, that the voice of the Government, too, should be heard in these matters, is very well supported.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: On a point of order. Is the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) talking to the right Motion, because he is now talking about the Closure, which, I understand, does not arise on this Motion?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House will have heard Mr. Speaker's Ruling and has not yet transgressed it.
Mr. Paget: I referred to the Closure only because of the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and, in courtesy, I wished to concur in the point he was making, the point which we have made already—that the Patronage Secretary was very much to blame.
I now come back to the hon. Member for Preston, South. It is odd that on this subject, at the end of my right hon. Friend's moving and circumstantial account of what occurred, one witness should have risen on that side of the House. I am bound to say that I should have thought that the Government would have produced a better witness. What was his evidence as to the factual matter concerning us? He said, "I was at the Bar". He said that he had come in because he thought that there was a Division. That is no criticism. Many of us who are engaged in the chess room and elsewhere come in—
Mr. Green: I did not say that I came in because I thought that there was a Division; I said that I came in well before the Division.
Mr. Paget: The hon. Member came in well before the Division. That is interesting. Since he remained at the Bar and did not take his place, it was probably reasonably before the Division and he had come to vote—
Mr. Green: No. To get it straight, because I am sure that the hon. and learned Member does not want to be unfair—I am sure that he does not want to be; it would not matter very much if he were—I came To the Bar of the House well before. The Chamber was crowded and I chose to stand there rather than try to find a seat on crowded benches.
Mr. Paget: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member as often as he requires. The more he tells, the more interesting it becomes. He came in in plenty of time before the Division and he stood at the Bar. The Division was then taken and he went into the Division Lobby. I do not know how he knew which door it was, unless he knew what the position was and that he was sup-
962
porting the Closure. It was unnecessary for him to see the Question put, because he knew into which Lobby he was to go. No doubt he had other things to do. We have all done this and it is no criticism of him to say that he wanted a good place in the Lobby so that he could get out quickly. We have all done that.
The hon. Member then heard that there were no Tellers and that there was to be no Division. He scuttled back to see whether he could go home, or whether there was anything else on. We have all done that, too. We have been here before! He came back to the Bar and, he told us, it was apparent to him that the main Question was about to be put. He was at the Bar and hon. Members opposite have said time and again that there was chaos—
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Was it not also apparent to the hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friend from' Cardiff, who appears from HANSARD to have been wearing a hat, seated?
Mr. James Callaghan: Further to that point. I think that the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) is now referring to the wrong Division. Everyone was quite clear about the Closure being put, because we heard the Patronage Secretary move it. It is the events subsequent to that which are in dispute.
Mr. Paget: All these hon. Members opposite who are to vote on a question of fact about something which they did not see and which they did not hear are no doubt as confused as the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn). When the hon. Member for Preston, South returned, hon. Members were wearing opera hats.
Sir K. Pickthorn: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) must not presume that he is the only hon. Member from Cardiff. There was another hon. Member from Cardiff wearing a hat.
Mr. Callaghan: Unfortunately for the hon. Member for Carlton, that was in the same Division. We both wore the same hat.
Mr. Paget: This is the sort of confusion which has arisen in the minds of

963
hon. Members opposite when they believe that someone else had got the hat.
Mr. Dudley Williams: It is not quite accurate for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to say that it was in the same Division. If he refers to column 589 of HANSARD for the appropriate day he will see that the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it, and then subsequently the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) put on an opera hat in order to raise a point of order during the Division.
Mr. G. Brown: If the hon. Member has that HANSARD with him, and refers to column 589, he will see that the second point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was about the same Division. He asked the Chairman whether he had heard the names of the Tellers being put in. Both were referring to the Division which had just been taken, the Division during which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) raised his point of order.
Mr. F. A. Burden rose —
Mr. Paget: Whenever I speak, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) always gets up. He puts me off slightly, because his observations are generally of such staggering irrelevance that, without knowing the chain of thought which got him there, I am slightly put off.
Mr. Burden: I would like a little elucidation on this point. It seems to me, from what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) that the hon. Member and his fellow hon. Member from Cardiff were wearing the same hat at the same time.
Mr. Brown: Totally irrelevant.
Mr. Paget: I have been giving way to many interruptions, not because I believe that the debate should be reduced to a rag but because I think that it is highly important that the House should realise, from the evidence of its own spokesmen, the existing degree of confusion about what happened. It is precisely that degree of confusion which we say is the reason why on this occasion the minutes should
964
be amended and the business gone through properly.
Having made that point and thanking hon. Members opposite for having in large measure made it for me, I return to the hon. Member for Preston, South. Having found the Whips on, he returned to see whether he could go home, or whether there was to be another Division.
Mr. Green Mr. Green rose —
Mr. Paget: Let the hon. Member wait a little. I have given way a lot.
We have all done these things ourselves and I am not being critical about the hon. Member's actions. One is not particularly interested in the business—many of us have been in that state—and the buzz has gone round that the Patronage Secretary is to move the Adjournment at a given time. At that time, one comes along to see if he is as good as his word and one goes into the Division Lobby. Then one finds that the Tellers are not there and one goes to see whether there is to be a Division on something else, or whether one can go home. The hon. Member said that it was apparent to him that the main Question was to be put.
Nobody disputes that. Despite all the evidence that we have that silk hats or no silk hats, opera hats being worn by some and not by others, hon. Members trying to make themselves heard, turmoil and noise, the hon. Member says, "It is apparent to me that a Question was going to be put." When he is asked the direct question, "Did you see the Chairman stand up?" he dodges the answer about three times.
Mr. Green: With all respect, I know that we can get these things a little inaccurate when they follow quickly one after the other, but I did see it and I said I saw it.
Mr. Paget: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I have heard a good many witnesses in court, that I have heard a great many judges and that I have judged the demeanours of witnesses, too, and that there is no court that I have ever been in which would believe him on that for a moment.
Those of my hon. Friends who were here in large numbers and many hon. Members opposite—in view of what is

965
happening I will not enlarge upon this—know very well whether the Chairman got to his feet or not at that moment. He did not. If this Question was put at all it was put inaudibly and was put sitting, and all of us know that.
Now I come to the point of hearing. Again, the question was put, "Did you hear the Question put?" and again the hon. Gentleman, to my hearing at any rate, slid off into a number of apparents.
Mr. S. Silverman: He has not answered the question yet.
Mr. Paget: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman cares to answer the question now. Did the hon. Gentleman hear the Question put or did he not? Would he care to answer now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] As far as I am concerned, I think I have done with the hon. Member.
In conclusion, I will deal with what seems to me a profoundly important point and one which I am going to put to hon. Members opposite, hon. Members who, I believe, care for this institution, care for the rights of opposition and care, at least, that within this House justice shall appear to be done. On this side of the House it is claimed that my right hon. and hon. Friends feel very sincerely indeed that a mistake has happened, that a Question on which I do not think that any hon. Member would for one moment doubt that he would have wished to vote, was put without their hearing it, at any rate, and that they were denied that opportunity to vote, that by what happened the Journal records something which we do not believe happened and which we believe is misleading, that a very important Motion was passed without a vote because the Opposition, by reason of these events—and I am not laying the blame on one side or the other at the moment—simply did not have the opportunity, in decency and in fairness, to vote on it. Ought not that Question to be put again? That is all that this Motion says.
Before that Question can be put again the record has to be cleared. That is the formality with which we have to deal. We have to clean the sheet before the record can be put right. Is it not an abuse of the power of hon. Members opposite as a majority to deny to the Opposition the opportunity to record
966
their votes on a Question which they never heard and on which they would wish to hear their dissent expressed? I put this matter to the House, and, in fairness, I ask hon. Members opposite to exercise their independence as Members of Parliament and to support this Motion.
5.5 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): A Motion has been tabled on the Order Paper in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others to expunge from the records of the House the minutes taken at the Table by the Clerks of certain proceedings, and I think that we have nothing to complain of in the spirit in which or the historical perspective with which the: right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) examined the past.
I, too. have looked at the many cases in the past, and if one examines them with care one comes to the conclusion that, starting with the seventeenth century case and going on to the cases on page 268 of Erskine May, most of which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I think that I could make the generalisation that, looking back over the centuries, there appears to be no case when the House of Commons has questioned the accuracy of entries in its Journals unless it has deliberately changes its mind. That applies to every single one of the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
We are, therefore, debating today something which is new in our procedure, namely, the questions by the Opposition of the day of the accuracy of the Journals and of the Votes and Proceedings of the House. That is the main point on which the right hon. Gentleman in all sincerity wished to be judged, and that is the main point to which I shall address myself: were these proceedings accurately recorded? I hope to show in a not too elaborate way that they were, in fact, accurately recorded. I will then come to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, that if they were accurately recorded he wishes to stand on the case that they were misleading.
Let us look for a moment at the historic cases which have gone before.
Mr. A. V. Hilton: On a point of order. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to point out to the House how these proceedings could have been in order in view of the fact that he was not present at the time that they took place?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What the hon. Member says is not a point of order.
Mr. Butler: It so happens that the method which I propose to adopt to prove this is not relevant to the question of whether I was present or not, and I hope to show by the method that I am intending to use that the records were accurately kept.
If we look at the Resolution of 1782 relating to the case of Wilkes, if we look at the Motion impugning the conduct of Sir Robert Peel in 1883 when Lord Althorp moved a Motion that the matter be not entered in the Minutes, and if we look at the case of the Recorder of Brighton in 1855 or at the case of Brad-law in 1891, we find in every case that the House of Commons was deliberately taking a step, chiefly in a personal case, to change a record the accuracy of which was not denied.
If we come to the case in 1909 quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, the case of the scuffle between Lord Winterton and the hon. Member for South West Ham, we find the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Asquith, as Leader of the House moving what he called a Motion of an unusual character put forward in very exceptional circumstances and with the general concurrence of the House as an act of justice to one of its own Members. That it was moved by the Leader of the House of the day and later supported, in what I agree with the right hon. Member for Belper was a very turgid speech by Mr. A. J. Balfour. Mr. T. P. O'Connor also spoke at the end maintaining, with the general concurrence of the House, that an injustice had bene done to the Member for South West Ham, and that therefore the matter must not remain on the Journal of the House.
The right hon. Member for Belper made some play with a phrase used by Mr. Asquith, namely:
"I have thought it right to adopt this very unusual procedure, and to ask the House to
968
expunge this misleading, though accurate, entry from its Journal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th July, 1909; Vol. 7, c. 2482.]
The fact that the Leader of the House of the day found that entry to be accurate very much increases the strength of my case in dealing with the first proposition to which the right hon. Gentleman wished us to address ourselves today, namely, that throughout all these cases set out on page 268 of the Sixteenth Edition of Erskine May—the case in the seventeenth century, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and the recent case of 1909—there is no analogy at all between the action taken by the Opposition today and all the previous cases of dealing with this matter in the House. Therefore, I think that the House ought to approach with some caution and solemnity the proposal made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
As I hope to show in dealing with the second leg of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it is not so much the Executive which is running away with things here, but it should be the wish of all Members of this House to preserve our own method of doing things in the House of Commons and not to question our records when, in my view, despite the difficulties of that particular evening, they were in fact correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall attempt to show as patiently as I can why I think they were correct, and then we will leave the matter to the decision of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "We were there."] We gave the right hon. Gentleman a fair hearing, and I am obliged to the House for listening to the manner in which I am putting this question.
I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition in his place, because when dealing with this Motion the only slip that I recognised in the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Belper was his reference at the bottom of column 588 to the question of the Question being now put in relation to the Closure. I think he will agree with me that his right hon. Friend said:
"We heard him put it and he took the voices of the Committee. However, I do question the record from there onwards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 642.]
We are there quite clear that it is the record after the Division on the Closure, and not before, that we are questioning in this Motion. I say that only because the

969
right hon. Gentleman was not quite clear upon it, and I wanted no confusion in dealing with the Motion.
If I am to make my case in reply to the very strongly felt arguments on the other side of the House, it is necessary for me to establish that the records are correct, and that the machinery upon which we depend for making these records was functioning without reproach on that night, and I now propose to try to do that.
First, I want to refer to the human machinery. This is the concern of the Whips on both sides and the Clerks at the Table. I can pledge myself to say that the Government Whips are satisfied that the records are accurate. [Laughter.] I expected laughter, but we have had our own examination of this matter with as much sincerity as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have cross-questioned the Whips and we are satisfied that they are correct.
The next point to which I come relates to the Clerks at the Table. They were referred to in suitable language by the right hon. Member for Belper, and I am sure that it is not in the mind of either side of the House to criticise the Clerks. They are the servants of the House. They perform their duties impartially and to the satisfaction of the House. They record our proceedings at the Table in close proximity to the Chairman. They are in an advantageous position, when the Chamber is noisy, to know what occurs. Why, I ask the House, should they wish to invent the proceedings of the House? No one, I am sure, would suggest this for a moment, but it is as well for me to make this point and to say that we have the utmost confidence in the Clerks in the performance of their duties at the Table.
Now I will discuss in some detail—and this may at any rate interest new hon. Members; it certainly interested me after a long period of service in this House to study it so closely—the physical machinery which has to be operated by the various officers of the House before the Minute is entered in the Clerks' books. I think that it would be valuable for all hon. Members to listen to this, because our constitution itself in law is a matter of checks and balances, and if one can find any machinery which is more full of checks and balances than
970
that which I am now going to describe to reach accuracy in making the records I shall be very surprised. The purpose of the machinery is to prevent errors of the kind implied in the present Motion, and to see, in the words of the right hon. Member for Belper, that the Motion is validly put and validly carried.
First, when the Chairman rises to put any Question to the Committee, the Clerks at the Table and the Sergeant at Arms' Doorkeepers at the various doors and entrances, and the Serjeant at Arms himself in the Chair, all remain on the alert but take no action until the Chairman has collected the voices, and—in the event of voices opposing the Question—has declared "Clear the Lobby". The purpose of collecting the voices is to ascertain whether the House desires to divide or to assent to a Question without a Division.
On the words "Clear the Lobby", and on those words only, the Clerk at the Table presses a lever to set the automatic time-clock running. This time-clock is in a wooden frame, which I have inspected, build into the Table and is regularly tested by Messrs. Dents, the clockmakers of Big Ben. I have ascertained, too, that it was last tested for accuracy by Messrs. Dents on 1st February, 1961, that is, a few days ago. At the same time the Serjeant at Arms in his Chair at the other end of the Chamber directs the Division bells to be rung in all parts of the House and his Doorkeepers to lock the Tellers' doors in the Lobbies. What is, I think, a vital check and balance is that there is no communication of any kind between the Clerks at the Table and the Serjeant at Arms or his Doorkeepers during this procedure.
Nobody questions that the bells did work. It was quite clear, therefore, that the Serjeant at Arms acted as he is expected to do, and there is no doubt the machinery was operated and the machinery was operating for both Divisions after contact by eye only between the Serjeant at Arms at that end of the Chamber and the Chairman seeing and doing his duty at this end. These two parts of the Chamber act completely independently in carrying out their duties. At the end of two minutes the clock of the Clerk at the Table stops and a red light comes on, which is clearly visible

971
to all at or behind the Table, including the Chairman. The Senior Clerk at the Table thereupon prompts the Chairman with the single word "Tellers", and not until the Chairman has acted upon this prompting is the next stage entered upon.
Mr. Callaghan: This point is vital. Will the Home Secretary go into a little more detail as to what the Chairman does when the Clerk says to him the single word "Tellers"? Will he tell us whether this was carried out?
Mr. Butler: I am coming to that. The Chairman must then stand and put the Question a second time. If the Tellers from one side have not been previously nominated the Division cannot proceed. The Chairman, without collecting the voices, forthwith announces the decision of the Committee in favour of the party which put in Tellers' names.
Mr. Callaghan: This was not done.
Mr. Butler: I maintain that this was done. If there is a doubt about that, we must take another look at Erskine May, on page 429, in order to see that there is no confusion on this point and that the decision was given in favour of the party who put in Tellers' names.
It is at this stage—in regard to which I have been cross-examining all the parties in question—that the Clerks at the Table are for the first time in possession of information which enables them then to record the decision of the House, for it is not until the Chairman has announced the names of the Tellers that the Clerks are in a position to record their names. Equally, the Chairman must stand at this point, as a signal to the doorkeepers to proceed with their duties. If, therefore, it is claimed that the Minutes are incorrect it will be necessary to show and prove a number of things. The first is that the Division bells throughout the building were rung by accident. Let it be repeated that these bells are not controlled from the Table. That is impossible to prove, so our case is one point up. The second is that the doorkeepers proceeded to the Tellers' doors in error; the third is that the two Clerks at the Table wrongly depressed the special control lever of the electric clock; the fourth is that the red light flashed without purpose after two minutes, and the final one is that the Serjeant at Arms'
972
men, on the second occasion, erroneously thought they saw the Chairman rising and giving the normal signal for them to proceed with their duties, without which signal they could not have done so.
Only after all these events have taken place could the Clerks proceed to enter in their Minutes the names of the Government's Tellers, whose identities, if we believe the record to be wrong, must have been invented. It is submitted that this circumstantial evidence confirms the personal assurance given not only by the Chairman and his Assistants at the Table but by these two hon. Members that their names were announced to the House in due form by the Chairman standing up in his place, and that he then declared, in the absence of any Tellers put forward from the Opposition side of the House, that the Ways and Means Resolution had been carried.
Mr. William Ross: I should have thought there would be a simple way of proving all this, quite apart from the things which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to—many of which may well be in dispute. There is one physical thing which happens throughout the House when a Division is called. The annunciators throughout the Palace record the time and the fact that a Division has been called. Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained any annunciator tapes which show that?
Mr. Butler: I have not got any with me, but I have all the other instances of proof that the normal procedure was carried through.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the question of the annunciators? Has he made no investigation to see what they recorded as being done at the time?
Mr. Butler: I have not, but I can ascertain the fact, although I think it will be found that the ordinary procedure was followed through, and that all the instances of proof that I have given were carried out.
Once the Resolution has been carried it remains for the Chairman to put the formal Question, "That I do report the Resolution to the House." That that was done there is again independent evidence, quite apart from the Clerks'

973
evidence. It so happened that on that night the Chairman was acting as Deputy Speaker. Usually it falls to him to report the Resolution, but in this case the Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Hughes Young), had the duty of reporting what had happened in Committee in the time-honoured form, which is, "I beg to report the Committee have agreed to the Resolution which they have directed me to report to the House." It is inconceivable, in the event of any failure of the Chairman to put the final Question, that the Deputy Chief Whip would have proceeded with his duty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—since it is the function of the Whips to see that Government business is correctly done. If there is a scintilla of doubt they invariably check the procedure with the Table.
When we are considering the merits or demerits of the matter we should consider the high standard expected of the Deputy Chief Whip, just as we should consider the high standard expected of any other person. When the Deputy Speaker said: "Report to be received, what day?" and "Committee, what day?", the Deputy Chief Whip twice answered loudly, "This day". That has been checked with those concerned and, taken together with the record of both the Clerks, in the manner I have shown, indicates that the records were faithfully and accurately kept.
That is the first part of the case in relation to the Motion. I am satisfied that a mistake in this elaborate machinery is impossible, partly owing to the human element and partly owing to the mechanical and physical elements. I therefore claim that it would be quite wrong to depart from the long history of the House in its antecedents of this matter and to question the efficiency of our records and their accuracy.
Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman claim that, to his own knowledge, any back bench Member of his own side of the House claims to have heard any of the things which he has described happen?
Mr. Butler: Hon. Members are entitled to speak for themselves. I cannot to do.
Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), may I say that I did?
Mr. Butler: I am grateful for that unsolicited help from my hon. Friend.
Before I conclude I want the House to consider most carefully whether it would not be doing great violence to our traditions and institutions if we criticised a fairly recorded conclusion, as arrived at by the machinery of the House, and thereby criticised the Chairman, Clerks, the Serjeant at Arms, and all those who assist them. That would be doing considerable violence to our tradition.
On the second leg of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, to which he attached less importance, namely, that the record is misleading, I would say-that it would not be reasonable to start taking such an action about conclusions reached in the House, merely because they were arrived at in an atmosphere of commotion, and that we would be challenging the basis upon which our liberties rest if we did so. Some countries depend on force and power. Our country depends on checks and balances, and it would be extremely wrong if, on an occasion like this, the House were to decide to question a decision honestly recorded in the manner in which I have described.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: In my opinion, our country and our democracy depends not on the type of checks and balances to which the right hon. Gentleman has been referring us, but on the real right of those in this House to know what is going on and to take their appropriate part in it. In this case it is not two arguments that my right hon. Friend put forward, it is one argument; and the substance of it is that, whatever formulae were adopted by the three gentlemen who were round the Chair, the vast majority of the House, including myself, had no idea what they were saying. We had no opportunity at any time to have an effective vote, or even to know that we could have had an effective vote, on the Ways and Means Resolution, even though we knew that that Resolution was bound to be put at some time after the Closure.

975
We have listened to a great deal of very interesting matter about the mechanical checks in the House. We have been told how the "grandmother" clock works in some detail. But this was not a "grandmother" clock question, and all that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—with the greatest respect to him—was nothing more than an attempt to distract us from the real point. The real point here is this. Did we have—in the opinion of the ordinary man, if hon. Members like, and not so much in the opinion of those who go in for the niceties of procedure and the like—a fair decision of the Committee on this particular question, the Ways and Means Resolution that was put? I have little doubt that all the appropriate words were said. I should have expected them to have been said. I should have expected, in just the same way, reports to be made by the Government Whips—for whom, again, I have every personal respect—that the whole thing had been carried through according to the appropriate formula. But the substance of the matter is that people in the Committee just did not know what was going on.
Sir Douglas Glover: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way, because I think that this is a most important point. I do not think that any of us who value the life of the House of Commons takes pleasure in this debate one way or the other. But what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that if anybody in the House does not want the business to be got, all they have to do is to make so much noise that it cannot be heard.
Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Let me just point out to him, and to the House, what it is that we are going to vote about, if we are driven to divide on this matter.
We say that, in substance, on the real point of the matter, this record is inaccurate. I do not mind whether we call it "inaccurate" or "misleading". The point is exactly the same. It is that there was no real and effective decision, and that no hon. Member—one hon. Gentleman said he heard and another hon. Gentleman says he "perceived" in some mysterious way—but the vast majority
976
of us did not know what was going on and had no opportunity to find out. I say this to the hon. Gentleman. That is not a question of who caused any turbulence or who was more responsible for this or for that—it is a pure question of fact. If the Government are going to vote this Motion down in the Lobbies, what they are voting for is, in my submission, a real inaccuracy in the record—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes, I repeat, a real inaccuracy in the record. The "hoops" may have been gone through; the substance, in thought and decision, was not there.
After all, if we are talking about democracy, there are many dictators who have put things through with the right procedure but have denied the substance. Beneath a great deal of irrelevant argument today—a great deal of detail which, with the greatest personal respect to the Leader of the House, I still say was irrelevant to the main point—we are being invited to stand by a record which cannot stand on the real point. That and that only is what we are being asked to vote about.
We are told that nobody likes the debate—the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) just said so. I say this. I should dislike far more a continued appearance on the record of what is there now because in truth and in substance, on the real point, that record is a lie—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—all right, we can call a record a lie. What we mean is that it does not tell one the true substance of the matter, and that is the case here.
I must give the House—and I do—my own personal knowledge of what happened. I am quite clear. It is a limited knowledge. I came in at the point when the Patronage Secretary was moving the Closure when there were the one or two sentences which have already been quoted. The reason I came in was that I saw his name on the annunciator outside and I wondered what this portended. I sat at the end of the Opposition Front Bench, which is a place where one can hear very well what is passing between the occupants of those three chairs. It is not possible to hear everything that passes elsewhere and of course there was a great deal of turbulence—there is not the least doubt about it. One of my hon. Friends was expressing his views in

977
a very loud voice immediately above my head. None the less, I could, and did. see and hear some things.
I did not see the Chairman of Ways and Means rise at any point. That is really a vital matter, because that, in the circumstances, is a sign of a Division which most of us within the House would recognise. I did see what I can only describe as a "huddle" going on between the Chairman of Ways and Means and two of the Government Whips. I did not know what they were doing. I assumed that the Closure was being put because, after all, we had been told that it was going to be put. Beyond that I really had no idea, until towards the end when the record says that the Chairman of Ways and Means said that the matter had been decided. I then concluded that there had been this surreptitious Division.
I am not the "big ticker" round the corner, or the thing that does this or that. But surely the essential point about a Division of this kind must be that every hon. Member in the House should know that it is being called; that he should have the opportunity—if Tellers are not to be appointed by the Government or by the Opposition—to put up himself and one of his friends as Tellers, or anything of that sort; or at least to vote if he so chooses. That was the opportunity which was denied.
I say this with great respect to the Leader of the House. I, too, have looked through the precedents. I think there is a bit more to be said about them than the right hon. Gentleman said, but that is not the real point. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the humblest parish council has the right to correct errors in the record of its proceedings, and it is wrong to say that we are the only body which on no account must correct our errors but must stand by them because they happen to suit one political party or the other, or one collection of hon. Members or another. That cannot be right. Surely it is our inherent right and our duty, as the Parliament of this country, and as one of the main outposts and bastions of democracy in the world, not to stand by any error even if it is our own error, and to see that truth appears in what we do and what we say.
978
I say to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, "You have a very heavy responsibility upon you today if, for purely technical reasons in the minutiae of procedure or for party convenience, you choose to stand by error and reject what you perfectly well know is the truth, that this Division in substance was no Division".
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Douglas Glover.
5.40 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover rose —
Mr. John Diamond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking as Leader of the House, but I am not sure whether he was speaking as Home Secretary and as a Government Minister proposing to use the Whip. If he is proposing to use the Whip, can I have it from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether or not it is in order for any hon. Member who did not himself see or hear these proceedings to vote in any Division on this Motion?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Surely, the hon. Member knows that hon. Members duly elected to this House have every right to vote in a Division if they so desire.
Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It would be a very strange system in this House if every person who went into a Division Lobby had to hear every single word said before the Division took place.
When the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was speaking, I said that very few hon. Members would take much pleasure in this incident. When these events took place no one in the House could have felt that his pride in membership of the House was increased. I do not think hon. Members on either side come out of it very well. What is the nub of the Opposition's case? Whether it was too early or too late is a matter for argument. That is not the point of the Motion, but it is admitted that the Question to be put was properly put from the Chair. It is not argued that a Division was called on that. It is not argued that Tellers were not put in from this side of the House. I cannot help

979
feeling that, as much conversation was taking place that night and as a great number of right hon. Members of the Opposition spent much time around the Table afterwards trying to find out what had happened, it seems they forgot to put in Tellers. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, two minutes went by and they did not realise that they had forgotten to put in Tellers.
The point is that the Motion does not say that there is anything wrong in the record before the Closure was completed. It complains only of what happened after the Closure. If that is so and the House was in turmoil, what the Opposition seem to be saying—and I think they are breaking down the great tradition of the House—is that unless all hon. Members in the House at the time can hear the further Question put from the Chair, the business of the House is not to proceed nor to be obtained. Hon. Members opposite should be very careful because, in the working of democracy, on some occasion they will want the business of the day. They are saying that if mob rule should take over in the House of Commons and a row be such that the Question cannot be audible it is no longer relevant to say that all machinery of the House says that this took place.
Mr. Gordon Walker: If that in fact happened and there was such uproar, is it not the duty of the Chair to operate Standing Order No. 24, which is specially designed and might well have operated on that occasion?
Sir D. Glover: The right hon. Member may be making a perfectly valid submission—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that on this Motion we should pursue that question further. I think that we must stick to the question of fact.
Sir D. Glover: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that perhaps it is wise to stick to the question of fact, although I should be quite willing to go on with that point.
What we are saying is that the business was in fact put but many of us did not hear it, or, in the confusion, did not even see the Chairman rise in his place. What we are also saying is that the esteemed Clerks at the Table, who are
980
the souls of honour and have never had their actions questioned in this House—we are all human—would not put down what they did not see or what did not in fact happen. Perhaps discussions might take place on how we might improve the procedure, but I plead with the Leader of the Opposition not to divide the House on what the public will look upon as a reflection on the Clerks at the Table. If we improve procedure or increase amplification arrangements, these things might not happen in future.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the hon. Member give way, since he mentioned me by name? Would he not agree that the simplest way out of the dilemma is for the Government supporters to accept our Motion so that the Minutes can be changed and the whole procedure started again? Then we can get it all clear.
Sir D. Glover: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is exactly what I do not think we should do, because then we should be accepting the Motion as in fact a reflection on the accuracy of the Clerks at the Table. On that narrow issue I shall have no difficulty whatever in opposing the Motion.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I imagine that quite a number of hon. Members listening to this debate today were not here when this occurrence took place. I was not present myself. Therefore, all I and other hon. Members in my position can do is to listen to the evidence given by hon. Members who were here and to the Leader of the House and come to a conclusion. So far, the evidence from the Government benches has been indeterminate. No hon. Member has said that he can recall and endorse everything that the Leader of the House has said happened in trying to show that the machinery of the House is perfect and that the Journal must inevitably be accurate.
The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) was the only hon. Member opposite who said that he heard something said on that occasion, and that was because he was at the end of the Chamber. I certainly pay attention to what he said, but, after listening to the other evidence, including that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper

981
(Mr. G. Brown), there remains in my mind a doubt which is of great importance. The Leader of the House, in giving the list of checks and balances which he mentioned as absolutely vital said that the Chairman must stand when putting the Question to the House. My right hon. Friend said emphatically that he did not see the Chairman rise. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) quite clearly indicated that there is some doubt in his mind about whether the Chairman rose to put the Question.
All we have had from the Leader of the House is his version of the investigations he made among the Officers of the House and the Whips. Although I do not attempt to challenge that, there seems to be a weak point in his case, because, when he was challenged by one of my hon. Friends about whether the Annunciator gave certain information to those not in the Chamber, he said that he had not checked that.
If we are to act as members of a jury, those of us who were not here at the time must hear all the evidence. Of course, we are not able to hear the officers of the House state exactly what happened. All we know is what is said by hon. Members opposite. We all admit that in debates hon. Members' memories are perhaps coloured a little sometimes by what they want to think.
I am not attempting to dispute what has been said by any hon. Member who has spoken, and, as I was not here, I do not want to take long in giving my impression to the House, but it has not been established in my mind, and, I hope, in the minds of other hon. Members who have been listening, that one of the checks and balances was operated. It has not been established clearly in my mind that the Chairman rose at the Table and put the Question. We have been told by the Leader of the House that if that action does not take place, then one of the checks and balances fails to operate, and I gather that the whole procedure is nullified at that point.
If any other hon. Member has any doubt in his mind as to whether all these checks and balances operated properly, surely he ought not to leave this as the record of our proceedings. I will not say a word about the Clerk at the Table, but I am impressed by what was said
982
by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, who thought, from examining the manuscript record from which the official record is made, that there was evidently great confusion in the mind of the Clerk at that time, because there are many crossings out before the final conclusion is reached.
Mr. Charles Pannell: Is not the point that there is no aspersion on the Clerks, but that there was such an infernal din going on that they did not know what was happening?
Mr. Bellenger: Nevertheless, the Clerk has recorded something definite, and it is partly because of that definite record that this Motion is being moved.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk need not give the Opposition a lecture about turbulence. He should know from the history of his own party that at times there has been considerable uproar and worse than that; at times there has been disorder in the House.
Sir D. Glover: I did not say that. I warned hon. Members opposite that the Opposition might one day be the Government and that this applies both ways.
Mr. Bellenger: Forewarned is forearmed. I can only hope that when we are on the Government side of the House we shall take appropriate steps to limit the opportunities of hon. Members opposite.
One impression left in my mind, from all the evidence and lack of evidence, is that there was an attempt by the Government to get their way by fair means or foul. If that is the impression left on the minds of the Opposition, then there will be considerably more turbulence than happened the other night. Every hon. Member knows that Government business must be got through. The Government must govern. But they must do it in a way which convinces the Opposition that we have had every opportunity of putting our case. On this occasion our case arose out of great bitterness and great emotion as to what the Government were trying to do. That is understandable. It has happened on previous occasions, including occasions when the Conservative Party were in opposition, and I suppose that it will happen again.

983
If in those circumstances, the Government wish to get their business through the House, they must make sure that they are giving justice to the Opposition, who have every right to put their case, and to put it all night if they want to do so. I can remember an occasion, before the war, during an unemployment debate—some of my hon. Friends may recollect it—when the House sat for three days and nights discussing the question and the Government dare not and did not attempt to stop us from putting our point of view.
The Conservatives have their majority. We know that. But it may not always be so, and if they want fair dealings from us when we are on that side of the House they must give fair dealings to us now. Not having been here the other night, but having listened to the evidence, I, for one, am of the opinion that we have been treated unfairly and that justice has not been seen to be done. For Chat reason, if the Motion is put to a Division, I shall go into the Lobby in support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
5.57 p.m.
Sir Richard Pilkington: The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made a moderate speech, at any rate in the first part, but when he said that the Government were determined to get their own way by fair means or foul he was casting an aspersion Which he should not have cast.
The right hon. Gentleman suffered under the disadvantage of not having been here on the night in question. I was here throughout. I think that I saw all that happened, and I heard all that I could hear through the noise which was being made. The position is that rather more than half of those present think that in HANSARD there is a correct record of what happened, and slightly less than half think that the record is inaccurate. Also on the Government side there is the fact that the authorities of the House, including the Clerks at the Table, think that the record is correct. That in itself goes a long way to showing that the record is correct.
Mr. C. Pannell: How can the hon. Member square that statement with the fact that as I left the House half-a-dozen Members from his side of the House
984
clustered around me and asked what had happened and whether there was to be a Division? This was sorted out afterwards.
Sir R. Pilkington: The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw has said that he was not here at all, yet he thought that he was qualified to make a statement. I know that not every hon. Member was in the Chamber at the time. Some were in the Lobby hoping to vote. But from what has been said it is obvious that the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House have a very clear impression of what they think happened.
Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member said that, in addition to the other evidence, we have the evidence of the Clerks at the Table. I submit to him with respect that we have no such evidence and that it would be wrong to drag them into the proceedings. All we have is an inference which the Leader of the House drew from certain machinery, and we can all judge the validity or invalidity of that inference. It would be quite wrong to drag the Clerks at the Table into the factual dispute.
Sir R. Pilkington: I have no wish to drag the Clerks at the Table into the debate unduly, but surely the hon. Member is doing less than justice to them if he assumes for one moment that if they were of a different opinion from that offered by my right hon. Friend, they would not hesitate to say so to him.
Mr. Silverman Mr. Silverman rose —
Sir R. Pilkington: The hon. Member is very fond of interrupting. I have given way to him once. Perhaps he will content himself with that.
Listening to the speeches by hon. Members opposite, anybody not knowing even roughly what happened on the night in question would think that hon. Members opposite were completely innocent about it. In fact, all the accusations which they have made would not have arisen had they behaved themselves properly, as I put it in an interjection a day or two ago, and had they not made such an appalling noise. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that there has been noise from time to time from this side of the House, and that is no doubt true. But I do not believe that any hon. Member who has been in the

985
House for any length of time has ever seen anything compared to the disgraceful behaviour which occurred on that night
I have looked through the HANSARD record of what happened. I have counted up thirty-one points of order. Not one of them was a proper point of order. They were all turned down by the Chair. If any hon. Member doubts that, let him read the record. It was not only that hon. Gentlemen rose to their feet and moved those points of order; at least a dozen hon. Gentlemen were at one time or another standing on their feet trying to interrupt the Minister, who was trying to speak. There was a complete onslaught on the Minister to try to stop him making his speech.
Mr. Diamond: I was the first to rise to what I thought were very fundamental points of order, which were repeated by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and on the back benches. What right has the hon. Member to suggest that we were not concerned to know the Order of the Day? The Chairman never said that the point was out of order. He ruled on it.
Sir R. Pilkington: If the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) will look through HANSARD, he will see that point after point was ruled not to be a point of order. If he will look at column 535, to take only one column, he will see that six bogus points or order were raised in such a short time. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said in his introductory remarks that there had been no turbulence and no turmoil until about midnight. HANSARD shows that the noise began at about 10.30 p.m. and went on for the better part of three hours, all the noise coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) referred to half a dozen points of order in column 535. The proceedings recorded in that column must have taken place at about 10.30 p.m., because Column 533 is timed as commencing at 10.25 p.m. The trouble which the House is now discussing all arose at about one o'clock the next morning. What the hon. Member is talking about in column 535 happened 2½ hours earlier and has nothing to do with it.
Sir R. Pilkington: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is quite wrong. It was three hours of turbulence of varying degrees, and it all came to a head in the last hour. Anyone who reads HANSARD can see that my statement that it started much earlier than that is correct.
Mr. Stephen Swingler rose —
Sir R. Pilkington: No. I shall not give way again. I have said that the behaviour was disgraceful. It was not only the noise which was being made. When the House finally adjourned right hon. and hon. Members clustered round the Table and came up to the Government Front Bench and shook their fists in the faces of hon. Members who were sitting there. I think that the Opposition behaved in a very irresponsible way, and the responsibility lies squarely with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) does not seem to realise that he has made a much more savage and severe attack on the Chairman who was in charge of the proceedings throughout the night in question than anything which has been suggested from this side or anything which would be relevant on the Motion which we shall discuss later. If the hon. Member's claim is that there were three hours of turbulence and that after those three hours of turbulence it was still thought proper that the business of the House of Commons should be pushed through, he is making a reflection on the Chair which, I hope, he will hasten to apologise for and withdraw.
Other hon. Members opposite strayed into a part of that argument. They suggested that there was turbulence for a period and that, despite that, the Chairman went ahead with the business of the House of Commons. That statement, even though they say it in more moderate terms, is a reflection on the Chairman and hon. Gentlemen should not say it, particularly in this debate. It may be relevant on the Motion we shall discuss later, but it certainly is not relevant in this debate.
The hon. Member for Poole certainly should not claim that the proceedings

987
were conducted in a disgraceful and turbulent manner for some hours. If that is so, the business should have been brought to an end much earlier. The Chairman should have taken action to ensure that the business of the House could be properly heard by all the Members of the House.
Sir Richard Pilkington: The hon. Member is making a debating point, but it is not a good one. The Chairman showed tremendous patience with hon. Gentlemen opposite and did what he could to try to restore order.
Mr. Foot: The business of the Chairman is to ensure that the business of the House shall be heard and shall go forward in a proper manner. If there is turbulence, it is the business of the Chairman to bring the proceedings to a halt so that the turbulence can be halted. There is no way of getting round this proposition. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that, despite turbulence and the fact that some hon. Members cannot hear what is happening, the business of the House should go forward.
Mr. G. Wilson: Hear, hear.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) says, "Hear, hear", but that is contrary to the rules of proceeding of the House of Commons. The rules of the House say that the business shall be conducted in an orderly manner It is the business of the Chairman to ensure that the House shall be orderly so that the business can be done and heard. If the proceedings are disorderly, the business cannot be done properly. That is what we are saying happened. Because of the disorder, whatever was the cause of it, the business could not be done and heard properly
Mr. Wilson: Must there not be some balance, otherwise it is an invitation for any hon. Member to bring the proceedings of the House to a close merely by being turbulent?
Mr. Foot: There are methods of dealing with that. Of course there must not be a balance between turbulence and non-turbulence. There cannot be a system under which the House is allowed to conduct its affairs in a moderate degree of disorder. The House is either orderly or disorderly. There cannot be a half-way arrangement when people
988
half-hear what is happening. There are many procedures under the rules of the House by which if there is disorder the Chairman can—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The House and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) should bear in mind that what we are discussing is a Motion to expunge certain entries from the Journal.
Mr. Foot: I fully understand that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Poole fully understood it. The hon. Member based the whole of his case on the ground that there were three hours of turbulence. Four hon. Members opposite have spoken and given their testimony about what happened on that evening. So far as I can see, only one of them has waited to hear the subsequent debate. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) has left the Chamber. I do not suppose that he will return after what happened to him when questions were addressed to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The hon. Member refused to answer the question whether he himself had heard the Chairman put the Question from the Chair. When the hon. Gentleman refused to answer, we all knew that he had not heard.
The hon. Member for Poole was the first hon. Gentleman opposite who said positively that he heard the Chairman put the Question and saw him do so. The hon. Member claims that the Chairman put the Question.
Sir Richard Pilkington: To get the record straight, I did not make that claim. I said that I thought that all I saw was in order.
Mr. Foot: That is a rather peculiar claim, coming from the hon. Member who told us not long ago that there were three hours of turbulence. He now says that everything he saw and heard was perfectly in order.
Sir Richard Pilkington: The hon. Member must not twist statements like that. I obviously meant everything which the Government and the Chair were doing.
Mr. Foot: We first heard the hon. Member for Preston, South, who was not prepared to say openly in the House that

989
he had heard and seen the Chairman put the Question. Now the hon. Member for Poole, when challenged, says that he is not prepared to say that he heard the Chairman put the Question or saw him do so. We have heard from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). He has now left the Chamber. We cannot ask him whether he heard and saw what happened. We had the opinion of the Leader of the House. Nobody will ask him whether he heard and saw it, because we all know that he did not.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: I was here most of the time and I certainly heard and saw the right hon. Gentleman put the Question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House on the question of turbulence. There are degrees of turbulence and some turbulence is turbulent to a degree. When it gets to the point as it was at about five minutes past one on that occasion, that is a degree of turbulence which the House should not have to endure. Before that it was not as bad as all that.
Mr. Foot: I suggest that hon. Members opposite should argue it out among themselves. The hon. Member is the first hon. Member on that side to get up and say that he heard and saw the Chairman get up and make his remarks.
Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend misheard what was said by the hon. Gentleman. He said, "I heard the right hon. Gentleman put the Question."
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) is the first hon. Member on the other side to claim to have heard the Chairman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have had only four speakers. It is a very peculiar situation when the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken profoundly disagree on the question whether there was turbulence in the House or not, but they are both prepared to agree that they heard the Chairman accurately. It is a very peculiar state of affairs. Indeed, the House is in a very curious situation.
The Leader of the House said that he would prove by scientific methods something which most of us on this side believe to be untrue. He would "blind us with science". We should not underrate the capacities of the Leader of the House. We remember, in the years
990
before the war, that he managed to prove to everyone's satisfaction, or, at any rate, to his own, that there were no Italian troops in Spain, when there were. I thought that he intended to use the same device today.
I must say that the Leader of the House has a powerful case. He produced all the scientific evidence to prove it, at any rate to his own satisfaction, and possibly to the satisfaction of some hon. Members on the other side of the House. If that is true, and his claim is correct, it is an astonishing state of affairs, because here we have the scientific proof, so-called by the Leader of the House, that the procedure went through accurately and properly. That is quite contrary to what most hon. Gentleman on this side thought at the time. There may be some others on that side of the House, although they have not been prepared to say so. My own recollection after leaving the House, after waiting two hours to get into the debate, was that many hon. Members on that side came up to me and said that the whole procedure had been wrong. The question is whether many of them have sufficient sense of honour to say so in public.
It is an astonishing state of affairs if the scientific testimony of the Leader of the House conflicts with the testimony of most hon. Gentlemen on this side. How could it occur that the scientific procedure gives one lot of evidence when most of us on this side of the House saw and heard something quite different happen?
The only explanation of this state of affairs is that the procedure in the Chair was gabbled through in such a way that it made the scientific machinery operate, but it did not operate properly inside the House. We could, of course, have the procedure of the House gabbled through in such a way by Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, that nobody could hear, although the form would have been gone through. But who would say, if the procedure is gabbled through in that fashion, that the business of the House has been properly carried out? I do not think that there is any hon. Member who would claim that.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if, when the occupant of the Chair tries to carry out the normal procedure in the

991
normal way, the Opposition shout him down it puts the occupier of the Chair out of order?
Mr. Foot: I would not be prepared to deal with that, because that is the Motion we are coming to later. Some hon. Members have already referred to it. If the situation is such that there is so much noise or turbulence in the House that the business cannot go through, and the Chairman cannot be heard, the duty of the Chairman is to bring the House to order before he proceeds with the business. One cannot conduct the business of the House on any other principle than that.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In some circumstances it might be convincing, but does he say that in relation to a Question which is governed by a Resolution of the House, "That the Question be now put," the operative word being "now"? It has been held by many Speakers that they have no discretion whatsoever, but must, instantly put the Question, notwithstanding noise or turbulence.
Mr. Foot: I do not think that I would be entitled to answer that, because it arises on the next Motion that we shall discuss. The point of the question is the conduct of the Chair and that will be discussed on our second Motion. Many hon. Members on this side claim, although I would not be in order to argue it now, that not only were the proceedings inaccurately and misleadingly recorded, but, also, and adding to the difficulties, the conduct of the Chair was improper.
I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here, although he said that this was such a solemn occasion when he started speaking. After all, he has responsibilities to the whole House. We know people have important business but the Leader of the House knew that business was to be rearranged so that he could be present on this occasion and I think that he should be here. The Patronage Secretary should also be here.
I want to put the question raised by my hon. Friend. What is the procedure on the Government side about this? Are they proposing to put the Whips on for
992
this debate? Are they really claiming, if there is anybody on the Front Bench able to speak for them, that this is a proper question 'to be subject to the operation of the Whip? I have been known to urge things on my own Front Bench as well and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would be very glad to say that there should be a free vote on this subject. I would urge him very strongly to say it. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that it is a laughing matter that they should have a free vote. I am a back bench Member, but I should have thought that a matter of this nature, whether the Minutes are properly recorded, one affecting the procedure of the House—and, as the Leader of the House has said, it is a question almost without precedent in these exact terms—was pre-eminently a matter to be left to a free vote of the whole House, particularly as the issue partly turns on the question of what hon. Members actually saw themselves. So, what several hon. Gentlemen will do on that side of the House, if they come and try to vote down this Motion—although they were not present at the time—
Sir Henry Studholme: If the hon. Member is so certain that there should be a free vote why, as I understand it, is there a three-line Whip on the other side?
Mr. Foot: All hon. Gentlemen should be present to discuss a matter of this kind and to vote on it. However, whether a three-line Whip has been sent out on this side or that side, I am arguing, and I am entitled to argue, that this is pre-eminently, a matter on which there should be a free vote.
Mr. Hugh Delargy: May I let Government supporters into a secret? I am quoting from a confidential document. The three-line Whip issued to Labour Party Members was for them to be present in the House at 3.30. The question of a Division was not even mentioned.
Mr. Foot: I do not know whether or not anyone intends to speak from that side; whether or not the Financial Secretary has had orders from the Patronage Secretary on this, or whether he may seize the opportunity to have a free speech, if not a free vote, to put his

993
point of view. Presumably, someone will answer from that side, and I would seriously ask that the representative of the Government should tell us whether the Government themselves think that this is a proper question to be decided with the Whips on.
If that is to be the case, it will really be saying, first, that a matter of purely House of Commons procedure should be settled with the Whips on. Secondly, it will mean that many hon. Members who themselves have testified in this debate that they did not see or hear what the Government claim happened, are yet prepared to vote for the Government because they are told to do so. If the Government do insist that this vote shall be taken with the Whips on it will not give any indication of the merits of the issue.
Further, in my view, if a matter that is so much concerned with House of Commons procedure, and the way in which the House of Commons should be conducted, is to be decided purely in the interests of the party opposite and, in particular, to protect the reputation of the Patronage Secretary, it will be a disgrace, and the Government will very likely be forcing many more occasions of this nature, which will do great injury to the House of Commons.
I therefore ask hon. Members opposite to think again about it. Would it really be so difficult for them to accept the Motion? Would it really put Ministers in a difficulty? The Leader of the House has had more time to think it over than had the Patronage Secretary the other night—and could have considered the matter more fully, having looked up his scientific evidence. He could have said at the beginning of this debate, "I do not think that it is necessary for this debate to proceed very long, because the Government do not want a situation in which what is recorded in the Minutes is disputed by such a large section of the House."
The Government could have said—and would have gained in magnanimity had they done so—" We do not want to use our majority, with the Whips on, to enforce on the whole House something that is so unpalatable to one part of it. We will, therefore, accept the Motion to expunge these records from the Minutes. We do not admit that that
994
means any reflection on the Clerks, or anything of that sort, but we will accept the Motion to expunge, and the House can go through the procedure again."
Had the Government said that, this debate would have been over three hours ago. They could have had their business through much more quickly, and would also have taken the rare occasion to show grace and wisdom at the same time. Instead of that, what they have had is an assembly of hon. Members opposite, like a lot of "stooges", to get up and deny what many hon. Members know happened in the House at that time.
6.24 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I feel very deeply about this debate. This year I shall have been twenty-five years in the House of Commons, and I cannot think of any occasion on which I have felt quite so deeply as I do today. I do not regret so much the controversy, because I quite realise that there is a controversy, but I regret that it has developed into a political controversy. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I always like enthusiasts, and I quite understand the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) for the cause which he advocates. At the same time, we are taking a decision on a matter for Parliament. I do not think we should be taking a political decision, and that is the point I wish to argue.
On the occasion in question, I came into the Chamber, I entered by that door and stood close to the Chair—the side chair—and I heard the Division called. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] The one that is referred to here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] I am discussing the Motion on the Order Paper that we are now debating. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Division?"] Perhaps I might just be allowed to develop my argument. I never mind being heckled in this House—in fact, I rather enjoy it—but I think that on this occasion I might be allowed to give my version. Then, if hon. Members like to question me, I will do my best to answer them—
Mr. Bellenger: I am much impressed by the hon. Lady's first-hand evidence. I am sure that she heard what the Chairman said in relation to the Ways and Means Resolution, and no doubt she

995
saw him rise, but would she say what the Chairman said, and confirm that she did see him rise?
Dame Irene Ward: I think that it would be wiser for hon. Members opposite to listen to what I have to say. I am not likely to refuse my fences, and I do not think that it helps this unfortunate situation to try to put words into my mouth. After all, I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I heard him taunting my side, as I might be taunting his side—but I shall not taunt any side. To me, it is important to try to get at the facts.
Before I turn to the Motion on the Order Paper, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is one other thing that I must say about the House of Commons. Perhaps my hon. Friends will not like it any more than, perhaps, will the party opposite. In what I have done in the House of Commons, I have always tried to concern myself with the character of the people who are taking part in its work. I do not mind whether they belong to the Opposition or to my own party. Character counts, and it distresses me very much indeed not to find in the speeches that I have heard—and I have not been able to be present all the afternoon—anyone seeming to think that the people in this House who are elected to high office are people of character and honour. I am quite certain that no one would want to give any testimony on such an occasion as this unless it was testimony that they themselves thought was right and honourable.
I now come to the Motion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I came into the Chamber and heard the Division called—the Division that is mentioned in this Motion. I heard the Division called in the normal terms by the Chairman
Mr. S. Silverman: What did he say?
Dame Irene Ward: I must tell hon. Gentlemen that it does not help their own case just to keep on muttering and interrupting.
Mr. Harold Lever: Perhaps it would assist the hon. Lady if someone made her aware of the fact—as she is giving testimony as to what occurred on another occasion—that
996
Mr. Deputy-Speaker left the Chair about a quarter of an hour ago and that you, Mr. Speaker, now occupy it.
Hon. Members: Cheap.
Dame Irene Ward: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that assistance. I am always delighted to have assistance from the other side of the House. Perhaps I may now be allowed to go on with what I have to say.
I came into the Chamber and I heard called the Division which is referred to in the Motion. I did not, of course, hear the names of the Tellers put in by the Government side. I do not know whether anyone ever does hear the names of the Tellers. Certainly, I did not hear them. I did hear the Division called. There was tremendous uproar at the time, and I think both sides were engaged in the uproar. I then walked behind the Chair to go to record my vote and, as I did so, I turned to one of my colleagues and said, "I do not believe the Opposition are going to put in Tellers". In the event, that proved to be the case.
Before I develop what I wish to say, I have this comment to make about the Motion. It reads—
Mr. Ross: In this case, from the point when the Patronage Secretary moves the Motion to the point of the disputed Division, the Chairman must rise three times: first, to accept the Closure and put the Question; then to put the Division and announce Tellers—in this case there were none—and then to proceed to the Ways and Means Resolution. After that, he must sit down and let a time elapse before he rises again to announce that there are no Tellers. If the hon. Lady walked away after the Division was called, as she said, she has missed the whole point that the proceedings did not go according to the normal practice because the Chairman of Ways and Means did not rise to complete the process.
Dame Irene Ward: It is extraordinarily interesting that everyone should wish to make my speech for me. I have no intention of trying to raise the temper of the House—which is quite unusual for me—by asking every hon. Member who interrupts me whether he was present on that occasion or not. If I may say so, that is the point. Many hon. Members have been interrupting

997
and, quite rightly, asking questions and trying to probe my straightforwardness and integrity. I do not take any exception to that, but I should rather like to ask every one of them in turn whether he was here. I am saying what I saw and what I heard. Perhaps hon. and right hon. Members opposite will allow me to pursue my normal course. I wish to say what I heard. I do not want the debate to go on interminably on my account, and I am not likely to sit down until I have said what I want to say. Perhaps I might be allowed to proceed.
The Motion refers to
"the entries of Wednesday, 8th February on the Question on the Motion in Committee of Ways and Means relating to National Health Insurance being put accordingly; that the Committee proceeded to a Division; that Mr. Paul Bryan and Mr. J. E. B. Hill were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it".
That I heard.
Mr. Callaghan: Oh, no.
Dame Irene Ward: I both heard it and saw it. That which is set out in that part of the Motion is entirely and absolutely right and correct.
At that stage, when the Division was off, I was quite fascinated by what was going on. I saw the right hon. Member for Belper standing at the Dispatch Box and just letting forth without a moment's pause, with interruptions from everyone else on his side of the Committee and a good many interruptions on my side of the Committee while he was trying to make himself heard. My eyes were fixed on the right hon. Gentleman. I am being perfectly straightforward. What is set out in that part of the Motion I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears, but after that point I had my eyes fixed on the right hon. Member for Belper. The thought passed through my mind at the time, "How wonderful it is just to go on like that". I thought he had to work very hard to try to make his voice heard over the tumult on his own side. I turned to look at the Chairman in the Chair, and I thought to myself that he was sitting there listening—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sitting."] Yes, he was sitting at that moment. I am not burking the issue. If someone is in the Chair, he stands and then sits down.
Mr. G. Brown: Also, he sits without having stood.
Dame Irene Ward: No. I am quite certain that the Division was called in the proper way. That I saw and that I heard. In my opinion, that part of the record is absolutely correct. Nobody will be able to drive me off that.
When I saw the enthusiasm—I do not use a stronger word, Mr. Speaker, as hon. and right hon. Members opposite will appreciate—of the right hon. Member for Belper, I thought that, at any rate for once, the Labour Party was getting its own way. I think that, occasionally, it is a good thing for hon. Members to shout themselves hoarse. Anyhow, I had my eye on the right hon. Member for Belper. Then I turned and saw the Chairman sitting listening. The point has been made, I think, by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—and by other hon. Members—that it was, perhaps, procedurally right for the Chairman to terminate the proceedings. I have observed over many years, sometimes in my own case, that when the Chair is dealing with a turbulent Member, it is the courteous practice of the occupant of the Chair to listen and wait for the turbulent Member to reach the end of his sentence before trying to interrupt him. That has long been the custom in the House, and, as a turbulent Member myself, I have sometime appreciated it very much indeed. I sometimes say to myself, "Thank goodness. At any rate that has got on the record, even though I have been ruled out of order".
I noticed that the Chairman was listening to the very extravagant language of the right hon. Member for Belper.
Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Lady has disappeared now.
Dame Irene Ward: No, I have not disappeared. I am very much here.
At the end of that time, at the very first possible opportunity, the Chairman brought the proceedings to an end. I cannot see how anyone who has observed the procedure of the House for very many years can disagree with that method. Indeed, I should have been very fortunate if I had had anyone as courteous as the Deputy-Speaker dealing with me when I interrupted.

999
We elect people in this House to high positions, whether it is as Deputy-Speaker or as Clerks of the House. We have outstanding people of character and integrity. I think that the point of view which is being put forward by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, that if we want to get out way in the House and to hold up proceedings and Government action we have only to shout, is deplorable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That has been said by many right hon. and hon. Members. They have indicated that if we cannot get our way in the Chamber the only thing to do is to prevent the procedure going through. I do not think that anyone in the country feels that that is a proper and appropriate way for the House of Commons to proceed.
It has been said on many occasions that we are making history today. Our span of life is not very long and we shall not be here long. In my humble opinion, it would be a great pity if we proceeded to a Division on a Motion which criticises the Journal, which I think is correct in its essential details, because I think that it would harm our great Parliamentary tradition in years to come. I do not think that any right hon. or hon. Member would like that to happen. Even in the heat of debate we must be careful not to create a precedent which the enemies of democracy may use in years to come. I can give testimony that the Journal is correct, and I therefore hope that we shall not proceed to a Division on the Motion.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. Tom Driberg: I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has genuinely tried to help the House by what she has been saying for the last few minutes, but I wish that she had been here throughout the whole of the debate. She said quite candidly that she has not been here for the whole of it: she just wandered in, just as she wandered in quite casually the other night, to hear the Chairman putting some Motion from the Chair.
I am sure that the hon. Lady gave her testimony honestly and honourably and with the desire to be helpful, but I am equally sure in my own mind that she is a little confused about what she saw and heard the other night. I feel sure that
1000
what she heard—I say this in view of the fact that she was unwilling or unable to repeat the actual words used by the Chairman—was the Chairman putting the Closure Motion, which it is not contested was put from the Chair in the ordinary, correct way.
The contrast between the speeches from this side of the House and those from the opposite side of the House is extraordinarily significant. On this side, we have had eye-witness testimony from a number of right hon. and hon. Members who were sitting within a few feet of the Table and of the Chairman througout the debate. As I say, I am convinced that the hon. Lady is honestly mistaken in her testimony; but, until she spoke, of the other five hon. Members opposite who got up to make speeches in the debate, only one claimed to have any eye-witness knowledge of what happened the other night. During the early stages of this debate, there was an astonishing and perhaps cerditable reluctance on the part of hon. Members opposite to speak in it. I say "perhaps creditable" because it seems to me that a number of hon. Members opposite who knew that we were right did not want to bear false witness to the House.
The first hon. Member who spoke, the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green), was not sitting anywhere near what went on, as he candidly said. He was standing at the Bar of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) remarked—in a point of order which you, Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ruled was not a point of order—that the hon. Member was using ambiguous words. I want to return to that point, because, when he was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to say what he meant by the word "apparent", and to say plainly "I saw" and "I heard", it was extraordinarily difficult to get those clear statements out of him.
Now, the word "apparent" is ambiguous. The hon. Member was perhaps foolish to speak in this debate at all, since it was evident that he had from his own observation only a partial knowledge of what had happened. But, as he did decide to make a speech, it was very honest of him to try to use ambiguous words and not to say "I saw" and

1001
"I heard ": he was at least doing his best for his side, so to speak, without committing actual perjury.
I say that the word "apparent" is ambiguous, because, if, for instance, one says that something is "apparently" happening, one can mean either that it is evidently and obviously happening, or that it seems to be happening. When the hon. Member said that it was "apparent" to him that a Division was being called, I think that what he really meant was that he assumed, or that it seemed likely, or that it seemed inevitable to him that a Division was about to be called. Therefore, as he told us very frankly and properly, he made his way to the Division Lobby.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has at last returned to the Chamber. I wish that we could have seen more of him during the debate, because it is essentially a House of Commons debate about a House of Commons matter, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) said, the Leader of the House is charged with responsibility to all Members of the House and not only to supporters of the Government. He is responsible to minorities and to every back bench Member as well as to the Government.
I listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I must remind hon. Members that he was the second speaker on the Government side. We have had a number of speakers on this side who had seen and heard what happened, and said so. The first speaker on the Government side was the hon. Member for Preston, South, who said that it was "apparent" to him what had happened. The second speaker was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House: he did not pretend to have any first-hand knowledge of what had happened, but told us that he would prove it scientifically by a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale recalled the circumstantial evidence that the right hon. Gentleman used to produce at that Box during the Spanish War in order to prove that there was no Italian or German intervention in Spain—nothing like that going on there at all. But what his speech reminded me of even more vividly was the series of inconceivable coincidences by which it was conclusively
1002
proved that British justice could never err in a capital case and that Evans was not wrongly hanged. It is very extraordinary that, in that series of technical or mechanical checks and balances which he outlined, he had not bothered to verify the one of which physical evidence might remain—the one of which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) so shrewdly reminded us. I do not know whether, in fact, a duplicate is kept of the tape that goes through the annunciator, but if it is, and if it could be looked up, it would have been a piece of additional evidence. It seems remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should not even have bothered to think of that.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I have made inquiries. The tapes are destroyed by routine, and these tapes have been destroyed.
Mr. Driberg: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is at least grateful to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for having reminded him of this point, which did not occur to him in his otherwise elaborate scrutiny of the checks and balances.
Moreover, I cannot quite follow the right hon. Gentleman in his assertion that this Motion would be unacceptable because all the historical precedents that were quoted in support of it refer to occasions on which the House, when expunging something from the record, was also, as he put it, "changing its mind"; for, obviously, there would be no question here of the House changing its mind on the substantive Motion. My right hon. and hon. Friends do not suppose for a moment that the Government could not carry the Ways and Means Resolution if it was put to the House again, as we suggest it should be, for the dignity of Parliament. Of course, they would carry it again, and, therefore, no question of the House changing its mind arises. I cannot see that that is really an argument against the acceptance of this Motion.
We do not make any allegations at all against the Clerks or any other officials of the House. Of course, they behaved with complete integrity and correctness, as they always do. The same probably applies—indeed, certainly applies—to the Deputy Chief Whip, to

1003
whom the right hon. Gentleman referred; but there was something a little revealing in a phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used when he said that the Deputy Chief Whip, reporting to the Chair—that is, to Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Upper Chair—used "the time-honoured formula." Of course he did, and all these formulas are time-honoured. In other words, they are a kind of sacred rigmarole which we hold in honour in this House because we know what they mean, but which are often recited very much by rote—rattled off, so to speak, without much thought about their content.
I think that it may well be true, as has been suggested in several quarters—I do not want to get on to the subject of the Chairman of Ways and Means, because we are only on the point of accuracy—that the Question may have been put by the Chairman, seated and gabbling, and the Clerk, hearing the words and perhaps not looking round, pressed the lever or button which sets the whole mechanical routine in motion; but that cannot seriously be regarded in any sense as properly putting the Question to the House, so that Members could vote intelligently and know that they were voting.
Incidentally, one point that puzzles me, and I am genuinely puzzled by it—I do not know which side it tells for in this argument—is why there was a Division at all, because, since we on this side of the House genuinely did not know that the Question was being put, if it was, we did not shout, "No". Therefore, I do not quite understand why this mechanical routine should have been set in motion. We were shouting, "Send for Mr. Speaker!" and other elevating observations, but, so far as I know and so far as I can remember, none of us shouted "No", because we did not know that the Question was being put. This is a mysterious aspect of the affair.
I have dealt already with the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South. This is not only an argument on semantics, although the hon. Member's speech led me into those paths. I would end simply by asking: who are the better witnesses? Who are the more credible witnesses in this discussion—hon. Members and right hon. Members sitting near
1004
the Table, within a few feet of whatever was going on and obviously watching closely what was going on, watching the Chairman and the Patronage Secretary, and so on? Are they not more credible witnesses than the right hon. Gentleman, who was not here at all, but who has since gone through a quasi-scientific rigmarole to try to prove that the Question was put; or the hon. Member who spoke first, who was standing at the Bar and wandering to and from the Division Lobby, as he himself told us; or the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, who wandered in half-way through, whom we all like very much, but who, I suggest, is just a bit muddled about the whole thing? Nobody else who has spoken from that side of the House dared to say that he had seen and heard the Question being put, and I submit that the record should be expunged.
6.57 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I think it was slightly disagreeable in the speech of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) to impute in advance dishonesty and chicanery to anybody who differs from him. I venture to intervene for only a few minutes—
Mr. Driberg: May I interrupt, since the hon. Gentleman has made a rather sharp attack on me? Will he tell us at which point in my speech I imputed dishonesty and chicanery to anybody?
Mr. Kershaw: I think that it will be in the clear recollecion of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] He started off by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) showed a certain honesty in using words of little meaning in order not to perjure himself. At all events, it is within the recollection of the House.
I venture to intervene because I was present during the whole proceedings and was observing them as well as I could, not from very close but, perhaps for that reason, because I was far away, if I heard and saw anything, others could have done so as well. I was sitting in the cross-benches just behind where the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Bast (Mr. Willis) was standing a second ago, and I was entirely surrounded by hon. Members from opposite, as is usual on those benches. They were not shouting, but were observing silence and

1005
watching with interest the proceedings taking place in this part of the House. In so far as we could hear what was happening, I was not interrupted by any shouting in my ears, which was the case with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting down by the Table, who had other people behind thorn shouting very loudly.
I join issue with the hon. Member for Barking, because the word "No" was very freely employed, and certainly one hon. Gentleman, who I am sure would not deny it, was standing in the back bench shouting "No, no" in regular order in that way, though whether that could be taken by the Chairman as part of the proceedings I do not know. The word "No" was present in my ears. From that place, I heard the proceedings without any particular difficulty.
Mr. Diamond: Is the hon. Member, whom I know well and respect, seriously suggesting that that was the Chair collecting the voices on the Motion?
Mr. Kershaw: No; I said that. I said that it was a separate procedure. Whether it accounted for the action of the Chairman, I do not know.
Mr. Callaghan: What is the point of it?
Mr. Kershaw: From my position over there, I heard fairly clearly, without any particular difficulty, like other hon. Members, the Closure being put. After it was put, I heard only in part what was said. At intervals, I heard what was said. Otherwise, I saw the Chairman standing up. I am amazed that there should be such a difference of testimony about this. I am bound to confess that the Chairman was standing up behind the seats where the learned Clerk now is, and he was leaning over, with the object, I suppose, of hearing my hon. Friend the Government Whip, who—[HON. MEMBERS: "Whispering to him."]—no, not whispering, because I could hear at intervals what they were saying.
I had no difficulty whatever in following the procedure. As the hon. Member for Barking said, these are time-honoured formulae and one knows exactly, or almost exactly, what words will be put. One knows in which order they will appear, and I had no difficulty. I truly
1006
think that anybody sitting on the Opposition Front Bench would not have had difficulty in following what state the procedure had reached. It was in the usual form and words.
Mr. Mitchison: Did the hon. Member hear anybody say "Yes"?
Mr. Kershaw: I cannot be sure about that, but it is not extraordinary that I cannot testify to it at a time like that. That was what I saw. I was quite satisfied that the usual form and words were being gone through, and I could tell what point the proceedings had reached.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put his point by saying that even if that was said, it was not enough, because there was not a proper opportunity for hon. Members opposite to express their views. There, of course, is a clear division of opinion. I would only say that if it is possible to resist the Closure indefinitely by making a noise about it, that entirely defeats the purpose for which the Closure is brought in.
Mr. Mitchison: I did not only say that. I said that there was no opportunity of knowing what was going on. I was quite near the Chair. I did not know what was going on.
Mr. Kershaw: I have made that point. It is a question of fact. I quite understand that with hon. and right hon. Members shouting in his ear the hon. and learned Member might not have been able to follow clearly. Granting that, if the purposes of the Closure can be defeated, we might as well erase the Closure from our procedure. One should bear in mind that the Government have a right to have their business—[HON. MEMBERS: "Properly".]—properly, of course—but it would certainly be improper if by making so much noise that the procedure could not be heard, it could be maintained that the Government had not got their business.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: At the beginning of his speech the Leader of the House complained that the Opposition was doing something most unusual in putting down this Motion. That is true. But the circumstances which gave rise to the Motion were

1007
themselves exceedingly unusual. I am not referring to the turbulence. From some of the speeches that one has heard in this debate from the other side of the House, one would suppose that hon. Members were totally ignorant of the way that the Conservative Party behaved in opposition in the post-war years.
I assure hon. Members who were not present that there were occasions when the then Government Whip moved the Closure and the reaction on the Opposition side was exceedingly noisy. I also recall an occasion when my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) was not allowed to utter a single word for practically the whole of a half-hour winding-up speech. So let us not have too many mealy-mouthed expressions of concern about turbulence.
Sir James Duncan: The Opposition of those days never questioned the entries in the Journal
Mr. Gaitskell: No, because there was no occasion to do so.
I was disappointed in the speech of the Leader of the House. As Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman does not speak solely for the Government. He should concern himself with the position in the House of Commons as a whole. He will, I am sure, agree that what has emerged in the course of this debate is certainly a matter about which all of us as Parliamentarians must be deeply concerned. It raises problems which we should face, not as Members of the Government or of the Opposition, or of one party or the other, but as Members of the House of Commons.
I had hoped that in that spirit the right hon. Gentleman would have made a much less uncompromising speech than he did, that he would have tried to understand the point of view of hon. Members on this side, and that he would have tried to appreciate that if one looked as objectively as possible at the testimony given in the course of this debate, it must have been clear that something was fairly seriously wrong in the early hours of last Thursday morning.
I regret that, since, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman intends that we should proceed to a Division in this matter. I could wish that the Government would have accepted our Motion. It would not
1008
have required them to agree with everything that we say in it. When, however, the Opposition feels itself obliged, as we did, to challenge the record in the Votes and Proceedings, it is something which should not be merely dismissed by the power of the numbers on this bench or that. Even now, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. Could he not, for instance, consider another alternative? Could he not consider the appointment of a Select Committee to examine the whole situation? If the right hon. Gentleman accepts our Motion and does that, it would be a perfectly reasonable way of proceeding.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he cannot do that because he must get the Government business through. It is not so desperately important, however, whether the Government get the Committee Stage of the Ways and Means Resolution through today. It would not make an awful lot of difference whether they get the Second Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill this week. It is far more important that the procedure of the House should be managed in a way that is acceptable to all the Members of it.
Again, if the Leader of the House were prepared at this stage to take the Whips off, as has been suggested from this side, I can say for our side that we will do the same. This is an official Motion, but we are prepared to leave it to the unfettered judgment of hon. Members. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider these things and give me his reply at the end of my speech.
Although it may be—and, indeed, is—unusual for the Opposition to put down a Motion of this kind, I cannot honestly see what else we could have done. The Leader of the House was not here on the evening in question, and I have already expressed my regret for his absence. I do not believe that these events would have taken place had he been here. He was not here, so he does not know. But I must ask him, does he realise exactly what we on this side felt at that time?
As I have said before, as my right hon. Friend said, we do not challenge that after the Closure was moved and accepted the Closure Motion was put. That was obviously being done, although

1009
I must say that I did not actually hear it; but it was actually being done. We could see that. The Chairman at that point was certainly standing up.
I must say that we then decided rather quickly that we would not go into the Division Lobby—not, let me say, because we did not resent bitterly the Closure Motion, but because, frankly, we were so fearfully indignant about it that we thought we would show our indignation by not moving. [Laughter.] That is the truth, but in the conversation I had with my hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip we also said, "But, of course, we must challenge the main Question." That was our intention.
We were absolutely astounded when it became apparent from what was happening, the moving of the Mace from below on to the Table, the movement of the Chairman himself into your Chair, Mr. Speaker, that apparently—apparently—it was supposed that the Motions had actually all gone through. What I am saying, I am sure, will be agreed by all my hon. and right hon. Friends sitting here. We were not very far away from the Chairman's Chair. We were not as far away as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). It really was very surprising to all of us on this side. With all the noise, nevertheless, that was going on, none of us believed that a Division was being called. This is the fact, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—
Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend has been good enough to tell the House what went on between him and the Opposition Chief Whip. It is most material as a matter of record whether or not the Opposition Chief Whip or any of the Opposition Whips challenged a Division, because that challenge would have led to a Division.
Mr. Gaitskell: I was just coming to that point, but first of all I want to say something about the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be satisfying himself that because one might call the ordinary mechanical devices available were used in this case, therefore everything must have been in order. First, I should like to make the point that I do not believe that the mere fact that somebody pulled the lever so the red light
1010
went on at a certain point, or that a clock proceeded to tick away for two minutes, proves anything whatever. The right hon. Gentleman referred, for instance, to the Serjeant at Arms, and not once but two or three times emphasised that there was no arrangement, no collusion, as it were, between the Chairman on one side and the Serjeant at Arms on the other.
I would ask him, is he saying to us that the Serjeant at Arms saw and heard the Chairman putting the Question? I should be very surprised if he proved anything of the kind. What surely happened—one is not surprised at it—was that the Serjeant at Arms, in his normal procedure, quite probably assumed that was happening and proceeded accordingly to play his own part in this.
The fact is that, with the possible exception of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—I am not quite clear on this from what she said—we have not heard a single Member who says that he actually saw the Chairman standing up putting the Question on the second Motion. I think I am right in saying that nobody has claimed to have seen that. On the contrary, on this side we all of us are convinced that he was not standing up for that second Motion.
Mr. Kershaw: I most certainly saw the Chairman going through the actions and the forms, from which I assumed—subsequently, it appeared I was right—he was dealing with the matter.
Mr. Gaitskell: It would be necessary in order to be sure of this not merely to have seen at a distance at some point during the proceedings the Chairman on his feet, but to have heard him speaking while he was on his feet. Otherwise, one may very well have seen him—I do not deny that at one moment he was standing up—putting the original Closure Motion. Later he did collect the voices on that Motion.
We are not concerned with that. We are concerned with the second Motion, and it is our belief that he did not in fact stand up at all throughout that part of the proceedings.
The right hon. Gentleman again said that a mistake was impossible. Really, that is an absurd thing for the Leader of the House to say. Of course he must admit that at least there is the gravest doubt whether the Chairman in

1011
fact did stand up or not, and if he did not stand up, then a mistake was made. Surely he has to admit that.
The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is this, that it does not really matter whether the Chairman collects the voices or not. But unless he can hear the answer to bis Question, how can he proceed? And it is again a fact that not a single Member who has spoken in this debate has claimed to have heard anybody say "Aye" or anybody say "No" throughout the whole of these proceedings.
The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is this, that the voices can be collected without the Chairman hearing anything on either side as to whether they are against or in favour of the Motion, whether they say "Aye" or "No". He can collect the voices if he speaks—even if we leave the point about his standing up—in a whisper. Is he really asking us to interrupt the rules of this House in that way? I must say this is the first time I have heard it suggested this was all our procedure intended.
One hon. Member said we were arguing—I think it was the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—that everybody should hear. We have not said that. Of course, obviously, very frequently it happens that Members are not listening; they are in different parts of the House and do not hear; but we believe that at least some should hear, and in the situation in the early hours of Thursday morning I can only say the truth is that very, very many did not hear, not only on this side of the House but on that side as well. Only three or at most four Members have actually claimed to have heard the Question put in the course of those proceedings, and I frankly say, putting it at its mildest, that there is a great deal more doubt on that side of the House than there is on this: we are quite certain the Question was not put. Those people not quite simply obedient to the party Whip would agree at least that they are not quite sure whether it was put.
I come finally to one final point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked a very pertinent question. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, and I pursue the matter with him,
1012
whether he had inquired whether the second Division was recorded on the annunciator. The right hon. Gentleman said to us a moment or two ago that he had ascertained that the tape material which would have given a complete answer to this had been destroyed. Yes, we also had discovered that.
But my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) discovered something else. He inquired of the gentleman who operates the annunciator whether the Division—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, shocking."]—whether in his recollection the second Division was or was not recorded, and the answer is that the gentleman who operates the annunciator told my right hon. Friend that he was quite satisfied that it was not recorded.
When we take all this evidence together, the impression certainly honestly held on this side that the Division was not properly called by the Chairman, the impression that in some parts of that side of the House that at least there is very grave doubt whether it was, when we have the evidence Obtained by my right hon. Friend to which I have just alluded, the least surely that can be done is to suspend judgment on this, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman once again Whether in these circumstances—it will not prevent the Government eventually from getting their Ways and Means Resolution—he does not think it would be very much better to allow this Motion to go through, without prejudice to what ultimately may come out and to have an inquiry into the whole matter. If he does that, I am sure that his decision will be widely welcomed in all parts of the House.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: We have had from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition a sincere account of the difficulty in which the Opposition were placed on the occasion which we are discussing. I think that when he said that right hon. and hon. Members opposite were flabbergasted by the situation and did not think of putting in Tellers for the Closure it explains the difficulty in which they found themselves. They eventually had a consultation and in a state of being flabbergasted, or in indignation, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges, they decided not to put in

1013
Tellers. From that springs the difficulty in which the Opposition got themselves, because there is absolutely no doubt that by not putting in Tellers on the occasion of the Closure Motion, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were not then attending to the future business which was being transacted by the Chair.
The right hon. Gentleman, in the later discussions that we had, showed some confusion of thought about what happens when Tellers are not put in, and I should like to draw his attention to page 429 of Erskine May, which says:
" If two tellers cannot be found for one of the parties, the division cannot take place; and the Speaker forthwith announces the decision of the House."
That is exactly what happened on this occasion, The Chairman did not have the Tellers put in from the Opposition and he announced the decision of the Committee and that is recorded faithfully on the Minutes and in the records of proceedings. The fact that the Opposition did no:: put in Tellers for the Closure or for the later stages—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is a loss on their part for which I am sincerely sorry, but that was what caused the Chairman to put the Question as he did.
Mr. G. Brown Mr. G. Brown rose —
Mr. Speaker: Unless the Leader of the House gives way, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) must not persist.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House started all right, or, at any rate, he got himself right halfway through. He first said that we were too flabbergasted to do it and then he corrected himself and said that we decided after consultation not to put in Tellers on the first Question. But then the right hon. Gentleman went on to slide that into the other and said that because we did that the rest flowed. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the Closure is not opposed the rest follows, but does it?
Mr. Butler Mr. Butler rose —
Mr. Brown: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman, because he cleverly flowed these two things together. The issue is: does not the main Question still have to be put, and is not that what we are still arguing about and what we say was not
1014
put and nobody on that side of the House knows was put?
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman and I are in complete agreement. Nothing flowed from the decision on the Closure except that the Opposition, according to the Leader of the Opposition, were in such a state of indignation that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were not able to attend to their business on the Closure and then did not put in Tellers in the next stage when the Question was put.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman really must not misrepresent what I said. I will repeat it. I said that we decided not to put Tellers in on the Closure Motion. That was a decision which we made because of our indignation with the decision to move and accept the Closure, and our reaction that we would resist that best by sitting where we were. It was not a question of being bulldozed into something, but a decision because we were extremely indignant about the way in which the Government were behaving.
Mr. Butler: In that case, the Opposition must have known that the next thing on the Order Paper to be put by the Chair was the substantive Motion to which the Opposition attached so much importance. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should have watched the procedure. They should have put in Tellers for the substantive Motion.
Mr. Brown: It was never put.
Mr. F. Blackburn rose —
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the Leader of the House has seen the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), but if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House does not give way the hon. Member must not proceed.
Mr. Blackburn: If the Leader of the House thinks that this decision was taken, surely this record is wrong, because if the Chairman put the Question, and "Aye" was said on the opposite side and nothing was said on this side, he would declare the Question carried and there would be no situation where Tellers would have to be put in. Therefore, in any case this record is wrong.
Mr. Butler: That record represents the decision of the Chairman to put the Question.
Mr. Blackburn: But nobody said "No" on this side.
Mr. Butler: I will acknowledge that this may have been a grave source of embarrassment to the Opposition. I perfectly well acknowledge that, but this was the logical sequence of the procedure of the House proceeding on its way. If we are to challenge the normal procedure of the House I think that we are challenging something—[Interruption.'] It is no good the right hon. Member for Belper uttering threats. We are perfectly capable of standing here. I am just as sincere—
Mr. Brown: I am not uttering any threats, but the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) was that if, as the right hon. Gentleman is developing the case, we did not do anything, which is what he has said, because we were so indignant, the point of putting Tellers in would not have arisen. The fact that the Table says that we were asked to put Tellers in, and did not, must mean that a Division had been called. This is what we say never happened, and nobody on that side of the House has said it did happen.
If the right hon. Gentleman takes the line that he is now taking, that the Opposition "have to show" by every
means and by every stage or be overridden by him, I assure him, with his 100 majority, that we will show him at every stage. Then let him see where he gets.
Mr. Butler: I should like to put forward my interpretation of the situation and not use the fiery words of the right hon. Member. The position is this. I am not defending the Executive in this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am defending, as Leader of the House, our normal procedure. It is my sincere conviction, in which I believe I am supported by all thinking people, that if we go back on procedure—which, like the right hon. Member, I spent the whole of the weekend considering—that has been sanctified by time, in criticising the accuracy of our records, we shall be doing great violence to one of our major positions. I, as Leader of the House, very much regret this episode.
Mr. Callaghan: Then put the record right.
Mr. Butler: I have given the matter mature consideration. If is not the Executive that I am defending. It is the records and the accuracy of the Clerks and the machinery of the House of Commons thai I am defending. It is in that spirit that I ask right hon. and hon. Gentleman to make their decision.
Question put; —
The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 301.

Division No. 45.]

AYES

[7.30 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

George, LadyMeganLloyd (C'rm'rth'n)

Alnsley, William

Cronin, John

Ginsburg, David

Albu, Austen

Crosland, Anthony

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Cullen, Mrs. Aline

Gourlay, Harry

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Darling, George

Greenwood, Anthony

Awbery, Stan

Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement (Montgomery)

Grey, Charles

Bacon, Miss Alice

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Beaney, Alan

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Grimond, J.

Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Deer, George

Gunter, Ray

Blackburn, F.

de Freltas, Geoffrey

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Blyton, William

Delargy, Hugh

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Boardman, H.

Diamond, John

Hannan, William

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Dodds, Norman

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Bowles, Frank

Donnelly, Desmond

Hayman, F. H.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Driberg, Tom

Healey, Denis

Brockway, A. Fenner

Edelman, Maurice

Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Evans, Albert

Hilton, A. V.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Finch, Harold

Holman, Percy

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Fitch, Alan

Holt, Arthur

Callaghan, James

Fletcher, Eric

Houghton, Douglas

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Howell, Charles A.

Chetwynd, George

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Hoy, James H.

Cliffe, Michael

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Collick, Percy

Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Galpern, Sir Myer

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Hunter, A. E.

Monslow, Walter

Spriggs, Leslie

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Moody, A. S.

Steele, Thomas

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Morris, John

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Moyle, Arthur

Stones, William

Janner, Sir Barnett

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Oliver, G. H.

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Jeger, George

Oram, A. E.

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

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Oswald, Thomas

Swain, Thomas

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Owen, Will

Swingler, Stephen

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

Padley, W. E.

Sylvester, George

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Paget, R. T.

Symonds, J. B.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Pargiter, G. A.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Kelley, Richard

parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Pavltt, Laurence

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

King, Dr. Horace

Peart, Frederick

Thornton, Ernest

Lawson, George

Pentland, Norman

Thorpe, Jeremy

Ledger, Ron

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Timmons, John

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

popplewell, Ernest

Tomney, Frank

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Prentice, R, E.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wainwright, Edwin

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Probert, Arthur

Warbey, William

Lipton, Marcus

Proctor, W T.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Logan, David

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Loughlin, Charles

Randall, Harry

White, Mrs. Eirene

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Rankin, John

Whitlock, William

McCann, John

Redhead, E. C.

Wigg, George

MacColl, James

Reld, William

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Mcinnes, James

Reynolds, G. W.

Wilkins, W. A.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Willey, Frederick

Mackie, John

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

McLeavy, Frank

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, Li. (Abertillery)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Ross, William

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

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

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Manuel, A. C.

Short, Edward

Winterbottom, R. E.

Mapp, Charles

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woof, Robert

Marsh, Richard

Skeffington, Arthur

Wyatt, Woodrow

Mason, Roy

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Mayhew, Christopher

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Zilliacus, K.

Mellish, R. J.

Small, William

Mendelson, J. J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Millan, Bruce

Snow, Julian

Mr. Bowden and Mr. Rogers.

Mitchlson, G. R.

Sorensen, R. W.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Bullard, Denys

de Ferranti, Basil

Aitken, W. T.

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)

Burden, F. A.

Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. M.

Arbuthnot, John

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Drayson, G. B.

Ashton, Sir Hubert

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

du Cann, Edward

Atkins, Humphrey

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Duncan, Sir James

Balniel, Lord

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Duthie, Sir William

Barber, Anthony

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Barlow, Sir John

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne,N.)

Barter, John

Cary, Sir Robert

Emery, Peter

Batsford, Brian

Channon, H. P. G.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Errington, Sir Eric

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Bell, Ronald

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Farr, John

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Fell, Anthony

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Cleaver, Leonard

Flnlay, Graeme

Berkeley, Humphry

Cole, Norman

Fisher, Nigel

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

Cooper, A. E.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Bidgood, John C.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Forrest, George

Biggs-Davison, John

Cordle, John

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Corfield, F. V,

Freeth, Denzil

Bishop, F. P.

Costain, A. P.

Gammans, Lady

Black, Sir Cyril

Coulson, J. M.

Gardner, Edward

Bossom, Clive

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Bourne-Arton, A,

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Gibson-Watt, David

Box, Donald

Critchley, Julian

Glover, Sir Douglas

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Crowder, F. P.

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Braine, Bernard

Cunningham, Knox

Goodhart, Philip

Brewis, John

Curran, Charles

Gower, Raymond

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Currle, G. B. H.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Dalkeith, Earl of

Green, Alan

Brooman-White, R.

Dance, James

Gresham Cooke, R.

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Grimston, Sir Robert

Bryan, Paul

Deedes, W. F.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

1018

1019

Gurden, Harold

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Rippon, Geoffrey

Hall, John (Wycombe)

McAdden, Stephen

Robson Brown, Sir William

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

MacArthur, Ian

Roots, William

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

McLaren, Martin

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maclean,Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs.)

Russell, Ronald

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Seymour, Leslie

Harvie Anderson, Miss

McMaster, Stanley R.

Sharples, Richard

Hastings, Stephen

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Shepherd, William

Hay, John

Maddan, Martin

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maginnis, John E.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Maitland, Sir John

Smithers, Peter

Hicks Beach, MaJ. W.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Marlowe, Anthony

Speir, Rupert

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marshall, Douglas

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Marten, Neil

Stodart, J. A.

Hobson, John

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Hocking, Philip N.

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Storey, Sir Samuel

Holland, Philip

Mawby, Ray

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hollingworth, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

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

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Hopkins, Alan

Mills, Stratton

Tapsell, Peter

Hornby, R. P.

Montgomery, Fergus

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Morgan, William

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Teeling, William

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Nabarro, Gerald

Temple, John M.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Neave, Airey

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Noble, Michael

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Iremonger, T. L.

Nugent, Sir Richard

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Jackson, John

Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

James, David

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Jennings, J. C.

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Turner, Colin

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Partridge, E.

Vane, W. M. F.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Peel, John

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Percival, Ian

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Peyton, John

Wall, Patrick

Kershaw, Anthony

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Ward, Dame Irene

Kimball, Marcus

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Kirk, Peter

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Watts, James

Kitson, Timothy

Pitman, I.J.

Webster, David

Lagden, Godfrey

Pitt, Miss Edith

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Lambton, Viscount

Pott, Percivall

Whitelaw, William

Langford-Holt, J.

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Leather, E. H. C.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Leavey, J. A.

Prior, J. M. L.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lilley, F. J. P.

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Wise, A. R.

Lindsay, Martin

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Litchfield, Capt. John

Ramsden, James

Woodhouse, C. M.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Rawlinson, Peter

Woodnutt, Mark

Longbottom, Charles

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Woollam, John

Longden, Gilbert

Rees, Hugh

Worsley, Marcus

Loveys, Walter H.

Renton, David

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Ridsdale, Julian

Mr. Edward Wakefield and

Colonel J. H. Harrison.

WAYS AND MEANS
[8th February]
Resolution reported,
National Health Service Contributions
1. That the rates of National Health Service contributions be increased by substituting the rates specified in the Table set out below for the rates set out in the Schedule to the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1958.
2. That it is expedient to amend the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957—

(a) so that enactments relating to national insurance passed subsequently to the National Insurance Act, 1956, shall be deemed to have been included among the National Insurance Acts referred to in the said Act of 1957;

(b) so that the provisions of the said Act of 1957 as to the expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance shall be deemed to have applied to the expenses of other government departments and to have

1021
included provision in respect of accruing liabilities for pensions and other payments and in respect of the use of premises belonging to the Crown; and

(c) so as to authorise the Treasury, instead of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State, to make regulations under the said Act of 1957.

3. hat there be paid into the Exchequer any increase in the sums so payable by virtue of the said Act of 1957, being an increase attributable to the increases in rates of contributions and the amendments referred to in the preceding provisions of this Resolution.
4. That it is expedient to make provision for other matters incidental or supplementary to the matters aforesaid.

TABLE

Description of person

Weekly rate of contribution

s.

d.

1. Employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment

2

8½

2. Employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment

2

0½

s.

d.

3. Employed boys and girls under the age of 18

1

4½

4. Employers

7½

5. Self-employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment

2

10

6. Self-employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment

2

2

7. Self-employed boys and girls under the age of 18

1

6

8. Non-employed men between the ages of 18 and 65

2

10

9. Non-employed women between the ages of 18 and 60

2

2

10. Non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18

1

6

Resolution read a Second time.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 215.

Division No. 46.]

AYES

[7.41 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Channon, H. P. G.

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Aitken, W. T.

Chlohester-Clark, R.

Freeth, Denzil

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Gammans, Lady

Arbuthnot, John

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Gardner, Edward

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Atkins, Humphrey

Cleaver, Leonard

Gibson-Watt, David

Balniel, Lord

Cole, Norman

Glover, Sir Douglas

Barber, Anthony

Cooper, A. E.

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Barlow, Sir John

Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Barter, John

Cordle, John

Goodhart, Philip

Batsford, Brian

Corfield, F. V.

Gower, Raymond

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Costain, A. P.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr, R.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Coulson, J. M.

Green, Alan

Bell, Ronald

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Gresham Cooke, R.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Grimston, Sir Robert

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Critchley, Julian

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Berkeley, Humphry

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Gurden, Harold

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

Crowder, F. P.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Bidgood, John C.

Cunningham, Knox

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Biggs-Davison, John

Curran, Charles

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Currie, G. B. H.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Bishop, F. P.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Black, Sir Cyril

Dance, James

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Bossom, Clive

d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Deedes, W. F.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Box, Donald

de Ferranti, Basil

Hastings, Stephen

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hay, John

Boyle, Sir Edward

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Braine, Bernard

Drayson, G. B.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Brewis, John

du Cann, Edward

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

Duncan, Sir James

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Duthie, Sir William

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Brooman-White, R.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Elliott.R. W. (N 'wc'stie-upon-Tyne,N.)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Bryan, Paul

Emery, Peter

Hirst, Geoffrey

Billiard, Denys

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hobson, John

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Errington, Sir Eric

Hocking, Philip N.

Burden, F. A.

FareyJones, F. W.

Holland, Philip

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Farr, John

Hollingworth, John

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

Fell, Anthony

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Finlay, Graeme

Hopkins, Alan

Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

Fisher, Nigel

Hornby, R. P.

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Carr, Robert (Mitoham)

Forrest, George

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Cary, Sir Robert

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Mawby, Ray

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Smithers, Peter

Hurd, Sir Anthony

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

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Mills, Stratton

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Iremonger, T. L,

Montgomery, Fergus

Speir, Rupert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Jackson, John

Morgan, William

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

James, David

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Stodart, J. A.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwlch)

Nabarro, Gerald

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Jennings, J. C.

Neave, Airey

Storey, Sir Samuel

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Studholme, Sir Henry

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Noble, Michael

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Nugent, Sir Richard

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Tapsell, Peter

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Orrnsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Orr-Ewlng, C. Ian

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Teeling, William

Kershaw, Anthony

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Temple, John M.

Kimball, Marcus

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Kirk, Peter

Partridge, E.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Kitson, Timothy

Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe)

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Lagden, Godfrey

Peel, John

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Lambton, Viscount

Percival, Ian

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Langford-Holt, J,

Peyton, John

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Leather, E. H. C.

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Leavey,J. A,

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Pilklngton, Sir Richard

Turner, Colin

Lilley, F. J. P.

Pitman, I. J.

Tweedsmulr, Lady

Lindsay, Martin

Pitt, Miss Edith

van Straubenzee. W. R.

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Pott, Perclvall

Vane, W. M. F.

Litchfield, Capt. John

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

Longbottom, Charles

Price, David (Eastlelgh)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Longden, Gilbert

Prior, J. M. L.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Loveys, Walter H.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebonej

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Wall, Patrick

Lucas-Tooth, 8lr Hugh

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

McAdden, Stephen

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

MacArthur, Ian

Ramsden, James

Watts, James

McLaren, Martin

Rawlinson, Peter

Webster, David

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Maclean,Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs.)

Rees, Hugh

Whitelaw, William

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Rees-Davles, W. R.

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Renton, David

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Ridsdale, Julian

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Maddan, Martin

Rlppon, Geoffrey

Wise, A. R.

Maginnis, John E.

Ronton Brown, Sir William

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Maitland, Sir John

Roots, William

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R,

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Woodhouse, C. M.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Woodnutt, Mark

Marlowe, Anthony

Russell, Ronald

Woollam, John

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Scott-Hopkins, James

Worsley, Marcus

Marshall, Douglas

Seymour, Leslie

Marten, Neil

Sharpies, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Shepherd, William

Mr. Edward Wakefield and

Colonel J. H. Harrison.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Cliffe, Michael

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Ainsley, William

Colllck, Percy

Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Albu, Austen

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Galpern, Sir Myer

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Craddook, George (Bradford, 8.)

George,LadyMeganLloyd (C'rm'rth'n)

Allen, Soholefleld (Crewe)

Crosland, Anthony

Ginsburg, David

Awbery, Stan

Culien, Mrs. Alice

Gourlay, Harry

Bacon, Miss Alice

Darling, George

Greenwood, Anthony

Beaney, Alan

Davles, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Grey, Charles

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Berne, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Deer, George

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Blackburn, F.

de Freltas, Geoffrey

Grimond, J.

Blyton, William

Delargy, Hugh

Gunter, Ray

Boardman, H.

Diamond, John

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Bowden, Herbert W. (Lelos, S.W.)

Dodds, Norman

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Bowles, Frank

Donnelly, Desmond

Hannan, William

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Driberg, Tom

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Brookway, A. Fenner

Edelman, Maurice

Hayman, F. H.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Edwards, Robert (Bllston)

Healey, Denis

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur (RwlyRegis)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Evans, Albert

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Finch, Harold

HIll, J. (Midlothian)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Fitch, Alan

Hilton, A. V.

Callaghan, James

Fletcher, Eric

Holman, Percy

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Houghton, Douglas

Chetwynd, George

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Howell, Charles A.

1024

1025

Hoy, James H.

Mendelson, J.J.

Snow, Julian

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Millan, Bruce

Sorensen, R. W.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Mitchison, G. R.

Spriggs, Leslie

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Monslow, Walter

Steele, Thomas

Hunter, A. E.

Moody, A. S.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Morris, John

Stones, William

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Moyle, Arthur

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Oliver, G. H.

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

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Oram, A. E.

Swain, Thomas

Jeger, George

Oswald, Thomas

Swingler, Stephen

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Owen, Will

Sylvester, George

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Padley, W. E.

Symonds, J. B.

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

Paget, R. T.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Pargiter, G. A.

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, w.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Kelley, Richard

Pavltt, Laurence

Thomson, G. M. (Dundee. E.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Thornton, Ernest

Key, Rt- Hon. C. W.

Peart, Frederick

Timmons, John

King, Dr. Horace

Pentland, Norman

Tomney, Frank

Lawson, George

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Ledger, Ron

Prentice, R. E.

Walnwrlght, Edwin

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Warbey, William

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Probert, Arthur

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Proctor, W. T.

wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

White, Mrs. Eirene

Lipton, Marcus

Randall, Harry

Whitlook, William

Logan, David

Rankin, John

Wlgg, George

Loughlln, Charles

Redhead, E. C.

Wilcock, Croup Capt. C. A. B

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Reid, William

Wilkins, W. A.

McCann, John

Reynolds, G. W.

Willey, Frederick

MacColl, James

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Mclnnes, James

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Williams, LI. (Abertlliery)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Mackle, John

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

McLeavy, Frank

Ross, William

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

Shinvell, Rt. Hon. E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mallalieu, j.P.w. (Huddersfield,E.)

Short, Edward

Woof, Robert

Manuel, A. C.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Wyatt, Woodrow

Mapp, Charles

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Skeffington, Arthur

Zllliacus, K.

Marsh, Richard

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Mason, Roy

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mayhew, Christopher

Small, William

Mr. Cronin and Mr, Ifor Davies.

Melllsh, R. J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. John Maclay, and Sir Edward Boyle.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS
Bill to increase the rates of National Health Service contributions and to amend the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS' ACTION ON CLOSURE
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the action of the Chairman of Ways and Means in accepting a
1026
Motion for closure of debate on the Ways and Means Resolution during the sitting of Wednesday, 8th February and thereby infringing the rights of minorities by such acceptance when large numbers of Members still wished to speak and the Minister had not yet replied to points made during the debate.
Any Motion which reflects upon the conduct of the Chair, whether it be upon the conduct of Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy-Chairman, or any other person who occupies the Chair temporarily, is a very serious matter. It is serious not least because it involves criticism of an individual who, by tradition, does not take part in this debate, or, indeed, in any other debate. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means that, in putting down this Motion, we intend no personal animosity towards him. There is no hostility towards him personally on our side whatever. He is a deservedly popular Member of this House and has many friends on both sides of the House. But we have put it down because, unhappily, we

1027
felt that his conduct as Chairman during the proceedings in the early hours of last Thursday morning was at fault.
A debate of this kind is important for another reason. The whole of our proceedings in this Chamber are intimately bound up with the respect for the Chair, which is traditional, indeed one might say inherent, in our Parliamentary history. And we all of us without exception much prefer a situation when throughout the House all hon. Members have full confidence in the impartiality, the firmness and the determination of the Chairman to conduct our proceedings in accordance with the rules of the House. So, of course, any challenge to this principle in a particular case should not and must not be made lightly.
Nevertheless, the right of such challenge must be upheld. There have been right hon. and hon. Gentleman who have seemed, in earlier debates of a similar kind, to question that right and to deplore the putting down of a Motion of this kind by any hon. Member on the grounds that we must never do anything which in any way could undermine confidence in the Chair. But if we were to accept that point of view that the Chairman was, so to speak, beyond criticism, it would seriously interfere with our own rights as hon. Members of this House. In fact, in our Parliamentary history critical Motions on the Chair have been quite frequently put down. There is no need for me to quote the examples of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) in the debate earlier this afternoon on another Motion. There are, of course, far more frequent and far more recent occasions. Indeed, since the war, in this House of Commons we have, I think, had at least four Motions of this kind put down and debated.
The noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was then an hon. Member of this House, put down a critical Motion regarding the present Lord Milner. Lord Crookshank, then Captain Crookshank. with the support of the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) put down an equally critical Motion of Major Milner as he then was. My hon.
1028
Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put down a Motion which criticised Mr. Speaker in, I think, 1952, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) put down and spoke to a Motion on the Chairman of Ways and Means equally critical in the December of that year.
Perhaps it is not without significance that the last two of these four Motions criticised the Chair on the ground of the acceptance of Closure Motions. It is not surprising that the acceptance of a Closure Motion should sometimes provoke a strong reaction on the part of the Opposition because, after all, the Closure is far the most powerful instrument the Government have to railroad their business through the House of Commons if they so desire. I am not for one moment questioning the need for the power to closure our debate to exist. Obviously, the Government in the last resort must be able to stop a long period of obstruction and delay on the part of the Opposition. Nobody questions that, and without it, or something akin to it—the Guillotine on Committee stages of Bills—certainly the power of the Opposition would, I think, be too great in relation to Government business.
But having said that, I must emphasise that the right to closure must be very carefully exercised and the manner in which it is used must be properly confined so far as possible within clearly defined limits. For this protection, to ensure that the Closure is not used unfairly or in an arbitrary manner, or in a manner which infringes the rights of minorities, we depend upon the person who occupies the Chair. This is, indeed, laid down very precisely in our Standing Orders, in Standing Order No. 29, which I will quote. In its first paragraph, it states:
" After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move, "That the Question be now put.' and, unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question. "That the question be now put," shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate."
That makes it perfectly plain that the Chairman, the person who occupies the Chair, has to accept this Motion unless, in his opinion, it is
" an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority."

1029
The exceptions are of the most vital importance. It is, in effect, because we believe that the acceptance of the Closure Motion by the Chairman on the occasion to which I have referred was an infringement of the rights of the minority in this House that we have felt obliged to put down the Motion. That is the gravamen of our charge against the right hon. Gentleman.
There is one other thing which I think proper to say at this stage of my remarks. The Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy-Chairman, as we all know, are appointed by the Government. I do not seek to alter that arrangement. It is sanctified by many years of usage, but it does, I think, make it especially important that as Chairmen they should not only be but be seen to be totally independent of the Government, since precisely because they are Government nominees there is perhaps a greater danger that it might be supposed that contacts exist between them and the Government. It is impossible to avoid saying that an Opposition must always be very sensitive to any possible idea of collusion—of understanding—between the Chairman on the one side and the Government Front Bench on the other.
I now turn to the particular incidents which have led us to put down this Motion. I must refer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper did earlier this afternoon, to the debate which had begun on Wednesday evening last week. As hon. Members know, it was a debate on the Ways and Means Resolution preceding the National Health Service Bill. This is a matter, we all agree, of intense party political controversy. It is certainly the most controversial matter which the Government have introduced since the beginning of this Session. It is quite inevitable in these circumstances, combined as it is with a number of other changes, that there should be high emotion raised on both sides of the House or Committee.
It is not surprising that both in the debate which took place during the afternoon and in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution a great deal of emotion was displayed, quite naturally, by hon. Members in the course of the proceedings. I do not think we need apologise for that. It is a well understood thing in this House that hon. Members feel keenly about these matters.
1030
Although there are occasions when in the course of our business relatively non-controversial discussions take place, equally there are other occasions—there have been many famous ones in our history—when intense controversy arises. This was such an occasion. The debate opened at 10.25 p.m. with a speech by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He said in the course of that speech, indeed, right at the beginning, that he would confine himself
" to an exposition of the Government's proposals "
and would
" not indulge in a great deal of argument or justification".
He went on to say:
"There will be plenty of opportunity for more argumentative discussion in which I and others will be delighted to take part."
I do not know what exactly he meant by that, whether he meant that in the course of debate on the Ways and Means Resolution there would be plenty of opportunity, or that he was saying there would be opportunities later on when the Bill was debated. Certainly his remarks could have been, and I think were, understood by hon. Members in the first sense.
After his speech which, as one hon. Member complained, he delivered somewhat rapidly and which contained a fair number of figures which were not altogether easy to follow, five hon. Members spoke. They were: my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), replying from the Opposition Front Bench, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). I do not propose to refer to any of those speeches which proceeded—although the debate was a lively one—in a more or less normal fashion until the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East. She was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who, as reported in column 567 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, rose on a point of order and referred to the behaviour of the Government Chief Whip. He said:

1031
" Now that the Chief Whip has resumed his seat, Sir, may I ask, with deference, whether you propose to disclose the conversation that has just taken place between you and the Chief Whip?"
The Chairman, I think quite properly, refused to disclose the nature of that private conversation. Nevertheless, it was that movement of the Chief Whip to the Chairman which started all this trouble, because it was evident, or at any rate it appeared very likely, to my hon. Friends that what they were in fact discussing was the question of whether and when the debate should be closured. This point was taken up by a number of hon. Members shortly afterwards. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) at 12.15 a.m. expressed his concern when he said:
" On a point of order. Before my hon. Friend begins his speech, may I draw your attention, Sir Gordon, to the fact that twelve of my hon. Friends rose to their feet? In view of the fact that at the end of a speech it is sometimes known for the Chief Patronage Secretary to ask for a Closure Motion to be accepted, will you take into account that if he does that, it would be, in the words of the Standing Order,
'… an infringement of the rights of the minority … '"
This point was pursued somewhat further by other hon. Members, and finally, at 12.30 a.m., the Chairman called upon the Financial Secretary to reply. Of course, it is natural that when that happened the Opposition should suspect that it meant the beginning of the end of the debate, that the Financial Secretary was being called and that the Chief Whip, after his speech, would closure the debate altogether. Whereupon my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper got to his feet and put this position to the Chairman, and a number of hon. Members did the same.
The Chairman was asked whether he was going to allow the Closure. The Chief Whip was asked whether he was going to move the Closure. The Financial Secretary was asked whether it was his intention to reply to the debate finally or merely to answer some of the questions that had been asked. No clear answers were forthcoming from any of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen concerned.
Later, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, failing to get satis-
1032
factory answers to any of these interventions about what was to happen to the debate, proceeded to move to report Progress and made a speech in which he repeated the arguments which had been implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, saying, in effect, that the Chief Whip had quite clearly gone round to the Chairman in order to discuss with him the question of the Closure Motion "and then", to use the words of my right hon. Friends:
" prodded to his feet the up-to-then somnolent figure of the Financial Secretary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 567, 570, 579.]
He went on to point out that there were not twelve but at least twenty hon. Members on this side of the Committee and one hon. Member opposite who were still anxious to speak.
The Financial Secretary began his speech eventually by saying that it had been the custom in debates in which he had taken part in Committee for a Minister to rise after two hours to answer some of the points put to him. I do not know quite where he got that idea. I know of no particular rule, and the Chairman, asked for his guidance on this matter, said that it could not be accepted as a principle and, to use his words, that
" There is no particular rule."
Interventions occurred for some time in circumstances which are familiar to us all and against a background which I think I have adequately described. Eventually, rather surprisingly, the Patronage Secretary got to his feet—rather surprisingly, because Chief Whips do not often make speeches. He made what was for him quite a long speech and attempted to answer some of the things which had been said about his behaviour. He explained that he had meant no discourtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East, and he continued:
" As for my other movements about the House, these are common form in the House. I have certain duties to perform on this side of the House, just as the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Bowden) has certain duties on the other side of the Committee."
In saying that, he naturally increased the suspicion on this side of the Committee that the Closure was to be moved.

1033
He continued—which made it even worse:
" My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in accordance with ordinary procedure, proposes to answer some of the points which have so far been put in this rather complicated debate. … If, after that, I, as Patronage Secretary, choose to move the Closure in my own poor wisdom, it is entirely up to the Chair whether it is accepted. I move it at my own risk. If the Ohair does not accept it, I look a precious ass."
Mr. George Brown: He is that anyway.
Mr. Gaitskell: If I may say so to the Chief Whip, that was a very unfortunate phrase to use, because unless one were to assume that he wished to look "a precious ass", clearly he would have taken the precaution of making sure that he would not be made to look "a precious ass". The very clear implication of that remark, therefore, was that he had made sure with the Chairman beforehand that he would not be made to look "a precious ass".
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) indicated dissent.
Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper then proceeded to challenge the Patronage Secretary, as he said this afternoon, and to give him a number of warnings about what might take place if he moved the Closure. I should have said earlier that the Chairman had refused my right hon. Friend's Motion, to use his own words, "at this stage". The Chairman said:
" I do not propose to accept that Motion at this stage."
There followed another short interval, during which there were interjections of one kind or another and points of order were raised, and there was a very natural and growing suspicion not merely that the Chief Whip would move the Closure but, because of the words which he had used, that there had been collusion between the Chair and the Chief Whip. There was growing concern on our side.
Shortly afterwards the Patronage Secretary rose and made his second speech. If possible, it was even worse than his first speech—even more unfortunate, First of all he said:
" This is a most difficult situation."
1034
Indeed it was for him. Then he said:
"The fact of the matter is that this debate is only, as it were, a paving stage for a Bill which will have a Second Reading and a Committee Stage on the Floor of this House. It is, therefore, in a different set of circumstances from many of our stages of procedure."
I do not accept that for one moment. Has the Patronage Secretary forgotten that the whole of our Budget debate takes place in Committee of Ways and Means on Resolutions which are required before the Finance Bill is introduced? Do we dismiss it in a couple of hours? We do not. We spend several days upon it. In a controversial issue of this kind, we completely disagree with the idea so blatantly put out by the Patronage Secretary that because this was only a paving stage, he had the right to intervene. He went on to say:
" As Patronage Secretary, I am in an awkward position. I said before that responsibility for moving the Closure is entirely mine, and that it is up to me to risk whether or not it will be accepted."
He then went on:
" As it is obvious that at this moment we shall not make any progress in this way, I must put the matter to the test."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 585–8.]
He moved, "That the Question be now put", and the Chairman accepted it.
I want to comment on the last words of his last speech. They show that he was moving the Closure not because he thought that the subject had been adequately debated but because he was not making any progress. What it suggests to our minds is that the Chairman accepted it on precisely the same grounds.
When we turn to consider the Chairman's conduct, we must certainly bear in mind that the situation was not an easy situation to handle and that passions were roused. But it is the test of a good Chairman, when passions are roused, whether he can adequately control them and continue to direct the business of the House in a manner broadly satisfactory to all Members of it.
The Chairman first of all refused to accept my right hon. Friend's Motion "at this stage". The phrase "at this stage" suggests to most people that he might consider accepting it at a later stage and that he feels that there ought to be rather more discussion. At least, quite clearly the Chairman at that point had in mind—I do not think that there

1035
is the slightest doubt about this—that he wished the Minister to reply. He had already called upon him to reply, and no doubt it was in his mind not to accept the Motion, although indeed he could have allowed it, there could have been a Division, and it could have been defeated; he was not then prepared to accept the Motion. He wanted the debate to go on, and he had called the Financial Secretary.
Yet, although the Financial Secretary had spoken what amounts to only a few paragraphs—barely paragraphs; a few lines in HANSARD—when the Chief Whip suddenly moved the Closure with the words which I have mentioned, the Chairman proceeded to accept it.
This is an extraordinary state of affairs. If the Chairman calls a Minister to reply, because he thinks that he ought to reply, and then proceeds to accept the Closure before the Minister has replied, how can he reconcile that with his previous intentions? Clearly he could not have changed his mind. The Chairman could not have changed his mind about whether the debate should go on or not. I am afraid that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that, just as the Chief Whip moved the Closure because not enough progress was being made, so the Chairman accepted the Closure on the ground that there was too much disturbance in the Committee.
I venture to say that that is not an adequate reason for accepting the Closure. If there is disorder in the House, there are other means open to the Chairman. This matter has arisen already in the course of the earlier debate, although it was mostly cut short because it was clearly out of order.
We know the other courses which are open to the Chairman. He can name an hon. Member, or more than one if he thinks that they are causing disturbance which they should not do. If he considers that there is grave disorder, he can proceed to adjourn the House. It is true that, in order to do so, he must first occupy the seat of Mr. Speaker. That is a simple matter. He has only to rise to his feet to say, "Order, order". The Mace is then put in its place and he himself has to occupy Mr. Speaker's Chair. Then, as Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he is entitled to, and can, adjourn the House without any further Question.
1036
The significant thing is that the right hon. Gentleman did not name hon. Members. At the point at which the Patronage Secretary was intervening he apparently did not consider that at that stage there was a grave state of disorder in the Committee. Instead, he accepted the Closure. Yet, apparently, as soon as the business was through and the Government business was safe, he proceeded to adjourn the House on the ground of grave disorder.
I very much regret to say this, but in these circumstances it is very hard for the Opposition not to believe that there was some form of collusion between the Government and the Chair. I wish to make it plain that, in my view, the main responsibility for the whole of this affair rests principally with the Patronage Secretary and his extraordinarily clumsy and stupid handling of the situation. The quotations I have given from his two most maladroit interventions show very clearly how true that is.
We cannot take the view that, because the Chief Whip has behaved badly, the Chairman is not to blame. If, indeed, the Chief Whip was wrong, as I believe he was, to move the Closure in those circumstances, the Chairman was doubly wrong to accept it. He was not right to accept it instead of taking the other action which I suggest he should have taken, and could indeed have taken somewhat earlier, particularly bearing in mind that only a short while later, after the business had got through in a manner which we have discussed very fully this afternoon, profoundly unsatisfactory to this side of the House, he proceeded to use Standing Order No. 24 after all.
The whole procedure, taken in its context, was in our view a serious infringement of minority rights. In standing up for these, we stand up not only for ourselves as the present Opposition but for all future Oppositions. It is our duty as Her Majesty's Opposition to ensure that the use of the Closure is properly limited and is not allowed to become an instrument which simply imposes the will of the Executive upon the Legislature.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: Before coming to my main point I want to say a few words about the words Mr. Speaker used last week when he sought

1037
to admonish the House for doing something at a time when he was not present. These words should be said. It was Mr. Speaker Lenthall who said, in the Chair, that he had only eyes to see or ears to hear or tongue to speak such as the House directed him. It is very unfortunate if Mr. Speaker tends to take on himself the task of giving even an implied rebuke to the House, except by direction of the House.
Further, this can get the Chair into serious difficulties. There was an occasion in 1914 when Mr. Bonar Law answered that one. That was the occasion on which Mr. Speaker of the time attempted to admonish Mr. Bonar Law and ask his opinion. Mr. Bonar Law's reply was one which could serve us now. He said to Mr. Speaker of the day:
" I would not presume to criticise what you consider your duty, Sir, but I know mine, and that is not to answer any such questions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1914; Vol. 62, c. 2214]
Therefore, I think that Mr. Speaker, with great respect—I have a great respect for him—had better not take on to himself the task of admonishing the Opposition at a time such as this.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order, order. I am becoming a little worried by what the hon. Member is saying, because the Motion relates to the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Pannell: I, also, am very worried, but I have finished with the point now. It was necessary to say it. I know that Mr. Speaker will resume the Chair at about a quarter past nine. I am only sorry that I could not have said it when he was present. It is part of the background to the difficulty that we are discussing today.
The real point of the difficulty, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said, is that the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure When the Financial Secretary was literally on his feet and took on to himself the function of the Chair. We do not want to exonerate the Government in order to "slate" the Chairman of Ways and Means, but today the Parliamentary wicket is beginning to take a little more spin. We feel very strongly about this matter.
1038
What is charged against the Chairman of Ways and Means? It is not that we think that he is a bad man doing something which he knows is wicked. We do not even think that he is a good man thinking that he is doing right. We think that he is a rather kind and inadequate man who made an awful mess of things at a crucial moment. Consequently, in effect, he lowered the tone of the debate and tended to destroy the belief in the impartiality of the Chair.
The offices of the Chair are within the gift of the Government, but the Chairman of Ways and Means may never look on himself merely as a Parliamentary placeman. We say that last week he acted in the manner of a Parliamentary placeman. It would be a very bad thing indeed if the Chairman of Ways and Means appears to connive in any way with the Government to limit the rights of free speech. We have a great deal of compassion for the Chair, but we must bring to it people, and we must see that the people are brought to it, who have the ability to rise to a crisis. The Chairman is always protected to a degree by the Clerk, but we must not refer to what the Clerk has done because, eventually, the Chair it is who must take responsibility.
There have been great Chairmen and Speakers of this House who, with not a Standing Order to guide them, have risen in their place and mastered a crisis. That is What we look for. We say that in the choice of people Who are the Chairmen and Deputy-Chairman the Government must ensure that they get people of sufficient calibre to rise to their opportunities. After all, after ten years of Tory office the benches opposite are simply bristling with baronets. There are about ninety knights, most of them discards, having previously been Under-Secretaries. It does seem to me that they might reasonably do a stint of that sort.
It is not the man in the office who counts, it is the office itself that counts and the dignity of the office. When there are matters as emotive as the question of charges on the sick, the old and the poor, the Chairman should have a sense of atmosphere. If we just considered the Chairman and his rights, and let him go scot-free, then, to paraphrase Paine's famous saying, we should just be thinking of the plumage, forgetting the dying bird. I hope that no hon. Member opposite will say that this is all

1039
rather improper. [An HON. MEMBER: Nobody did."] Nobody did, but I hope that nobody will say it is all rather improper, all rather heresy hunting and not the done thing.
I was reminded of this because the other Saturday I went to see Lord Milner, in hospital. I am sure that the House will sympathise with him in the amputation of his leg, which springs from a long-continuing illness resulting from a wound in the 1914–18 war. I am reminded of the treatment to which he was subjected by hon. Members on the other side, particularly on 21st June, 1951. It is well-known that the Chairman of Ways and Means seeks the guidance of the Clerk of the House in the selection of Amendments on the Finance Bill, and that is all that Major Milner had done—because, after all, he had had sixteen years as Chairman of Committees or Deputy-Chairman.
That did not stop a full-scale attack being mounted on him, led by Captain Crookshank and supported by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). There were then attacks on the impartiality of the Chair which expressed concern and it might be appropriate today to quote the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford on that occasion. He said:
"… one may be unfairly treated just as much by an error of judgment as by want of good faith or malice. We do not impute malice. There was an error of judgment which resulted, in practice, in what we consider unfair treatment of the Opposition in regard to important Amendments … That is what has brought us to this point today … "
and that is, of course, the charge that we are making tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman added:
" If it is to be negatived let it be done by the House."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 739–40.]
The Conservative Party did not think about that then. They were not in favour of withdrawing the Motion, having said their piece, any more than they were eighteen months previously when the present Lord Hailsham—then Mr. Quintin Hogg, the hon. Member for Oxford, moved the Motion. On that occasion Mr. Anthony Eden, as he then was, or Mr. Quintin Hogg, advised his party that he thought it would be best if
1040
the House disposed of it, not by withdrawing the Motion but taking the feeling of the House without a Division.
In fact, there was no withdrawal of the Motion at all. That is what was done and I should have thought that was the worst of both worlds—willing to wound, but afraid to strike. From that day on there was plenty of gossip around the House which suggested that Major Milner should not be the normal heir to Mr. Speaker's Chair. We remember that, too; and I do not want to refer to that later controversy when we had to divide the House on the selection of Mr. Speaker.
I have said all I want to say, but I do express the deep feelings of the back benchers on a matter such as this. I go a little further than my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, there is no personal rancour in this. It is merely the fact that I judge Mr. Speaker, the Chairman, or even you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether you are an adequate tool for your job—to use the phraseology of my own trade. In that capacity, I suggest that the Chairman of Ways and Means has failed. If this is a matter on which my Front Bench decide that we should go into the Lobby to express that opinion I shall cheerfully go in behind them.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: It seems to me that the second debate we are having today is much more important than the first one and raises much deeper issues. I have taken some care to read carefully and to analyse the debate as reported in HANSARD.
The first point, and this is not so important in itself, is that there were 32 bogus points of order between the opening of the debate and the Division. There is nothing very unusual about that—it very often happens in our proceedings—but those bogus points of order do supply some commentary on the quality of the debate.
The more interesting point in this context is that, certainly by length, rather more than one-third of those points of order were about the Closure. I do not remember a previous debate where the Chair has been subject to exactly that sort of treatment. The first Question, the House may remember, was: what

1041
did the Chief Whip say to the Chair? Then there was a clear implication that to grant the Closure—which is, of course, entirely in the Chair's discretion—would be an infringement of the rights of minorities.
It is perfectly all right to abuse the Chief Whip—that is what he is there for; he is abused by everybody, on both sides of the House—but it is quite a different matter to try to exercise pressure on the Chair in this way. Any fair-minded person who reads that debate will get the impression that the Chair was being threatened. The Chairman of Ways and Means was first accused of being a creature of the Chief Whip, and it was then made perfectly clear that if he did, in his wisdom, grant the Closure, there would be hell's own row. That was made absolutely clear to him.
Whether those threats were in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, whether they had any effect on him in deciding to grant the Closure, I do not know, but I think that they certainly should have had. After all, if the Chair is to be subject, over a long period, as it was in this debate, to abuse and threats about the Chief Whip, two things will happen. It is quite simple. First, it may be difficult to get Government business through—and hon. Members opposite will not mind about that. Secondly, and more important, it may be very difficult indeed to get anybody to be Chairman. Not many people would really wish to suffer the sort of treatment that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means got—[Interruption.] It will not be at all easy to get people to take on the job if they are to be threatened and bullied in this way.
Personally, I very much hope that there will not be a Division this evening but, if there is a Division, I hope that there can be no question whatever of the Chairman of Ways and Means resigning his post. He is one of the fairest and most courteous men I have ever met, and it would be an evil day for this House if he were hounded from his position.
8.38 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I feel that I should intervene in this debate as being one of those who was here throughout the proceedings we are now discussing and, perhaps, as one of the more fortunate
1042
ones, in that I had already been called to speak before the debate was closured.
I appreciate the point put by my neighbour, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), and I am sure that we all have the utmost sympathy with the Chairman of Ways and Means personally. He was placed in a very difficult position. I have had nothing but perfect courtesy from him, but I think that in the very difficult circumstances in which he found himself he made an error of judgment that might happen to anyone placed in similar circumstances. It was a very difficult position.
The real culprit, we have no doubt at all, is the Patronage Secretary. There are, of course, minor villains of the piece—if the Leader of the House does not mind being called a "minor villain". His Parliamentary Private Secretary was here for the greater part of the debate. When it became clear that difficulties were arising between hon. Members and the Chair, the Parliamentary Private Secretary left the Chamber. One can only assume—we have been assuming a good deal today—that he went to acquaint the Leader of the House with the nature of the difficult situation which was arising. I wish to be entirely accurate, since I could not myself see that part of the Chamber behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, but I have been told by several of my hon. Friends who saw him that the Leader of the House stood behind the Chair for some time and then withdrew. His Parliamentary Private Secretary had meanwhile returned to the Chamber, having done his duty, very properly.
It is very difficult to know just what was in the mind of the Leader of the House at a time when things were already becoming difficult during what was bound to be a highly emotional debate. The right hon. Gentleman's mind is a complex one. I would hesitate to say that I could read it. It might be said of him, as was said of Robespierre, that "his reputation for virtue won for him the name of Incorruptible". I do not add the adjective "sea-green". It is a little difficult for those of us who are concerned about the conduct of business in the House fully to appreciate what were the motives of the Leader of the House in coming in and then retiring

1043
at a time when there was no senior Minister on the Government Front Bench. The Clerk-Assistant was at the Table. The learned Clerk himself was not there. It was perfectly plain that things were likely to be difficult, and it is not easy to appreciate for whom the Leader of the House was anxious that they should become more difficult.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am sure that the hon. Lady wishes to be fair. Has it occurred to her that last Wednesday night the Leader of the House as Home Secretary may have had grave matters on his mind which none of us would care to have to consider?
Mrs. White: With respect, I think that at that hour of the night, then past midnight, the Leader of the House should have put his first duty to the House of Commons. He surely could, during the earlier hours of the day, have had time to consider his duties in other public offices he may hold. I contend that his first duty in the circumstances was to the House of Commons.
I say these things because, while the Motion refers, as it constitutionally must refer, only to the Chairman of Ways and Means, there were other villains in the piece, among whom, I myself think, the Leader of the House was one. He failed to appreciate what was happening in the Chamber, and the Committee was led into a position which did not add to its dignity or to the proper conduct of Government business.
The other villain, quite clearly, as we have all said, was the Patronage Secretary. He started by arousing a slight suspicion in our minds by going round among Members of his own party on the benches behind him in the most ostentatious way, so that we were not entirely surprised when, later, not one single hon. Member opposite rose to speak. Again, we were making assumptions. It is just possible that they were discussing the weather, but it seems improbable that they were.
While I myself was speaking, the Patronage Secretary rose and, again with extraordinary and quite unnecessary ostentation, went to speak to the Chairman of Ways and Means. With equal ostentation, he returned to his place.
1044
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) had intervened at all, I myself remarked on the disturbing behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman. At the bottom of column 567 in HANSARD, it is recorded that I paused in my speech and said that I would wait until the Patronage Secretary had taken his seat. It is quite true that he did not come between me and the Chair and he was not guilty of any discourtesy in that sense, but I should not have made a remark of that kind had not the Committee been already disturbed by the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour. It was that which led me to say what I did.
When I came to resume my speech, I said that the Patronage Secretary had interrupted the debate. He did not interrupt it by word of mouth, but he had most clearly done so by his demeanour. It was from that moment, as the interjections which were made clearly show, that we on this side felt that our suspisions were confirmed and that the Patronage Secretary had no intention of allowing the very large number of Members on this side who wished to speak to do so.
Those of us who have had any Parliamentary experience know that there are some oocasions when the Opposition quite deliberately set out to obstruct Government business. It is not unknown. I shall never forget my first baptism of fire in this House during the Parliament of 1950–51 when members of the party opposite, which was in Opposition, were pastmasters of the art. I emphasise that on the occasion that we are discussing that was not so. The speeches which were made were not in any sense filibustering or obstructionist speeches. One has a sense whether hon. Members are speaking with their tongues in their cheeks, even when they are one's own colleagues. This was not one of those occasions, and I should like most emphatically to underline that, especially for the benefit of those hon. Members opposite who were not present at the time. Merely reading HANSARD does not always give one the complete feeling of the House.
I say with the utmost sincerity that the speeches which were made on Thursday morning were made because people felt

1045
that they had to make them. They were not filibustering speeches or made deliberately to obstruct Government business. They were brief and to the point. They were entirely appropriate to the debate which was taking place. I do not think that anyone could lay any complaint against the standard of the speeches or their relevance or helpfulness. We therefore felt that we were morally justified as an Opposition, on a matter about which we felt very strongly, in thinking that we should be given a proper hearing. It was not our fault that hon. Members opposite were taking such a small part in the debate. That was a matter between themselves and their Chief Whip. In those circumstances, we could not see why we who felt deeply about the matter should not be permitted to express our opinions.
To have allowed us to proceed would have been no great hardship to anyone, except possibly to the staff of the House who are asked to stay late when the House extends its deliberations. There was no necessity to curtail the debate from the point of view of Government business. It was the ill judgment of the Patronage Secretary which led him to suppose that he could ride roughshod over the feelings of the Opposition. I repeat that his demeanour in so doing was deliberate provocation. He himself suggested at one point that he might have looked "a precious ass". He has taken to himself the nickname of Bottom the Weaver, although he hardly has the figure for it. He behaved towards the Opposition in such a contemptuous way that we regard him as contemptible.
8.49 p.m.
Sir James Duncan: There are three things on which I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. First, I agree that this is a serious matter. It is serious in two ways—first, from the point of view of the procedure of the House of Commons, and, secondly, because a person is involved. Secondly, I agree that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means is deservedly popular. I think that everyone would agree with that. Thirdly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he has the right to challenge any decision made by the Chairman of Ways and Means or, for that matter, Mr. Speaker. Democracy would not work unless that challenge was there.
1046
I hope that nobody on the other side will suggest that we on this side disregard, or want to disregard, the right of anybody in this House to challenge it in the way in which it can be done in accordance with the rules of the House. From the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and other speeches made by hon. Members opposite tonight, I think that the real gravamen of the Motion is in a way misdirected. For technical reasons, the attack has to be on the Chairman of Ways and Means, but, in fact, the charge which hon. Gentlemen made is an attack on the Chief Whip, and maybe on the Leader of the House; and that was exemplified in what the hon. Lady was saying. That is fair game. We all attack the Chief Whip at one time or another.
Mrs. White: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I said that in my view the Chairman of Ways and Means was guilty of an error of judgment, which, in the Chairman of Ways and Means, is a serious matter.
Sir J. Duncan: I said that the main charge was against the Chief Whip and perhaps the Leader of the House, and I will leave it at that. The record is there.
Mr. S. Silverman: That is not true.
Sir J. Duncan: I want to say only one thing more. I do not want myself to go into the argument whether the Chairman of Ways and Means made an error of judgment, as the hon. Lady thinks, or not. I do not want to go into that, because in my view, for what it is worth, in the circumstances of that night, he did not make an error of judgment. Even if he had, I should like to say that in my time, when I used to play cricket I was often out 1.b.w. wrongly when the ball was well outside the leg stump, and I accepted it. I used to play football, and I was judged offside when I was not offside many times, but I accepted it.
This is the first occasion on which the conduct of the deservedly popular Chairman of Ways and Means has been called in question at all. If this was the culmination of a series of charges, it would be a different thing altogether. I believe that the House of Commons will be doing its best and finest duty to democracy if the Opposition, having

1047
made this challenge, to which everybody has agreed they have the right, now drop the matter and not have a Division.
I should like to appeal to the Opposition, and to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who is temporarily in charge at this moment. The consequences of a Division might have a very serious effect on my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, and as I believe that the attack is mainly directed not against him, but only for technical reasons, on an error of judgment, I hope and believe that there will not be a Division tonight, so that the question of my right hon. Friend's resignation does not arise.
But if the Opposition are determined to divide, I would echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said, and hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means will not resign in any case.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. Jack Jones: I rise as an individual who has never yet, in fifteen and a half years in this House, opened that well-known book known as Erskine May. I do not want to go into all the things that happened in regard to the constitutional procedure concerning the conduct of this House. Sir Walter Citrine's book on good chairmanship was enough for me, and my chairmanship and knowledge of the conduct of affairs was gleaned in a hard school amongst ordinary men.
I want to speak as an ordinary man who expects to be treated as such, who expects to be treated as an elected representative by good people on both sides of the House, and who expects, on occasions such as last Wednesday, to be treated as men should be treated. The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) hit the nail on the head when he referred to his cricketing days. When I was captain of my cricket team and things got a bit sticky, I tried to rearrange the batting order. I did not try to stop people going into bat. I did not try to stop people using their wiles in the use of the ball.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has been alluded to as a fine and fair-minded person. I would not know. I have never gone into his job sufficiently
1048
to know whether he was or was not. On the occasion to which we are now referring, however—if he could put his hand on his heart and say otherwise, I should have less faith in myself and my judgment—I honestly and sincerely believe that there was collusion to stop Members on this side from saying their piece.
I sat throughout the whole of the proceedings. I had a quiet word with the Leader of the House afterwards. I would say for him—he would probably be prepared to say it for himself—that he was sincerely sorry to know that this had happened. These things are the forerunner to the breakdown of democracy. Do not let us kid ourselves. It only wants somebody to raise a hand or for an elbow to be raised for a free-for-all to happen in the conditions that arose. We have seen that kind of thing happen, on radio and in television, in other countries.
I am as rough a Member of the House as there is in it. I am not one of those chaps who is given to finesse and to all the wonderful raising of points of order that are not points of order. I did not raise any of the thirty-two alleged points of order that were not. I am not good at it. Some people are too clever at it and it counts for nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That goes for all sides of the House. Members who cannot get called to make a speech raise a point of order and get it in the paper. That sort of thing cuts no ice with me.
The Patronage Secretary was utterly failing in his judgment of the atmosphere of the House. He utterly failed to judge the atmosphere that was prevailing. The last buses had gone and there were no more trains to catch, unless there was somebody who could run a damned sight faster that I can. It was early in the morning. There was no desperately urgent other business. There was a situation in which a lot of honest-to-God representatives of honest-to-God people were anxious and wanting to raise something which bites deeply into their souls—the question of what we consider to be the ill treatment of the poorest of the poor. Rightly so, hon. Members on this side wished to raise their point of view and to press it home. They knew that at the end of the day the Question would be

1049
carried against them. No Patronage Secretary, or any other secretary, or Chairman of Ways and Means, or, indeed, Mr. Speaker, has the right in the atmosphere then prevailing to do what was done.
We saw then an attitude of mind. We have done it ourselves. Bosses in industry do it. Big men in the trade union movement do it. We get too big a sense of our own importance, and we are not as important as all that. Democracy must survive. My allegation is that the Patronage Secretary arranged to shut the shop. He shut up the membership of his own party and he made provision to shut up the membership of this party.
Let us get it right and be honest about it. Hon. Members on this side rightly, and by means of their democratic privileges and rights, decided that there would be the devil of a row about it. In the interests of this great land of ours, which is one of the few remaining democracies, I hope and trust that treatment of the kind that I saw here, between man and man, by the Patronage Secretary, by the Leader of the House or, indeed, by Speakers of this House, will never arise again through what I consider to be a misjudgment of the atmosphere of decent people.
9.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have listened with great interest to the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I agree with him that it is not the first time that a Motion has been put down which is critical of the Chair or of the Chairman of Committees. He reminded us of the occasion on 8th December, 1952, when there was a Motion by the Opposition on the conduct of Sir Charles MacAndrew, as he then was, in accepting the Closure.
There has also been reference to the occasion on 21st June, 1951, When there was criticism of Major Milner in selecting Amendments to the Finance Bill. I would agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and hope that we may send a message of good will to Lord Milner, who is at present in hospital after his serious operation.
Then there was the occasion on 13th April, 1949, of the Motion by the then Mr. Quintin Hogg on the conduct of Major Milner for refusing to order a Member to withdraw words. Looking at
1050
the response of the Leader of the House of the day, and the similarity of the terms of this Motion, I should just like to use some words Which, I think, were wise words used by Mr. Attlee, as he then was, on 13th April, 1949. This is what he said:
" The hon. Gentleman has been conducting this post mortem in the calm of this afternoon, but we have to look at what the Chair did in a very different atmosphere at the end of a hot debate, with a crowded House, and with a great deal of noise and with accusations being flung across the Floor…. The suggestion is that in every case the Chairman's duty is simple and that he has to take a certain action. However, I do not think it is always quite that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2871.]
I think that it is against the background of sensible observations such as that, made on previous occasions, that we have to consider, first, the wisdom of putting down the Motion, and secondly, the undesiraibility of carrying it. Here, I should like to make quite clear that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I think that it would be wrong that a Motion like this should be carried. After a suitable debate we trust that the Opposition, in their wisdom, will consider withdrawing it in the interests of the Chair and of the historic regard which all Members have for the Chair despite the anxiety and difficulties which they have voiced today.
I have quoted two other instances, in 1951 and 1952. My predecessor as Leader of the House in 1952, when the Chairman of Ways and Means was attacked on the question of the Closure, said that
" the Chairman of Ways and Means Is, naturally, always in a difficulty … when any question of Closure comes up."
He went on to point out that the House had given discretion to the Chair, and he went on to take up the point which is in this Motion, namely, the question of majorities and minorities, and he said:
" Therefore, while the rights of minorities have to be safeguarded, all the rights of the majority cannot be thrown right over, nor can the rights of the House as a body be long out of the mind of the occupant of the Chair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th December. 1952; Vol. 509, c. 91.]
Those are the precedents for a debate like this, and it will be seen that the attempt has been made to conduct the debate in as reasonable a tone as possible and particularly with regard to the

1051
feelings of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means on this occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) pointed out the difficult character of that debate—of which I have the Official Report before me—and anybody who experienced it, like the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), will be aware that it was exceptionally noisy and rowdy. My right hon. Friend mentioned that there were 32 points of order, many of them on the question whether the Closure was put or not. Indeed, at one point the hon. Member for Gloucesitershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), whose observations I have here, said that he would not allow the Minister to deal with the points which had been raised. He preferred to be named rather than to permit my right hon. Friend to do so. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had the greatest difficulty in saying anything at all, rising, as he did, continually to his feet.
My only point in mentioning this is not to increase bitterness, which I do most sincerely regret. I regret, as did the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), the whole episode. My point in saying this is that I am absolutely convinced that in the atmosphere of the observations made to the Chair, and the general unruliness which went on, the Chair was submitted to a great deal of strain and pressure. I do not dispute that the judgment of the Chair was caused by the disturbance which took place. I should like hon. Members, in all humanity, to consider that, before they decide to vote and, if possible, after making that protest, not to vote on this occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quoted Standing Order No. 29, which says:
"… unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, 'That the question be now put,' shall be put forthwith…." I should like to say quite definitely that the Government are no less behind the sense of Standing Order No. 29 than the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. If the debate gives me an opportunity of saying that, it will at any rate have done some good, because it is not my idea to stir up further trouble, but rather to try to get us back on the
1052
paths of democracy and working together in the House for which the hon. Member for Rotherham appealed.
Mr. G. Brown: Some of us have judgment to exercise here—a judgment that weighs heavily on us. So far, the right hon. Gentleman has said absolutely nothing about the real reasons for the Chair being under pressure and has offered us nothing at all in the way of guarantee about the future conduct of Government business and future regard for the right of minorities in the House. Will he discuss that in relation to the Patronage Secretary's attitude?
Mr. Butler: I have discussed the background and, as in my previous speech, I was proceeding with the course of my speech. But I thought that it was right to take up the request of the Leader of the Opposition and say that we stand behind the spirit of Standing Order No. 29, and certainly we expect the Chair to do so too.
Here, I come to another attempt to introduce a little more calm and sanity into the situation by reminding hon. Members, and especially those who have not been with us a very long time, that this is not all so terrible as was made out. That is to say, the Closure has been frequently moved in the House and frequently in an atmosphere of considerable upset.
I have some indications here of what happened, when hon. and right hon. Members opposite were in power between 1945 and 1951 of when the Closure was moved and the number of times that it was accepted by the Chair. In 1950–51, for example, during their last year of office, it was moved 24 times and assent was given on 22 of those 24 occasions.
Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has changed the rules since then.
Mr. Butler: The figures I have quoted give some indication of the fact that the Closure was frequently moved in those days and very often accepted by the Ohair. In 1945–46, there were 13 movings of the Closure and 11 were accepted by the Chair. Therefore, it has been the practice for a very considerable proportion of the Closures to be accepted by the Chair.
We really must be sensible and must not exaggerate the seriousness of the

1053
issue to which I am now coming. There has been considerable criticism of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I would only like to remind hon. Members opposite that on 24th June, 1946, when their Chief Whip, whom we all used to regard as one of the most benign and splendid Members of the House. was called by hon. Members a pocket Hitler and was derided with contempt on that occasion.
The atmosphere on that occasion, which I remember well, was far more bitter than on this. I also remind the House, from a long experience, that it is often the case that a Patronage Secretary, who has to look after the interests of the House and get Government business through, is the subject of accusations. All I want to make clear in this context is that my interpretation of his language, when he said that he might look a "precious ass" and when he said that it was an awkward position to be in, is, with my close personal knowledge of my right hon. Friend—and I am deliberately calling him my right hon. Friend—that he thought that his position was awkward and he was not certain what the result of moving the Closure would be.
There was in no sense collusion or an agreement or an understanding with the Chair. I think it very important to say that, because it represents the truth, which I have made it my business to find out. While there may be great feeling on this subject, it is at least satisfactory to know that, if feelings were roused, that was because of the general handling of the situation and not because of deliberate ill-will or collusion between the Government and the Chair.
The object of the Motion is not to criticise the Government. If it were to criticise the Government, the debate would be more legitimate and a Division would be legitimate, because we are here to be shot at. I and my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and other Ministers are here. I express my regret to the House that I did not properly judge the situation and come into the Chamber at the right time. It is true that I arrived late. I should have judged it and come in to help to deal with the situation. I regret that I did not do so. It is much better to be frank with the
1054
House and to say that that is what I feel. I misjudged the situation which, I thought, did not necessarily call for my presence.
The position, therefore, is that it is quite legitimate for the House to criticise me, the Chief Whip, and the Government. The more criticism we have, the better we shall thrive on it, but what I said earlier represents the truth. I think that the Chair was influenced by the rather serious atmosphere of threat of upset. [HON. MEMBERS: "By the Chief Whip's threat to move the Closure."] No, I do not believe that to have been the threat. [HON. MEMBERS: "You were not here."] As I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, I ask the Opposition seriously to consider, having made their protest, withdrawing the Motion.
I do not claim that anything that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposnion said was unreasonable I do claim that there was not deep feeling about the Ways and Means Resolution, although I do claim that when my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary said that there was time for the matter to be discussed throughout the stages of the Bill on the Floor of the House—and it has already agreed to take it on the Floor of the House—he was putting forward a perfectly legitimate case.
After all, we have agreed in Standing Orders to shorten the amount of time spent on Money Resolutions and, while I agree that a Ways and Means Resolution is the basis upon which we discuss the Budget, when a Ways and Means Resolution is introduced for a Bill of this nature, it does not mean that the subject is not to be discussed at length throughout the Bill's stages. It may have been an error of judgment, but it was perfectly sincere and honourable that there should be a shortening of the debate on that occasion.
Mr. Ross: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had agreed to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. Can you tell me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether a Bill based on a Ways and Means Resolution can be taken anywhere other than on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order in the conduct of the debate.
Mr. Butler: With his knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is correct. We would have taken the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, but I had stated at business questions time that we were to take it on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, he is correct and, based as as the Bill is, that would have been the normal thing to do. But that does not invalidate my argument. There was an opportunity for further discussion, and we knew that when the issue was raised.
The position has been well summed up by the hon. Member for Rotherham. If this is to lead to any sort of reduction in the liberty with which we discuss our affairs in this most ancient Mother of Parliaments I shall not stand for it for a moment. Nobody in my position—and it is over five years now that I have had this onerous task, which I have enjoyed, because I love the House—would want to see these liberties eroded. I do not believe that on this occasion the right victim is the Chairman of Ways and Means. I would rather the criticism were directed to myself, as Leader of the House. If it is, I will take it.
In view of the fact that the Chairman has not held his present office for a long time, but has had long experience before, and since he is a suitable person for the task, I appeal to the House not to go to a Division now. We will take note of the objections made by the Opposition and our joint determination to protect our rights of speech, but we should not take it out of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: One of the regrettable features of the debate is the fact that the Leader of the House is not able to speak from personal experience. One of the things the debate has done is to extract from him an expression of regret that he was not here to lead the House through the series of incidents that we have been discussing, and one of the curious and still unexplained incidents about the occurrences of last Thursday morning is that which happened when the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition moved to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and started to make a speech. His speech occupies one-and-
1056
one-third columns in HANSARD, but apparently nobody took any action to send for the Leader of the House, or even to inform him of what was going on.
In my experience, it has always been customary that when either the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition moves to report Progress the Leader of the House is sent for and invariably replies to such a Motion. But we had the extraordinary situation of the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition moving to report Progress and at the end of the speech in HANSARD the Chairman of Ways and Means rising and saying that he refuses to accept the Motion. I dare say that one of the reasons was the absence of the Leader of the House, who is able to exercise very little judgment about the matter, because of his ignorance of what occurred, owing to his absence.
Mr. William Hamilton: That does not stop him from asserting that the truth is as he sees it.
Mr. Swingler: A great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said is necessarily irrelevant and can, therefore, have no effect on the judgment of those who were actually present at the time.
It is a sad day when a Motion of this kind has to be moved. We do not want. Motions critical of the Chair to be continually moved. We want the Chair to be independent; we want hon. Members to have confidence in the independence of the Chair, and we want the Chair to be the guardian of order and the protector of free speech and minority rights. That is why we are moving the Motion. There is nothing personal in it. We are compelled to move the Motion on the basis of our experience last Thursday morning.
Let us consider the facts. Nobody can dispute that a very important issue was then under discussion. It was an issue of taxation. It was an increase in a poll tax to which many citizens violently object, and it is right that their objections should be registered in the House. It is also right that many hon. Members who feel strongly about it should be able to speak about it. But we had a situation where, after two and a half hours of debate on this important financial issue, the Chairman accepted the Closure. That is what we object to.

1057
It is not disputed that many Members were rising in their places when the Closure was moved by the Patronage Secretary and accepted by the Chair.
Those who have been in this House for any period of time know that debates on much less important Financial Resolutions and impositions on the citizens go on for many hours longer than the period last Wednesday night and Thursday morning before the Chair considers accepting a Closure Motion. That is the first point. It was a very important issue which ought to have been fully debated. Hon. Members were entitled to ask for it to be fully debated, they wished for that, a large number of hon. Members stood up, and not only on one side of the Committee. When the Patronage Secretary was moving the Closure, or putting up the Financial Secretary to speak, the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) rose because he had not been one of those who were browbeaten by the Patronage Secretary at that time.
The second thing was the curious behaviour of the Patronage Secretary himself in relation to the Chair. We all know that the job of the Patronage Secretary is to speed up Government business. Therefore, why on earth the Patronage Secretary should imagine that by rising to speak he could assuage the feelings of the Opposition; how he imagined that he was more likely to obtain order by rising and saying something, which he had had no intention of saying anyway, to satisfy the Opposition I do not know. It must have been only the absence of the Leader of the House which provoked him to do it. Everyone on this side of the House who was present at that time knows that from the beginning of the debate in the Committee the Patronage Secretary was going round browbeating Conservative Members to stop them from speaking. Many hon. Members on this side know that the Patronage Secretary actually told his hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) to sit down. They saw some hon. Members departing from the Chamber and they saw the Patronage Secretary have a conversation with the Chair. As has been said, it was from that point that the trouble arose.
1058
Of course, trouble arose because there had already been demonstrated the success of the Patronage Secretary at browbeating Government supporters to prevent them from speaking, and hon. Members were suspicious that the Parliamentary Secretary might succeed in pressuring the Chairman to accept the Closure at an earlier time. As soon as the Chairman called the Financial Secretary they naturally concluded that this was to be the result; that large numbers of hon. Members would be gagged; that there was not to be freedom of speech and that the Closure was to be accepted at an earlier time. Therefore it would be wrong for us if we did not pass a Motion to say clearly that the Closure ought not to have been accepted; freedom of speech ought not to have been denied; that it was quite wrong of the Chairman of Ways and Means first to accept the Closure Motion and then to go through whatever rigmarole it was that he went through in a situation in which widespread disorder had been provoked in the House by the activities of the Patronage Secretary and the acceptance by the Chair of the proposition he was making.
The Leader of the House talked about the number of times that Closures have been moved before, but he said nothing about after how many hours of debate the Closure was moved on other occasions, or how many hon. Members had been permitted to speak, or how many wished to speak on those occasions, or the importance of the issue or how many citizens were affected. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about all those matters. We have to consider this matter on its merits; the number of hon. Members who wish to speak; the action of the Patronage Secretary and the fact that the Chairman entered into collusion with him to deny free speech to a large number of hon. Members. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will very seriously weigh up their attitude on this issue in the interests of maintaining the independence of the chair and its function to protect minorities. I trust that, unless satisfactory assurances are given, we shall test the opinion of the House on the matter.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: I shall not detain the House for very long, but I want to say a word or two about

1059
this most unfortunate issue. I agree that I have never seen an occasion when the Closure has been moved which has not given rise to a great deal of feeling, but I must confess that I was surprised at the intensity of feeling shown by hon. and right hon. Members opposite on the occasion to which we are referring.
I am quite happy to accept the view that they feel very sincerely about this issue and that they are entitled to make a demonstration of their feelings. Nevertheless, I think that they are being a little harsh to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and much less than fair to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I realise that if is quite arguable whether a debate ought to go on for two hours, four hours or six hours. There is nothing definite about the length of time which it is proper for a debate to continue, but we must have some regard to particular circumstances of this debate. I happen to feel strongly about some of the things connected with the Bill. I certainly want to speak on it on Wednesday, if I am allowed to. [Laughter.] I was referring to your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, rather than to any prohibition on the part of the Patronage Secretary.
I was concerned about the Bill quite as seriously as hon. Members opposite, but I feel that there will be future occasions when this matter can be discussed. The time that was allowed for discussion of the Ways and Means Resolution was not, in my judgment, unreasonable. I say in my judgment and accept that there is a different view taken by hon. Members opposite. If is the duty of the Chair to judge whether, in the light of all the circumstances, the decision to accept the Closure should be taken and I say without hesitation I do not consider that that judgment was unreasonable.
No man combines in himself—except perhaps in his own misguided judgment—all the good qualities that could be combined in him, but I ask the House to accept the view that in our present Chairman of Ways and Means we have a man of very fine quality indeed. I have been in this House under a number of Chairmen of Ways and Means. They have had varying qualities. Some of them have been, perhaps, more efficient than my right hon. Friend the present Chairman of Ways and Means. Some
1060
have been efficient, but not as kindly as they might be. Some have not been as energetic as they might have been. In my judgment, no man has tried to be fairer than the present Chairman of Ways and Means and no man, in my experience, has any greater quality of natural kindness than the present Chairman of Ways and Means.
It may well be that on an occasion of this kind, when the House was in tremendous uproar—as bad an uproar as I have seen directed against the Chair during the whole time that I have been in this House—the Chairman was perhaps overwhelmed by the circumstances. I ask the House to bear in mind that in our present Chairman we have a man whose qualities are valuable to the House. I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite not to go into the Division Lobby to make this protest, but to content themselves with the representations that they have made—if I may say so—with restraint and in a very reasonable manner.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. John Diamond: I hope that I shall follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) in showing restraint. I know of no hon. Member on either side of the House who is more courteous than the Chairman of Ways and Means and I know of no one who has tried in the Chair to be fairer. Having said that, I want to explain why I propose to take part in any Division which is called this evening on this issue.
I take the point made by the Leader of the House; he and I desire that the freedom of speech which the whole of Parliament represents should not be damaged in any way, and it is because, ultimately, the freedom of the House rests in its most critical times upon the judgment of the occupant of the Chair that I am bound to say what I shall say, in the interests of the whole House.
I am not lacking in humanity. The Home Secretary appealed to us on the ground of humanity. Every one of us who has to think about this, if he could consult his own humanity and convenience, would never open his mouth on such a regrettable topic as this. I do not attack either the Chief Whip for what he did on that evening, or the Home Secretary, who said that he made

1061
an error of judgment. What I say is that because we have a Chief Whip of this kind and because we have a Home Secretary who, however helpful, is capable, like the rest of humanity, of making errors of judgment, we must, in the ultimate, rely on the judgment of the Chair.
If that judgment, as I shall attempt to show, is wholly lacking when it comes to the test, then the right of any Opposition—it matters not who is the Opposition—is endangered. The right of Parliament and of the procedure which we try to demonstrate to the world is the proper procedure if democracy is to flourish depends ultimately on the judgment of whoever is the occupant of the Chair at the point of time at which the right of the minority to go on expressing its view is terminated.
I realise only too well that the lot of the Chairman is not a happy lot. If he is a Conservative Chairman and he leans, or seems to lean, too much in favour of his own party, then he is said to be partial; if he seems to lean too much the other way, then he is said to be leaning over backwards. No one ever seems to suggest that he is capable of standing straight up. I refer to any Chairman. Gilbert might well have said that, taking one consideration with another, the Chairman's lot is not a happy one.
But the Chairman's position is vitally important. Your position, Mr. Speaker, is second to none in this country in maintaining freedom of speech. You are banished from the Chair throughout our Committee proceedings. That same judgment which you happily bring to your duty must, therefore, be brought to his duty by the Chairman of Ways and Means, because he is the supreme authority on those occasions—and so many of our vitally important decisions are taken in Committee of the whole House.
I am saying that the Government have made a mistake on this occasion in appointing to this office a man whose abilities are not appropriate to the dimensions of this task. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is no criticism of any man to say that his abilities are not appropriate to the dimensions of the task. It is a criticism of the person who appointed him to that task. I criticise the Government for having done so, but I repeat what I have said, I hope that
1062
I say it kindly and I certainly say it because I feel it to be true.
The Government are at fault throughout in appointing to this position Members who are not necessarily up to the task. The attitude throughout the House is to regard a Member who occupies the Chair as one who need not have many qualities, but to regard a Member who sits on the Front Bench as one who must have considerable qualities indeed. Hon. Members believe that when the Government need Members to fill the Chairmen's Panel, they look round, see someone and say of him, "He is a nice enough chap, without an idea in his head. Let us put him on the Chairmen's Panel". [La ughter.] I have been on the Chairmen's Panel since 1946.
I tried to follow the proceedings on the night in question as carefully as I could. Indeed, I was present in the Chamber throughout the whole proceedings, which does not go for every hon. Member who has spoken from the benches opposite. The whole of the proceedings as affecting the Chair were characterised by muddle and inability to appreciate the temper of the Committee and the precise procedure at appropriate times. The muddle and inability to show hon. Members where they were going and what they were discussing led in measure to the growth of the very disorder which in the end overwhelmed the Chair.
The first evidence I adduce in support of that is the Motion which hon. Gentlemen opposite have just passed. By passing the Motion they said that, notwithstanding the fact that all hon. Members who have spoken from this side said that they were unable to know what was going on or to hear what was going on, the Journal of the House, in saying that the voices were correctly taken, should stand. This can only be a direct and severe crticism of the chairmanship of the time.
My second reason is what happened when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition attempted to help matters by rising to speak to the Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again". When my right hon. Friend raised that issue, the Chair seemed to accept it. My interpretation of the passage in HANSARD is that my right hon. Friend rose and said, "May I move this Motion?" There was a pause, seeming to indicate assent, and

1063
my right hon. Friend continued. It was only after he had been speaking for a considerable time—thinking, as I thought, and as I suggest hon. Members thought—that this was the Question before the House that the Chairman decided that it was not the Question before the House.
Not being satisfied with that, at a later stage the Patronage Secretary was permitted to make a considerable intervention on a question which was wholly irrelevant if it had to do with a Motion before the Committee. It could have been relevant only to the Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." There was this pattern of "Yes", "No","Yes".in a short period of time.
I come now to the substance of the matter, namely, the Closure. It is still the case that collusion is not ruled out. This unfortunately stems from the question which I asked, which appears in col. 568. I invited the Chair to disclose whether the Patronage Secretary had mentioned the word "Closure". The Chair, quite properly, said, "Mind your own business". I make no objection whatsoever to that. That did not answer the question.
A considerable time afterwards my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) asked the same question, which appears in col. 587. The Chairman said:
" No application has been made to me for the Closure, and I have given an assurance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 624, c. 587.]
Would it not have eased the temper of the Committee very considerably if the assurance had been given straight away? We were first told that the Chair would not answer. Later, we were told that no assurance had been given. On top of that, we are left with the awful situation that there is every superficial appearance of collusion between the Patronage Secretary and the Chair.
The Patronage Secretary said that he would "look a precious ass" if he moved the Closure without having first made sure that it would be accepted. Let me assure the Patronage Secretary, in his absence, that nobody regards him as a precious ass. Yet he did at a most
1064
unlikely time move the Closure, and the Motion was accepted. Therefore, by his own conduct he was indicating that when he was moving that the Question be put before allowing a reply to the debate he knew it was likely to be accepted and that he was not going to be made to look a precious ass.
So we are still left, through the conduct of the Chair, and through the uncertainty of the Chair, in the position that there was a possibility of collusion between the Chair and the Patronage Secretary on this most vital issue, the rights of the minority to express itself reasonably.
I now come to the substance of this, that it was prematurely accepted. I need not seek any 'better argument than that of the Chief Whip, when he said:
"… in Committee, that is a procedure which is normally followed."—
that is to say—
" My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary proposes to answer some of the points which have so far been put in this rather complicated debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 585.]
That is our point. That procedure is normally followed in Committee that these points having been made somebody on the Front Bench should rise and answer them, and the Chief Whip knew that was normal. Yet he moved the Closure and prevented that normality having effect.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): In fairness, since the hon. Member has referred to that, between the first intervention of the Patronage Secretary and the second intervention of the Patronage Secretary I had made, as I have just looked up, five separate attempts to reply to points raised in the debate, but on all those occasions the House refused to hear me. And it should be noted that they were not points of order but, on the contrary, hon. Members opposite and two hon. Members, in particular, shouted "No" every time I rose to my feet. It is only fair to remember that that happened between the first intervention of the Patronage Secretary and the second.
Mr. Diamond: I accept entirely what the Financial Secretary says, but those noises of approval I hear from the hon. Gentleman opposite illustrate my fear.

1065
The Financial Secretary has said that just because he was unable to say anything. That is the reason for putting the Closure. That is the whole of our objection. The Financial Secretary says that we must make progress, and if we cannot, shut up the Opposition. That is not the function of the Chair. The Chair should decide whether anything special remains to be said or whether it has been said already. The Chair must decide whether hon. Members mean what they are saying and are saying what is in their hearts or are just trying dilatory proceedings.
The Patronage Secretary had no right, having first said that the Financial Secretary would reply, to stop him replying. It is within the memory of the House. There is not a single hon. Member on this side who thought for a moment that the Government would attempt the Closure before the Financial Secretary had replied. The whole fear was that he might do it after the Financial Secretary had replied. It cannot be submitted that when one hon. Member out of—how many was it?
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Three hundred and sixty-one.
Mr. Diamond: —Conservative supporters of the Government had spoken on this, and one more was on his feet trying to speak, it was appropriate to shut up the second hon. Member on the Government side who wanted to say something. It is inconceivable to me that any Chairman could conclude that everything worth while saying by the Government had been said when only two speeches had been made. It was our sincere desire to speak and it was not dilatory. I know that from my own feelings and the feelings of my hon. Friend, and as has been admitted by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). Had the circumstances been different one could have come to a different conclusion.
I therefore say that all this difficulty, this lack of clarity, this grave error of judgment, at a point that affects the minority profoundly, are all attributable to the fact that the Government have made this fundamental error in appointing to this most responsible job a person whose abilities were not appropriate to it, and I think that we have to accept that unfortunate conclusion.
Mr. George Brown rose —
9.45 p.m.
Major Sir Frank Markham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the right hon. Gentleman speaks, I wonder whether you could enlighten us on what would be the repercussions of this debate in certain quarters on the assumption—[H ON. MEMBERS: "Order."] This is a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker. If this Division were passed, then, obviously, the Chairman of Ways and Means would have to resign straight away—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that it would be within the traditions of the House that it should be so—
Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman come to what he says is his point of order?
Sir F. Markham: Can you advise the House as to Whether, in the case of this Motion being defeated, it would still be within Parliamentary tradition and practice that the Chairman of Ways and Means should resign?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that hon. Members on either side, or in any part of the House, will not try to raise in the guise of points of order things that are not.
Mr. Brown: I opened the previous debate, Mr. Speaker, and enjoyed doing so. I wind up this debate with no pleasure at all. I am as concious as, I imagine, every hon. Member in this House that in the heart of one man listening to this debate there must be great heaviness, whatever subsequently happens. One therefore gets little pleasure out of what one now feels one has to say, and one only says it because it has to be said.
I have listened to most of this debate. I listened especially carefully to the Leader of the House, and I have been a little shocked—shocked not only with the Leader of the House but with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and others on that side, because there still seems to be in them no real recognition of what went wrong, and of what was done wrongly. Appeals have been made to us: "Having made your protest, now let it go. Don't do more than that." There have been references to playing cricket, but no one on that side has

1067
referred to the fact that we on this side are suffering under a great sense of injustice—under a great sense of the rules having been rigged against us.
It is not a case of someone changing the batting order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said, or of someone changing the bowling order; to put it brutally frankly, we think that someone got at the umpire. I sat here waiting for someone to say something—indeed, in an interruption I invited the Leader of the House to say something—about that, and something about the future in relation to that. Had he done so—well, we are quite free to exercise our judgment.
No one approached that subject, and when I asked the Leader of the House about the future, with his Chief Whip here and about his approach to the minority, the approach to the right of the House and the right of Members freely to discuss right down to the end, all I got from the Leader of the House was the brush-off, and nothing further. This is a shocking thing, and I do not think that even yet hon. and right hon. Members opposite have clearly grasped the issue.
Last week marked a water-shed. Last week marked a dividing line. Perhaps we have accepted too easily in this Parliament that the majority the Government have entitles them to do all that they have been doing. It was blatant last week. The hon. Member for Cheadle said that he was surprised at the intensity of feeling on this side. What happened last week was so blatant and so open, without even trouble taken to go through the form, that we feel the time has come to put a stop to it. Even a party with a majority of 100 against it—thank God for our Parliamentary system—can, if it wishes, call a halt.
What happened last week was not merely that the Opposition was ruled out. It was not merely that somebody decided, rightly or wrongly, with good judgment or with bad, that the time had come to end the debate. We believe that the Government Front Bench got together with the occupant of the Chair for the time being and arranged that at one o'clock in the morning an end should be called to the debate.
Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me—
Mr. Brown: No.
Sir K. Pickthorn: Is this freedom of debate? Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw what he has just said?
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Member who is addressing the House does not give way, the hon. Member must not persist—
Sir K. Pickthorn: I want only a quarter of a minute.
Mr. Speaker:—even for a quarter of a minute.
Mr. Brown: I have waited until the very end. What I have to say I must say in the few minutes remaining to me.
Sir K. Pickthorn: Closure.
Mr. Brown: It may well be moved on me. All these interruptions make it the more likely that it will be.
Sir K. Pickthorn: All what interruptions?
Mr. Brown: What I have to say I must say because I feel that it has to be said. Whichever way the vote goes tonight, there ought to be a different attitude on the benches opposite to us and to the subject of debate in this House. Let us have the matter clear. This was not just another Bill. This was not just a filibuster on another Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no use growling like that. This was and is part of a series of Bills and Orders affecting something which goes right to the heart of the feelings of not only a large part of this House but of a very large part of the country outside. It is something on which, if hon. and right hon. Members want to do it, we at least have the right to ask them to listen.
We had been a very short time indeed on the Ways and Means Resolution. It is perfectly true that we had interrupted the Financial Secretary's attempts to answer several times. But I had myself, in the passage I quoted earlier today, told the Patronage Secretary that we should be delighted to hear the Financial Secretary, we should be delighted to facilitate his addressing the

1069
Committee, but we wanted an assurance, after the conversations which had gone on with the Chair, that, if we did so, this would not be used by the Patronage Secretary as an excuse subsequently for the Closure. I told him that one could not get away with that kind of thing. All we required was that assurance. We should willingly hear the Financial Secretary, and then the debate could proceed.
It was the failure of the Patronage Secretary to reply to that, and his use of what we all thought was going to be his reply to it in order to move the Closure in a fit of temper, that produced the subsequent disorder to which references have been made.
It has been said that, because we have pointed out what we regard is the real culpability of the Government Chief Whip, that is a good case, to quote the words of one hon. Member, for not taking it out of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Certainly the Chief Whip should not have put him in the position he did. I am absolutely clear on that, and I said that to the Chairman of Ways and Means on the night in question. I would have been much more impressed with these appeals about cricket and the rest if a Minister had said a word of regret on behalf of the Patronage Secretary. The Leader of the House, who was not present and cannot know what happened except at second-hand, was noble enough and big enough to take upon himself a measure of responsibility which was not his. But no one spoke for the Patronage Secretary. He has sat there all day. From him there has been no word of regret or apology. He made two speeches the other night. He was not so silent then. Had he been
silent it may be that these troubles would not have arisen.
Now that we have found the Patronage Secretary guilty—and he has been notably ill-supported by the Government side of the House during the day—I come to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and what I have to say here gives me no pleasure at all. We think that not only did he show bad judgment of the kind which any of us, God help us, might at any time show. We think that he did, in fact, enter into an arrangement. We think that the Patronage Secretary did, in fact, know that when he chose to move the Closure he would get it. Furthermore, we think that subsequently, when we were trying to raise the issue from this Box, the Chairman of Ways and Means persisted for a long time in not seeing us, in not seeing the Committee, and in going on with a private talk with the Whip under the cover of which public business was purported to be done and was subsequently alleged to be done. We regard the second part of that as the greater sin of the two.
In all those circumstances, having listened to what everybody has had to say, and having thought about it, we believe that we ought to say with the utmost respect—perhaps kindliness is not the right word—that we think that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not measure up to his job that night. Whoever led him into the position is not the point. We must therefore mark the fact that from here on we would not have confidence in him by dividing the House.
Question put: —
The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 302.

Division No. 47.1

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Ainsley, William

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belner)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Albu, Austen

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Deer, George

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Delargy, Hugh

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Callaghan, James

Diamond, John

Awbery, Stan

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Dodds, Norman

Bacon, Miss Alice

Chetwynd, George

Donnelly, Desmond

Baird, John

Cliffe, Michael

Driberg, Tom

Beaney, Alan

Collick, Percy

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F.J.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Edelman, Maurice

Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Blyton, William

Cronin, John

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Boardman, H.

Crosland, Anthony

Evans, Albert

Bowles, Frank

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Finch, Harold

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Darling, George

Fitch, Alan

Brockway, A. Fenner

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Fletcher, Eric

Broughton, Dr, A. D. D.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McCann, John

Ross, William

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

MacColl, James

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mcinnes, James

Short, Edward

George, LadyMeganLloyd (C'rm'rth'n)

McKay, John (wallsend)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Ginsburg, David

Mackie, John

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Gourlay, Harry

McLeavy, Frank

Skeffington, Arthur

Greenwood, Anthony

MacMlllan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Grey, Charles

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

Small, William

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Manuel, A, C.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mapp, Charles

Snow, Julian

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Sorensen, R. W.

Hannan, William

Marsh, Richard

Spriggs, Leslie

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Mason, Roy

Steele, Thomas

Hayman, F. H.

Mayhew, Christopher

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Healey, Denis

Mellish, R. J.

Stones, William

Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur (RwlyRegis)

Mendelson, J. J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Mlllan, Bruce

Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Milne, Edward J.

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

Hilton, A. V.

Mitchison, G. R.

Swain, Thomas

Holman, Percy

Monslow, Walter

Swingler, Stephen

Houghton, Douglas

Moody, A. S.

Sylvester, George

Howell, Charles A.

Morris, John

Symonds, J. B.

Hoy, James H.

Moyle, Arthur

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W-)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oliver, G. H.

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Oram, A. E.

Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

Hunter, A. E.

Oswald, Thomas

Thornton, Ernest

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Owen, Will

Timmons, John

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Padley, W. E.

Tomney, Frank

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Paget, R. T.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Janner, Sir Barnett

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Wainwright, Edwin

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Pargiter, G. A.

Warbey, William

Jeger, George

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Weitzman, David

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Parkin, B. T. (paddlngton, N.)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Peart, Frederick

Whitlock, William

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Pentland, Norman

Wilcock, Croup Capt. C. A. B.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wilkins, W. A.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Popplewell, Ernest

Willey, Frederick

Kelley, Richard

Prentice, R. E.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Kenyon, Clifford

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Williams, LI. (Abertlliery)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Probert, Arthur

Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

Lawson, George

Proctor, W. T.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Ledger, Ron

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Winterbottom, R. E.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Randall, Harry

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Rankin, John

Woof, Robert

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Redhead, E. C.

Wyatt, Woodrow

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Reld, William

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Lipton, Marcus

Reynolds, G. W.

Zilliacus, K.

Logan, David

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Loughlin, Charles

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Mr. Bowden and Mr. Rogers.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Cordle, John

Aitken, W. T.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Corfield, F. V.

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Braine, Bernard

Costain, A. P.

Arbuthnot, John

Brewis, John

Coulson, J. M.

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Atkins, Humphrey

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Balniel, Lord

Brooman-white, R.

Crltchley, Julian

Barber, Anthony

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. 0. E.

Barlow, Sir John

Bryan, Paul

Crowder, F. P.

Barter, John

Bullard, Denys

Cunningham, Knox

Batsford, Brian

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Curran, Charlet

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Burden, F. A.

Currie, G. B. H.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Bell, Ronald

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

Dance, James

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos & Fhm)

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Deedes, W. F.

Berkeley, Humphry

Carr, Compton (Baron* Court)

de Ferranti, Basil

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Bidgood, John C.

Chabnnon, H. P. G.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Biggs-Davison, John

Chataway, Christopher

Doughty, Charles

Bingham, R. M.

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Drayson, G. B.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

du Cann, Edward

Bishop, F. P.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Duncan, Sir James

Black, Sir Cyril

Cleaver, Leonard

Duthle, Sir William

Bossom, Clive

Cole, Norman

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Cooper, A. E.

Elliott,R.W. (N'wc'stte-upon-Tyne,N.)

Box, Donald

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Emery, Peter

1072

1073

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Kitson, Timothy

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Errington, Sir Eric

Lagden, Godfrey

Rees, Hugh

Farey-dones, F. W.

Lambton, Viscount

Rees-Davies, W, R.

Farr, John

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Ronton, David

Fell, Anthony

Langford-Holt, J.

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Finlay, Graeme

Leather, E. H. c.

Ridsdale, Julian

Fisher, Nigel

Leavey, J. A.

Rlppon, Geoffrey

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Robsan Brown, Sir William

Forrest, George

Lilley, F. J. P.

Roots, William

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lindsay, Martin

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Freeth, Dentil

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Gammans, Lady

Litchfield, Capt. John

Russell, Ronald

Gardner, Edward

Longbottom, Charles

Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Longden, Gilbert

Scott-Hopkins, James

Gibson-Watt, David

Loveys, Walter H.

Seymour, Leslie

Glover, Sir Douglas

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Sharpies, Richard

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Shepherd, William

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

McAdden, Stephen

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Goodhart, Philip

MacArthur, Ian

Skeet, T. H. H.

Goodhew, victor

McLaren, Martin

Smithers, Peter

Gower, Raymond

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs.)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Green, Alan

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Speir, Rupert

Gresham Cooke, R.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Grimston, Sir Robert

McMaster, Stanley R.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Stodart, J. A.

Gurden, Harold

Maddan, Martin

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maginnis, John E.

Storey, Sir Samuel

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Maitland, Sir John

Studholme, Sir Henry

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Marlowe, Anthony

Tapsell, Peter

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Marshall, Douglas

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Marten, Neil

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Hastings, Stephen

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Hay, John

Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)

Teeling, William

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mawby, Ray

Temple, John M.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir dames

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Mills, Stratton

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Montgomery, Fergus

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Hinchlngbrooke, Viscount

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Morgan, William

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Hobson, John

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Hocking, Philip N.

Nabarro, Gerald

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Holland, Philip

Neave, Airey

Turner, Colin

Hollingworth, John

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Noble, Michael

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hopkins, Alan

Nugent, Sir Richard

Vane, W. M. F.

Hornby, R. P.

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

Hornsby-Smitk, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Vickers, Miss Joan

Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admlral John

Page, John (Harrow, west)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pannell, Norman (Klrkdale)

Wall, Patrick

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Partridge, E.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Hutchison, Michael dark

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Iremonger, T. L.

Peel, John

Watts, James

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Percival, Ian

Webster, David

Jackson, John

Peyton, John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

James, David

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Whitelaw, William

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Jennings, J. C.

Pllkington, Sir Richard

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Pitman, I.J.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pitt, Miss Edith

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Pott, Percivall

Wise, A. R.

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Joseph, Sir Keith

Price, David (Eastielgh)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Prior, J. M. L.

Woodnutt, Mark

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Woollam, John

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Worsley, Marcus

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Proudfoot, Wilfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kershaw, Anthony

Quennell, Miss J, M.

Colonel J. H. Harrison and

Kimball, Marcus

Ramsden, James

Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Kirk, Peter

Rawlinson, Peter

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put: —
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from
the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Wr. R. A. Butler.]
The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 216.

Division No. 48.]

AYES

[10.10 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

du Cann, Edward

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Aitken, W. T.

Dunoan, Sir James

Kershaw, Anthony

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Duthie, Sir William

Kimball, Marcus

Arbutnnot, John

Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

Kirk, Peter

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Elliott, R. W. (N 'wc'stle-upon-Tyne, N.) Kitson, Timothy

Atkins, Humphrey

Emery, Peter

Lambton, Viscount

Bainiel, Lord

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Barber, Anthony

Errington, Sir Eric

Langford-Holt, J.

Barlow, Sir John

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Leather, E. H. C.

Barter, John

Farr, John

Leavey, J. A.

Batsford, Brian

Fell, Anthony

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Finlay, Graeme

Lilley, F. J. P.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Fisher, Nigel

Lindsay, Martin

Bell, Ronald

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Forrest, George

Litchfield, Capt. John

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Longbottom, Charles

Berkeley, Humphry

Freeth, Denzil

Longden, Gilbert

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

Gammans, Lady

Loveys, Walter H.

Bldgood, John C.

Gardner, Edward

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Biggs-Davison, John

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bingham, R. M.

Gibson-Watt, David

MacArthur, Ian

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Glover, Sir Douglas

McLaren, Martin

Bishop, F. P.

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Black, Sir Cyril

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Maclean,SirFitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.)

Bossom, Clive

Goodhart, Philip

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Good hew, Victor

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Box, Donald

Gower, Raymond

McMaster, Stanley R.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Green, Alan

Maddan, Martin

Braine, Bernard

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maginnis, John E.

Brewis, John

Grimston, Sir Robert

Maitland, Sir John

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gurden, Harold

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Brooman-White, R

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marlowe, Anthony

Browne, Percy (Torrlngton)

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Marten, Neil

Bryan, Paul

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

Bullard, Denys

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Builus, Wing Commander Eric

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Mawby, Ray

Burden, F. A.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

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

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

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Mills, Stratton

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Hastings, S.

Montgomery, Fergus

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hay, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morgan, William

Carr, Robert (Mltcham)

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Channon, H. P. G.

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nabarro, Gerald

Chataway, Christopher

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Neave, Airey

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Noble, Michael

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hobson, John

Nugent, Sir Richard

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hocking, Philip N.

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Cleaver, Leonard

Holland, Philip

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Cole, Norman

Hollingworth, John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Cooper, A. E.

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hopkins, Alan

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Cordle, John

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Corfield, F. V.

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Partridge, E.

Costain, A. P.

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Coulson, J. M.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Percival, Ian

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Hughes-Young, Michael

Peyton, John

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Critchley, Julian

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Crowder, F. P.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pitman, I. J.

Curran, Charles

Jackson, John

Pitt, Miss Edith

Currie, G. B. H.

James, David

Pott, Percivall

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dance, James

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Prior, J. M. L.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Deedes, W. F.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

de Ferranti, Basil

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

proudfoot, Wilfred

Dlgby, Simon Wingfield

Joseph, Sir Keith

Quennell, Miss J.

Donaldson, Cmdr. c. E. M.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ramsden, James

Doughty, Charles

Kerans, Cdr. J.S.

Rawlinson, Peter

Drayson, G. B.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Rees, Hugh

Stodart, J. A.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stoddart-scott, col. Sir Malcolm

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Ronton, David

Storey, Sir Samuel

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Studholme, Sir Henry

Wall, Patrick

Ridsdale, Julian

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Rippon, Geoffrey

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Robson Brown, Sir William

Tapsell, Peter

Watts, James

Roots, William

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Webster, David

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Whitelaw, William

Russell, Ronald

Teeling, William

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

Temple, John M.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Seymour, Leslie

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Sharples, Richard

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Wise, A. R.

Shepherd, William

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Skeet, T. H. H.

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Woodnutt, Mark

Smithers, Peter

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Woollam, John

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Turner, Colin

Worsley, Marcus

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Speir, Rupert

Van Straubenzee, W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Vane, W. M. F.

Mr. Edward Wakefield and Mr. Peel.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

NOES

Abse, Leo

Gourlay, Harry

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

Ainsley, William

Greenwood, Anthony

Manuel, A. C.

Albu, Austen

Grey, Charles

Mapp, Charles

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Marsh, Richard

Awbery, Stan

Grimond, J.

Mason, Roy

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mayhew, Christopher

Baird, John

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Mellish, R. J.

Beaney, Alan

Hannan, William

Mendelson, J. J.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Millan, Bruce

Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Hayman, F. H.

Milne, Edward J.

Blackburn, F.

Healey, Denis

Mitchison, G. R.

Blyton, William

Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Monslow, Walter

Boardrnan, H.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Moody, A. S.

Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Morris, John

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Hilton, A. V.

Moyle, Arthur

Bowles, Frank

Holman, Percy

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Holt, Arthur

Oliver, G. H.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Houghton, Douglas

Oram, A. E.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Howell, Charles A.

Oswald, Thomas

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hoy, James H.

Owen, Will

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Padley, W. E.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Paget, R. T.

Callaghan, James

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Hunter, A. E.

Pargiter, G. A.

Chetwynd, George

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Cliffe, Michael

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Parkin, B. T. (Paddlngton, N.)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Pavitt, Laurence

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Cronin, John

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Peart, Frederick

Crosland, Anthony

Jeger, George

Pentland, Norman

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Darling, George

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Popplewell, Ernest

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

Prentice, R. E.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Davies, Ifor (Cower)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Probert, Arthur

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Proctor, W. T.

Deer, George

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Delargy, Hugh

Kelley, Richard

Randall, Harry

Diamond, John

Kenyon, Clifford

Rankin, John

Dodds, Norman

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Reid, William

Donnelly, Desmond

Ledger, Ron

Reynolds, G. W.

Driberg, Tom

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Edelman, Maurice

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Lipton, Marcus

Ross, William

Evans, Albert

Logan, David

Short, Edward

Finch, Harold

Loughlin, Charles

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Fitch, Alan

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Fletcher, Eric

McCann, John

Skeffington, Arthur

Foot, Dingle

MacColl, James

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Foot, Michael

Mcinnes, James

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McKay, John (Walleend)

Small, William

Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Mackie, John

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Galpern, Sir Myer

McLeavy. Frank

Snow, Julian

George,LadyMeganLloyd (C'rm'rth'n)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Sorensen, R. W.

Ginsburg, David

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Spriggs, Leslie

1078

1079

Steele, Thomas

Thornton, Ernest

Willey, Frederick

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Thorpe, Jeremy

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Stones, William

Timmons, John

Williams, LI. (Abertlliery)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Tomney, Frank

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

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

Wade, Donald

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Swain, Thomas

Wainwright, Edwin

Winterbottom, R. E.

Swingler, Stephen

Warbey, William

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Sylvester, George

Weitzman, David

Woof, Robert

Symonds, J. B.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Wyatt, Woodrow

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Zilliacus, K.

Thomas, lorworth (Rhondda, W.)

Whitlock, William

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for financial assistance for the white fish and herring industries, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) repealing the provisions limiting the power to pay subsidies to cases where the vessel does not exceed one hundred and forty feet in length and prohibiting subsidies in respect of voyages beyond the inshore, near and middle waters or in respect of fish taken in the course of such voyages;

(b) authorising increases, not exceeding three million pounds at a time, in the limit on the aggregate amount of the white fish and herring subsidies;

(c) increasing to twenty-five million pounds the limit on the amount outstanding at any time of the advances to the White Fish Authority under subsection (1) of section seventeen of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, as extended to Northern Ireland.

Resolution agreed to.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir NORMAN HULBERT in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF SCOPE OF WHITE FISH SUBSIDY, AND POWER TO INCREASE LIMIT ON SUBSIDIES.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: Before we go any further with this discussion, while the Leader of the House is still with us, will you permit me, Sir Norman, to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the Government's intentions are on this Bill? It is a Bill of tremendous importance, raising important issues and dealing with large sums of public money. The hour is already late and we want to know whether it is the intention of the Leader of the House and of the Government to push the Bill through whatever the time may be. On the other hand, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be a good thing if we took a Bill as important as this at a rather more
1082
convenient hour, when the public's attention could be focused on our proceedings?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) will remember that we had further Government business in the shape of a major Bill which we decided not to take tonight. In view of the arrangement of business, we decided to take this Bill through its Committee stage. That is our intention. I suggest that we try to make progress, making constructive criticisms, because normally the Bill would not have been expected to be very controversial. It is the sort of Bill which it would have been not unreasonable to have taken at this hour, and I think that we should see what progress we make and try to make as much progress as we can.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Leader of the House recollect that on former occasions when fishery Bills have come before the House at a late hour there have been protests from both sides of the House that fishing should be treated as the Cinderella of industries and saying that there was no reason why such Bills should not be taken at an earlier hour? On Second Reading, I made the point and the Minister concerned promised that the remaining stages of the Bill would be taken at an earlier hour. This practice is becoming too much of a habit, and it is an insult to a great industry that its interests should be debated always late at night. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to make other arrangements so that the Bill can be discussed adequately in the daytime and not late at night.
Mr. Harold Lever: On a point of order. In the light of what has occurred today and in view of the protracted nature of the debate which we have just had, would it be in order, Sir Norman, for someone to move to report Progress?
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): That is a hypothetical question as no one has yet moved that Motion.
Mr. Lever: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Temporary Chairman: I am not prepared to accept that Motion.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Before we proceed to the substance of this important Bill, upon which many of my hon. Friends will have important contributions to make, may I ask if the Leader of the House is really satisfied about what he is asking the House to do?
The Temporary Chairman: I have said that I will not accept the Motion to report Progress. Therefore, any discussion of this nature is quite irregular. The Question is, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. James H. Hoy: Before we proceed with the Clause, perhaps we may have an explanation regarding the Amendment. As a result of discussions we had when we were debating the Financial Resolution we decided to place an Amendment on the Order Paper. Are we to understand that it is not being called?
The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment is out of order.
Mr. Hoy: May we ask why it is out of order?
The Temporary Chairman: I can certainly tell the hon. Member why. It is outside the terms of the Money Resolution.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I am a supporter of the Amendment—
The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Member may or may not support the Amendment, but I have ruled it out of order, because it is outside the terms of the Money Resolution.
Mr. E. G. Willis: Can you help the Committee, Sir Norman? When the Money Resolution was before the House we had a long discussion about this. At what stage in the proceedings of the Bill can we amend the figure of £3 million?
The Temporary Chairman: The simple answer to the hon. Member is that he cannot amend the Money Resolution.
Mr. Hector Hughes: This works a very great injustice to people who are interested in the Bill. It is unjust that they should not receive any notice until the last moment that the Amendment is out of order. In my respectful submission, the Amendment is not out of order—
The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must inform the hon. and learned Member that I have given my Ruling. The Amendment is out of order because it is outside the terms of the Money Resolution.
Mr. Douglas Jay: As you have allowed the Leader of the House to make a short statement with regard to the Bill, Sir Norman, is it in order for me to address a question to the Leader of the House following his statement?
The Temporary Chairman: Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to question my Ruling by asking such a question of the Leader of the House?
Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I wish to follow your Ruling by asking the Leader of the House to elucidate his statement a little further.
The Temporary Chairman: We cannot have an irregular discussion. I have said that I will not accept the Motion to report Progress.
Mr. Hoy: This is an important change in the fishing industry, as the Minister will no doubt agree. So far, the industry has not paid subsidies of any kind to distant water trawlers. Because of the state of the industry, and as a result of the Report of the Fleck Committee, this extension of subsidies has been incorporated in the Bill. We shall have to watch very closely how it works, because changes will take place in the available fishing grounds, and we have not yet reached an agreement with Iceland as to the position in which our trawlers will be. I wonder whether the distant water fleet will be able to find grounds. I know that the Minister will argue that it is because of these difficulties that the Government have decided to extend the fishing subsidies in this way. That is within the scope of the Clause.
Some people, however, think that the subsidies might have been deferred for

1085
some time, and there are many others who think that they should be given for only a limited period, until such time as the distant water fleet completes the whole scheme of reorganisation as a result of the changes that are to take place, over which the industry has no control, in that certain new vessels will replace existing ones. We might be involved in considerable expenditure which will be essential for the well-being of that section of the British fishing fleet.
10.30 p.m.
Because of that, during discussion on the Money Resolution I asked the Minister to withdraw it. He was asking this Committee of the whole House to which the Bill has been referred to discuss freely and fully what the financial provisions might be, but we have not freedom to discuss them because the Minister insisted on presenting us with a Money Resolution which binds us to a sum not exceeding £3 million. The case might arise in which, because of certain plans, a sum even greater than that may be necessary to meet our needs. We wanted the Minister to leave the Committee free to make suggestions about how that position might be met, but unfortunately we cannot do that tonight because the Money Resolution was so tightly drawn that we have not any right as a Committee to make any suggestions to the Government.
In presenting that argument we thought we were giving the Minister freedom which he was denying himself and also asking that we should retain the right of the House of Commons to make suggestions, but that has gone by the board. I say to the Minister once more that I could not understand the argument he put before the House in one of his many interventions at that stage. The Minister, in reply to representations by my hon. Friends and myself, said:
" He should realise that this is not a once-for-all £3 million. When the Bill is enacted, if he thinks the £3 million is insufficient he can recommend the Government to come back wth another Order, which is within their power under the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 911.]
That is exactly what we were complaining about; we had no power to do that. We could suggest that there was not sufficient money, but there was
1086
no power left for this Committee to do anything about it. All we could hope to do was by some overwhelming case to make it obvious to the Minister that he would have to bring in another Money Resolution. As a result of the Resolution being so tightly drawn, the Minister is in the position that if proposals are made by the industry and approved by the Government entailing £3½ million, the Minister will have to come to the House with two orders, one for £3 million and one for £½ million. It seems absurd that neither the House nor the Minister has the right to meet such a situation.
I am bound to recall what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who outlined the duty of the Government. We believe that by drawing the Resolution so tightly the Minister has deprived us of our right. On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I make a strong protest to the Minister about the financial provisions in the Bill and the Financial Resolution.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I associate myself with the protest which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). We pursued this matter on the Money Resolution, without much satisfaction, and because we had little satisfaction it is impossible for us to amend the Clause to enable us to discuss certain points in connection with it. I hope that some of my hon. Friend's questions will be answered by one of the Ministers present. I do not know which will reply, but, in addition to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food we have with us, I am delighted to say, the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that both Ministers are well briefed for a long session.
The Clause contains an important departure in the principle of paying subsidies. For the first time in the history of the country we propose to pay subsidies to the distant water fleet. This is a departure and not a continuation of something which has been going on for years. We ought, therefore, to discuss it.
I made some comments on Second Reading, some of which I wish to repeat, not only to express my point of view

1087
but also to get some answers. The Government are guilty of a bit of sharp practice. They have jumped the gun. They are giving effect to one of the important recommendations of the Fleck Committee before we have had a chance to discuss the Fleck Committee's Report. Surely the House should have discussed the various aspects of that Report, and the Minister should have stated what he intends to do as a result of it, before this Clause was introduced asking us to put into operation one of the most important recommendations of the Committee.
It is difficult to dissociate the debate from the Fleck Committee's Report, because the argument whether we should give the subsidy at present is bound up with that Report. According to the Fleck Committee, we can expect no diminution in fish landings but we can expect a diminution in the size of the fishing fleet. As I said on Second Reading, before we agree to the subsidy the Minister should tell us what he expects the size of the distant water fleet to be when the Fleck Committee's proposals are put into operation. We are discussing a subject when we have not full information about it. We are discussing granting a new subsidy to part of a fishing fleet when we do not know its future size. That is like asking for a blank cheque. Unless we examine this procedure we are not doing our job.
10.45 p.m.
There was a minority Report by George Middleton against the granting of a subsidy to the distant water fleet. He said that many men in this section of the industry had gone about the country boasting of the profits they were making. I have not the Report with me, but that was the purport of his observations. He said that we should think carefully before we extended the subsidy to this section of the fleet, because many people in it were not in need of a subsidy.
What will be the result of this action? We are now for the first time extending a subsidy to this section of the fishing fleet. This will enable it to be modernised and make it possible for it to adapt itself to the new conditions in which it will have to operate. We shall
1088
make it more efficient and more capable of obtaining its catch, bringing it to these shores and marketing it.
If we are to do that with no knowledge of the future size of the fleet, given the general background of the Report, namely that there is to be a slight overall reduction in the size of the fishing fleet, this section will benefit at the expense of the inshore fleet. I pointed this out on Second Reading, and as a Scottish Member of Parliament I think this is particularly important for Scotland. Over 50 per cent. of the catch in Scotland is landed by inshore fishermen. Scottish Members of Parliament must watch this, because it is something of a threat to the inshore fishing fleet. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Perhaps the hon. Member will take part in the debate and enlighten me. I am willing to be enlightened, because I am not an authority on this. If the fishing fleet as a whole is to be reduced in size and we are now setting about making this section more able to fish efficiently in the future, the remainder of the fleet will suffer a disadvantage.
Mr. John Hall: Is it not the fact that the inshore fishing fleets on the whole obtain quality fish, whereas the distant water trawlers go after cod and coarser fish of that kind? They do not compete with one another.
Mr. Willis: That may be so, but it does not answer my question.
Mr. H. Lever: Is it not a fact that, though the inshore fleets, seeking as they do quality fish, compared with the rather coarser fish sought by the distant water fleet, do not compete with the distant water fleet in the market sense, they do compete for Labour and for crews? I do not pretend to have expertise, and it would help the Committee if some of the experts helped the more innocent members of the Committee as the debate proceeds.
Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) has pointed out some of the problems we should discuss before we pass the Clause.
Mr. Thomas Steele: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) should point out to the Committee that we

1089
recognise that the inshore fishing fleet catches fish of quality, but the quantity comes from the distant water fleet.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Willis: Certainly. In England, the great bulk of the catch comes from the distant water fleet. In Scotland, that is not the case, and I am anxious to insure the position of the Scottish inshore fleets. It is very important. Most of the ports round Fife and up the East Coast and down the West Coast of Scotland are in this category, and we cannot now afford to see anything happening that will lessen the employment possibilities of the industry. That is particularly true of the Highlands and Islands, which we are currently discussing in connection with another Bill. It is one of the problems of Scotland. We have seen fishing ports completely die there in the last ten or fifteen years—
The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is wandering rather far from the Clause.
Mr. R. T. Paget: With respect, Sir Norman, we are dealing with a Clause that, in effect, subsidies the deep water fishing at the expense of the inshore fishing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. [Interruption.] It certainly seems to me that 'the effect is that if more is given to the distant water fleet the amount available for the inshore fishing fleet may be less—and probably will be less—in total. That, of course, must have an effect on the inshore fishing ports. It therefore seems to me that the effect on those ports must be not good.
The Temporary Chairman: A good deal of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says would be in order, but on this Clause it is not in order to discuss the merits of the inshore fishing.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Further to that point of order, Sir Norman. Is it not the case the Government have laid down a financial policy that puts ceilings on expenditure? For instance, they tell us that the National Health Service expenditure must not rise because that would deplete other expenditure—
The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman
1090
appreciates that there is nothing about the National Health Service in the Bill or the Clause.
Mr. Woodburn: I was using that as an analogy. If that is the Government's financial policy there would be something in the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). If there is a ceiling, and if one expenditure goes up the chances are that the other will go down in order to maintain the ceiling—
The Temporary Chairman: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing about a ceiling in the Clause we are now discussing.
Mr. H. Lever: On a point of order, Sir Norman. I understood you to rule that anything relating to inshore fishing would be out of order on this Clause—
Mr. Tom Driberg: No, he did not say that.
Mr. Lever: I thought that that was the effect. If so, Sir Norman, I submit that when we have a Clause which, for the first time, allows a subsidy to longdistance fishing it surely makes it relevant to discuss the effects of that on inshore and middle water fishing.
The Temporary Chairman: The Ruling I gave on the Clause is that it is not in order to discuss the merits of inshore fishing.
Mr. Jay: What the Clause does is to extend the scope of the white fish subsidy. It seems to me that the effect is to extend it beyond ships not exceeding 140 feet in length; that is to say, the larger vessels. In that case, surely we are extending the subsidy to at least other than to inshore fleets. It surely follows from that that it is contradictory; that it may have a deleterious effect on the inshore fishing. Surely, therefore, my hon. Friend is in order to argue that we must have reference to the inshore fishing.
Mr. Driberg: And, with great respect, Sir Norman, the Clause also says that this power
" shall be exercisable irrespective of the size of the vessel or of the nature of the voyage
The Temporary Chairman: I have also read the Clause, and what I have

1091
tried to tell the Committee on two or three occasions is that it is not in order to discuss on this Clause the merits or demerits of inshore fishing.
Mr. Steele: Further to that point of order, Sir Norman. Is it not quite clear that what the Bill does is to extend the subsidy to ships of a particular size, irrespective of where they are fishing? In the Explanatory Memorandum appear the words
"in respect of fish caught (whether within those waters or not)".
The indication is that it extends the powers the Government have already, only it extends them to ships or a larger size. Therefore, I submit that it opens a discussion of whether the giving of this extra power to the Government will mean that there will be for inshore fishing a diminution of subsidy. I think that this should be argued. Indeed, the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) raised this very matter on Second Reading and asked for assurances from the Minister.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order, Sir Norman. My hon. Friend has called in aid the Explanatory Memorandum. We need not call in aid the Explanatory Memorandum. We have only to look at Clause 1 (1) to see that the words are—leaving out the unnecessary parts
"The power … to pay grants … shall be exericisable irrespective of the size of the vessel or of the nature of the voyage".
Surely, that is extended enough to justify the reference made to the matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
Mr. Frederick Willey: Further to that point of order, Sir Norman. It would surely be in order to go this far. The Clause extends subsidy to the long distance vessels. The long distance vessels fish in competition with the inshore vessels and the middle water fleets. If that is so, and this is a new subsidy, it must be in order to discuss the merits of the middle water and inshore boats the fishing of which will be prejudiced by the fact that the subsidy is to be extended to the long distance ships.
The Temporary Chairman: It is in order to discuss inshore fishing only in relation to the subsidy.
Mr. Willis: That is what we are doing, Sir Norman.
The Temporary Chairman: I said earlier, and I repeat now, that it is not in order to discuss the general merits or demerits of inshore fishing.
Mr. A. R. Wise: On a point of order, Sir Norman. Many of us on this side of the Committee are enjoying and are interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Could you appeal to his own side to leave him alone to make it?
The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Member should now be allowed to continue.
Mr. Paget: With respect, Sir Norman, these bogus points of order which are raised should incur some censure, even if they come from the Government side. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Rugby which is quite patently a bogus point of order. The hon. Gentleman himself must have known, as everyone else knew, that it was not a point of order.
The Temporary Chairman: I condemn bogus points of order whatever their source.
Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Sir Norman. With great respect, would you be good enough to explain, for the guidance of the Committee, how it is possible to discuss the share in a subsidy which one considers should legitimately be allocated to inshore fishing without impinging to some extent on the respective merits of inshore and distant fishing?
The Temporary Chairman: I told the hon. Member that he was not in order because it was not in the Clause.
Mr. James Callaghan: May I follow that up, Sir Norman? I think we are all anxious to make progress, and we are very sorry that some hon. Members should be detained in order that their Chief Whip may be taught a lesson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Hon. Members will hear more about it as the night wears on. The point I wish to address to you, Sir

1093
Norman, is very simple. What some of us fear, knowing this Government, is that in due course, after this increase in subsidy has been given, another Chancellor of the Exchequer will come along and cut it down.
If we accept this Clause, including the deep water boats of over 140 feet, it is bound to affect the subsidy that can be applied to the inshore and middle water fleets. That being so, it is surely open to us to argue that it is a mistake to extend the subsidy beyond the inshore and middle water fishing fleets because of the effect it may have when the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to cut it down.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) was on a good point. How can we argue the effect of the subsidy on these two fleets which at the present time receive it without arguing the merits of those fleets we think should be entitled to receive it, as against vessels of over 140 feet which the Government propose should be included?
Mr. Driberg: While welcoming my hon. Friend's support, I am not here to teach any Chief Whip a lesson. I would not be so presumptuous. I am here out of a deep, sincere, and gluttonous interest in fish.
Mr. Willis: I must thank you, Sir Norman, for your guidance. Some time ago, when I was busily touring around the Highlands of Scotland, I was dealing with the merits or demerits of inshore fishing. I was saying that we have to ask ourselves what effect this additional subsidy is going to have on the other parts of the fishing fleets. That is a legitimate question to ask in deciding whether or no we are to pass this Clause.
I had previously pointed out the very difficult position that the Government have placed us in by taking one of the main recommendations of the Fleck Committee out of context, asking us to pass it without telling us what their attitude is towards the rest. As a result of that—and we heard nothing about this on Second Reading—we have no idea what the future pattern of our fishing fleets is going to be. We have no idea whether they will be changed, and if they are to be changed we ought to know what the changes are likely to be before we pass this subsidy. Precisely because
1094
of this I raise the matter now, not because I want to keep the Government up—I like my bed as well as anyone else in the House.
I raised this on Second Reading, but I had no answer. To me as a Scottish Member it is a very important matter indeed. I am, therefore, exercising my right, and what I feel to be my duty, of raising the matter again in Committee, to try to give the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I see busily gathering information from the Box, an opportunity to give us some assurances. The English Minister does not know about Scotland.
This fear was not confined to me alone on Second Reading. It was expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart). I think the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) also had some fears about this and spoke about the enormous expense of building some of the ships proposed to be built in connection with the distant water fleets and the proposals of the Fleck Committee. So the anxiety about this and the desire for some information and knowledge about this Clause and the effects of the Clause were expressed on both sides of the House. Therefore, I think we are entitled to have some answer, and a fairly full answer, before we pass this Clause.
11.0 p.m.
I have almost finished, and there are only a couple of things I should like to ask. We have not been able, owing to the procedure against which we protested, to ask many questions or to try to amend this figure of £3 million. What I should like now is to have the Minister of Agriculture tell us what exactly is the rate of subsidies running at the present time under Section 5 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, and Section 3 "of the said Act of 1957".
I ask because I think we ought to know at what rate the subsidies are being paid and what is the rate of payment. We cannot judge whether £3 million is sufficient or insufficient unless we know what is the rate at which the subsidies are being paid. I think the Government ought to have sufficient statistical information to give us an idea of the amounts which are being paid out, and also what are the sums expected to be paid. What

1095
is the rate of payment expected to be in connection with the extension of the subsidies to the distant water fleets? I think we ought to have that information before we proceed with this Bill. I should also like to know the length which this Bill is supposed to last. I understand it is a temporary or carrying over Bill. What the Government have in mind, I am not quite certain. I think we ought to have some information along these lines before we pass the Bill.
Mr. H. Lever: It is with some diffidence that I rise to speak on this subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because there are no notorious—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—fishing grounds in my own constituency. There is, of course, the Manchester Ship Canal, which covers peacefully the distance between my constituency and the City of Liverpool. Unfortunately, it had not occurred to me that, with the exhausting and fundamental matters we were discussing earlier today, the Government seriously intended to proceed with any further business of this kind. I must confess, therefore, that I gave the Bill close attention only near to the hour of 10 o'clock when my right hon. and hon. Friends told me that it was in fact, difficult though it was to believe, the Government's intention to proceed with this Bill.
I ought to say at once that there' is no sort of vindictive attitude on my part towards the Government Chief Whip. I have the highest opinion in general of him. Indeed, just after he was exalted to his present office my secretary wrote to him upon a matter affecting Surtax—having seen his office—
The Temporary Chairman: There is nothing about the Chief Whip or Surtax in this Clause.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order. How on earth can the Chair or anybody else tell whether this has anything to do with this Clause till we know what the right hon. Gentleman's reply was? The right hon. Gentleman's reply may have been precisely about the size of the trawler which he hoped to have a subsidy on.
Mr. Lever: In fairness to the Chair, and without wishing in any way to decry the very helpful intervention of my hon. and learned Friend, I think it would be
1096
dishonest of me to suggest that the reply related in any way whatsoever to the herring or white fish industries—
Mr. Charles Loughlin: It was a red herring.
Mr. Lever:—because the reply was to inform my secretary that he had nothing to do with financial affairs at all; but nevertheless he went to considerable trouble to give information about the office which he holds at the Treasury and that it does not require the occupant to be familiar with financial affairs—except, perhaps, those of the treasury of his party.
There is another matter which I think is not improper, though I cannot pretend that it relates strictly to the white fish industry. I am under an obligation to the Minister who is in charge of the Bill because recently, under a certain amount of perhaps improper pressure, he conveyed to me a valuable document which is very much treasured in my house at present.
The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must really come to the Motion or I cannot permit him to continue.
Mr. Lever: I thought, Sir Norman, that you would permit an introductory allusion to the Bill before I got down to the Bill itself.
The first thing that the Government cannot avoid by seeking to take the Bill at this untimely moment when the Committee is preoccupied with other fundamental House of Commons matters emerges from Clause 1, namely, that this is yet another example of Government miscalculation on a massive scale. We cannot ignore the history of this matter. In 1953, the then Mr. James Stuart, who is now a member of another place, assured the House when we were discussing the original Act that whatever might be the requirements of inshore fishing and middle water fishing, long distance fishing could be left safely to private capital. In the poetic language for which he was noted, he said there was an abundance of capital which would be keeping these distant-water ships setting out bravely for the distant waters.
It was another case, with what was then said about ships of over 70 feet in length, of "Tory freedom works. Leave it to

1097
private capital." That was the Government's song in 1953, but they are singing a different song now. It was then said, "Let us subsidise the inshore fleets and the middle water fleets, but the distant water fleets need cause us no concern. There is abundant capital. The hammers are busy, the engineers are occupied, and the ships that are being equipped for the expeditions to the far and distant romantic waters to take huge catches of fish can be left to private capital." And these huge catches constitute the main supply of what we might call the fish of the man in the street. The doctrines of laissez-jaire were to be applied to this fleet.
One thing that must be rubbed in tonight is that all that bombastic pretence has collapsed in the face of the realities of the situation. What started as a modest subsidy for a few small vessels hanging about our shores it is now sought to expand to a vast extent to distant-water fleets which we were assured seven or eight years ago could be left to private enterprise. This is a sad and early collapse from the proud words of the then Mr. James Stuart to the Government's present confessions. This is a point on Clause 1 which completely exposes the Government's failure.
There is another matter which touches the real heart of the Clause. How can it be said that boats under 70 feet will be subsidised and those over 70 feet will not be subsidised? The House might have observed, though I confess that I did not address my mind to it in 1953, that the whole thing is an artificial fixing on a particular length of boat on which a subsidy can be obtained. Why 70 feet? Why not 65 or 60 feet?
Mr. J. M. L. Prior: The hon. Member might like to know that it is not 70 feet but 140 feet. I would like to put him right, as other hon. Members may be getting into difficulties trying to follow the debate.
Mr. Steele: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) does not realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) is fishing only in the middle waters at present and has still to reach the distant waters.
Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) may be fishing in the
1098
middle waters, but he has not yet got to the small island of Iceland, nor to the Faroes and Norway, who have extended their fishing limits and thus given rise to the need for the Bill.
Mr. Lever: I want to put the anxieties of hon. Members to rest. I shall be dealing with Iceland and with any other subject which you, Sir Norman, permit me to discuss and which is of interest to hon. Members on either side of the Committee, or on both, both before and after the Minister has spoken, because it is not for nothing that the House of Commons enjoys the right of hon. Members making more than one speech in Committee. It is done to be of the maximum assistance in ensuring that legislation receives careful scrutiny.
I am sorry that my mind is statistical in expression. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is perfectly correct in saying that the subsidy was paid for boats up to 140 feet in length; but what the Minister of Agriculture had in mind in framing the original scheme, although it was not expressly stated, was to benefit boats of between 70 feet and 140 feet in length. He was not much concerned to subsidise boats of less than 70 feet in length.
At all events, so far as I can recollect, his speech at that time did not seem excessively enthusiastic about boats of less than 70 feet. He rather felt, I think, that they had had their best years and that they were boats which were more effective in the pre-First World War years and the post-First World War years and not the post-Second World War years. Certainly he did not feel that they had any great prospects in the post-Second World War years and he thought, therefore, that the beneficiaries of the subsidies should be those with boats of between 70 feet and 140 feet.
But that is an extremely artificial distinction, because some of the most energetic and successful of the inshore fishermen are those with smaller boats of less than 70 feet in length. I cannot see why it was then thought fit to make the subsidy apply in respect of a strict measurement of that kind of limit.
I have not had a great deal of experience of fishing, but I have some experience of sailing in boats of different sizes, usually skippered by my hon. and

1099
learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I do not feel that it has very much relevance to the length of boat, but whenever my hon. and learned Friend takes me out, whether it is a 70-foot boat or one rather shorter or one rather longer—
Mr. Julian Snow: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) curtail his remarks about being taken out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because I have suffered, too.
Mr. Lever: All I can say is that, in the course of my sailing, I have seen a good many boats of different sizes and I think the original distinction artificial. I would have been predisposed to lend a sympathetic ear to a more flexible interpretation of the problem of encouraging fishing of all kinds—
Mr. Driberg: It is extremely flexible now. That is one of the purposes of the Clause. Has my hon. Friend reread it since he began to speak?
Mr. Lever: This is flexibility run mad. This is carrying flexibility—
Mr. Ross: When we realise that the word "exercisable" is spelt one way in subsection (1) and a different way in subsection (2)—what more flexibility can my hon. Friend ask for?
Mr. Lever: I am sure that differences in spelling and pronunciation will appear in my speech. But it is not flexibility to increase a limit of 140 feet to no limit at all. That would admit the "Queen Mary" to subsidy. It goes to distant waters—
Mr. Wise: It got it.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Lever: The hon. Member says that the "Queen Mary" got a subsidy. I hope it will not get one under the Bill. Under the original Act it could not have got a subsidy, but under the Bill, if the "Queen Mary" were converted to fishing there is no reason why she should not have a subsidy. It seems to be extraordinary suddenly to leap from a limit of 140 feet in length—which for years seemed to the Government to be a satisfactory maximum—to a totally
1100
unrestricted length. That is carrying the principle of flexibility much too far.
My mind goes back, with a certain amount of nostalgia, to a previous Minister of Agriculture—although I have nothing against the present Minister—Sir James Stuart, as he then was.
Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend must not do this injustice to Scotland. He was the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Lever: He was the Secretary of State for Scotland; Sir James Dugdale was then the Minister of Agriculture. Sir James Stuart, for whom my affection is in no wise diminished by reason of the fact that I momentarily got his office misplaced, assured the House, when it was dealing with the original Measure upon which this legislation is based, that this subsidy would not affect boats that went fishing for the coelacanth. I trust that I have pronounced the name of that fish correctly, as the House is in a pernickety mood tonight. The coelacanth is neither a white fish nor a herring. It has been said to be in the nature of a missing link. The coelacanth is a fish which inhabits more distant waters than those habitually fished by boats of under 70 feet in length.
The difference between the powers which the Government enjoy and those which they are now seeking is, so to say, highlighted by the fact that under their present powers we could not hunt the coelacanth—[Laughter.] I must apologise to the House for my repeated mispronunciations of that unfortunate fish's name, as I am just recovering from a very bad bout—
Mr. Steele: I recognise that my hon. Friend is at the moment in some difficulty. After all he has said, I hope he will repeat it, because I am not aware whether it is a fish or a place to which he is referring. I understood that at some point in his speech my hon. Friend was going to arrive at Iceland. I was wondering if he had reached those distant waters.
Mr. Lever: I am coming to Iceland, but the coelacanth inhabits warmer waters. I apologise to the House for being momentarily inaudible, because the repeated pronunciation of that fish's name on top of a week's severe cold was a little too much for me.

1101
The power which the Government now seek is virtually unlimited. They wish to subsidise any fishing vessel of any length which is going for any fish of any kind at any time. I hope the Minister will tell us why, when his predecessor in 1953 attached fairly considerable importance to the limited nature of the power he was seeking, he suddenly wants this change. If, in 1953, the Minister thought it right that the Government should not subsidise the kind of vessels that could fish for coelacanth, why should the present Minister ask for power to give such a subsidy? Will the Minister say whether the policy of the Government in relation to the coelacanth has changed? I should gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he has some enlightenment to give the Committee. The Committee is entitled to know whether over the years there has been some drastic rethinking by the Government on the whole matter.
Not only do we see the exposure of the idle boasts about Tory freedom working on boats over 140 ft. in length, but that laissez faire capitalism was useless to boats under 40 ft. an length. That was common ground on (both sides and was conceded by the Government of the day. We have now had it clearly revealed that this form of laissez faire capitalism does not work on the longer boats at all. What are the Government going to do about it? Are they to say, "Here we have fishermen, some of the sturdiest, most useful and creative members of the community, engaged in an industry which is the victim of the peculiar economic and financial system possessed by this country, are we going to do something about it?"
I am glad to see the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) coming to his place. I am sure I shall have his warm, and I hope, sustained support for this argument. Do the Government say, "Here are creative, independent-minded people fighting in the teeth of the elements, going out in the stormy seas, risking all damages to bring home a little honest food for their dependants and dear ones"? Do the Government say, "We believe in our hearts in this economic system known as laissez faire capitalism, but it does not work for such of these fine men who work on boats of under
1102
40 fit. in that length", that they sincerely thought it would work for the longer boats and not for the shorter boats and the fine men in them? Are we to create conditions by which these fine men on the shorter boats will be freed from the anxiety of being the chronic victims of a disorderly House, which we had in 1953 and which in some respects we still have today?
Did they take steps to make a viable, independent industry and try to think out what was required? I do not think they even had a Fleck Committee sitting at that time. There must be a halt called to the process by which every time the Government have a problem they send it to Sir Alexander Fleck. There are Fleck Reports on about eleven different subjects. I would not mind so much if the Government took account of those Reports, but apparently the Government do not; they reach for a subsidy. In the olden days there was a famous saying that a well-known Minister went to a civil servant for guidance and said, "What are we to do about this?" and the civil servant said, "I am afraid, Minister, we shall have to apply our majority to this question". That is what the Government are always doing. They are applying their majority and not their brains. We have no sort of working out what is required for an industry.
I yield to none in my admiration and support of these sturdy, independent men on boats of 40 ft. in length and less, but real support means giving them an opportunity to earn their livelihood. We shall not do that if we pauperise them. That is where, perhaps, the noble Lord will be anxious to intervene. The remedy is not to pauperise them by making them the recipients of a State subsidy. That solves nothing. It merely evades the necessity for thought, which is what the Government did in 1953 when they deceived themselves into believing that they had to subsidise only boats under 140 ft. They subsidised them, and instead of hurrying to work out a programme which would put those fishermen in a position to earn their living in competition with fishermen who were without a subsidy, they sat back and did nothing.
The Fleck Committee was then appointed. The Government looked

1103
casually at the Committee's Report. Afraid that they would be pressed to take some action, and instead of thinking out co-ordinated action to make the industry viable, both for boats under 140 ft. and for boats over 140 ft., they rushed in with a further subsidy. It is a reflex action by the Government, when in trouble, to milk the unfortunate taxpayer. They do not think out a policy which would create a sturdy industry for these fine men, the near, middle water and distant water fishermen; they throw subsidies about. There is little wonder that they make savage inroads into the social services of the ordinary man in the street to pay for the extravagance with which they buy time when they fail to think.
This is not new for the Tory Party or Tory Government. It has happened before. I give the Minister the warning that he should take note of what happened with the film industry. Precisely the same thing happened. The film industry could not earn its living in the world—an exact parallel with the fishermen sailing boats under 140 ft. I said that the remedy was to make the film industry viable. "No", said the Government; "that would involve thinking, which is repugnant to the Conservative Government, is too much of a strain and is calculated to produce breakdown in the Conservative Government. We will not think. We will subsidise." They subsidised the film industry. This is an exact parallel; just as the subsidy started with boats under 140 ft., so the Government said that the film industry subsidy was temporary and over a restricted area. In the same way the 1953 Act brought in this unhealthy element of subsidy.
Mr. Anthony Crosland: My hon. Friend does not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend is obviously not following the argument. It is an exact parallel. The industry would have collapsed. Dr. King, is it in order for me, in the middle of my speech, to move to report Progress?
The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): I can assure the hon. Member that, much as he might like to do so. it would not be in order.
Mr. Lever: I understood that it was in order for any hon. Member to move to report Progress at any time, and therefore it seemed appropriate to do so in the middle of my speech. But I accept that Ruling and I shall have to sail on.
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to raise a point of order in the middle of his own speech?
The Temporary Chairman: It is in order for an hon. Member to raise a point of order at any time.
Mr. Lever: If my hon. Friend will be patient he will learn many things. The machinery of the House of Commons is designed to provide the maximum assistance to hon. Members, to the House, and to the legislation being considered.
I return to the warning. What has happened with the film industry—
11.30 p.m.
The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made the parallel with the film industry sufficiently. I hope that he will get back to the Clause.
Mr. Lever: I will refer to the film industry no more, beyond saying this. It stands out as a fairly ghastly warning of the permanence of these matters. They have extended the subsidy first introduced longitudinally. I have no doubt that they will extend it laterally in some manner if they get the Clause. The Government have failed in their duty to consider what ought to be done to make a viable industry.
What I dislike so much about the speech of the Minister on Second Reading, which I have studied with care, is this passage:
" So Clause 1 (1) will enable arrangements for operating subsidies to apply in future to the distant water as well as to other sections of the industry. The point I want to put to the House is that as far as the distant water section of the industry is concerned we are dealing with the situation practically. In the Bill we are dealing with an immediate issue. At the same time, it is quite clear that much thought has to be given to the longer term issues, but the proposals in the Bill will enable us to carry things along until we are ready to put the wider issues before the House."

1105
I never saw such a greater collection of incomprehensible bromides compounded in a few lines. What on earth does the right hon. Gentleman mean? As far as I understand, he means that he wants the Clause so as to have power to do something in case he feels like doing it later. He does not say that he has made up his mind. I ask hon. Members to notice the expression:
" the proposals in the Bill will enable us to carry things along until we are ready to put the wider issues before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 797.]
What does that mean? How does it carry things along to have some greater unspecified power on longer boats than he had under the 1953 and 1957 Acts? Perhaps the Minister will explain that when he replies.
It is quite clear that what the Minister is saying is that he has not thought out what he is going to do and he wants the power. It is a sort of diners' club approach. He wants to get power from the House of Commons, as he hopes, by an unscrutinised passage of the Bill, and then he will make up his mind what he will do about it.
Much attention has been paid to Iceland. I shall not shirk the question. I want to make it quite plain that my sympathies are with the Grimsby and other fishermen who sail with great courage and great zeal and in water which is even worse than that which is favoured by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman will recall that Hull is the largest fishing port, so he will no doubt include Hull fishermen.
Mr. Lever: I can say with deep sincerity and without any kind of reservation that I am mindful of the human tragedy of some of the finest men of both nations. They went out in unenviable weather. I can by no stretch of my imagination fully appreciate their lot. I can only compare the ordeals they suffered with my own experiences, those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton and those of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and multiply them by 50 or 100.
Having seen the photographs of the tempestuous seas, the icy weather and the extreme dangers to which the fishing
1106
fleets exposed themselves, I must admire the courage, hardihood and singleness of purpose which animated those intrepid fishermen and those men of the Royal Navy who were doing their duty protecting, or seeking to protect, the lawful avocations of English fishermen—and Scottish fishermen, for aught I know. I do not want to say one word which seems to be critical or lacking in sympathy for the English point of view or the Scottish point of view on that matter.
Personally, I grew up on the three-mile limit. Perhaps I never gave it enough thought; perhaps none of us ever gave enough thought to the three-mile limit and whether it should be extended. Perhaps none of us have really thought enough about it and have taken it too much for granted. In our early life it seemed to us to be sacrosanct, and nobody seemed likely to arrive who would or could question it. But our fishermen found it questioned in a way that endangered their lives and their livelihood—
The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have interesting things to say about the problem of the Iceland fisheries, but they are not in order on this Clause.
Mr. Lever: With respect, Dr. King, without at all wanting to demur, or cause any sort of question on your Ruling, I think that had you been here in the earlier part of the debate you would have seen that the whole of this Clause relates to extending the power to subsidise the longer boats—and by the "longer" boats is really meant, in the end, the longer-distance boats. It is not a question of subsidising longer boats for the shorter distances but of subsidising the longer boats for the longer distance. That might involve the whole Icelandic question, and that I am not alone or eccentric in so supposing—
The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for explaining his point of view. This may obviously affect the boats of the fishing fleet there—it is a question of subsidy to them, as he pointed out in the earlier part of his speech—but it would not be in order to discuss other ways of dealing with the problem of the Iceland fishermen.
Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Dr. King. With great respect, would it not be in order to say that one opposed the extension of these subsidies because one considered that the whole of this difficulty had arisen through the Government's mishandling of the Icelandic dispute?
The Temporary Chairman: That would be perfectly in order.
Mr. Snow: I wanted to catch your eye, Dr. King, to enlarge on the problems that arise from the Icelandic dispute. With the greatest respect, if your Ruling stands, may I point out that the nature of the voyage, which is not restricted, is included in the Clause, and whereas there might be objections to subsidies in respect of voyages which might incur action by Iceland, is it not a matter to raise on the Clause?
The Temporary Chairman: If there were, arising from the Clause—I cannot imagine that there should be—subsidies in respect of a dispute with Iceland, perhaps we could discuss them.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose —
The Temporary Chairman: I am dealing with one point of order. Mr. Snow—if he wants to speak further.
Mr. Snow: No, Dr. King, I accept that.
Mr. Willey: On Second Reading, the Minister gave as one reason for extending the subsidy the difficulty suffered by these boats as a consequence of the Icelandic dispute. Will is not, therefore, be in order to discuss whether this is a consequence of that dispute, or whether the subsidy will help towards a settlement of that dispute?
The Temporary Chairman: It would be in order to discuss whether the subsidy would help towards a settlement of that dispute—it would be in order on Second Reading to discuss the whole Icelandic dispute—but it will not be in order in this case to discuss at length other means of settling the dispute.
Mr. Willis: Dr. King, surely discussion of the Icelandic fishing limits would be in order. The subsidy is being extended to the distant-water fleet because of the difficulties that have arisen. The Government are still negotiating in this
1108
matter, so is it not in order to discuss the possible results of the negotiations when we are now asked to vote money to compensate fishermen for the hardships they are suffering as a result of this dispute?
The Temporary Chairman: The time for doing that was on Second Reading of the Bill. This present debate, as the hon. Member must know, is on what is in the Clause.
Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order, Dr. King. It is surely not possible to discuss what is in the Clause without asking why it is in and whether it should be in. When we ask these questions, we are inevitably brought up against the fact that one of the reasons for this provision is the Icelandic fishing dispute.
The Temporary Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Member to make passing references to that kind of matter, but it would not be in order to discuss in detail other ways of means of dealing with the dispute.
Mr. Paget: May we have this quite clear, Dr. King? It is precisely this Clause which brings in the Icelandic question. This is the Clause which extends the subsidy to the Icelandic vessels because they are the ones over 140 feet in length. The Government say that they want to extend it to the Icelandic ships because they are suffering from the effects of a dispute with Iceland. Surely, we are entitled to say, when discussing this Clause, that that ought to come out because the Icelandic dispute may be settled before this ever emerges, and the dispute ought to be settled before this ever comes in. The question whether it is right to bring in a permanent subsidy power like this for a temporary difficulty which ought not to have arisen and which can be dealt with arises precisely on this Clause which brings in the Icelandic ships.
The Temporary Chairman: I have already ruled in answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that it would be in order to say that one is opposed to the Clause and the provisions contained in it for certain reasons. It would not be in order, in the opinion of the Chair, to discuss in detail the Icelandic dispute.
Mr. Lever: I readily bow to your Ruling, Dr. King. In other words, I take it that it would obviously be out of order to bring in the whole Icelandic dispute, but, following your words—of which I took careful not—I may oppose the Clause on the ground of the Government's mishandling of the Icelandic dispute. But one cannot accuse the Government of mishandling the dispute without giving chapter and verse, to some extent. Naturally, one will not go into it with the closeness of detail that a foreign affairs debate would call for, but I do not think one can merely, as it were, throw it out as an empty generalisation.
Mr. Driberg: It would be very unfair.
Mr. Lever: I agree. It would be unfair to the Government and to the Committee.
Mr. Driberg: Where is the Lord Privy Seal?
Mr. Lever: It is significant that it is not some tortuous eccentricity of mine which alleges that there is relevance in the Icelandic dispute in this matter. As I was developing my case on the Clause earlier, before you arrived in the Chair, Dr. King, several hon. Members both on this side of the Committee and on that requested that I should deal with the effect of the Icelandic dispute on the Clause and the extension of the Government's 'power to subsidise.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I think the hon. Member is being too modest in his references to his own ability as a helmsman, but I would suggest that he could improve his knowledge of distant fishing by asking his hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) to arrange for him to be taken on a voyage in an Icelandic fishing trawler. I will gladly pair with him for 21 days.
Mr. Lever: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that proposal, which seems to be a much more constructive one than many which have come for that side of the Committee.
The Government have not shown great skill in dealing with the Icelandic dispute. They seem to have taken the view—I confess that I myself have taken the same view—that the three-mile limit was
1110
the three-mile limit, that it was something sacred, beyond the reach of argument, that the Icelandic Government's attempts to extend their jurisdiction were beneath contempt, and all that was wanted was a couple of naval frigates—I hope I shall be corrected if that is not the right vessel—for the Icelandic lesser breed to be brought to heel.
It is probably fortunate in view of your Ruling, Dr. King, that I am not pretending to be an expert on the Icelandic Government, and I do not want to say anything unfair about it. But I am not a great admirer of that Government's behaviour in regard to the fishing industry. Iceland is, of course, a small country, and one does not expect the sagacity or the patience that one demands from Governments in our own country. But one cannot help feeling that they are pawns in the cold war.
11.45 p.m.
Hon. Members: Prawns.
Mr. Lever: One cannot help feeling that they are forced into actions, situations and attitudes which, perhaps, would not be theirs if they were free from pressure for other quarters. Even the stupidities of the present Government here would not have landed us in this impasse but for the fact that there is the cold war. These pressures tend to accumulate irritations, whereas otherwise there might be a more emollient background for discussion.
In these circumstances, I want to know what are the Government's intentions with the subsidy. Is it only intended as another gambit in the cold war game? If I may borrow the analogy from the chess room, is it intended as a temporary gambit against the stern attitude on the three-mile limit or twelve-mile limit, or is it intended as a permanent feature of our economic life that the Government are to sit with discretionary power to subsidise boats over 140 feet? The Committee might take a different attitude if they got some assurance as to the time for this extension of the Government's power.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): 1963.
Mr. Lever: Is that the firm intention of the Government—no more subsidies after 1963?
Mr. Soames: This Bill goes on until 1963. Fresh legislation would then be required.
Mr. Lever: The Minister does me an injustice. I apologise that I was not able to give the Bill much time and scrutiny. I had not dreamt for a moment that the Government woud proceed with it tonight. It was only at five minutes before ten o'clock this evening that I was able to give it my attention, but the Minister does me an injustice if he thinks I do not know that the power of the Bill would expire in 1963. That is not my point. I wanted some assurance as to the Government's intentions. The Minister must have something in the back of his mind as to what is to be done with the industry. Does he feel that in 1963 this power will be enough, or does he think he will come here again in 1963 and ask for more money and perhaps an extension of some form?
Mr. Driberg: 1963 would give them just time to give a much more generous subsidy before the next General Election—if the fishing constituencies are marginal, and I suppose some of them are.
Mr. Lever: I must confess I am not always ready to attribute a bad motive to the Government. I never impute dishonesty to this Government when stupidity would be sufficient explanation.
We are entitled to know whether the Government intend to go on with this sort of thing. One would have to be skilful to be in order, but it would be interesting to consider to what degree the whole Bill could be thought of—not by me but by others—in the nature of electioneering. The Government are here enlarging their powers of subsidy by this Clause. When a Government enlarge their powers of subsidy I do not for a moment suppose, as I said, that the Minister is corrupt or that the Government are corrupt.
Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. My hon. Friend has a foot out on the Gangway.
Mr. Lever: There are, of course, those who will impute to the Government
1112
corruption. There are those who will say that the Government are enlarging their power to corrupt the citizens. First they had power to corrupt the motor industry; then they had power to corrupt the steel industry—
Mr. Driberg: Colville's.
Mr. Lever:—and now they are going to corrupt the fishermen. This is a matter which causes very considerable rancour and ill feeling in the country, if it is thought that this House is giving to the Government powers to enlarge their patronage here, there and everywhere. I emphasise again that it is not my personal belief that this Clause will in fact be used by the Government for a corrupt purpose, but the fact that I think that this is not the explanation of the Clause does not alter the concern I feel that the public may think it is—
An Hon. Member: And the noble Lord.
Mr. Lever:—and the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South. The noble Lord has done great service in my opinion.
Mr. Steele: We are very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, and most of his remarks ought to have been heard by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has only just come into the House. I think, therefore, that perhaps it may be advisable for my hon. Friend to repeat what he has said.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt the interruption by which he is being interrupted. I have been out of the House for only a very short time indeed. I have been in all evening.
Mr. Ross: But missed the most important part of it.
Mr. Steele: I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me if I accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology.
Mr. Maclay: It was not an apology. It was a statement of fact.
Mr. Lever: As a matter of fact, I think it only right that I should say that I observed that for the greater part of the debate the Secretary of State for Scotland was listening—as I thought.

1113
carefully; and I hope he was listening with an open mind to the argument being pressed upon the Government.
It is a matter worth commenting upon that we have this odd Department, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Food, dealing with these affairs. It might have been supposed it would have been the Secretary of State for Scotland, because most of the Scots Members share the supposition that the greater part of the fishing industry is situated in ports in Scotland. It is not the case. I think Grimsby, Hull, and the many other English ports greatly outnumber the Scottish, and I think one—
Mr. Steele: We do not claim that we have the important ports judged by size. We believe that south of the Border there are a few fishing ports of great importance by that standard, but we have the quality [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have the quality fish and we have the quality fishermen, and of course we do believe that we provide the best fish.
Mr. Lever: At all events, I am quite clear in my mind that there is no justification for treating this matter in a regional way. One would have thought this to be a matter to be treated as a national matter, and primarily the concern of the Minister of Agriculture, rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope there are no regional pressures involved in this, in having this Clause extended in this way.
However, the point I want to make finally on the Icelandic question is: would the Government's attitude to the Clause be different if they saw a prospect of coming to an amicable solution of our difficulties with the Icelandic Government? That is a matter about which I hope the Minister will tell us in the course of his reply. What does he think are the prospects of finally eliminating these frictions between our fishermen and the Icelandic Government? Surely what would be better than increasing the subsidies would be to hear good news that the Government had come to some friendly, peaceful and amiable arrangement with the Icelandic Government. I hope the Minister will tell us a little about that when he replies.
Of course, this whole question of the intent behind this Clause is of a rather
1114
aggressive character in relation to the fishing industry. The Committee is entitled to know more before it passes the Clause. How will it affect the E.F.T.A. countries and the Common Market? I suppose there is a point beyond which the Government's most ardent supporters cannot bear to have their ill-thought legislation pressed to its logical conclusion or driven home to them. I warn the Government that they will find increasing difficulties as time goes on in persuading their followers to act in a harmonious manner if they go on with this kind of legislation without realising the consequences. They will find their own supporters, as it were, deserting them in disgust as the consequences of what they are doing become more evident. Is the intention of the Clause harmonious with our E.F.T.A. purposes? Will it prejudice them? What will the Norwegians say about the Clause?
Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that he cannot go into this fully without recognising the G.A.T.T. questions that bear on this matter of subsidies. It is impossible to obtain a clear answer on the E.F.T.A. question without going into the G.A.T.T. question at the same time.
Mr. Lever: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I was going to move from Iceland to E.F.T.A., from E.F.T.A. to the Common Market and via the Common Market to the International Monetary Fund. The Committee is entitled to know the logical consequences of the Clause before it is passed. We do not want the people to suppose for one moment that we are rubber stamps.
Mr. Wall: The hon. Member will remember that he promised to give us his views about Norway and the Faroes.
Mr. Lever: I am coming to the question of Norway and the Faroes and to ask for a little more information. I do not need the permission of the Committee to speak again, though I would not like to speak against its wishes. But I hope that when the Minister comes to address the Committee a little later we shall have the advantage and stimulus of his reply. I hope that he will deal in greater detail with Norway and the Faroes.

1115
I am happy to say that the Government appear to have made a common-sense and reasonable approach to the Faroes and to have reached a reasonable agreement about what should be done in reflation to that region. It is mot clear that they have dealt with problems which may arise with the Norwegian Government and fishermen. I do not want to go back to the Icelandic question, but it was a point worth making about the question that some of these disputes and rancorous hatreds would have been settled before if practical men had been brought in some times—men who do the dirty work.
Mr. G. Brown: Like the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Lever: Instead of the theatrical gestures of Government spokesmen, it would have been 'better if we had had the leaders of the Icelandic and British industries in to discuss the question. I am not so keen on bringing in the Foreign Office, especially having regard to the Foreign Secretary. I stay with no disrespect to the noble Lord that noble Lords do not go down too well with the Icelandic Government. It seems to me that we should take this matter on that working basis between the two countries—not on the Government level but on the practical level of the fishermen themselves.
Mr. Soames Mr. Soames indicated dissent.
Mr. Lever: The Minister shakes his head—
Mr. G. Brown: Reflex action.
Mr. Lever:—but all Governments think that they know best, even Conservative Governments which preach—
Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) seems to be having some difficulty with his trousers. Could you adjourn the Committee for a few minutes, Dr. King, to enable him to make himself more comfortable?
12 p.m.
Mr. Lever: I will try not to distress the hon. Member more on that account for the rest of my address. I want an assurance, and I think that the Com-
1116
mittee is entitled to an assurance, that the effects of the Clause on our position with E.F.T.A. have been considered.
I now come to the effects of the Clause and the atitude behind it on the Common Market. We are told that the Government are anxious to enter the Common Market and that, but for the obstreperousness of the French and matters of that kind and our duty to the Commonwealth, they would be willing to do so. I want an assurance from the Minister that the Clause and its purpose are consistent with the repeated statements which we have had from the Government about their intentions in relation to the Common Market. I am a not unsympathetic critic of the Government's atitude to the Common Market, but I am the last person to want to plunge in, and the Committee should be very careful before it creates a lobby in this country, as it were, a pressure point upon the Government, which would mean that we were hampered in our negotiations upon the terms on which we would enter the Common Market.
Those on this side of the Committee who take my view—and I think that that is most of us—while wanting the Government to be constructive in relation to the Common Market, will not bring pressure upon them which would damage their negotiating power. At the same time, when we see a Clause like this we are entitled to ask whether the purposes behind it are consistent with the repeated assurances—I am very glad to see a representative of the Treasury here—of the anxieties of the British Government to play their full part on reasonable terms in the political and economic unity of Europe. In other words, is the Clause consistent with genuine belief in the political and economic unity of Europe, or it is hostile to those purposes? Is it in accord with the repeated statements which we read about it?
Anxious as I am to help fishermen in boats over 140 feet in length, it will be readily seen that that is puny in contrast with the larger purposes which necessarily must animate us all in this difficult era of the country's history in relation to the economic, political and strategic future of Europe and the consequences of any added irritant injected into the situation between ourselves and the Six of the Common Market.

1117
The Committee should have a care and is entitled to a reassurance which I for one will readily accept, if given. I will readily accept the Minister's word and I do not even ask for long explanations—
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Has my hon. Friend considered the position in relation to Finland, which is half in and half out of this Market and which is a great consumer of fish?
Mr. Lever: I confess that, for the reason which my hon. and learned Friend would have heard had he been here at the beginning—the humility with which I approach this subject—I have not yet had an opportunity of giving this subject the study which it should have.
Mr. Mitchison: I have heard every word and I have listened with rapt attention to every word my hon. Friend has uttered this evening.
Mr. H. Wilson: The rather perfunctory way in which my hon. Friend has dealt with this subject suggests to me—and I put this to him in order that he can make it good before he gets to the major part of his speech—that when he referred just now—no doubt without having given proper thought to the matter—to the unity of Europe, he was speaking in the context of Western Europe. He must have realised that when he was speaking of the unity of Europe he was entering on to a much wider subject—East-West trade. Is he not aware that trade with the Soviet Union in fish and fish products is a very ancient trade which has declined considerably in recent years? I hope that before he gets—[HON. MEMBERS: "Red herrings?"]—not entirely herrings; I negotiated fairly fully with Mikoyan—into full swing, he will say a few words on that subject.
Mr. Lever: I will come back shortly to the point made by my right hon. Friend, but first, as a matter of courtesy, I must apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in supposing that he had missed any part of my speech.
Implicit in everything I have said is my conscious desire to learn about something rather than any intention to be dogmatic in my approach. I assure the House of my deep humility. I have
1118
admitted from the outset that I know very little about the fishing industry. There was once an hon. Member of this House of whom it was said that he never knew what he thought about any subject until he had spoken on it. For him, every speech was in the nature of a long voyage of self-discovery. I suppose the same applies to me. I am learning as I go along, especially in view of the very helpful and constructive nature of most of the interventions. In some respects this is not a party political matter, and I am glad to say that some hon. Members opposite have not scrupled to make their contributions towards my speech, in their own way.
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of this subject I cannot hope to match. I am sure that as the debate goes on the point he has made will be taken up. I remember well when he did so much, in the uncertain post-war days, to restore the trade between this country and the Soviet Union. Who knows what a contribution he made towards the easing of political tension. Bad as things are now, they might have been worse. Bad as are conditions in the fishing industry they might have been worse, but for the intervention of my right hon. Friend and the great zeal with which he conducted the negotiations, in very delicate political circumstances, to restore the trade we had traditionally carried on with the Soviet Union.
My right hon. Friend has raised a very important and wider point, on which I shall dwell very briefly because I do not want to detain the House. I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I am anxious to compress my thoughts into a reasonable space. On the question of E.F.T.A. and the Six, I want to make it plain that the West's economic and political strength is vital for our salvation. We must recognise how vital is the unity of Western life and of the Western world, economically and politically, and we should not pass any Clause readily which we think will damage those purposes.
On the other hand, we must make it quite plain that we are living in a nuclear age. We will have to ensure world unity if mankind is not to perish, and we can look upon these other unities only as steps to the greater unity of

1119
the world. We must live in peace with each other, and even when we are turning our thoughts to relatively humble legislation of this kind it is not improper to relate the following criteria to each Clause: does this Clause contribute to this country's hopes in E.F.T.A.? Does this Clause jeopardise the possibilities of this country's contribution to the Common Market and to the political and economic unification of Europe? Finally, we must not be slow to say, does this Clause jeopardise, risk, obstruct the possibilities of the peace of the entire world? These criteria are the only criteria which can mean anything in today's conditions. How does this Clause stand up to them?
Mr. Cyril Bence: How does my hon. Friend think it does?
Mr. Lever: I am personally worried about it.
Mr. Steele: I hope and trust that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that, although this Clause applies particularly to this world and he is thinking of it in terms of this world, we know that this last week something of great importance has transpired and that a Sputnik is on its way to Venus.
The Temporary Chairman: The debate has ranged rather wide, but I think Sputniks and Venus are outside the scope of the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
Mr. Lever: We cannot look at any Clause in the legislation we pass in isolation from the great issues of our time. We must measure it against the needs of our time. That is why, whereas on the one hand we want to know, are these subsidies desirable—
Mr. Steele: On a point of order, Dr. King, I raised what I thought a very important matter to which I hoped my hon. Friend would reply. Clause 1 says:
" irrespective of the size of the vessel or of the nature of the voyage;".
While I appreciate that it applies to vessels not exceeding 140 ft.—
Mr. G. Brown: Over 140 ft. and up to anything.
Mr. Steele: I wanted to draw your attention, Dr. King, to the nature of the words in the Clause and to what might apply in this connection.
The Temporary Chairman: Order. The words may be as widely drawn as the hon. Members suggests, but I think it more than unlikely that any of the ships referred to in this Clause will either travel through space or catch any fish on such a journey.
Mr. Lever: I am one of the last, as you know, Dr. King, to challenge your Ruling, but so often that view has been expressed and falsified in a relatively short time. Who would have thought that a few years ago that at this day and age man would be hurtling vast satellites into outer space? Ten years ago a Chairman of Committees might have ruled that out of order as a truly unreal concept, but one never knows what is possible in these days when the imagination has been beggared by the fabulous achievements of man, which unfortunately man has not always learned to harness to his advantage but sometimes to his damage and destruction. Of course the Clause refers to vessels and places no limit on time and space, but I do not pretend for a moment that I am equipped to consider these aspects—at any rate at the moment.
12.15 a.m.
I want an assurance from the Government that these wider purposes are not damaged by the Clause. I should have spared the Committee so much consideration of these matters but for the fact that it appears that on Second Reading they had not occurred to the Government. I see no mention of them in the Minister's Second Reading speech. Apparently he has no conception of the necessity to put this in the context of the wider needs of the nation. He appears to be operating in blinkered fashion, narrowly concentrating on the need to subsidise slightly longer boats over slightly longer distances catching slightly different kinds of fish. One can infer from his Second Reading speech that all that is in his mind, but there is no sign in that speech that the wider issues, with which I have dealt, were in his mind when the legislation was framed, and it would be helpful and not a little reassuring if the Committee could

1121
feel that the Government have in mind bigger considerations than the more immediate, extemporised solution of temporary problems of the industry.
I should like an assurance, too, on the general preparatory studies which have been made. Have the Government studied the effects of the subsidy so far on the smaller boats? As I have said, I am not very enthusiastic about subsidies in general. The way to solve the problem is to create an industry which can stand on its own feet, for there must be something wrong with an industry which cannot. Subsidies should be used temporarily, as a shield, while one repairs the adverse conditions which have given rise to the need for them. One should subsidise in order to end subsidies. We talk cynically about wars to end war, but there is no reason to be cynical about subsidies to end the need for subsidies, and I hope that the Government are thinking in those terms.
There is doubt about that, because we have heard nothing from the Government about the effect so far of the subsidies on boats up to 140 feet. Have they produced the advantages which we were led to expect when the subsidy was introduced in 1953? Not a word have we heard to tell us whether it has been beneficial or harmful—and I do not know which. The Minister could cut short this part of my speech if he assured us that he is well satisfied with the results of the subsidy on the smaller boats. That would be a prima facie case that similar advantages would flow if the subsidy were extended to boats over 140 feet. But all the evidence suggests that the Government have not even applied this elementary test of logic.
The first question the Minister should have asked himself when requested to extend the subsidy is, "What has been the impact on the smaller boats? Before I extend the subsidy, is all well with the smaller boats? Are the building arrangements for smaller boats improving? Are their numbers increasing? How many are there? "Does the Minister know, or will he find out in time to tell us? One of the Ministers responsible for the 1953 legislation was concerned that there were not enough of the smaller boats. Are there enough of the smaller boats? Is the Minister
1122
wise to extend the subsidy to the larger boats if there is still a shortage of the smaller boats? Has the Minister made any inquiries about this? Are there some ancillary matters about which we have heard nothing?
There is the question of the effect of the subsidy on all the other industries which link up with the herring fishing industry. Has the effect of the subsidy on the herring fishing industry been such that there are better and more modern herring meal factories for surplus herring? Will the Minister tell us something about that when he replies? Before he asks us to extend the subsidy, he should tell us whether the old subsidy had a stimulating and invigorating effect upon some of the ancillary industries catering for the smaller boats. In other words, what is the condition of the herring meal industry, which I understand makes fertiliser out of surplus herring which are not saleable for human consumption?
In spite of the great campaign which many hon. Members have always conducted on behalf of herring—by now it is well known to most people that it is one of the most nutritious fish and one of the best buys in the shops—there are apparently seasonal fluctuations in the market and some times there are more herring than there are customers. [Laughter.] There are at all times of the year more herring than there are customers. I meant that more herring come into the shops than can find a ready market. The Government buy all the herring, subsidise them and encourage the purchase of them to turn them into fertiliser and cattle food. It must be of some consequence to us to know, in deciding whether to extend the subsidy, how the Government's ambitions were fulfilled as regards the earlier subsidy. Is all well with the herring industry? I should like to know what progress has been made with the smaller boats.
One or two other things still worry me. For example, there is the question of subsidising the building of one of the larger boats. I do not think that this was considered carefully enough when the smaller boats were dealt with, but perhaps the House of Commons felt that there was not so much to fear when the power related only to smaller boats. When dealing with larger boats, which

1123
avowedly will be capable of sailing almost anywhere, what I am now about to raise is very pertinent.
Mr. Soames: I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's most interesting dissertation on subsidies for the longer boats, but in the study he gave to the Bill in those few short minutes before ten o'clock he did not hoist in the fact that this is not in any way a subsidy for building boats. It is that to which he is addressing himself at the moment.
Mr. Lever: The Clause allows a subsidy in respect of larger boats—not the building of them, but the operation of them. When the operation of a boat is subsidised, the building of it must indirectly be subsidised. We can test that simply. Let us suppose that the Government put a subsidy on the user of Rolls Royce cars.
Mr. H. Wilson: They do.
Mr. Lever: It would be idle to say that would not be a subsidy for the building of Rolls Royce cars.
Mr. Paget: Clause 1 (1) of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, provides:
" Subject to the provisions of this and the next following section, the White Fish Authority may, in accordance with a scheme made by the Ministers with the approval of the Treasury after consultation with the Authority, make to persons engaged or proposing to become engaged in the white fish industry in Great Britain grants in respect of expenditure incurred—
(a) in the acquisition of new fishing vessels… "
This simply extends that provision in respect of the 140 ft. boats to the longer ones. I therefore find the right hon. Gentleman's interjection very surprising indeed. If the acquisition of a new fishing vessel is not a subsidy on building, what is it?
Mr. Soames: I was referring to the Clause which I thought was before the Committee. Clause 1, which provides for these subsidies for white fish, has nothing in any way to do with the grants or loans for the building of vessels. It is purely a subsidy for operating them.
Mr. Willey: On a point of order, Sir William. I have been trying to follow the discussion, but I am now thoroughly
1124
at a loss to understand the purpose of the Clause. May I suggest that one of the Law Officers might assist us in our deliberations. It really will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to advise us on what are, after all, legal matters.
The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The question of the Law Officers is not a matter for me to deal with.
Mr. H. Wilson: Is not it clear, Sir William, that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) has shown a far greater knowledge of the purpose of the Bill than has the Minister himself. Since other of my right hon. and hon. Friends are bound to put questions to the Minister—who, patently, does not know the answers—would it not be appropriate for the Minister to ask leave of the Committee now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Report progress."] No, I was not intending to do that on this occasion.
I would not do such a discourtesy to my hon. Friend as to do that in the middle of his speech—after all, he has hardly got started—but would not the Minister say that when my hon. Friend has got to the end of his speech—and, if my hon. Friend is not exactly at the beginning of the end of it, he may well be towards the end of the beginning—he proposes to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. He could then take the opportunity to study the Bill properly, so that when we next discuss it he could give an authoritative answer to the question of its purpose?
Mr. Soames: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has got it wrong. He was referring to Section 1 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, but if he looks at Clause 1 of this Bill—which is the one we are discussing—he will see that it says:
" The power conferred by section five of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act.. "
I think that that is where—
Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Sir William. Is not the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that for the past quarter of an hour the discussion has been out of order, and is not that a criticism of the Chair which should be made, if at all, by raising a point of order?
The Deputy-Chairman: No, I do not accept that as a point of order. Mr. Soames.
Mr. Soames: This really arises out of my efforts to get on terms, so to speak, with the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) in his interesting discussion. The Clause refers—as I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree if he looks at it—to the power conferred by Section 5 of that Act. Section 5 says:
"With a view to promoting the landing in the United Kingdom of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish.. "
The Clause refers to an operating subsidy, and not to a building one.
Mr. Paget: With great respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about this. Section 1 of the Act says:
" Subject to the provisions of this and the next following section, the White Fish Authority may."
make a scheme. Now, by subsection (1), that scheme may include a subsidisation of the building, and we are still within the scheme, and then—and this is what the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have observed—when we get to Section 5 we are dealing with the same scheme. Under Section 5, that scheme shall take into consideration the purpose of the continuous supply of fish. The Section reads:
" With a view to promoting the landing in the United Kingdom of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish, the appropriate Minister may, in accordance with a scheme made by the Ministers with the approval of the Treasury, make grants to the owners and charterers of vessels engaged in catching such fish."
That is all within the scheme of Section 1. The next two subsections give rise to some difficulty. If I have the advantage of catching the eye of the Chair, perhaps at a later stage, I shall wish to go through this parent Act because it has reached a condition when it is extremely difficult to follow it. I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to read subsection (2). It is quite interesting, but it has been repealed by the 1957 Act. I do not know whether we are discussing here Section 5 as incorporated in the 1957 Act or in its original form. These are further difficulties. The subsidy for building certainly seems to be included.
12.30 a.m.
Mr. Lever: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. This is a substantial point, and it will affect the argument. I hope that the Minister will not ignore it. On Second Reading, the Minister boasted of the amount of new ships which had been brought into being as a result of the subsidies. He cannot have it both ways. Either this does or does not permit him to subsidise the building of new ships.
I confess that I have not studied the 1953 Act, and I am grateful to my han. and learned Friend for his assistance, as I am sure the whole Committee is. He has pointed to what may well be a great blunder on the part of the Minister. If I may choose an analogy which may be palatable and instructive to the Minister, it is no good trying to play bridge always without any system. Sometimes one must play with a system. The Minister thinks he is playing at the Portland Club instead of addressing himself to this serious economic problem. He should have the advice of one of the learned members of the Government such as the Attorney-General. It is unfair to the Minister. I do not want to take advantage of him. I have legal friends to advise me. While I concentrate on the economic, political and strategic aspects of tine Clause, my hon. and learned Friend the Member four Northampton dan give his undivided attention to the legal aspects off the Clause. The Minister has to listen intently to my argument, and he has not the legal advice which he should have at his elbow on the legal matters. I think he has made a very serious error here.
Mr. H. Wilson: Lest there be any danger that my hon. Friend should be inhibited or restricted in any way by the advice that the Minister has given to the Committee, I ought to point out that on Second Reading the Minister said these words:
" I turn now to our second reason for bringing forward the Bill. As hon. Members know, the Government have helped in the construction of new vessels for the inshore, near and middle water fleets, by loans and grants administered through the White Fish Authority. In the last couple of years, more new vessels have been ordered than ever before and they have taken less time to build. This is encouraging, but it means that as the rate of new

1127
building has increased so the calls for loans and grants have speeded up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 797–8.]
It is quite impossible to discuss the matter without referring to fat aspect.
Mr. Soames: That, of course, refers to Clause 2, not Clause 1, which we are as present discussing.
Mr. Wilson: Surely, the Minister himself made it plain that the reason for the Bill was that he needed the operating subsidy because of the increase in new building. Clause 1 is about the operating subsidy.
Mr. Lever: I am sure the Minister is very ill advised to make legal quibbles without adequate professional experience in such matters.
Mr. Willis: On a point of order. We were advised by the Minister. He intervened to advise us on the law. It seems that he wrongly advised the Committee on this point. I should like to know where we stand, because if I intervene later in our discussion I do not want to repeat myself on the following Clause. We should get it clear whether or not the effect of this Clause can, in turn, affect shipbuilding, a matter in which I am particularly interested.
Mr. Soames: I would not like to be out of order by talking about Clause 2 or by going too far away from the subject before the Committee. Clause 1 refers to operating subsidies to ships and extends the power of the Government to pay operating subsidies beyond the near and middle water fleets to the distant water fleet. It extends it to the longer ships, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Lever) said. It does not in any way seek power to pay any form of grant, loan or subsidy towards building ships.
Mr. Lever: I do not think the Minister was wise to interrupt my argument at that point, even if he was right. I gather he is saying that operational subsidies are only affected by Clause 1 and that pre-operational subsidies, as it were, are affected by Clause 2. Clause 2 gives power to subsidise the building, and Clause 1 affects the power to subsidise the operation.
Mr. Soames: We have not got to Clause 2 yet. Clause 1 is to extend
1128
it to the distant water fleet. When we get to Clause 2 the hon. Member will then be aware that it does not refer to what he has called the longer boats.
Mr. Lever: It is plain that the whole purpose of the scheme results in a subsidy to those operating longer ships. It is idle for the Minister to escape the logical consequence of the Clause. If the Clause does not mean that it does not mean anything, and the whole of our purpose tonight in trying to secure the passage of this legislation will be frustrated. We shall have laboured in vain. If the Bill has any meaning it surely means that we are subsidising the owners of longer boats, whereas in the past we have contended ourselves with shorter boats.
The Committee did not worry unduly when we were subsidising smaller boats because they have a restricted radius. But here we are dealing with boats with an infinite range, able to sail to any waters, irrespective of the size of the vessel or nature of the voyage, to the most remote ports. A totally different standard must be applied in considering whether we can unconditionally leave to the Government the power to subsidise boats of that character. In other words, whereas the Committee, perhaps unwisely, did not consider this in relation to the shorter boats, we are obliged now to consider the question of the financial consequences of this subsidy in relation to the longer boats.
Mr. Callaghan: Is my hon. Friend going to give us his views on the Report of the Fleck Committee on this subject? We have not heard from the Minister on that. My hon. Friend will remember that the majority of that Committee said there should be a smaller subsidy on the longer boats than on the shorter boats. We have had no indication from the Government whether the subsidy on the longer boats will be the same or less than that on the shorter boats. We should have an answer from the Government, and I hope my hon. Friend will pursue this matter.
Mr. Lever: We know that the boats are going to be longer. We do not know whether the subsidy is going to be shorter or longer.
Mr. Bence: Voyages will be longer.
Mr. Lever: We are dealing now with a kind of boat which can sail almost uninhibitedly to the most remote parts of the world, and the question arises, which did not arise, perhaps, though this is questionable, with the smaller boats, and it arises from this Clause. The Committee must ask itself what guarantees we have, having subsidised one of these longer boats, that the longer boat, subsidised out of public funds in this country, serving the purposes intended by the House when it provided these millions of subsidy, will continue to serve the country. We can subsidise a rowingboat on the Serpentine with reasonable confidence that it will stay in the service of British citizens. We know that the boat has a limited range. We can decide to subsidise rowingboats, I should have thought, without bothering ourselves unduly, though in theory they can be flown to remote parts of the world. But we know not only that these boats can go to those remote parts of the world but that the Clause envisages these boats going without restriction anywhere in the world.
Mr. Walter Monslow: My hon. Friend talks about sailing and about rowingboats, and there are motor boats Does the Clause apply to all kinds?
Mr. Lever: There is no statement in the Bill itself, as far as I know, restricting the nature of the vessel. All that is clear is that these vessels have unlimited range.
Mr. Steele: The Clause does deal specifically with giving subsidies particularly for modernisation, and there are a lot of questions to be asked of the Minister about that matter.
Mr. Lever: I want to be careful, because that may very well be better discussed on Clause 2. I am not the Chairman, and I do not want to inhibit my hon. Friend, who will, doubtless, have his say on this subject.
Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, but while my hon. Friend is on this point, and since my hon. Friend is talking about the very great capacity of these boats which can go long distances, would he address himself to the very real point, on which I have heard him speak on other occasions though in a different context—and
1130
it is a very serious point: that however far afield a vessel itself may go, it is a very real possibility that the owners of the company receiving the subsidy supplied by State money may decide to uproot themselves because of their dislike of the level of taxation in this country and establish themselves in Bermuda or somewhere else? What safeguards have we that the money's worth paid out from the public purse in this way will not go entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the taxpayers of this country?
Mr. Lever: I am very deeply obliged to my right hon. Friend, because this is the kind of anxiety which I am anxious to highlight in this debate and which I doubt very much whether the Government have given much thought to. Can the Minister tell us what safeguards there are about these boats of unlimited range and probably of unlimited purpose? Can we know what safeguards are being provided by the Government about these large boats, on which substantial sums of public money are going to be spent, in one form or another. I care not whether it is pre-operational or post-operational subsidy.
Mr. Wilson: Or operational.
Mr. Lever: Or operational. I should like to know what assurance the taxpayers of this country will have that these subsidised boats of unlimited range, power, size and purpose are going to remain at the service of the herring and white fish industries. After all, we know, that after two years of great lucrative activity on behalf of the herring and white fish industries they can go off—oh! smuggling cigarettes between Spain and Tangier. What are the Government going to do about it? Are we to subsidise with public money the smuggling trade between Tangier and Spain? Are we to see boats which have been brought into being and kept in being for a period with public funds engaged in all kinds of nefarious purposes throughout the world? Is this what the Government intend? If it does not so intend, what safeguards are there against it?
12.45 a.m.
I will come later to the part made by my right hon. Friend, but he will forgive my saying that my anxieties about the

1131
political damage resulting from these activities is even greater than my anxiety about loss of revenue. There are so many other ways in which the Government cast away public revenue by inadequate taxation laws that perhaps it might be unfair to single out this for special attention.
Mr. H. Wilson: I was not trying to suggest that there was any loss of taxation, because I am sure that I should be ruled out of order on the question of alternative forms of taxation. I was asking my hon. Friend to address himself to the point that there might be a waste of Government money which will be expended under the Clause by the fact that when it is handed over to the owners of some vessels the owners might take themselves out of British nationality for the purpose of registration of their companies.
Mr. Lever: I misunderstood my right hon. Friend. He was thinking about loss. I was thinking more narrowly, more practicably and perhaps more in line with the possibilities—
Mr. Driberg: This is an ungracious and unworthy thought, with due respect. There is no body of men more patriotic than the fishermen of England and Scotland.
Mr. Bence: That is all very well, but the fishermen do not get the subsidies.
Mr. Driberg: Owners cannot move their ships unless they have their crews with them.
Mr. Lever: It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that. Fishermen are not briefed, as it were. There is no Committee stage for fishermen. They cannot discuss line by line, Clause by Clause, when they are at sea. They go on board ship to an unknown destination. In the words of the Clause they go on a voyage of any nature in a vessel of any size. They are not to know for what purpose. It may be for the purpose of transferring the boat outside jurisdiction, or for fishing. How is any sailor to know where he is sailing in this vessel of unlimited size? The boat may be going to Zanzibar in search of the coelacanth. It was previously expected that the fish would be limited to herring and white fish. It is now clear that any kind of fish—
Mr. Wilson: Scampi.
Mr. Lever: It is clear that any kind of fish comes within the ambit.
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order. I unwisely mentioned scampi. Can the Chair say whether scampi, which is not a fish but a crustacean, would come within the ambit of the Clause?
Mr. Lever: It would depend on the construction of the Clause. It is clear that any kind of fish are within the purposes of the Clause and it is clear that we cannot rely on fishermen to know the purpose of these unrestricted vessels. They cannot know whether they are engaged on a legitimate expedition in search of fish of one sort or another or in travelling as a subsidised vessel carrying the congealed loan of many humble English citizens, in the form of tax, outside the jurisdiction, either to engage in the nefarious transactions to which I have referred or in fishing for other countries. We may be indirectly subsidising the fishing of other nations.
Hon. Members opposite seem confident, but there was a great hullabaloo when the Labour Government was in office about foreigners coming here and getting free teeth and spectacles through the Health Service, and everybody thought it terrible. I was not all that enthusiastic about subsidising the medical treatment of foreigners who had contributed nothing to the taxes of this country, but if by analogy it is horrifying to hon. Members opposite and many citizens that foreigners should benefit from the Health Service—
Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member has no evidence that small ships are used in nefarious practices, so why on earth should slightly larger ships?
Mr. Lever: Those of us who, in a candid spirit of impartiality, make our modest contributions in an attempt to enlighten fellow Members on a difficult problem are bound to be discouraged when, after addressing the Committee with some clarity on this very point, as I would modestly claim, find an hon. Member who reveals that the point has not gone home. In expounding this argument as to the distinction between the present position and what it will be if, in

1133
our discretion, we pass the Clause, I could not spell out the matter more simply if I were addressing a kindergarten class.
I am always concerned to treat the Committee with great respect. No doubt hon. Members are tired after bending their minds to very important subjects fundamentally affecting the House of Commons. If hon. Members were frank and forgot party political matters of a cheap sort, they would admit that they were heartily sick of the Government's nonsensical idea that, exhausted by those considerations of non-party matters, hon. Members should be forced to consider this detailed financial, economic and nautical subject at this late hour. I know that I carry many hon. Members with me in resenting that. It is for that reason I make my argument as simple as I can and not from any disrespect to the Committee. I will try briefly to recapitulate.
It is one thing to subsidise a rowing boat, which may be on the Serpentine and which is not likely, when subsidised, to go overseas and rebuke us, as it were, by engaging in nefarious activities, so that what was subsidised would reflect discredit on the House of Commons—[Interruption.] Hon. Members know perfectly well that reference to Venus was ruled out of order by an earlier occupant of the Chair. I do not wish to be defiant or disrespectful to the Chair. There is all the difference between subsidising a small boat and subsidising a big boat. The hon. Member's contention is bad. He showed precisely the feckless thinking which is responsible for the Bill in its present form. It is a great giveaway of the heedlessness of the Government and that is precisely the basis of my anxiety. I fear that the Government are thinking on lines similar to those followed by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower).
The Government are saying that they did not have any trouble subsidising the smaller boats—there was no rum running or tobacco running and no movement out to foreign fishing fleets—and therefore they would probably get away with subsidising the larger boats. But there is all the difference between a small boat being towed, or obtrusively conveyed into a foreign port of distant location, and a larger boat prepared for any eventuality and any distance of travel.
Mr. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his aspersions about the masters and crews and his suggestion that they would be involved in, or be likely to indulge in, any of these activities?
Mr. Lever: It is all very well to say that, but I am being asked to provide public money to subsidise a class of boats and we are at least entitled to know what safeguards exist to ensure that the boats will not be involved in purposes other than those for which the subsidy was intended. It is not a boat being built in the ordinary way; it is a boat being built—
Mr. Wise: Would not the fact that it is manned by honest men be a reasonable safeguard?
Mr. Lever: The hon. Member asks whether the fact that the boat is manned by honest men be a sufficient safeguard.
Mr. Loughlin: There is the classical example of a Seine net fishing vessel being taken by its skipper right across the world—the case of the "Girl Pat". Might not that happen again?
Mr. Lever: To prove the extreme mobility of these smaller boats is rather against my argument. These extreme cases are not to be taken as normal.
Mr. George Jeger: With the discussions going on at present between our Government and the Icelandic Government, so far unresolved, fishing limits may, in the course of those discussions, be set in such a way as to work against us. In the case of fishing boats over 140 feet in length might it not be that they will no longer be able to go to distant waters, since those waters will be denied to them? Will not we then have a number of subsidised vessels with no water in which to fish?
Further, might it not then be that the owners of those vessels and their crews—honest fishermen—finding themselves without a livelihood, will seek to dispose of them, subsidised as they have been under the Clause? Has my hon Friend considered that we might then find ourselves in a difficult position, with a number of honest men with vessels they cannot use on their lawful occasions and which they may be forced to dispose of

1135
at give-away prices because the prospective purchasers know they have been purchased with the aid of a Government subsidy?
We would then be subsidising foreign fishermen, who would disport themselves in distant waters that we should be using, with vessels bearing subsidies provided by the Government.
Mr. Lever: That was one contingency I found extremely disquieting. I thank my hon. Friend for pinpointing it. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) asked whether the fact that these vessels are manned by honest men is not enough. He is extraordinarily naive. I pointed out that the honest men on board have not the faintest notion why they are going to distant waters.
Mr. Wise: They cannot be as stupid as that.
Mr. Lever: The hon. Member says they cannot be as stupid as that, but one has only to be in the House for a short time—[Laughter.] I am not referring to hon. Members opposite; but nobody can be in this House for many years without having the boundless stupidity of mankind brought to one's notice.
Furthermore, these men are not stupid. They go on board not to cerebrate, or make calculations about the purpose of the owners, or to speculate upon the ultimate consequences of their arrival at a distant port. They may be told to sail to Zanzibar, assuming Zanzibar to be a port—a point about which I am a little vague at the moment—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is a port".] I am told that it is a port, but if my informant be incorrect and it is not a port, then they may be told to sail to the nearest port to Zanzibar.
1.0 a.m.
If they refused to obey orders on the ground that they would like some reassurance about the purposes for which the boat was being sailed—subject to the correction of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, who has been good enough to intervene on some of the legal points I have raised—I am sure few would challenge that if they refused to obey orders on the ground.that some hon. Member of the Conservative Party said they were to be relied upon as honest men to see that
1136
Government subsidies were not consumed wrongly, it would be a poor consolation for a poor fisherman before the assize court that his learned counsel pleaded emotionally that that point was made by a Conservative back bencher in the Committee stage on the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. As I 'understand the position, I am afraid it would be of little help to the fisherman to pray in aid the intervention of the hon. Member that he would make sure of the purposes of his master.
It is all very well saying that these fears are far-fetched, and I agree that one should not approach these problems with an excessive air of suspicion and over-anxiety. On the other hand, we have to lace the facts of life, and it is a fact that there are cigarette smugglers and boats engaging in unlawful operations. We know that a vessel engaged on lawful operations, the "Santa Maria," was seized. One of these ships might be seized by sympathisers with those on this side of the Committee as a protest against the leaders of the Conservative Party.
I want to know from the Minister if he has given any thought to this problem and what assurance he can give the Committee that the boats we are subsidising will stay in use for the purposes for which we are subsidising them. The Minister tells us that the Bill gives him power only until 1963 and it is conceivable that it will not be renewed in 1964 or 1965. An unsubsidised English or Scottish fisherman will find it bitter indeed if, sailing his post-1963, unsubsidised, long ship he is in competition at the same port with a foreign fisherman running a subsidised, long ship Which he acquired from a British fisherman.
What bitter irony that would be for an English skipper. There is no doubt that that is a possibility under the Bill as it stands. An English fisherman could find himself in his unsubsidised ship landing his hard-won catch and paying wages to a British crew side by side in a berth with what originally was a subsidised British boat paid for by the British taxpayers and now competing with him for a livelihood at this dangerous, difficult and hard working profession of seafaring.
These are the sort of anxieities which pass through my mind which I and the Committee are entitled to know are being examined. The point has been reached at which it would be convenient as far as I am concerned, although I have not he sitated to allow anyone who thought he had a point to make to intervene, it is quite conceivable that the Minister might want to report Progress and want time to reflect on some of the legal interpretations he has given.
The Minister has shown a certain open-mindedness. It is lamentable that no Law Officer is here to guide him, and he may want to consult a Law Officer. If it is not immodest of me to say so, I may have raised matters which he wishes to study. He would feel happier when addressing the Committee if he were firmly grounded on the Law Officers' advice—or perhaps he would like to consult the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister on some of the points which I have made on the effects of the Clause.
I will sum up briefly. The Clause is an admission that Tory Freedom does not work. Sir James Stuart's expectation in 1953 has been confounded. His confident expectation that laissez-faire capital would be enough to solve the problem of the shorter boats has not been realised. He was wrong, and the Government propose to extend to the longer boats the same subsidies as had to be given to rescue the shorter boats. The Clause is a confession of failure and an admission that the longer boats cannot work un-subsidised, either. It is right to emphasise that all the Government's expectations in this respect have been confounded.
Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry to intervene at this stage, but I am becoming slightly confused by my hon. Friend's statements. He said that the subsidy for the deep water vessels, or long boats, as he called them, will be the same as that for the inshore fishermen.
Mr. Lever: I did not say that. I said it was doubtful whether the longer boats would get larger subsidies than the shorter boats—or whether the shorter boats would get a smaller subsidy. Nor did I say that both would attract the same subsidy. I do not know, and I ask
1138
the Minister, with a little more confidence, to enlighten us; I am happier when he speaks about the political aspects of the Bill than when he speaks about the legal aspects.
It is undeniable that the Bill is a confession of failure and a statement that the longer boats also require subsidy. It means that laissez faire, unsubsidised, normal economic considerations will presumably fail. If it does not mean that, why are we asked to subsidise the longer boats when for all these years the subsidy has been applicable only to the smaller boats? We do not know what the subsidy will be or how the Government will apply it, but they have no confidence that boats over 140 feet will be a viable economic proposition within our present system and under this Government unless they are subsidised. The Bill is a confession of failure and a promise not of a remedy but of a further subsidy.
It would have been heartening if the Government had been frank with us and said that it was clear that the industry was not viable and could not earn a good living without Government intervention. It would have been heartening if the Government had then said to us, "We must temporarily help the industry in this way. We, the Government, are alert and alive to find out why the longer boats, which presumably in the past were viable and profitable units, are now in need of a subsidy."
It is odd that the Government come here as if no explanation is required. It could be that we have had seven years of Tory rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Iceland."] Why are the longer boats unprofitable because of the Icelandic dispute? Are we to solve that type of problem by tackling the causes of the unprofitability, or are we to solve it when it arises by subsidy? We started with subsidy for small boats. We end with subsidy for boats of any size. Where will it all end? It has spread from industry to industry. As soon as an industry cannot make an easy assured profit, the Government, in their anxiety to show that the Tory system works, doles out a subsidy—with very little thought about it either. So gradually the Government patronage extends from industry to industry.

1139
I object to it. We want some assurances about this ever-spreading net of Government subsidy. The Clause extends the patronage power of the Government. I have exonerated the Government of any deliberate corrupt motive in the Clause. I do not think that the Clause is deliberately intended to corrupt ambition at present. But many unthinking people, ready to believe evil of others, will assume that that is the Government's intention and that it is not for nothing that the Government are enlarging their powers of patronage. Those who fear corruption understandably do so in an atmosphere of that kind, especially when they see the kind of thing which is approved of and justified by the Government, an example of which we witnessed today with the Government quite happily carrying legislation without three-quarters of the Committee having heard the Question being put. When a Government are responsible for such actions, it is bound to lead to a great deal of suspicion when they enlarge their power of patronage.
I do not charge the Minister with corruption. I think that he intends well for the longer boats and those who fish in them. He means well. The only trouble is, as has been proved so often, that mere good wishes for a section of the population are not enough. Carefully thought out plans, free from vice and corruption, or the possibility of vice and corruption, are required. The Minister may go. He may be replaced by another Minister.
Mr. Paget: He may be replaced by the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Lever: He may indeed. The Government may go. We have moved from the days when the Patronage Secretary was content merely to decide who was to wear coronets. He has now a rather more vaunting ambition and likes to have a part on the wider stage.
The Deputy-Chairman: I find it very difficult to connect the hon. Member's remarks now with the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lever: Sir William, you did not have the benefit of hearing this part of
1140
my argument. If you had listened to this part of my argument, the relevance of my words would have been more readily appreciated. I was stressing that this is another example of Government patronage. The Government have patronage. They have power to subsidise. Previously, they only had power to subsidise the owners of the 140 foot boats. Anybody with a larger or longer boat at that time could not hope to get Government patronage, but that will not be the case if we pass this Clause. If we pass the Clause, there can be long queues of proprietors of longer boats anxious for Government patronage.
The Government know that they will possess that power, and the Minister did not dispute that point in our discussion. And it is not irrelevant to my complaint that it extends Government patronage to notice that the present distributor of Government patronage, the Patronage Secretary, seems to be very ill-attuned to what we regard as the ordinary democratic rights in this House. Whereas we would not worry so much about the Clause extending Government patronage in this way if we had a Patronage Secretary in whom we had some confidence, we are surely entitled to argue that our anxieties are aggravated and enlarged by the monstrous behaviour of the fount of Government patronage to whom this patronage is being added.
I do not want to stray from the rules in order to seek to relate the behaviour of the Patronage Secretary today and the other day to this Clause, but it does relate to this Clause, because there is patronage there. There, although absent from his place, is the fount of Government patronage. This side has no reason to have confidence in the Patronage Secretary, and has no reason to desire to extend that patronage, as the Clause proposes, to the proprietors of longer boats—
Sir A. Vere Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has clearly shown that he is sympathetic to the industry and has referred to Iceland and how the dispute with that country has affected the boats that are longer than 140 ft., but can he say what he would do, if he was responsible, to help those longer boats?
Mr. Lever: Knowing that the hon. Gentleman's interventions have always been constructive, I am sure that he is

1141
not seeking to make me clash with the Chair. I want to adhere very strictly to the Question now before the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman consults me outside the Chamber I shall be very happy to discuss that with him, but I am now confined to discussing what the Clause intends to do. I fear that I cannot; unless I were to stray outside the rules of order, give him my policy for the fishing industry—
Sir A. V. Harvey: Try.
Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman says "Try," but one of the most disagreeable habits of the Committees seems to be that of sailing near the wind with the Chair—a nautical expression not altogether inappropriate to this subject. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the 15 years I have been in the House while I may not always have seen eye to eye with my Whips, and while I have not always troubled the House with my presence, it has yet been my honest endeavour always to respect the Chair and to support it in its activities.
It seems to me that there is no ingenuity more displaced than that used to seek to side-step the rules of the House. After all, those rules are intended to protect the very wide debate which we enjoy at all stages of our legislation. Wide as that is, one would not wish to widen it by—to use another nautical expression—going a little over the line now and then, and sailing too close to the wind. If the hon. Member wishes to know my policy on this and other subjects, I hope he will make his interventions on those occasions when the rules of order permit me to do justice to the question.
Returning to the subject of patronage, I am sure that the House of Commons as a whole objects to gifts of patronage, especially when they can be construed by some people as having been done with corrupt intention—an intention which, each time I raise the matter, I never impute to the Government. But honesty, like justice, must not merely be there; it must be manifestly seen to be there. It is no good the Government being pure as lilies if they look corrupt and besmirched with evil intent. It would be very ill advised for the Government to add yet another industry to the list of
1142
industries in which they have given patronage without giving some satisfactory assurances.
There is another matter which affects the honour of our country. The vessels which we are subsidising may travel to the most remote parts of the world. What safeguards shall we have that the subsidy given for one purpose will not be filched and used for another purpose? What a sad thing it would be if these subsidised long vessels could be seen in all parts of the globe, in all kinds of activities, reputable and disreputable, plying their trade, half financed by the British taxpayer, some perhaps smuggling rum and cigarettes from Tangier to Spain, some competing with British fishermen and perhaps sailing into British ports—engaged in all manner of other activities, creditable or discreditable. It is much to be deplored that we should be asked to pass unthinkingly a subsidy for such purposes when our intention is to help the simple fishermen of Britain and—I do not want to take too narrow a view—the proprietors.
The average fishing boat proprietor could not be called an aggressive imperialist capitalist beast. He is a fisherman himself, deeply interested in the work of his men and often sharing in the rough life and dangers of their calling. I do not want to raise any party political point here about the difference between the proprietor who receives the subsidy and the worker who receives only his wage, but it would be a depressing thought, and one which would redound very much to our discredit as a House of Commons, if we sent out these hard pressed men in this difficult and dangerous industry with our help and, in a few years, the same subsidised vessels were being sent all over the world operating for purposes, nefarious or even respectable, which were never in the mind of the House at all at the time when it passed the subsidies. That must not be permitted, and I think the Minister owes it to the Committee to say that we shall be safeguarded against that kind of thing.
Finally, I come to the long-term problem. Are the Government proposing to do something permanent for the benefit of the industry? Are we to be fobbed off in 1963 with a similar ill-thought-out scheme? What are the

1143
Government going to do about the Fleck Report? Have they considered the implications of that Report? [Interruption.] I am told I have not read the Report, but I am not supporting this legislation. I am not the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland. I want to know what is to be done for the industry in the long term. Must it look to the future as a pauperised industry, subjected to the humiliations we have seen the film industry go through? Every year that industry's affairs are scrutinised before the public dole is handed out. That is what this Clause does. It provides a dole. I do beg the Minister—
Mr. H. Wilson: I do not know whether my hon. Friend recalls, as many of us do with pleasure, how on the film industry he addressed a short speech of about three hours on 20th November, 1953—it was continued the following Tuesday. I am sure he does not want to get out of order, but some of the points he made on that occasion are highly relevant to this Clause.
Mr. Lever: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of an agreeable occasion when we passed a day together in the House discussing the affairs of the Film Finance Corporation. It is of practical relevance here.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend would not wish me to mislead the Committee. The discussion was in the nature of a dialogue, with me waiting to wind up. Perhaps he would consider withdrawing the word "discussing".
Mr. Lever: "Monologue" might be more appropriate. I was then incensed by the inadequate scrutiny given.
The Temporary Chairman (Dr. King): We are not now concerned with the debate to which the hon. Member is referring.
Mr. Lever: I was making a passing reference only. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) forced a few nostalgic words from my lips. They were not intended to be out of order or of any protracted character. I was content with a passing reference to the film industry which was pauperised in the same way as under this Clause.
The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member made that passing nostalgic reference the last time I was in the Chair
Mr. Lever: Unfortunately, the matter was brought again to my attention by my right hon. Friend. I will not allude further to it. I can only beg the Government, who have many discreditable matters on their conscience, at any rate not to let these people down. We are dealing here with people who are, and I do not intend a pun, the salt of the earth. Anyone who has sought to combat the ruthless and tempestuous seas, as I have, even by way of sport, must realise the hazardous nature of their calling, and the qualities of courage, endurance and simple fearlessness required of them. We cannot forget these folk who, in peace and war, render this service.
It would be a poor service to them if we were to leave the Minister to pass this Bill in an atmosphere of complacency, without any thought for the long term basis on which they may operate permanently and profitably. I beg the Minister to give this some consideration.
Mr. Roy Mason: I may be able to help my hon. Friend here. Already in his most brilliant and probing speech he seems to have rendered the Secretary of State for Scotland to a stickleback running along the Front Bench all evening, and the Minister of Agriculture into something of a Dover sole, flattened to some extent. Could my hon. Friend explain to the Committee particularly the political design of Clause 1? Here there can be assistance to an industry which is to be reviewed again in 1963, just prior, as we understand, to the next General Election, an industry carried on in places where some hon. Members opposite have marginal seats.
1.30 a.m.
The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member did take up the suggestion of his hon. Friend he would be making a point which he has already made some hours ago.
Mr. Wilson: Is it in order for my hon. Friend to liken the Secretary of State for Scotland to a stickleback?
Mr. Loughlin: Unfair to the sticklebacks.
Mr. Wilson: Many of us have sticklebacks in our constituencies.
The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the Committee will get back to the Clause.
Mr. Lever: I have not likened any Member to a stickleback. I hope I have treated every Member with courtesy. If in the course of this somewhat extended examination of the Clause—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—I have not always expressed myself as felicitously as I might have done if the debate had come at an earlier hour, the blame must lie on the Patronage Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—who insists on forcing us to discuss this problem after an exhausting day on matters fundamental to the House.
To conclude my peroration, as it were. I do not want to deal with the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend because, Dr. King, you have said I should be out of order if I were to do so, and I wish not to be out of order. I want to conclude my peroration by saying this. It may seem only a small thing, this question of subsidy extension to long boats, but I feel it is not a small matter. It is one which can affect other and bigger things.
I do not want to repeat my arguments, but I should like the Minister to give an assurance that he is seeing the Clause in the larger setting of European and world affairs. I hope he has asked himself, is this consistent with our policy with E.F.T.A.? How is it going to affect our relations with E.F.T.A. on which the Government have given us every ground for optimism. It is no fault of ours: our optimism is not to be blamed on our own temperaments. The blame must be placed, surely, upon the Government. Their every action, every line they write, every Clause they seek to have passed, all relate to E.F.T.A. I hope they will not disappoint the hopes which they themselves have excited. How does this Clause stand in relation to E.F.T.A.? We have not been told, and we are entitled to know. We want to know, is this Clause consistent with the Government's repeated statements in relation to the Common Market?
The Temporary Chairman: Again I would point out to the hon. Member that he asked this question at some length previously.
Mr. Lever: I was not seeking to traverse that ground again, but seeking only to bring my speech to as graceful an end as possible by a brief recapitulation of the main heads of my thought.
I come to a conclusion now with this final thought. Not only our hopes of the Common Market, but our high hopes of a peaceful world depend upon the Government attuning their economic policy and all the details of it to the requirements of the modern world, and I beg the Government to keep these great considerations in mind when they invite the Committee to pass this Clause.
Mr. Soames: Had there been members of the fishing industry able to view the scene of this Committee, they might well have thought that all of a sudden the Opposition had come to take a very keen interest in their affairs. They might well have thought that, from the sight of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on (the Front Bench opposite when these matters were being discussed, and, indeed, from the opening speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who asked some questions that were eminently apposite to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
The hon. Member asked whether reference to a sum of £3 million in the Clause binds us to that figure. But, as will be seen on careful reading of the Clause, and as was talked about at some length on Second Reading, it is of course £3 million at any one time. It enables the Government to lay an Order before the House asking for up to £3 million at any one time until 1963.
If the hypothetical members of the fishing industry whom I have mentioned, particularly those representing the distant water fleet, had sat on to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), knowing that, as I remember well, he sat through Second Reading and made a contribution to that debate, I doubt whether at that point these people would have thought there was all that seriousness in the remarks made about the Clause.

1147
The hon. Member asked whether the Government were not jumping the gun, as was his expression, in giving effect to the recommendations of the Fleck Committee. He knows well that the Bill—and I said this on Second Reading—was framed before the Fleck Committee reported. The Bill is not the child of consideration of the Fleck Committee's Report. The Bill extends the payment of operating subsidies. I repeat that it has nothing whatever to do with grants or loans to build vessels. It has to do with the extension of the operating subsidy to the distant water fleet. Once we had subscribed to the Canadian—United States formula at the second Geneva Conference it was inevitable. It was the greatest pity that we did not get the necessary majority there. We failed, as the hon. Member will remember, by one vote. But that having happened, and being inevitable that it would be followed by a number of bilateral agreements between various countries, the distant water fleet was possibly going to lose much of its traditional fishing waters and some form of subsidy would probably be necessary at some time for that fleet.
We are not jumping the gun on the Fleck Committee. The Committee reported before Christmas. Its Report was sent out to interested parties within the industry with a request for their comments. I hope that fairly soon we shall be receiving them. Then they will receive full consideration from the Government as to what we should do about the long-term questions of the fishing industry as a Whole.
Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that when we consider the proposals arising out of the Fleck Report we do not do so at this hour of the night—or morning?
Mr. Soames: I could not give any guarantee about what arrangements will be made to discuss matters before the House. I do not know whether the hon. Member was present, but the Second Reading of the Bill was given a whole day—from half past three to ten o'clock, when we also discussed the Fleck Report.
However, if my mythical friend from the fishing industry had been here when the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) intervened, any feeling
1148
he might have had that the Opposition had a genuine interest in the fishing industry would have been immediately dispelled when the hon. Member told us that the object of this great attendance and this long debate was in order to teach the Chief Whip a lesson. The fishing industry will draw its own conclusions from that.
Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman may remember that I immediately repudiated that so far as I was concerned, saying that I would not be so presumptuous about it.
Mr. Soames: It would seem that the new-found unity of hon. Members opposite has not lasted very long.
Mr. Callaghan: I hope to make some contribution on this subject at a later stage, which will reveal that I have a very close interest in the matter, as well as a desire that the Patronage Secretary and his followers should be visited with the consequences of their folly last week.
Mr. Soames: So be it. That is the hon. Gentleman's view on this debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) made what was at times a delightful and at times a witty after-dinner speech. It was reminiscent of other speeches made by the hon. Member, and he could not help treading on old ground when he mentioned the film industry, a subject on which he once spoke at some length. He showed us that he had not lost his touch for this type of speech, although as he went on I thought that he did not need to remind us all that often of the fact that he had not given the subject the consideration which he himself thought it deserved.
The hon. Member raised three import, ant matters. He asked first whether the Clause had been studied in the wider context, to which the answer is yes. The Clause will not have any ill-effects on the Government's overall foreign policy. He than asked whether 'the subsidies were to be paid to all sorts of people. He conjured up visions of people scattered around the world grabbing the taxpayers' money through subsidies for these vessels.

1149
The subsidies are paid only in respect of British registered fishing vessels and in respect of voyages made to catch white fish which are landed in the United Kingdom. That is the main answer to his charge. It showed that in fact he had not given the subject the attention which he freely admitted it deserved when he thought that there might be a danger of this patronage being extended to people who might use it for nefarious purposes. He admitted that that was not the Government's intention, but be thought that it might still be the result. I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman about that.
1.45 a.m
The Clause will be implemented by an Order. It is not an end in itself. It enables the Government to lay an Order later, and when it is laid the hon. Member wild see the detail with which it is drawn up. That will be later in the year. There already is an example of what has been done, not for the distant water fleet, which was then not permissible, but for the near and middle water fleets. It is Statutory Instrument No. 1298. The White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1960. This White Fish Subsidy Scheme came into operation on 1st August, 1960, for twelve months, and it is only for British-registered vessels landing fish in this country. In order to make the position quite clear in the hon. Member's mind, and to assure,him that these provisions could not be used for nefarious purposes, I will read out to him paragraph 17, which goes further than just talking about fish. It says:
" No grants shall be payable (a) in respect of fish (other than wings of ray and skate, skinned dogfish, and monkfish tails) landed without heads or tails or from which any portion of the head or tail has been removed… "
The hon. Member will probably be satisfied from that that the regulations are closely drawn. He need have no fear on that score.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: I listened carefully to all that was said in the Second Reading debate, and I clearly recollect the Minister's saying that in view of the Icelandic waters being closed to those vessels which are not to get the subsidy under the Clause it would be necessary to look for new fishing grounds, and perhaps
1150
to offer a subsidy in respect of other fish not covered by subsidy hitherto. Does not he recollect that he said those things in that debate?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Member is putting words into my mouth. I did not say "because of Icelandic waters being closed". I said that we had made agreements with the Faroes and Norway, and that the tendency was towards the extension of the limit to twelve males. That section of our fleet which fishes in those waters is using its traditional fishing grounds. I was not specifying the area off Iceland. We have every hope that we shall be able to reach agreement with Iceland over this matter. I was talking about the general 'theme and the direction in, which these matters we're going. We want to put ourselves into a posion whereby we can, if necessary, include in a subsequent order the distant water fleet.
As to the fish which attract subsidy—white fish is any fish found in the sea except for herring, salmon, migratory trout and shellfish—so the many varieties of fish mentioned by the hon. Member would come within that description.
I do not believe that any case has been made out by the Opposition; nor do I believe that there is any feeling among hon. Members opposite that the Clause should not stand part of the Bill. I think it is a reasonable Clause, with good purposes, and I hope that, after the considerable discussion we have had, the Committee will soon decide that the Clause should stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman said he was assured that this does not affect our wider interests. This is a production subsidy. Do we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that it has been through the G.A.T.T. and has been approved by the G.A.T.T.?
Mr. Soames: This is an extension which could come without having to go to the G.A.T.T. on an established principle of operating a subsidy for our fish ing fleet. It is we ourselves who have chosen to limit it to distant water fishing and hitherto near water fishing. This is an extension to distant water fishing and in no way runs counter to the G.A.T.T.
Mr. Paget: Surely the extension of any production subsidy has to be approved by the G.A.T.T.? If this has any meaning at all it is an extension of a production subsidy.
Mr. Willey: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his interim reply. We cannot accept this as disposing of discussion on Clause 1; it is quite inadequate to the debate we have had so far.
I was a little disturbed when the right hon. Gentleman was apparently explaining that this legislation was paving the way to an Order, because we know quite well what the word "paving" would have meant if the Patronage Secretary had been here. It would have provoked him to move the Closure. It will not do to legislate in this slipshod way and to say that this is merely paving. We are discussing the principles of the legislation. Take the point about the £3 million. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated what he said on Second Reading. I remind the Committee of what he said:
" I am not saying that we will come with a figure of £3 million. We might come with a lower figure. If we came with a lower figure, the hon. Gentleman could advise us to come for more. Equally, if the hon. Member thought that £3 million was too much he could advise us so. He should realise that this is not a once-for-all £3 million. When the Bill is enacted, if he thinks the £3 million is insufficient he can recommend the Government to come back with another Order, which is within their power under the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 910–11.]
We cannot legislate like that. We are entitled to know what the Government have in mind. I have raised this repeatedly in debates when we have been discussing subsidies. It is not good enough for the Government to say, "We want more money. We do not know how much. It might be £3 million, it might be less or more. We have not the slightest idea." The Government ought to have an idea. We cannot proceed with this Clause until we get a proper answer on that. I am not bringing into issue the principle of this subsidy, but I have always said on these and on agricultural subsidies that this is not an open-ended subsidy. The case has to be made and to be put in figures.
Let us see whether we can find the reason for the Bill The right hon.
1152
Gentleman intervened to advise us on the law. I know quite well why the Attorney-General is not here. The Attorney-General dare not be here on a fishing debate because he knows what the industry thinks of his performance at the Conference.
Mr. G. Brown: He would not be of any help to the Minister if he were here.
Mr. Willey: We have every sympathy with the Minister of Labour in the difficulties he faced at Geneva, but everyone knew that he was put in an impossible position by the Attorney-General. That is not merely my opinion, but the opinion of everyone the right hon. Gentleman cares to consult in the industry. I can appreciate the difficulties he has had in explaining the law. For the moment we have to rest and I have not the slightest anxiety in resting—on the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). If the right hon. Gentleman does not rest on that advice as I do, he should send for one of the Law Officers.
The difficulty about this legislation is that we get legislation by reference all the time. Here we get partial reference. Just as this is slipshod legislation, this is a slipshod way of legislating. The Clause ought to set out clearly what is its effect. It ought not to refer back but have written in the Clause the provisions of the earlier legislation on which it relies.
I want to touch on shipbuilding. The Minister said that this is an operating and not a building subsidy, but an operating subsidy, too, is relevant to whether an owner orders a new vessel. If I had an operating subsidy for a car it would influence me in deciding whether to purchase a new car.
One day last week I met an influential man in the shipbuilding industry who said to me, surprisingly, "I hope that you are giving enthusiastic support for the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill." Thus, the shipbuilders are concerned about the Bill; they think that it affects them both as an operating subsidy and as a grant. Frankly, that makes me think twice about the Bill. I represent a shipbuilding constituency. We are not likely to build vessels which will take advantage of this Bill—at least, we hope not, although we have been

1153
reduced to a state in which we built only a couple of colliers one year. But when Parliament gives such a subsidy as this, we should know what its purpose is.
The shipbuilding industry is faced with great difficulties, and at two points in the Government's programme aid is being given to it indirectly. Aid is being given for the Cunarders through the shipping company, and apparently it is being given here to the shipbuilder of the fishing vessel through the fishing industry. I am not altogether convinced that this is the best way of giving a subsidy if it is meant to aid such an industry.
In our debates on the aid given to the white fish and herring industries, there has been repeated reference to the aid which is given, in turn, to the shipbuilding industry. If we are giving this subsidy in this way we ought to have a very clear idea of our purpose in giving it and be sure that it achieves that purpose.
I will look a little further. The Minister said that the Clause was not the result of the consideration of the Fleck Committee, but I wonder whether he is justified in bringing it forward in view of that Committee. I gather that his argument is, "We intended to do this anyway. The Fleck Report appeared, but we were in train with the legislation and we proceeded with it." I doubt whether that is wise. Having received the Report, I think that the Government should have said, "We will consider it and see whether we ought now to take the steps which we had intended to take."
I want to make two references to the Fleck Committee's Report which affect the Clause. The majority of the Fleck Committee have definite views on subsidies. Does the Minister share those views? He ought to tell us before we part from the Clause whether he shares the views of the majority of the Fleck Committee.
The majority view of the Fleck Committee was this:
"… the fleet as a whole is unlikely to attain economic operation at its present level and with its present structure, but … with the modernisation of its vessels and the rationalisa-
1154
tion of its structure—including an increasingly close connecton between the catching and the processing and distributive sides of the industry—there is reasonable hope of its future prosperity."
2.0 a.m.
That takes a very broad view of the industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman share it? What he is doing is in line with the Fleck Committee. Taking that view, the Committee then says that it regards such a scheme generally as being terminable, but meanwhile the assistance has got to be paid to the whole of the industry and not devoted to one or other sections of it. This is a vital matter affecting the whole industry. What has surprised me is that sufficient attention has not been paid to the industry as a whole.
When the present subsidy was given to two sections of the industry, it was given for the express purpose of preserving those two sections. That was why it was not given to the distant water fleet. When I was a junior Minister I was asked to give advice about this. I was asked whether the then subsidies and the present subsidies would mean cheaper fish. I said, "Of course not. If you want cheaper fish, give the subsidy to the long distance boats. They will get the cheaper fish, but they will knock out the inshore and middle water fleets."
Are the Government taking that view? I do not think that it is good enough for the right hon. Gentleman merely to say that this is not the child of the consideration of the Fleck Committee. I want to know whether he has considered the general purpose of the Fleck Committee Report. Has he abandoned the idea that the inshore and middle water fleets should be preserved in the strategic interest of the country and also because we have regard to the social consequences of not affording them a particular support—incidentally, support against the distant water fleet?
I am also impressed by the fact that Mr. Middleton, for whom many of us have a great regard, published his own reservation upon the Fleck Committee's views affecting the distant water fleet. I want to refer briefly to his reservation regarding subsidy to distant water

1155
vessels, because that is what we are discussing. Mr. Middleton said:
" As the Report indicates the distant water fleet have to date been excluded from the receipt of subsidies, but it is now recommended that a subsidy should be paid to trawler owners because of the advent of circumstances inimical to their operations."
Just as I object to no definition when we ask about the £3 million, so I object to no definition when we ask questions about the distant water fleet. Mr. Middleton says that the Fleck Committee envisages a fairly substantial subsidy. The Committee should realise that a fairly substantial subsidy for the distant water fleet will have a very adverse effect on both the inshore and middle water fleets.
Mr. Middleton goes on to say in his reservation:
" Whether to subsidise or not to subsidise, the duration of the subsidy and the amount of subsidy that should be paid has constituted the burden of the Committee's deliberations during its latter meetings. It would not be uncharitable to state that, in the minds of most members of the Committee, the criterion which governs the attraction of a subsidy by any section of the fishing fleet should be efficiency and the pursuit of efficiency."
Again, I ask the Government whether this is their criterion.
Again, this is a matter which affects the balance between the three fleets. Says Mr. Middleton:
" That efficiency is of paramount importance in the development towards a viable industry seems axiomatic, but precisely how is this desirable condition in the fishing industry to be measured? What is the yardstick, or test, to be applied? The answer it seems is profitability."
I want to digress here—I shall return to Mr. Middleton in a moment or two. "The answer seems to be profitability," That means that the burden on the Government is to tell the Committee that there has been such a fall in profitability in the distant-water fleet that they are asking for an extension of the subsidy to include that fleet. Where is the evidence? All I have before me are the Reports of the White Fish Authority, and I cannot see any such evidence. I can see the fall in profitability but, heavens above, where are we getting to? The moment there is a fall in profitability there has to be Government aid and subsidy.
If we return to the Report we find that
"The total value of the distant-water catch fell to £22 million or by a little less than 1 per cent. The average value per hundredweight rose to 60s. 0d. as compared with 58s. 11d. in 1958, and the quantity which remained unsold at or above the minimum price and was used for fish meal was 9,400 tons, compared with 6,800 tons in 1958."
Those figures do not, on the face of it, show any dramatic fall in profitability. We expect some swing—and I will come to the cost of this in a moment—in profitability, but surely we have not reached the stage where anybody in business expects stability or an increase in profitability, but must come to the Government for subsidy if his business shows some less profit than in the previous year.
I have a very great respect—and say so at once in case I am considered to be critical—for the men who work in the distant water fleet—
Mr. Prior: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, does he say quite definitely that he is against a subsidy for the distant water fleet? That is the gist of what he has been saying.
Mr. Willey: I am not saying anything of the sort. I say that the onus is on the Government to prove the case. I want to challenge the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware of any representations from the distant-watermen to Her Majesty's Government asking for a subsidy?
Mr. Prior: Yes, I think it has been complained for some time that the distant water section has been getting into trouble over the Iceland fishing, and has been asking the Government to consider a subsidy.
Mr. Willey: I will come to Iceland in a moment. If that be the case, the facts ought to be before us, but I am not aware of that. I am aware of the distant water fleet saying, quite properly, that they have been prejudiced by what has happened in Icelandic and other waters, but as far as I know no case has been publicly established that there has been such a fall in profitability that there is a patent case for an immediate subsidy.
I mention one other thing by way of an aside. This is not the first time that the distant water fleet has been in difficulties. We had the restrictive agreement about tying up vessels. In fact

1157
there have been very few vessels tied up over the last 12 months, so that really indicates no more than that this is a matter to be discussed and, on the face of it, there is no patent, obvious case. While I have a very great respect and admiration for the men who work in these vessels, I know also, as many people do, that they do make very good wages. I would not for a moment quarrel with the idea that they do not earn them. But, again, I have no evidence that those earnings have dramatically fallen in the past 12 months.
Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman says that the need for the Bill and the Clause is not justified, as regards the distant water fleet, by the present demands of the British Trawlers' Federation for a subsidy, I presume that he takes the view that the subsidy is not necessary, the need has not been proved, and it is not something which he will support when the Question is put.
Mr. G. Brown: Before my hon. Friend answers that, will he just consider something which I thought I heard him say a few moments ago when referring to the earnings of trawler hands? I thought I heard him say—and I fear for him lest the Recording Angel also should have heard him—that he would not quarrel with the idea that they do not earn them.
Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. This is what happens when we are obliged to discuss important matters at this hour of the morning. What I meant was the reverse, of course. No one would quarrel with the men on these vessels earning large wages. Of all people following an arduous trade or occupation, they merit our respect. They run risks, they suffer the rigours of the sea, and, in my view, they are entitled to a high rate of earnings.
Sir A. V. Harvey: It is well known that the skipper and mate receive a percentage of the realisation of the catch, but the deck hands usually average only about £25 a week. I think that they earn every penny of that for the job they do.
Mr. Willey: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is very well informed, with respect. He will have an opportunity of giving us the benefit of his experience.
1158
I do not for a moment suggest that these are people making outrageous wages. They work hard, they run risks, and they are justified—
Mr. Loughlin: And long hours. When we think of wages, we must remember that that is total pay, and very often the fishermen work long hours not only during the voyage but at a stretch. They may easily work 72 hours all round with about an hour's snatch, as they call it, for a break. We ought to relate the pay of fishermen to the number of hours they work. I look forward to the day when we have in the fishing industry something like a 72-hour week. It would be a godsend to fishermen.
Mr. Willey: I am much obliged for these interventions because they have. made my purpose abundantly clear.
The two points I was making seem to have been misunderstood. Any subsidy—certainly, to quote the words of Mr. Middleton, a fairly substantial subsidy—to the distant water fleet is bound to affect the fortunes of the other two sections of the industry. What are the Government's plans? Behind the Fleck Report is rationalisation. Rationalisation by subsidisation is about the worst possible form one could select.
2.15 a.m.
All I am asking is, what is the purpose of the Government? What do they intend to be the future of the inshore and middle water fleets?
The other point I was making, and I return to it because apparently I was not fully understood, was that I am not quarrelling in principle with this subsidy, I am saying that there is an obligation on the Government to prove their case. Here we get the same old story. We do not know what the case is, and I was led a little to one side by saying that, as far as I know, and it has not been challenged, the industry, through the men or the owners, have not applied for an extension of the subsidy.
To return to Mr. Middleton, he stated:
"Can any justification or rational argument be advanced for the payment of subsidy to some of the larger companies with interests in fishing and the processing of fish and other,foods? In a recent press interview the managing director of one such company disclosed that about half his company's turnover of £3½ million comes from their 67 trawlers fishing off Iceland, Newfoundland and the Barents Sea.

1159
"Moreover," he said, "The Iceland troubles did not put us to any extra expense in the year to September 30th, but it was a wonderful fishing season and, but for the troubles, we should have caught a lot more and our profits would have been considerably higher."
"I know that the view taken by the members of the Committee is that the proceeds from what happens to fish after it is landed are not relevant to the fishing subsidies, which are concerned only with the economics of the catching operations. Surely, by the same token or line of reasoning, the railway industry and the coal industry should be much more appropriate subjects to qualify for Government subventions.
"I am not averse to the payment of subsidies to the fishing industry nor would I offer opposition to the payment of subsidies to other industries where circumstances warranted such payment and the need for sound development was evident. However, the recommendation to subsidise the distant water operators, and in doing so to include those firms who are not only prospering in the industry but proudly boasting about it, runs contrary to the whole idea underlying the provision of financial aid to any industry which is being helped towards a viable future."
The comments I make on what Mr. Middleton says are these. I have made the point of what is a viable industry. Are we concerned with fall in profitability, which can well be expected, or are we concerned with such a fall that it might affect the operation of the industry as a whole? As far as I am aware, this part of the industry is still viable. The second point is that behind the general approach of the Fleck Committee is the idea that the various parts of this industry must be approached together, and that it is only in this way that one can make it viable.
Here, says Mr. Middleton, is part of the industry which has put itself into that position. But, says the majority of the Fleck Committee, if the industry was in that position it would not need a subsidy. Why should we give the subsidy to the very people who, by the argument which is the basis of the Committee, do not need it? If we once give them a subsidy, it will be difficult to take it away from them.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The Labour Government's subsidies to farmers were not limited to small farmers. They were paid to farmers with 10,000 acres.
Mr. Willey: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is suffering in the way I was, apparently, about twenty minutes
1160
ago. He is not really alive to the argument. I want to carry him with me. I know he is endeavouring to follow me as best he can.
The point here is that there is a definition one can follow. Here Mr. Middleton is referring to some of the larger companies with interests in fishing and the processing of fish and other foods. All I am saying is that this is a matter capable of definition. Suppose there were large farmers who, perhaps, were also millers. One could define them as millers. If there are fishermen who are also processing fish and other foods one can describe them as processors. One can exclude processors from the subsidy. This is not a matter which has been touched upon by the Government at all. It is common knowledge that most of the longdistance men have now gone into processing. So by this definition, if the Government followed the trend of the Fleck Committee Report, if they paid any heed to Mr. Middleton, there would be no case for subsidy either on the long or short term view. So I ask the Government again, why are they proposing to give subsidy in these cases where, whether one takes the Fleck Committee majority view or Mr. Middleton's view, there would be no case for the subsidy at the end of whatever period the Government were to decide should be the terminal time?
Mr. Prior: If, as the hon. Member now says, all the long-distance men are also processors and, therefore, should not be subsidised, he is once more making the point that no long-distance trawler owners should have subsidy.
Mr. Willey: I will be quite explicit. I agree with Mr. Middleton, that the firm he quotes ought not to receive a subsidy. Does the hon. Gentleman quarrel with that?
Mr. Prior: No. It was not the point.
Mr. Willey: I am saying that as far as the illustration quoted by Mr. Middleton goes, I do not think the subsidy is justified in that instance. I gather the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
Mr. Prior: I certainly do not agree with you at all. I was finding out what your view is. It seems to me your view is that the long-distance trawlers should not have subsidy. Once we have got that straight perhaps we can get on.
Mr. Willey: I am mot interested in the view of the Chair. I was interested in, the view of the hon. Member. He keeps interrupting me. I want him to follow consistently the line of argument. I should like to know where his questions are leading. That is all. I said quite explicitly—he, can differ if he wishes—that in the illustration quoted by Mr. Middleton there is no case whatever for subsidy. That is Mr. Middleton's view. That is my view, and, I think, the view of most people in the Committee.
Now I will go one stage further. As far as my knowledge goes, I do not think there is a case for giving subsidy to distant waiter fleet owners who are also processors. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, who has a constituency interest in this, would challenge that. If the Government challenge that they ought to produce facts in evidence.
Now I want to turn to the further argument about Iceland, but before I reach Iceland I want to deal with E.F.T.A. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) asked a number of pertinent questions about ETTA. We have had no reply. I wild say what my quarrel with the Government about E.F.T.A. is. They get hamfisted negotiations and at the end of the day the taxpayer pays. That is what we had about pigs. I do mot want to pursue the matter of pigs. I merely call it in aid by way of 'illustration because every hon. Mem-bar opposite is embanrassed by the mention of them.
Behind E.F.T.A. is the agreement about frozen Metis. The right hon. Gentleman knows it, but did not mention that the industry is worried about frozen Norwegian fillets. He did mot say a word about it. I cannot think why. We have a basic industry which is threatened by the Government's giving way quite unnecessarily. Then a respectable time afterwards there is a subsidy. This is the dilemma which the Government face. The money goes down the drain because an assurance has been given to other E.F.T.A. countries that we wild not resort to subsidies to destroy the effect of the agreement. Therefore this money is thrown away by way of a sop. This
1162
is the worst sort of nationalisation—by subsidy—if the Government agree to a trade agreement which is pre-judicial to an industry and then say, "We will keep you quiet by doling out public funds", knowing that, because of the agreement, the subsidy cannot be effective as a means of making a threat. This is why we should have liked a reply about E.F.T.A. I hope that we shall have a reply which will answer the charge that I have made against the Government.
What worries us about Iceland is that this is throwing up the sponge. The right hon. Gentleman wriggles and squirms about Iceland but he gave as justification for payment of the subsidy the failure of our negotiations with Iceland. What does that say to Iceland? It says, "You have won the day, because we are now going to subsidise the loss inflicted on us." It will be interpreted in that way not only by Iceland but by other countries that are affected.
If there were any prospect of the Government winning through on this they would not have introduced a Measure of this kind to offer a subsidy to cover the losses which our fishermen are suffering through the Iceland restrictions. I cannot think of anything worse, but this is the sort of policy that we get from this slipshod, ramshackle Government. We have got ourselves into a very difficult situation through the Attorney-General's blundering. I sympathise with the Minister of Labour. He had no chance at Geneva. Here, instead of a promise of a satisfactory solution at the end of the day, we get acceptance again. Just as in the case of the E.F.T.A. frozen fillets we abandon the chance of getting a satisfactory solution and we decide through the subsidies to cover the industry against this loss.
2.30 a.m.
There are many other points which I should like to raise on the Clause but I do not want to rush matters. I think that I have raised sufficient points to evoke a further reply from the Government. It is disappointing that so far we have had no serious attempt by the Government to give an explanation of something which demands publicly in Committee an explanation before we can agree to make this further provision.
This has been a temporary subsidy temporarily extended time after time. The amount has been quantified and then, within a few years, has been extended when it has been found to be inadequate. That is not the way in which to deal with an industry. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite make fun of planning, but this is the cost when there is no planning. All three sections of the fishing industry should be viable by now, but after this vast expenditure of public money over the years, we are told only that the industry must be rationalised. That is not good enough. I ask the Government to think again and to give us a more satisfactory reply to the debate before we leave this Clause.
Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I would not claim that the sitting has been unduly long. I well remember that in the days of the Labour Government the then Opposition forced a sitting that lasted for 31 hours. There is no reason why hon. Members who have embarked on this debate should feel that there is any undue length about our proceedings.
However, it is quite clear from other things which have happened that it is time that the Government made a statement about their intentions. A number of Ministers have been missing for a long time. The Leader of the House told us earlier this evening that we should be more diligent in our Parliamentary duties, but I have not seen him here since ten o'clock. Had he been here, he could have seen whether we were diligent in our Parliamentary duties.
The Chief Whip, or Patronage Secretary, as he is called, has not been seen in the Chamber since the Division at ten o'clock. Perhaps his absence is to be preferred to his presence in view of earlier events. Now that the Leader of the House has come in, I repeat that he will want to know that his shaft of this evening went home. We do not wish to disappoint him about our diligence in attending to our Parliamentary duties.
However, until his recent incursion, the strength of the Ministerial Bench
1164
has been singularly lacking. The Civil Lord has not been present, although there have been several observations about the 12-mile limit with which the Navy is vitally concerned. The Attorney-General, who made the complete botch which resulted in our losing any advantage we might have obtained from the international negotiations, has kept well away from the Chamber. No one has seen him.
On the other hand, the Minister of Agriculture made a cursory reply and did not deal with the problems left by the Attorney-General, and it would have been better if we had been able to question him direct. We have not seen the Lord Privy Seal. The international complications which have arisen over the 12-mile limit and the negotiations with Iceland merit his attendance.
Finally, there has been no sign of the President of the Board of Trade, or the Minister of State, Board of Trade. In the wide-ranging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), there was a pregnant passage about negotiations in connection with the Six and the Seven and our position in E.F.T.A. The Minister of Agriculture did not deal with any of those problems. I do not blame him for that. It is not that he was not capable, but that he was not briefed. These issues have clearly been of concern to the Committee during the long debate we have had. I would, therefore, like this opportunity of seeing what the Government and the Leader of the House have to say about the position in which we find ourselves.
It is clear that many hon Members wish to continue the debate. On the other hand, the Government benches have been in some disarray. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), despite his lively interventions, is getting more and more hoarse, and will not have a voice left at all if he goes on much longer. Other Members on the Government benches are extremely somnolent. We have arrived at a position where the Government could consider calling it a day and letting us have another go at the Clause tomorow. We have our speeches, and are ready to deliver them now, if the occasion should demand, but after we have finished with Clause 1 there will be Clause 2. and that

1165
Clause provides for the extension of the subsidy from £20 million to £25 million per annum.
I should not be surprised if, at that stage, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) took an interest in the proceedings. They are not hon. Members who will allow to pass lightly a proposed extension of the spending of public money on subsidies of this sort. If they do their duty they will want to know the Minister's explanation of these subsidies, and it will foe no use his turning round and saying, in a perfunctory way, "We are giving our subsidies to allow people to build longer boats, of over 140 feet in length". The question will then be asked—and the Minister has not been prepared to answer it this evening—" What is your policy in relation to the size and shape of the fishing industry? "
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) asked what the Minister had to say about the Fleck Report. As far as I can make out, the Minister's answer is that the Government have only just received it. They received it only in December, so they are not in a position to tell us anything about it; all they want us to do is to vote the money. Anybody who reads that Report—and I have had a good opportunity of doing so during the last few hours—can see that the voting of the money is dependent upon a number of other considerations, such as the size and shape of the industry; the nature of the industry; the setting up of an authority which would have the responsibility for organising the industry, and the re-organisation of dock facilities. All these questions are raised in the Fleck Report. The voting of money is only one of them, but even in connection with that the Minister has not been able to give us any answer to the questions we have asked.
The right hon. Gentleman is expressing no opinion whether the operational subsidy for distant water vessels should be as big as, larger than, or smaller than the subsidy which at present exists for the middle and inshore fishing fleets. This is an important question of principle for the Committee should decide, but we have not had a word from the Minister about it. In his pursuance of economies I hope
1166
that the Leader of the House will remember that a majority of the Fleck Committee was in favour of smaller subsidies being paid to the distant water trawlers. From the little that the Minister said we could only deduce that he was in favour of the same amount of subsidy being paid to the distant water vessels. Is that his policy? We have not really been told yet.
I hope that I have indicated, first, that there are many loose ends for the Government to tie up before they present to us their conclusions. Secondly, Government Members do not look as though they want to go on with the Bill, judging by the somnolent appearance of some of them. Thirdly, although the Leader of the House thought he could smuggle the Bill through after ten o'clock and get it through in half an hour—a venture which has singularly failed—because he is having a lot of discussion on it, and there will be more discussion yet. In those circumstances it would be far better for him to think again about the tactics the Government propose to take in connection with the Bill and give us an indication now of what they intend to do.
The Deputy-Chairman: I am prepared to accept the Motion moved by the hon. Member.
Mr. Soames: I suggest that the Committee should not agree to the Motion as yet. We have had from before half-past ten until after half-past two—four hours—an interesting debate and have gone over a wide ground. This is obviously a subject which is close to the hearts of many hon. Members opposite. They have taken a great interest, all of a sudden, in the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They have admitted that it is a sudden interest. Having got thus far, I should have thought it reasonable to go a little farther, to take to fruition our discussions and see whether we cannot get a great deal further with the Bill. It would seem a great pity to break off at this junction when, obviously, there are many hon. Members who would like to see the Bill make further progress. I suggest that we continue our discussions and see how we get on.
Mr. Driberg: I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will reconsider what the

1167
Minister has just said. I think that it would be more sensible from his point of view, as well as that of the whole Committee, that we should sit again on another day.
I also urge it from the point of view of people we do not always consider as much as we should, the staff of the House, the HANSARD reporters and other servants and officers of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite should think this a contemptible consideration. I know that they do not care very much about the staff of the House, but some of us on this side of the Committee do. We know that they have to stay up late, quite rightly, in the service of this House—waiters, messengers and all sorts of staff. It is a little inconsiderate to them that the right hon. Gentleman should insist on going on sitting at this unreasonable hour which, as has been pointed out, has been forced upon us by the arrogance and ineptitude of the Patronage Secretary.
There is a new President, a new, young and vigorous President, of the United States of America. He, I am glad to say, is beginning to take the initiative in foreign affairs which the present British Government have shown themselves totally incapable of taking.
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. Member's remarks to the Question of reporting Progress.
Mr. Driberg: With great respect, I shall make it much easier for you, Sir William, by saying that I hope that within the next few weeks, or even days, the new President of the United States may be taking a new initiative which will help to take Iceland out of the cold war and help to solve the Icelandic dispute, which is the background to and real cause of the subsidies rendered necessary in this Bill and this Clause.
2.45 a.m.
I therefore suggest that it would be better not to sit again tomorrow, but to sit again and complete this passage of the Bill—which, of course, we all want to assist as best we can and to improve as best we can—in a few weeks' time, not necessarily tomorrow but when the new President has had time to
1168
develop further the initiatives he has shown so hopefully in other fields of foreign affairs. Then, if we sat again on another day, there would be time for a full attendance, not only of other back bench Members opposite, but of all those Ministers who have been so noticeably absent tonight who should have been here and who were identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when moving this Motion.
The Foreign Office, as usual, is the chief villain of this drama. It is quite disgraceful that the Lord Privy Seal has not bothered to look in once during the debate, which arises entirely out of an international dispute. Some of the other Ministers whom my hon. Friend mentioned have looked in occasionally. The Leader of the House has favoured us again. The Patronage Secretary has been absent most of the night, although it is entirely his fault that we are here at this time of the morning when we should have finished our discussions long ago. [Interruption.]
I gather from his attitude that the nerves and the morale of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) are breaking down. The fact that the morale of hon. Members opposite is breaking down and their nerve is going is one of the reasons why we should report Progress.
I do not think that he is here, but I should have liked to see the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, for I have a few observations to make on the way in which fish is cooked in this Palace.
A few minutes ago the Minister said that the subject of the Bill was very close to the hearts of many of my hon. Friends. That was true. I do not think that he meant it ironically; I certainly hope that he did not. Certainly, it has been very close to my heart for many years. For some years I represented a partly maritime constituency on the coast of Essex, and during those years I frequently raised in the House the difficulties and problems of the sprat fishermen of Tollesbury. They have always come within the ambit of the white fish industry, as defined by the Minister. I should have liked a fuller opportunity of developing an argument against concentrating the subsidy too greatly on long-distance fishing, perhaps to the neglect of those smaller and

1169
struggling fishermen who have had many ups and downs over the last few years and who deserve the consideration of the Minister and the House.
There is a great deal which could be said on Clause 2, which cannot conveniently be taken at this rather unreasonable hour of the morning, because it deals with loans for the acquisition and modernisation of fishing vessels, and when we consider modernisation we have to consider all sorts of aspects, such as refrigeration and, most important, the conditions of the crews and the crews' quarters—what sort of living conditions the men on these ships have, particularly when they spend some time at sea. Possibly even the interior decoration of their quarters would be in order on that Clause. Another matter which, unfortunately, one has to consider in what has been called the nuclear age is whether all these vessels in the course of being modernised are equipped with all the necessary devices for testing fish for excessive radioactivity which may result if there is a renewal of the testing of nuclear weapons or anything of that kind.
All these matters should be discussed at a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite are in full possession of their senses, because they are not now, as one can see only too well. The best argument for the Motion to report Progress is that it is moved out of sheer human decency and pity for the Government and their supporters. One remembers Disraeli's famous phrase about "a range of exhausted volcanoes". This morning they are a range of exhausted molehills.
Mr. George Lawson: I have no pity for Government supporters, but I am concerned about the manner in which the Bill, and Clause 1 in particular, affects Scotland. The implications of the Clause upon Scotland have not been discussed this evening. We have heard no word about them, apart from an interjection by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I doubt very much if he has given any thought to the implications of the Clause upon Scotland.
Much has been said about the possible effects of, in effect, subsidising the distant water boats. They are the large boats which need not necessarily fish in distant waters. They might also come into near waters to fish.
The Deputy-Chairman: I am not clear how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. Lawson: I mention the implications of the Clause upon Scotland to show that those implications are very serious and might very largely destroy the inshore fishing industry in Scotland.
Under the circumstances, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who should have the interests of Scotland primarily at heart, should have been prepared to support us in the plea that more time be given so that we can have a more adequate discussion.
Subsidising deep water boats—the long distance and large boats—will mean the strengthening of those boats vis-a-vis the smaller boats which work inshore and in the middle waters. Over the years the process of destroying inshore fishing has been synonymous with the growth of the larger boats. My hon. Friends will know of thriving fishing villages which were destroyed because of the growth of the modern type of fishing, which meant a larger boat with a different type of net.
The larger boats, concentrated for a period on Granton, or Newhaven, or Aberdeen, in many ways reduced almost to the point of elimination the inshore fishing around the coast of Fife. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), expressed alarm at the possible implications of the Bill. He is not here tonight to repeat those implications. Inshore fishing from places such as Musselburgh, round the East coast and right up and down the West coast—areas which were thriving at one time—was progressively reduced in terms of effective fishing ability because of the growth of the trawler, with the trawl net, and then motor fishing.
The Bill is merely an extension of this. The large boats, which went into deeper and deeper waters, developed new methods of fishing and handling fish. At one time the fish was always landed with gut, because the boats went out overnight or for two nights and fish were landed with full stomachs. Then we have the process of shore-gutting the fish, and a further stage when the fish is filleted—
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. Surely this is going a long way from the Question now before the Committee.
Mr. Lawson: If I may say so, Sir William, it only shows how vast and far-reaching are the implications of this Measure, how difficult it will be for us to discuss them fully, and to take into account—I do not say just the inshore fishing of Scotland, but the Aberdeen, Newhaven and Granton fishing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) will bear me out here.
Just as the little inshore boat of the past was overwhelmed in many ways by the larger boat, so the still larger boat and the still longer-distance boat is overwhelming the Aberdeen, Granton and Newhaven fishing. It is all a process, in which there are implications that might destroy the whole Scottish fishing industry. Yet we have had no sign that the Secretary of State has even begun to appreciate that point. A long-distance boat will not be based on Aberdeen once the scheme is properly working. Aberdeen will be squeezed out, and so will Granton and Newhaven. The concentration will be at Grimsby and Hull, where the large market is found.
The growth of the radio technique of advising ships at what market to land the catch that morning, those ships can come in anywhere very quickly, flood the market, and thereby destroy it for the boats fishing locally. They can then shift to another market hundreds of miles away, perhaps—having been warned by radio—flood that one, and again destroy the small boats' markets. It is, perhaps, rationalised fishing, but it destroys local fishing—and not only the inshore but the middle-distance fishing—that cannot compete—
Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman would look at the speech made on Second Reading by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) he could save the Committee and himself a lot of time.
Mr. Lawson: I cannot just follow that remark. Are my arguments valid? They are valid for Scotland. I have watched this process—not, I agree, within the last ten years, but before that I watched it very closely and saw how this sort of thing was developing. I
1172
could see how, unless they were given special treatment, the smaller boats could not stand up to the development going on—and that, quite apart from subsidies.
As far as I can see, the only value of the subsidy is that it enables this part of the industry to survive—if we consider that to be a good thing—when otherwise it would not be able to. That can only be said in terms of the inshore and middle-distance waters—
Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Sir William. Is not the hon. Member's speech convincing the Committee of the urgency of the matter—of getting the business and the Bill through? Is he not making the point that every day that goes by makes the situation of these fishermen the more desperate? From what I have heard, we should carry on with the Bill.
Mr. Lawson: My point is that the effects of the Bill will be further to concentrate the shipbuilding industry on the Grimsby and Hull areas and not on the Leith and Aberdeen areas. For a short time, it might work out—a few boats may be assisted—but it is in the South that this concentration will take place, and not in the North. As far as I can see, the subsidies envisaged are limitless—
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is making a very wide Second Reading speech. He is not entitled to do that on the Question before the Committee.
3.0 a.m.
Mr. Lawson: I return to the point, Sir William. In the Clause we have been discussing, powers are given to embark on schemes not merely for the inshore and middle distance fishing industry but for long-distance fishing. Powers are given to make grants of up to £3 million addition to the grants we were to have already. There is a limit to the amount of money to be paid at any time, but there is no limit to the number of times, as I read it.
These Measures have serious implications for the entire fishing industry of Scotland. We have not heard a Minister speak for Scotland. It does not seem that the Secretary of State has given any thought to the implications of what is

1173
proposed. He should have more time to go into the matter. At this hour of the morning we have no chance to go into the matter properly, I suggest, although, if we do continue, I should certainly hope to catch your eye in order that I may be able to deploy my argument on what is, in my view, a matter of very serious import to my country.
Moreover, I should hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland would rise to his feet and say that he has considered it and he can show where I am wrong in my fears, if I am wrong. At this point, however, I submit that this is a subject which demands that he takes the matter back and spend a little time thinking about the effects on Scotland.
Mr. Michael Foot: I support the Motion, if on grounds somewhat different from those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in moving it. My hon. Friend said that we had lacked the assistance of the Attorney-General. To be quite candid, I do not base my attitude on that ground. Perhaps, during the five years I have been absent from the House, she Attorney-General has worked differently from the manner he used to adopt when I was here previously. I confess that I cannot recall any occasion when I was in the House, some years ago, when the business was assisted by the Attorney-General. I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend in that ground of his argument.
On all other aspects of the matter, I think that my hon. Friend was on strong ground, and the Minister of Agriculture did not devote any real attention to it when he replied. It seems to be assumed by some hon. Members opposite—notably by the hon. Member who left in a somewhat apoplectic state a few minutes ago—that there is some difficulty about taking this business at a later date. Although it may be necessary to do something fairly urgently about the fishing industry, we do not have to do it this week. There is plenty of other business which the Government have proposed for this week which we should like to see postponed, and it would be quite possible to continue this debate on Wednesday, for instance. We could then have a debate during the daytime.
1174
In our view, the business proposed for Wednesday will be of no service to the nation. We regard it as extremely damaging, since it is proposed to impose about £50 million extra taxation on the British people. We do not think that that Bill should be put through, and, if we have to choose, this Bill is a better one than that. We should not have embarked on this business at ten o'clock. Indeed, at ten o'clock it was put to the Government that, after the House had had a long debate on two very important and, in the words of the Leader of the House, solemn subjects, subjects to important that all other business had to be postponed to make way for them, this Bill should not be taken in this way. To take such a matter and try to push it through at three or four o'clock in the morning is not the proper way to run the proceedings of the Committee.
Another reason was provided by the Minister, when he spoke on the Motion, which further substantiated the case, if further substantiation were needed, for continuing the debate later. The Minister said that some of us had discovered a sudden interest in this topic. If that were true, the longer the time we had to discover more, the better.
I acknowledge that the Minister has sat here patiently throughout the debate. The Leader of the House does not know, because he has just arrived. Every hon. Member who has been here will agree that the debate took an entirely different turn from that which anyone had expected when we set out at ten o'clock. This was chiefly because of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever). All those who heard him will agree that it was one of the most remarkable, if not the most remarkable, speech that they have ever heard in the House.
My hon. Friend opened up much wider vistas than the Minister had prepared himself to deal with. Many of the matters my hon. Friend raised so bowled over the Minister that he did not even mention them in his short reply. I do not think that even the officials at the Official Box could supply the Minister with the information, because they were bowled over, too. I dare say that the Ministry of Agriculture was closed, and no doubt they were battering on the door trying to get the information. From the

1175
Minister's speech it was evident that they did not get any information, even if they did manage to get into the Ministry. Therefore, if we carried on the debate at a later stage the Minister would be able to come fortified with the answers.
There was another implication in what was said by the Minister which he will wish to withdraw. He seemed to suggest that there was something improper or, at least, curious, in hon. Members who had never shown a deep interest in the white fish industry displaying it on this occasion. I have never had any great interest before, but I shall have in the future. I wish that some of the industries in my constituency could get subsidies on this scale. I wish that the coal industry could be subsidised in this manner. It has to pay for coal to be imported into this country. Miners living—
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is tending to get rather too wide.
Mr. Foot: I was misled by the Minister who, in his reply on this Motion, had cast aspersions on some of us, who, he said, had shown a sudden interest in this matter.
I believe that all those hon. Gentlemen who had come ill-equipped to the debate on the Bill and the subject of it, all my hon. Friends who had come to that debate, too, will be all the better equipped to engage in debate upon it when we continue discussion upon it, whether we continue the discussion tonight or later. I hope that many more hon. Gentlemen will become interested in the matter. We shall have a Report stage of the Bill some time. Not tonight. It would be disgraceful if the Government tried to force that through tonight.
A few nights ago the House was plunged into great difficulties because of the enforcement of the Closure at a time when the Government were imposing £50 million more of taxation and refused to have a proper discussion of that. Now, under the Bill, large-scale subsidies are being distributed by the Government, and some of us who come from parts of the country where we are not much interested in white fish—except eating it—wish to examine the
1176
matter very much more closely, to see where the money is going.
It is a shocking fact that under Clause 1 of the Bill, which we much prefer to discuss at a different time, when many more Members could participate in the debate, money is to go to firms which have been distributing bigger dividends in the past year. Some of the firms which operate long-distance vessels have been increasing their dividends in the past twelve months. They will get more money under the Bill. Some of us come from constituencies where there are no subsidies at all, but where there are industries which are vilified and denounced by hon. Gentlemen opposite because some years they make a loss. There is no help from the Exchequer for them. But for this fishing industry money is easily provided.
For all these reasons, and a variety of others which, I have no doubt, my hon. Friends will adduce, I say it would be much more simple for the Government to put off this business. They are making again the same mistake they have been making ever since that night a few nights ago, when they embarked upon this programme. There have been five or six occasions when, if the Government had wanted, if they had shown magnanimity, they could have extricated themselves from plenty of difficulties. They could have done it that night when the row was first started. They could have done it the day after when there was discussion on what was to happen about it. They could have done it earlier today.
We could have started our debate on the Bill at four o'clock today had the Leader of the House accepted that Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). They would not have lost anything. The Leader of the House could have said that though he did not agree with everything my right hon. Friend had said he did not want to keep on the Minutes something the House did not all agree with. That would have been the graceful thing to have done, and that debate would have taken much less time, and we could have started on the Bill at 4.30 or 5 p.m.—
Mr. H. Lever: In a much better atmosphere.
Mr. Foot:—in a much better atmosphere and at a time which would have

1177
enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham to have developed his case fully.
The Leader of the House missed that opportunity. The next chance was at ten o'clock. It would have been much more graceful to have said, "We have had two very important debates and I think that we should now allow ourselves time, and we will come back to the Bill in a much better spirit in a day or two." They had another opportunity twenty minutes or half an hour ago when my hon. Friend moved to report Progress. They could easily have said then, "Well, we have had a long debate. Let us put off the proceedings for a while." The Minister could have got some credit for that.
3.15 a.m.
But the Government will not get any credit for it now. They are just losing more lime, making the hon. Gentleman who left in such a disgruntled mood a few minutes ago even more disgruntled. No doubt other hon. Members opposite will become even more disgruntled later. What does the Leader of the House think he gains? Why is he so sore about this? Why did he allow such an appalling thing to happen? Why does he not attempt to extricate right hon. Members on his own Front Bench? He cannot do it with such grace and magnanimity now, but he still ought to extricate them. Will he say that we shall go on until seven o'clock in the morning and then raise his hon. Friends out of their beds and force the Closure then? If he does, they will not be very cheerful about it.
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have slipped up and made mistakes. Everybody makes a mistake. When the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip combine to make another mistake they had better admit it. They want to go home just as much as we do. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then go home."] We are not the people who are imposing this. We are enjoying it. But we think that there are more important duties to be discharged in the House of Commons than sheer enjoyment. Hon. Members are not sent here to enjoy themselves. They are sent to discharge their duties to their constituents and they should try to do it at a better time of day.
Instead, we have this orgy of self-indulgence from hon. Members opposite.
Why do they not bring their wits to bear to try to get some sense out of their own Front Bench? If the occupants of the Treasury Bench go on behaving like this they will get deeper and deeper into the mire. It will happen time and time again. Hon. Members opposite must learn that although they have a majority they cannot use that giant's strength like a giant. They had better learn that, and the sooner they learn it the sooner they will bring the enjoyment of hon. Members to an end. Perhaps they do not want to go to bed and enjoy themselves. Perhaps they have different forms of enjoyment. The Government should apply their minds to how to get on with Government business. They must start thinking about it instead of bashing their heads against one brick wall and another, which is what they have been doing for the past few days.
Mr. R. A. Butler: The siren voice of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is seldom heard at so early an hour in the morning and I am sure that we welcome him back for the purpose which he so much enjoys in making a speech of that kind.
The situation is perfectly clear. It was perfectly reasonable to attempt to get the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill through the Committee stage when we put it on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), whom I heard when I came in to hear the Minister answering earlier, used language which clearly indicated the object of all this exercise, which is that we should be visited with the result of our follies of last week. That has been the object of the exercise going on in all this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
That will be known outside in the country, and the country will have to judge whether they think it right for the party opposite to hold up a Bill with which they fundamentally agree in the interests of the fishing industry simply to show spite to the Government. That is precisely what has been happening with all the familiar technique and with the skill at filibustering of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), part of whose oration I heard, which has been seldom equalled in our annals and, as a tour de force, is much to be admired.

1179
Many of the interventions have been related to the subject and the subject has been more in evidence than is the case in most filibustering. Many constructive ideas have been put forward, as I have noticed in the course of the evening while intermittently listening to the debate.
Nevertheless, the object of the exercise is as I stated, and as stated by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. In that case, it is not for the Government to give way to that sort of thing. No self-respecting Government could do so. We cannot give way purely to pressure from the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. That is not the path of proper government, nor the way to put through business.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale spoke of the path of wisdom if I had accepted the Motion moved earlier today by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). The matter was debated and we reached a different conclusion. I do not now want to go over that debate, but I sincerely believe that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was one of the best that he has made in the House. The case was sincerely made and we disagreed with it for reasons of equal sincerity. We could not avoid that business and we could not avoid what the right hon. Gentleman found to be the very distressing business relating to the Chairman of Ways and Means. We were perfectly reasonable in then trying to get the Committee stage of the Bill.
I see no alternative but to proceed and try to get the business through. I therefore ask the Committee to be reasonable and now to return to Clause 1 and give those hon. Members who want to discuss its merits and demerits, including Scottish Members, a chance to do so. Clause 1 was discussed for approximately four hours—from approximately 10.25 p.m. to approximately 2.30 a.m. I would like the Committee to return to it so that hon. Members can put their arguments about it. There must be a little give and take even in the midst of an exercise designed solely to embarrass the Government, without regard for the fishing industry, which is what we should be considering.
I appeal to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, therefore, to with-
1180
draw his Motion and allow us to get back to Clause 1. That is a perfectly sincere and reasonable thing to do. Continued discussion of this Motion is a waste of time when we ought to be proceeding with the Bill. I therefore ask hon. Members, in as reasoned a way as I can, to revert to Clause 1 and attempt to reach a decision on it. It is no good thinking that this business can be neglected. It is Government business dealing with the fishing industry and we have to proceed with it.
Mr. G. Brown: Despite the kindly words which the right hon. Gentleman used about me, and for which I am grateful, I am bound to say that, as a whole, his was as ungracious a speech as I have heard him make in a long time.
The right hon. Gentleman said that more of the speeches and topics were related to the issues raised by the Bill than he normally heard. He said that many constructive comments had been made. He cannot say that, on the one hand, and smuggle in a reference to filibustering and spite and not treating the fishing industry properly, on the other. Not even the right hon. Gentleman can have it both ways.
The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for taking this business at ten o'clock. If there is any question of spite—his word, not mine—if there is any question of trying to embarrass the other side—his words, not mine—then the decisions were taken by him and not by us. He set out to make us pay for the time we had used between 3.30 and 10 p.m. on the other matters. He set out to show us that the Government would nevertheless get their business and that he would embarrass us by keeping us here through the night to get it.
Mr. Butler: So far was that from my thoughts and those of the Government that we deliberately abandoned the Crown Estate Bill, which was our main Government business for today. We thought that it would be unfair to take it, because it would take half a day We had no intimation that this Bill would take a long time until we heard rumours that hon. Members opposite would go all out to oppose it. We

1181
thought this was a reasonable proposition, and we thought it reasonable to postpone the Crown Estate Bill.
Mr. Brown: The decision, nevertheless, to put the Bill down for discussion, and go on with it, was the right hon. Gentleman's, and not ours.
Mr. Butler: The idea of taking it was announced last Thursday. We received no Opposition objection, and we did not know there was any likelihood of there being Opposition objection to taking it at that time.
Mr. Brown: It is advancing a new principle to say that when Government business is announced we have to tell them whether it is an issue that we take seriously. It is the Government's business to know which Bills are important. This Bill had a considerable debate on Second Reading. It did not have a formal Second Reading, and it was clear that it was an important Measure. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to spin on a sixpence when he seeks to put the responsibility on us for his own misjudgment.
Just after ten o'clock I asked the right hon. Gentleman what his intentions were. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that I received the shortest possible answer. I got no invitation to have a discussion of the matter. I received no evidence of any interest on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. All the Leader of the House said was that we had better get on and see what we could do. He then left the Chamber, and we did not see him again until the Motion to report Progress was moved. The right hon. Gentleman is being graceless about this matter. He admitted that all we have done is to raise issues relevant to the Clause.
I suppose that the word "filibuster" must be a Parliamentary word, or the Chair would have stopped the right hon. Gentleman from using it, but leaving that aside, the fact is that he first conceded that we were discussing the Bill and then contradicted himself by using the word "filibuster". It seems to be getting precious near a reflection on the Chair to allege that a debate which has gone on as long as this one has been a filibuster. I must make it clear that we feel that we are being treated with scant respect.
1182
We think that the business of the House is being treated with scant respect. I fear that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have come to rely on our being co-operative and letting things go. It is that which has stopped. The Bill has been, is being, and will be subjected to the detailed discussion and examination that a Bill of this magnitude deserves. It raises the limit for the expenditure of public money very considerably. It increases the hand-out of subsidies in a notable fashion. It is not right that we should let it go through without detailed examination.
I submit that it is improper to try to force through that kind of discussion at one, two, three, four or five o'clock in the morning, when the chances of publicity for what we are saying have gone. One reason for discussing things in the House is so that our constituents and others affected may know what we are talking about. What else do hon. Members think that Parliament is for? Does the right hon. and learned Member the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), an ex-Attorney General, think that Parliament is a private club run for our benefit? We discuss things here in the name of and on behalf of our constituents and those affected. One of their rights is not only to have us here, but to know what we are discussing and what we are saying about it.
3.30 a.m.
For the Leader of the House to say to us, as he has, "Either you discuss this through the night when, inevitably, there will be less opportunity for people to know what you are saying about it, or you will let it go through without any discussion at all at ten o'clock" is a quite improper equation to put before the Committee. It is a quite improper consideration for him to advance. He got very near to shedding crocodile tears for the industry when he talked about the importance of the Bill to the industry and implied that, somehow, by keeping this discussion going as we have been doing with the constructive suggestions he mentioned and the constructive considerations addressed to the Bill which he mentioned, we were being unfriendly or treating this great industry less than properly. That I simply reject and throw straight back at him. There is not the slightest evidence of our doing that. We

1183
believe this is a great industry. I spent four and a half years of my ministerial life dealing with it and I know it as much as any hon. Member opposite.
Mr. Prior: I am sure that the right hon. Member has not a greater regard for this industry than any hon. Member on this side of the Committee.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is suffering from the lateness of the hour. I said that I had as great a regard as any hon. Member opposite for it—so I have—and I was addressing myself to the allegation that we were not showing a regard for the industry. Our desire, in examining the Bill, is to pay our tribute to, and do our duty by, the industry. I still feel that it would be better not to go on with the debate tonight. I thought that I detected in the remarks of the Leader of the House the hint of a proposal which had not emerged before. I thought I detected in his frequent references to Clause 1 a very considerable move from his previous answer to me, which was, "Nothing doing", or the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend about an hour ago, when he certainly said, "Nothing doing at all". I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to make his position any more specific. We are not letting the Bill go without detailed examination. If we have to do it through the night we shall do it. We think that it would be very much better for our constituents and for the industry for it to be done at an appropriate time, for it to be done in the afternoon.
We certainly think that the Government will not gain a single thing in this way. In terms of time and business they will not gain. This confirms what I said the other night when I observed that I had been here for fifteen years and seen very powerful Governments of hon. Members from both sides of the House, with powerful majorities, but that no Government I have seen have been powerful enough, whatever their majority—
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Is it in order for the right hon. Member so continuously throughout the day to threaten to hold up the business of the House?
The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that anything has been said by the right hon. Gentleman which was out of order.
Mr. Butler: What assurance can we on this side of the Committee have that if we stop the proceedings and adjourn them there will not be the same exhibition as we have had tonight and the same opposition to the Bill—simply postponed to another occasion? If the the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance on that, it might help.
Mr. Brown: It would help if the Leader of the House stopped making that kind of offensive remark. On the previous occasion, when he seemed to suggest a face-saving way out, with grace and dignity, for the Government and ourselves, he had to wrap it up with a lot about filibustering. This time he wraps it up with a reference to an exhibition. We think that we are making no exhibition. We shall examine the Bill, and I can give no undertaking that it will not be closely examined at whatever time of the day it is brought before us.
The Leader of the House is much older in the House than I am. He has seen such a situation as this many times before. If he cannot deduce certain conclusions from that, he is not the man I think he is. I repeat—the Government would lose nothing by recognising that this is not the time to try to drive the Bill through the Committee. We are certainly not willing that the Motion should be withdrawn unless the Leader of the House is prepared to go a good deal further.
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks were a very reasonable attempt to indicate that if the Bill is taken on another occasion it will be treated more reasonably than it is being treated now. I thank him for making that observation. I think that we should get back to Clause 1. We can then make progress with it, and we shall see where we are and what it is reasonable to do and what is a reasonable way of making progress.
Mr. Ross: I wish to deal with the matter not on the fishing aspects but on Parliamentary grounds. It is 3.40 a m. The Secretary of State for Scotland has to appear in Scottish Grand Committee at 10.30 a.m. to conduct the Crofters (Scotland) Bill, which is a very important Bill. He may be quite happy about that, but I hope that he and the Leader of the House appreciate that my hon. Friend

1185
the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who is conducting affairs from our Front Bench on the Scottish aspect of this Bill, is Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee and will have to be in his place there at 10.30 a.m. Does the Leader of the House think it right to continue this morning for an indefinite period, bearing in mind the responsibility that the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend have to carry out? The Leader of the House has spoken about the great strain on Chairmen. We have not even entered into the Scottish aspects of this Clause.
The Minister talked a lot about certain interests, but I cannot remember any long speeches on this subject from him before he became a Minister. He should cast his mind back to the fact that the Money Resolution on the Bill gave rise to considerable comment as to what we should be able to discuss. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is still much to be done on the Bill and that for Parliamentary reasons it is not right to discuss a Bill of such importance and a Clause of such importance at this hour. It would be far better to give us an indication of when he thinks the Committee should rise, bearing in mind the duties we have in Committee in a few hours' time.
Mr. Paget: The Leader of the House has stated that we have been using the Bill as an instrument to express our resentment at the way we as a minority have been treated by a majority earlier today and last week. I do not agree with that, but even if it be so it is no injury to the Bill or to any of the beneficiaries of the Bill, since nobody has suggested anywhere that this is a Bill whose passage is needed urgently, The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states that the purposes of the Bill are
" to extend the powers of Ministers to make schemes for the payment of white fish subsidy so as to enable subsidy to be paid in respect of distant water vessels … "
Nobody has suggested that there is any scheme in existence to put forward now. The same applies to the other objectives set out.
This is merely to provide some compensation for what may happen in the Icelandic negotiations. They have not happened yet. Therefore, we can all
1186
agree that from the point of view of the Bill it does not matter in the least whether we get it this week or next or the week after that.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's question whether this will go quicker at a later time, speaking from where I am I can speak only for myself, but I cannot help feeling that the length of time which one takes is always in inverse proportion to the efficiency with which one's mind works. When one is tired one is apt to take very much longer than when one comes to a subject fresh.
For instance, I have the task of considering the legal aspects of the Bill. If I have to do this tonight, I shall have to think out the propositions aloud and go through the four Acts and Five Orders concerned. I could not undertake to do that in much under two hours. On the other hand, if I am given the opportunity to deal with it and examine the Acts in private instead of here before the Committee, I think that I could undertake to reduce my conclusions from two hours to a few minutes.
3.45 a.m.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked the Committee what would be the effect of accepting the situation now. I can only speak for myself, but I can tell him the sort of effect it would have in regard to the time I think that it would have on my contribution. If discussion of Clause 1 is postponed, and there is good will on both sides to get through with it, it will not make the slightest difference whether that Clause has been dealt with tonight or not. Frankly, I think that if the Government have learned anything tonight it is that we have quite enough skill on this side to keep the argument going on any of the three remaining Clauses just as long as we want. We are not unskilful. I would therefore suggest to the Leader of the House that if he meets us on this point I very much doubt whether he will be disappointed at the result later.
In the same way as I believe that if, earlier in the day, he had said to us, "I do not agree with you, but since there has been a misunderstanding we will do that bit of business over again," that business would have been taken next, and the other very unhappy business would not have come on at all, because there would not have been the occasion, and this

1187
would all have been disposed of long ago. I hope that the Leader of the House will feel that at this point he can meet us. Speaking for myself, I can say that there will be very much better feeling if he does.
Mr. G. Brown: It will not have escaped the notice of the Leader of the House and other hon. Members that there have been some consultations over here. If the Leader of the House felt able to make it clear that if we went off this Motion and allowed the discussion on Clause 1 to be completed—I cannot say how long that will take; some of my hon. Friends say that they have points to make—he would then be willing to adjourn the Committee at that point and take the rest of the Bill and the Order following it on the Order Paper at some other time, I would feel it improper to ask hon. Members to stay here after that just for the sake of continuing this argument at this time. But we do not feel that up to the moment we have had a clear indication from the right hon. Gentleman that that was his intention.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I think that the interchanges between the right hon. Gentleman and myself have had results, and I would suggest that that is the solution tonight, namely, that by the right hon. Gentleman withdrawing his Motion we get back to Clause 1, and when we have obtained Clause 1 I would move to report Progress.
I would make two other observations. I would postpone the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order that is now on the Order Paper. I would also like to say that, for the sake of the industry, we must have this Bill by Easter. I only say that to show that it is a serious matter for the industry. It has to go to another place, so there will be some necessity to hurry this business, although giving a proper opportunity for people to discuss what they want. Lastly, I hope that honour is saved on both sides. We have accepted the right hon. Gentleman's challenge, and I hope that we have responded with humanity.
Mr. Callaghan: This is my Motion, and I therefore propose to intimate that it will be my desire to withdraw it. In doing so, I should like to comment on certain of the right hon. Gentleman's observations.
1188
First, hon. Members opposite have taunted us with not knowing how to fight a battle. After this long-drawn battle has been fought, I hope that they will be a little less free in their comments in future. Although I do not doubt the tenacity, vigour and spirit of the Government, I assure them that, if necessary, we can summon up some reserves of energy that will enable us to fight an equally good battle. We can give quite a good account of ourselves. I hope that it will not be suggested that we do not know how to fight a Parliamentary battle. The Leader of the House has been here longer than I have, but I can well remember fighting my own Front Bench on occasions between 1945 and 1950. Although our weapons may have become a little rusty, we can polish them and have them ready if we are to be challenged in the way we have been in the last few months.
There are some serious points to be made on Clause 1 and some serious discussion must be had on it. I do not wish to detain the Committee further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Loughlin: Some hon. Members opposite have suggested that some of us have little knowledge of the fishing industry, but they have shown little eagerness to take part in the debate. If they have the knowledge of the industry which they claim, they ought to place that knowledge before the Committee. I now sit for the constituency of Gloucestershire, West, but before entering the House of Commons I had twenty-five years' association with the fishing industry.
If I thought that the subsidies proposed were likely to be used in the industry as a whole, I should have the greatest pleasure in giving my full and absolute support to Clause 1. I should take the same view if I thought that the application of the subsidy would be assessed on the basis which the Government themselves apply in considering other subsidies.
Recently, the whole emphasis of the Government's case has been that we ought to pay subsidies only in cases of need and not as a general rule in certain

1189
of our social services, not as of right to the individual but only where need is shown. If that is the principle they wish to adopt in the Health Service, they ought to apply it also to subsidies to industries. I should like to think that the subsidy for deep water vessels would be used to improve workers' conditions in the industry. I accept that, under the poundage system, certain of the crews will derive a measure of benefit from it.
If I thought the subsidy was to be used to decasualise the industry, or to introduce reasonable working conditions for the crews, I would give it my wholehearted support. But it will not do anything of the sort. The inshore vessels are a completely different proposition. To a large degree the vessels are operated by the crews alone, and they have had extreme difficulties in maintaining economic stability, and will have even more difficulty if the subsidy is extended to deep water vessels, where one is not dealing with impoverished fishermen struggling to maintain one small boat. The greater part of these recurring subsidies will go to the trawler owners, who are not impoverished in any way.
The Government argue in most fields of subsidy that it is essential to see that the money is spent on the basis of need. This will increasingly be the case in the policies enunciated by the intelligentsia of the Conservative Party, for the Bow Group documents, whether on education—
The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): The hon. Member is now going a little wide.
Mr. Loughlin: I submit that it is essential when dealing with subsidies to apply the same principle. My point is that if the Government contend that subsidies in the social services shall be on the basis of need, that should also apply to industry—the white fish industry or any other. There is still as much right to ensure that the taxpayers' money is not put into the pockets of people who do not need subsidies.
The trawler owners are growing so big that it is almost a monopoly in some ports, from the trawling to the inland retailing. Yet this is where the greater bulk of the money is going. We do not
1190
yet know how much money it is proposed to give to the fishing industry under the Bill.
4.0 a.m.
The Clause says that the Order-making power
"shall be exercisable from time to time but no such increase shall exceed three million pounds."
What does "time to time" mean? The Secretary of State for Scotland cannot tell us. In his speech on Second Reading he made it perfectly clear that
" The Ball does not determine the actual rates of subsidy, which will be embodied in a statutory scheme submitted for the approval of the House … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1961; Vol. 633. c. 902.]
The Minister cannot tell us how much in total will be the amount of subsidy under the Bill.
When the Government have a Bill by which they seek to spend public money they should give this Committee and the country as a whole some indication of the total amount that they propose to spend. I thought the Secretary of State was going to give us some information on this point. I am willing to sit down if he can, because it will save a lot of time. Can he tell us how much, in total, the Bill will cost the taxpayer? If he cannot, the Minister ought to take the Bill back till he and the Secretary of State for Scotland can tell what it will cost. The Government are not prepared to ask for a blank cheque for giving subsidies to old-age pensioners or to subsidise council houses, but they produce this Bill without indicating how much subsidy they will give to an industry which does not need it and which is not impoverished.
Many trawler owners are paying increased dividends. This is private enterprise. The Minister said he wanted the Bill because trawler owners, in view of the Icelandic dispute, were likely to have to find fresh fishing grounds. If private enterprise trawler owners want or have to find fresh fishing grounds, why do they not go and do it? They cannot have it both ways. They cannot have private enterprise and, at the same time, say that the Government should supply the money necessary, and which should be produced by the initiative said to be inherent in private enterprise.
The Government have not said they want to extend the subsidy to deepwater vessels. They cannot say even now.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member said that if I got up and explained it might save a great deal of time. I have been waiting here a long time hoping to get a word in edgeways I have not succeeded yet. If the hon. Member would like to bring his interesting speech to a close, I will try to help him. because that is what he wanted" me to do.
Mr. Loughlin: I will develop my speech in my own way. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene he has only to nod and I will sit down.
Mr. Maclay: I want to be clear about what the hon. Member wants me to do. I was only anxious to help. If I might now make a short speech I will deal with the points that are worrying him. If not, I think I will let him develop his speech in his own way.
Mr. Loughlin: The right Gentleman thinks nothing of the sort. I asked for information some time ago. When I mentioned the right hon. Gentleman it was when I asked about the total amount of subsidies that he anticipated the Government would want to authorise under the Clause. That was ten minutes ago. Perhaps the hour is such that the right hon. Gentleman is still asleep.
If the right hon. Gentleman will listen I will put the question and he can intervene if he wishes. Why do the Government want to extend the subsidies to the deep water vessels? That question has not yet been answered. The Government cannot expect the Committee to pass a Clause of this kind which gives unlimted subsidies to an industry which does not need them without the Government advancing the grounds for doing so.
I believe in international trade. When we give subsidies of this character to deep water vessels and to trawler owners who do not need them anyway, what are we going to do to influence the British Trawlers' Federation to get their members to have their ships built in British yards? It is right and fair that we should ask them to do so. The shipbuilding industry is in the doldrums.
1192
Grimsby is having its deep water fleet built up in Germany. Week after week we find that while British shipyards are without work, Grimsby certainly, and perhaps other ports, are having ships built in Germany to come back to this country as part of the fleet. Now we propose to give them a subsidy for doing this. The Committee ought to know a great deal more of what is in the Government's mind before we pass the Clause.
Mr. Lawson: The near and middle water boats have shown that they require subsidies. Indeed, it is largely because they have received subsidies that they have survived. The Scottish fishing industry is mostly based on the inshore and middle distance fishing and little distant water fishing is undertaken from Scotland.
If the Bill goes through, there is a danger that the big boats, already possessing advantages over the smaller boats, will have even greater advantages. The bigger boats are already concentrated around Hull and Grimsby and although in the strict economic sense that might be sensible—because of the concentration of markets—if the smaller boats are ousted, the consequences for the Scottish industry will be serious.
Areas such as those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie) and the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) will be seriously affected. Aberdeen already has disadvantages. It may be nearer to the distant water areas than the other fishing ports, but it is further from the markets where the bulk of the fish is sold.
The Clause gives power for schemes to be established, but nothing is said about the nature of the schemes or about the operations of the big distant water boats. The Minister will have power to make grants of up to £3 million in addition to existing grants, but there is no limit on the number of grants or how often the total of £3 million may be reached.
There could be a situation in which the most efficient section of the fishing fleet was made more efficient, the not so efficient, the part now labouring under a handicap, finding its difficulties even

1193
greater. Nor is there any provision about where the distant water fleet is to fish. The boats could come very close to the shore and make periodic raids into the inshore or middle wafer grounds and bring havoc to those parts of the industry.
The outcome of the scheme may be to give help to that part of the industry which formerly required none while increasing the disadvantages of its weaker neighbours, increasing the advantages of the modern trawlers based on Hull and Grimsby which can be advised about the best markets for their cargoes.
4.15 a.m.
The industry should also eventually become more honest in what it sells, and in the names it gives the products it sells. It should not sell monkfish under false names, which it regularly does. It should not sell megrim as lemon sole, or whiting as haddock, or saith as cod, or rock cod. I want to see people getting what they ask for, and getting standards of freshness and quality that they expect, which a large section of the industry does not give them. I am not talking merely about the people in the ships; I am talking about the whole industry. Many things must be done to put the industry on its feet.
At this stage I am concerned as to how the Bill will affect the weaker part of the industry, based upon the near and middle waters. This Measure seems to be so shaped that it cannot but add greatly to the competitive strength of that part which is already much more efficient than the other parts. Since this concerns Scotland more than any other part of the United Kingdom—and if my fears are realised the whole industry in Scotland could be destroyed—unless we can see that the Secretary of State is giving some thought to this matter, and can show how Aberdeen and Leith will stand up, we will not feel that he is looking after the interests of Scotland.
Lady Tweedsmuir: I shall not detain the Committee for many minutes, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply I cannot resist asking him one question. He will be aware that the fishing fleet in Aberdeen is now allowed by the White Fish Authority only two trips per year to the Icelandic fishing grounds, because the near and
1194
middle water fleets are receiving subsidies while the long distance boats are not. Since the Clause will allow a further subsidy to the long-distance vessels I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend can say what instructions will be given to the White Fish Authority about removing the limitation on Aberdeen boats. If the subsidies are given universally it is surely only fair that Aberdeen boats should have the freedom to fish wherever they wish.
I understand the subsidy for longdistance boats to be given for the purpose of encouraging them to find more distant fishing grounds. Many boats equipped from Hull can now go as far as Greenland, and I hope the Secretary of State will see that definite encouragement is given to Scottish boats to go further afield. If we are to seek a Western European agreement on these fishing limits it is obvious that a 12-mile limit may well be fixed, and that would seriously affect the Port of Aberdeen and Scotland generally. If the Scottish fleet is to be pushed from the Faroese grounds, provided there is a Western European agreement, it is only fair that they should have a chance to go further afield. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could answer that point.
Mr. Hoy: Little did I think when I arrived off the train at eight o'clock yesterday morning and came to the House that I would still be here at half-past four this morning. Little did I think when I started speaking at half-past ten last night that we would still be here at this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Hamilton) raised the question of the middle-water and inshore fleet. I also raised that matter and do not want to go into it again, except to say that if the fishing grounds are to go on contracting and it is obvious that the available grounds will be over-fished, it will be difficult for all sections of the industry and might well mean a considerable part of the industry going out of existence. As I pointed out on Second Reading, that has happened in my constituency where two firms have been taken over by a firm of shipbuilders in Aberdeen. One sees that danger. It affects Scotland perhaps more than other parts of the country. It would not have an effect on Grimsby and Hull where

1195
distant water fleets are concentrated, and a large part of the Lowestoft fleet.
What we have to keep clear in our minds, despite all that has been said during the night, is that the industry is of first-class importance to Britain. Let it not be forgotten that just as it is said that many other people are entitled to a livelihood out of it, so are those engaged in the inshore side of the industry entitled to consideration as the other sections. We often pay lip-service to the people in the industry, but it is not a bad thing when war is not with us that we should say something similar in peace time. I hope that as a result of the changes to be made conditions will be improved for the men in the industry. As I said on Second Reading, I hope that there will be an expansion of the pensions scheme which is shortly to come into operation on Humberside which for the first time will give pensions to 7,000 men in the industry. That will be a tremendous improvement. Just as we hope for an efficient industry, the men engaged in it will measure its efficiency by the rewards they get from it.
I agree that if the distant water fleet is to be denied fishing grounds new ones will have to be found and certain compensations will have to be paid. That is the reason for this part of the Bill. I only hope that we shall try to look after our own shipbuilding industry. I think of Aberdeen, where without this type of building, we would be in a difficult plight. It is perhaps not too much to expect that consideration will be given to our own yards when orders are placed. That is all I want to say at this late hour of the night, or morning. I hope the Secretary of State will have something to say in reply to the points which have been made, and particularly about the position in Scotland.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and I were the subject of solicitude from other hon. Members, but it was clear from the speech of the hon. Member, as I hope it will be clear from mine, that we are content to do our duty.
The point made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was, why did we want to give a subsidy to deep water vessels? He also asked, why did we want to help owners who
1196
were making good money anyway? The short answer to the question, why do we want to help deep water vessels, is that this was discussed fully on Second Reading and, if he wants detail, perhaps he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate. I should add that if he has followed what has been going on through all the international negotiations about fishing limits he will know that it would be an extraordinarily improvident Government which did not take powers to do what was necessary as things developed.
At this stage of some of the discussions taking place with foreign nations it would be extremely unhelpful to the very people the hon. Member wants to help, the men who are sailing in these ships, to ask me to go into too much detail of what might come out of the discussions. There are times when, in the interests of those we want to help, it is wise not to go into too much detail when discussions are going on.
Mr. Loughlin: What does that mean?
Mr. Maclay: There have been two lots of discussions at Geneva and various things have been heard about fisheries limits. It is clear that a situation could arise, from things which have already happened, which would make it extremely desirable to be able to give certain advantages to these ships which they do not now possess.
Even if the hon. Member were correct in feeling that there was no case for helping some owners—and I do not accept that for one moment—he should remember that the Bill covers many other people than the large owners; it covers those who own and sail in the ships. It affects not only the big companies.
Mr. Loughlin: If we are dealing with deep water vessels we are dealing with the trawler owners. If the right hon. Gentleman is making the case that we are also dealing with fishermen who own their own vessels, will he tell us the percentage of vessels owned by their crews?
Mr. Maclay: I was referring not particularly to the deep water boats but to the wider range.
Mr. Loughlin: I was dealing with deep water vessels. I was dealing with this Clause.
Mr. Maclay: The Clause includes a number of other things. If the hon. Member was dealing only with deep water vessels, he may be right in his statement, because I do not know the percentage for which he asks. The Bill also affects people who own boats and sail in them.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) raised an important point when he asked whether extending the subsidy to deep water boats would damage the inshore fishing industry and its boats, which are so important in the Scottish fishing scene. The hon. Member for Leith will bear me out when I say that some of the middle water boat owners are extremely concerned lest there are too many inshore boats, which are making things more difficult for them. One reason is that the inshore boats bring in fresh fish of the highest quality.
I can set the hon. Member's fears at rest, as far as that is possible and as far as one can forecast the future of fisheries, by saying that there will always be a very good market for the fresh fish which only the inshore or near water boats can bring in. The quantity comes from the distant waters and the quality from the inshore waters. I have often heard it said that there are too many seine netters and that they are doing damage to the middle water boats.
The hon. Member for Leith made some comments on ship building. I entirely agree with him, and I hope that it will prove possible to place these orders with British yards. He knows that that has nearly always been done by British owners in the past, or by others who wanted fishing boats built, where delivery dates made it possible, but it must not be forgotten that one reason why orders were placed abroad by people who had never done this in their history before was that they could not get delivery dates when the yards were overpressed. As that position disappears it will be improbable, if the price is right, that they will ever place orders abroad.
I hope that within the limits of what one can reasonably do at this hour I
1198
have met some of the important points which have been raised and that in the circumstances the Committee will now be prepared to let us have Clause 1.
4.30 a.m.
Mr. Loughlin: I must tie the Minister down on this point. It is no good him just standing up and waffling. This is an enabling Bill. It will enable the Government to extend the subsidy to the larger vessels. The larger vessels envisaged in the Dill are deep water vessels. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that we are dealing with other things? The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum clearly says that it is an enabling Bill. The Government have powers for the inshore fishermen and the middle water vessels. Precisely what other issues does the right hon. Gentleman say are involved than an extension of the subsidy to the larger vessels Which are, in the main, deep water vessels?
Mr. Maclay: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is one of the things inherent in the Bill. This is to extend the subsidy to distant water boats. Clause 1 (2) has its own place in the scheme of things in seeing that the money is enough for everybody concerned. Both the hon. Gentleman and I are right in this case. He is right that the Clause deals with distant water boats. I am right in saying that the Clause also covers the whole range of fishing, because it increases the money available. The hon. Gentleman will find that it is all right and that for once we are in complete agreement.
Original Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Maclay: We have made some interesting progress in the last half an hour or so, Sir William. In the circumstances, I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT, DIDCOT (CLOSURE)
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
4.33 a.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: The decision of the War Office to close the Central Ordnance Depot at Didcot has aroused in my constituency great feeling and much criticism of the way in which the announcement was handled. Although it means keeping my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War out of his bed, I feel fully justified in raising the subject tonight. I feel very strongly about it.
The facts are these. On 24th January the War Office announced the closure of the Central Ordnance Depot on the ground that it was concentrating War Office stores from a number of different depô ts and that the stores which are now at Didcot would be moved to Bicester. The War Office announced the closure of the Central Ordance Depot in its Press statement, but it is not clear whether it intends completely to run down the depot by 1st January, 1964.
A statement issued on behalf of the War Office after the official Press statement indicated that it was expected that a few hundred employees of the War Office might still remain at the Depot after 1st January, 1964, which was to be the end of the first phase of the rundown.
As I understand, there will be no redundancy in the first year—1961—but from 1st January, 1962, the move to Bicester will begin. It is, therefore, not clear exactly what the War Office intends to do and what its overall plan is. It certainly has not been made clear to my constituents. There are 2,400 War Office employees at the Central Ordnance Depot, of whom 890 are established civil servants. There are 625 women in the industrial section, and 300 non-industrial women. All the employees live and work in the neighbourhood of Didcot. The depot came to Didcot in 1915, about the same time as the former Royal Air Force Depot at Milton. The Royal Air Force depot was closed in 1958, and handed over to the War Office.
I would like my hon. Friend to remember, when considering the whole
1200
of this matter, that both depô ts and their employees have rendered historic service to the Crown in the storing of military equipment. For over forty years there has been a link between Didcot and the War Office, so that it is all the more unfortunate that clumsy handling of the official statement made the news of the closure come as a great shock to them.
I know the people who work there; their loyalty to the War Office is very great Industrial relations are good, and the people show common sense. They realise perfectly well that a reduction in the Army is inevitable, and that concentration of these War Office stores will take place. I should also like to pay tribute not only to these good relations amongst the staff, but to the present Commandant, Brigadier Wortham, in a rather difficult situation.
It was into this atmosphere of good will and responsibility—of the trade unions, particularly—that the War Office dropped what was locally called a "bombshell," but which I would, colloquially, describe as a "clanger"—and a very heavy clanger at that. The reason was that those concerned in the War Office utterly failed to consult any other Government Department involved with the employment situation in the district. They did not consult any local authority or the Ministry of Labour's local officials at a time when there was considerable anxiety as to employment in the car industry at Abingdon. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, also, was not consulted.
It was very unfortunate that a series of statements appeared from my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour which conflicted with the War Office announcement. All the statements appeared at about the same time, and made a very bad impression in the district. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that the War Office will, in future, adopt the practice of consulting the local authorities and those concerned with employment in the area before they make similar announcements to the Press.
It must be realised that from a psychological point of view the timing of the announcement is important. It is from the moment of the announcement that people begin to feel that an upheaval is to take place in their domestic lives—as

1201
will be the case with a very large number of the employees at this depot. It is absolutely no excuse to say that redundancy will not take place for a year, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not try to give that as a reason for not having any consultation in future. It is absolutely essential that the War Office should con-suit the local employment office and also local authorities when a move as big as this is contemplated. These things do come as a shock. We have not very much time in the constituency to make preparations for the replacement of this depot by local industry at Didcot. I want an explanation about this matter, and I hope to have certain very definite assurances on it.
I put down a Question for Written Answer asking for a meeting between the War Office, the local authorities, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade. I wanted the meeting to take place in my constituency. I was told that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would act in consultation with the local authorities and the other Departments. I should like a better arrangement than that. I want the War Office to be prepared to attend a meeting in my constituency with representatives of the other Departments, the local authorities and representatives of the Whitley Council from Didcot. There is no reason why there should not be some kind of public meeting on the matter, so that the staff may be reassured. This was done by the Air Ministry in connection with the closure of the R.A.F. Station at Milton.
What are the plans for the future of the staff? There must have been some plan. It cannot be possible that the War Office has made this decision and has no information to give about how many men or women will become redundant by the end of the rundown period on 1st January, 1964. I tried to make inquiries of my hon. Friend's Department, but no one was able to say how many people would be redundant in that period. It is extremely important for us to have information in the district. It has been reckoned that the number will be between 700 and 800 men. This is very important in view of the need for industries to replace the depot.
This is all said to be part of a major concentration of stores at Bicester. What
1202
is the reason for choosing Bicester as a better place than Didcot? Why did the War Office take over Milton from the Air Ministry in 1958? That was a very big depot, and many of the buildings were in comparatively good repair, and the War Office has actually been spending money on those buildings. At that time, the War Office takeover of the R.A.F. depot, in relation to Didcot, gave the town an impression of security, that the War Office intended to stay there. The War Office having made that decision only two years ago, I do not understand why it did not undertake a programme of rebuilding at Didcot at that time.
There is barrack accommodation there and there is housing for War Office workers. There is not so much, and it is not so new, as what is to be found at Bicester, but if the War Office thought it right to take over this R.A.F. depot in 1958, in view of the fact that this town is very dependent on the depot, it seems surprising that it did not select—the situation must have been foreseen for a very long time before the announcement—the Didcot depot as the place to concentrate its stores.
What is the position with regard to the War Office houses at Didcot now? Also, what about the Air Ministry houses at Milton Heights which, I was surprised to learn, the War Office intends to take over from the Air Ministry at the very time when it proposes to close this depot? Is that really so?
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend now that no decision has yet been taken by the War Office about taking over Milton Heights.
Mr. Neave: Perhaps that was only a rumour, but I want to know what is intended there, because the Air Ministry's decision with regard to the tenants depends on what my hon. Friend's Department decides to do.
What industrial staff is envisaged at Bicester? This is very important for Didcot, for reasons which I have already explained, since it is so dependent on the depot at present, with its large number of employees. Bicester is 30 miles from Didcot, and if the staff have to travel there a very complicated assisted travel scheme will be necessary.

1203
It seems to me that this position is very obscure, and I would like to hear more about the reasons for the decision. It seems rather badly thought out, and the people concerned with the civilian employment in the district ought to be more thoroughly consulted.
I would remind my hon. Friend that there are a number of older employees who have given very long service to the depot, and, therefore, that even if he does not accept that there are good reasons for a concentration of stores taking place at Didcot—and if the War Office had decided that some time ago they might have done it more cheaply—he will maintain, after January, 1964, a sub-depot of his Department at Didcot.
Unemployment in the area is very low—about 0· 6 per cent. of the working population of over 13,000. I am not attacking the policy of the War Office in regard to the concentration of stores as such, but only this decision; and my hon. Friend knows I support his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and himself in many matters of policy. But I am determined to see that the War Office plan and phase the rundown of the depot so that they do not go, leaving this vast acreage of buildings derelict and useless, and that they phase the rundown in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade and the county planning officer, so that new factories can be introduced into Didcot for the development of the town.
I would like to be absolutely certain from what I am told tonight that the whole thing is properly co-ordinated. There is now a much stronger case for new industries in the town, and I shall press the President of the Board of Trade in that connection later. A number of local authorities have sent resolutions to the Prime Minister, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of the strong feeling about the way the matter was handled.
My three points, therefore, are that he will look into the whole question of moving to Bicester and at what the rundown will be, so that the redundancy, if any, at Didcot is phased in with new industries; that the President of the Board of Trade will be asked to encourage industry to Didcot, and, at any rate, that the War Office consider a small sub-
1204
depot for some hundreds of War Office employees at Didcot after the end of the first phase; and to make no further decisions on this matter without consultation on the question of employment generally and on the prospects of new industries.
These matters do not, as the War Office seem to think, arise for Didcot in the distant future. They arise now. They involve people's domestic upheaval in having to go to Bicester or elsewhere, and this is already in their minds. It is necessary that my hon. Friend and his Department should take action now in conjunction with other Departments.
4.49 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for having given me notice of some of the points that he has raised, and I hope that from my answer he and his constituents can derive some reassurance. But if I am to persuade him that this decision over Didcot is sense, I must ask him to bear with me while I try to put it in the framework of the operation of running down the United Kingdom base of which it forms an important part.
The "Q Services" organisation—I use the term with the more confidence as my hon. Friend has been a Service Minister—as it stands now, has in its time catered for the needs of an Army of 400,000 men. After 1963, it will be required to serve an Army of rather less than half that number. There therefore has to be some streamlining and I do not think that my hon. Friend would wish to contest the correctness of our decision to run down the United Kingdom base to a size appropriate to the future needs of the Army. The size of the Army's administrative tail is always a focal point for criticism, and we clearly have to make certain that these services are organised as efficiently and economically as possible from the point of view of manpower and of public funds.
This whole operation, when complete, ought to save considerable sums of public money on staff costs alone; something like £2 million. A saving of staff of this order is bound to result in redundancy somewhere. I would emphasise that we are here planning for

1205
the very long term, and we must, therefore, take decisions which in the long term will yield the most economies from the taxpayers' point of view.
Now. how were we to do it? We are dealing here with the whole range of Army stores. These fall into three basic divisions or classifications, namely, vehicle spares, technical and warlike stores, and general stores which include clothing. What makes most sense, therefore, is a final disposition which will leave three main depô ts to correspond with these basic divisions of stores. My hon. Friend has no doubt had experience of this kind of reorganisation himself either in business or in the public service. As he knows, some things fall naturally into place and others fall to be decided on more finely balanced considerations.
Chilwell was a natural for vehicle spares, with Derby as a sub-depot. So was Donnington for technical and warlike stores. Each of these two would take up the vehicle and technical stores from Bicester, leaving Bicester empty and available, if it were judged suitable, as a home for the third of the main divisions, the general stores and clothing now at Didcot, Milton, Thatcham, Long-town and Branston. There was, therefore, at this point a choice what to do with this group of stores.
We could, as in the event we did. plump for Bicester. This is a modern depot, planned and built as a depot, with comparatively new permanent buildings equipped with heating and all with good road and rail facilities. By going there we should get all the stores, as it were. under one roof. On the other hand, we could keep the general stores roughly where they are now. Bicester would then be empty—and we have spent about £3 million since the war in servicing it and bringing it up to date. At present, the clothing and general stores are in four depô ts. With the reduced volume we should still need three, widely dispersed, instead of one concentrated at a single spot.
That was the problem, and the solution which my right hon. Friend approved was to go to Bicester. The resultant economies are calculated to save nearly £100,000 a year in staff costs alone, and there will be other substantial savings of public money because less
1206
building will be necessary and maintenance will be cheaper there. The buildings at Didcot are really not of a standard suitable for a permanent installation. If we were to remain there we should have to do a great deal more building. This will not be necessary at Bicester. My hon. Friend, who has been a Service Minister, will understand the significance of economies of the order I have indicated on the Votes of Service Departments.
The main arguments against going to Bicester were, as we saw them, the ones my hon. Friend very cogently reminded us of. That is to say, the human and social ones. They concern the effects of this decision on the lives and employment of my hon. Friend's constituents and the fact that there has been a depot at Didcot for a long time and that the life of Didcot and the surrounding neighbourhood is a good deal geared to what goes on there. We weighed these considerations with great care and I shall go into some detail about how we believe that this rundown will actually work and how those concerned will, in practice, be affected. I hope that what I have to say will be of some reassurance to my hon. Friend's constituents.
First, however, I must say to my hon. Friend that, as I think he will agree, we see going on in the country today numerous examples of changes in the long-term pattern of industry. The Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade are equipped to cope with, and even in some cases to encourage, these changes and, in particular, to give help over the social disturbances that are involved. But I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is just as wrong for us, as it would be for industry, to shirk taking decisions to improve the efficiency of our lay-out simply because they might have social repercussions. What we must do, and what we will certainly do here, is to ensure that the disturbance of people's lives while the changes are going on is kept to the absolute minimum.
I will now say why I think that what we plan to do here satisfies this obligation which, as I have said, we fully accept. In the first place, there is the time factor involved in the plan.
Mr. Neave: Can my hon. Friend say how many people are likely to become redundant?
Mr. Ramsden: I shall, as far as I can, cover the point of redundancy.
In the first place, as I have said, there is the time factor involved. We have given three years' notice of the closure and in the event this may be longer because we may have to retain a part of the depot for a longer period. I think that that answers one of my hon. Friend's questions. But we do not envisage retaining it indefinitely.
This long period of notice will give those who eventually become redundant a very reasonable opportunity to make plans for their alternative employment. I think that this exceptional length of notice deserves emphasising. For example, to put both length of notice and likely redundancy here in proportion, I might say that when we recently had to close the Royal Ordnance Factory at Fazakerley, we had to lay off 1,000 people in Liverpool, a bad employment area, in under a year. I am glad to say that the process of resettlement is going on continuously and has been effective, and only 40 of them are still without jobs.
The long notice will also mean that much of the reduction in the numbers employed will come about through normal wastage, that is people leaving to go to other jobs, or retiring, in the normal course of events. This is also important. There has been a turnover of 10 per cent. of the employees in the last six months. It therefore looks as though wastage, especially if it increases as a result of our announcement, could go on at a rate of over 20 per cent., that is 400 people a year.
Another point concerns employees who are established. There are at present 886 and my hon. Friend will be familiar with their terms of service under which they will continue to be offered employment at War Department establishments. I know that this is sometimes cold comfort when it means a move, or travelling, but by 1964, when the depot closes, 356, or nearly 40 per cent., of the established employees, will be over 60 and eligible to retire on pension. Of the 1,558 temporary employees, 189 will by then be over 65.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that a number of people already travel some distance to work in Didcot under an assisted travel scheme. I understand
1208
that this scheme will still be available in the case of Bicester for those who live in, for example, Faringdon and Wantage, in the kind of direction where the distance would not be too far.
There will, despite all this, inevitably be some redundancy. It would be wrong for me to try to give a forecast as to how much, but the figure which my hon. Friend mentioned as the subject of local speculation looks to me much more like the possible total figure of redundancies over the whole of the United Kingdom base as a result of this rundown plan rather than that likely to result from this single operation. I would not like to forecast a figure, because so much depends on the rate of wastage, as my hon. Friend will appreciate from what I have said. It would be inaccurate to try to make a forecast at the moment.
In view of what I have said, and especially in view of the factors of time and normal wastage, I do not think that my hon. Friend need fear that all this will give rise to any persistent unemployment in his constituency. I say that advisedly. Didcot is a locality which, by and large, has had a tight labour situation. In fact, I have seen letters from my hon. Friend and his neighbours rather stressing the difficulties which our labour needs at the depot were imposing on some local firms.
The Board of Trade in the past has taken the view that because of the generally low rate of unemployment in Abingdon and Didcot there was no need to introduce new industry there. I cannot conceive that in any future reassessment of the needs of the area the fact that by 1964 the depot will no longer exist as a source of employment will not be taken into consideration.
I understand that a property company has acquired a site at Didcot and is planning to put up a number of factories. There, again, I suppose that the employment prospects in the area will be a factor to be taken into account when the question of planning permission is being considered. I shall certainly see to it that as this whole process goes forward we do everything possible to help to smooth the transition for those concerned, as we always do where we are faced with redundancies, by close co-operation with the representatives of the Ministry of Labour.

1209
That, as my hon. Friend will know, is organised right down to factory and shop level in these cases.
I must stress that, in view of the time factor and the fairly rapid turnover of labour which takes place anyway, we do not expect the numbers involved in this redundancy to be very large, certainly nothing like the size of those which I quoted in the case of Fazakerley. My hon. Friend suggested that we should
1210
have had consultations with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at three minutes past Five o'clock a.m.

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  Broadcasts to Africa
  Broadcasts to Africa
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Agricultural Holdings (Full-Time Workers)
  Agricultural Holdings (Full-Time Workers)
  Horticulture, Wales (Grants)
  Horticulture, Wales (Grants)
HOSPITALS
  Calderstones Hospital, Lancashire
  Calderstones Hospital, Lancashire
  New Hospital, Aldershot
  New Hospital, Aldershot
  Hospital Beds, Northern Region
  Hospital Beds, Northern Region
  Glanely Hospital, Cardiff
  Glanely Hospital, Cardiff
  Plastic Surgery, South Wales
  Plastic Surgery, South Wales
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Prescriptions (Old-Age Pensioners)
  Prescriptions (Old-Age Pensioners)
  Midwives
  Midwives
  EX-CIVIL SERVANTS, SOMALILAND (PENSIONS)
  EX-CIVIL SERVANTS, SOMALILAND (PENSIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY FUNDS
  UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY FUNDS
EMPLOYMENT
  Houghton-le-Spring
  Houghton-le-Spring
  Office and Clerical Workers
  Office and Clerical Workers
SHIPPING
  Imports
  Imports
  Shipbuilding Industry (University Graduates)
  Shipbuilding Industry (University Graduates)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Meat
  Meat
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Accidents
  Accidents
EDUCATION
  Police Lectures
  Police Lectures
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners, Pentonville (Demonstration)
  Prisoners, Pentonville (Demonstration)
  Inflammable Substances (Storage)
  Inflammable Substances (Storage)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Thistleberry Scheme)
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Thistleberry Scheme)
POST OFFICE
  Research Work, Dollis Hill
  Research Work, Dollis Hill
BRITISH ARMY
  Central Ordnance Depot, Didcot
  Central Ordnance Depot, Didcot
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Official Report (Bound Volumes)
  Official Report (Bound Volumes)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Weights and Measures Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
Fifth Schedule [Foods]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think it is our usual practice that when Amendments are down on Third Reading that Reading is devoted to the Amendments, and any general remarks which your Lordships might wish to make come on the Question, That the Bill do now pass. With your Lordships' permission, the four Amendments standing in my name can be taken together because their combined effect is to fulfil the undertaking given on the Report stage to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that peeled vegetables, particularly potatoes, and peeled fruit, should be included in Part VII of the Fifth Schedule to the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 66, line 49, leave out (" cut up into pieces") and insert (" divided into pieces or have had part thereof removed or both.")
Page 67, line 1, leave out (" of those pieces which have ") and insert ("part of any of those fruits or vegetables which has ")
Page 70, leave out line 48 and insert (" being fruits or vegetables—")
Page 71, line 2, leave out from (" fruits ") to (" not ") in line 4 and insert (" or vegetables in such a state which have been divided into pieces or have had part thereof removed or both, any part of any of those fruits or vegetables which has ").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendments be taken en bloc?
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that the privilege Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That the privilege Amendment be agreed to.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. As we are all anxious to get on to more controversial Business, I shall mention only one or two of the points about which your Lordships particularly wanted a little more information before this Bill goes to another place. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, on both the Committee and the Report stages, moved what I thought was a very reasonable Amendment providing that when coal is being sent on a lorry for delivery to more than one customer it shall be made up in containers. As the noble Earl pointed out, a great many local authorities, have by-laws to this effect. We could not accept the Amendment since it would have interfered with existing arrangements in mining districts between the National Coal Board and the miners. But when the noble Lord asked if we could not make his proposal the general law and find some way of exempting the miners, I said I would consider this; and we have not stopped considering it. We have found, however, that some of the local authorities which have this by-law have lately been relaxing it in order to permit the use of new delivery vehicles called "autobaggers" which, I understand, save a great deal of labour. I think we shall have to look into that a little further before coming to any decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, was also concerned, as was my noble friend

601
Lord Jessel, to provide that compensation payable to displaced local officials who lose their jobs as a result of this Bill should be paid by the authority which gains the weights and measures function, and not by the authority which loses that function, as would happen under Clause 41 as it stands at present. Her Majesty's Government certainly appreciate the arguments in favour of making the gaining authority responsible for paving compensation. We believe that the right decision would be to assimilate practice under this Bill to the practice which now obtains under other Statutes affecting local authorities, such as the Local Government Act, 1958, and an Amendment giving effect to this will be introduced by the Government in another place.
A great many of your Lordships were anxious that more protection should be given to the public against deceptive containers, and debates took place on Amendments moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition in which many of your Lordships took part. I think we all realised the difficulty of distinguishing between containers which are made large and heavy for the purpose of deceiving the consumer and those which are made heavy for some good technical or æsthetic reason. We are considering whether, as some of your Lordships suggested in those debates and in the light of your Lordships' debates on this point in general, it would be possible to strengthen those parts of Clause 25 which affect this question, if that can be done without creating confusion.
I feel that I ought to again assure the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, that we have not forgotten the representations which he made about retaining the Hoppus foot measure and also the "cord" and "standard" measure of timber which he was afraid might be made illegal by this Bill—although I do not think the Hoppus measure would really be affected. The Board of Trade are considering, together with the timber trade, whether these measures are, in fact, affected by the Bill and, if so, what action ought to be taken.
Another point which was left undecided was that of the obligation on the part of a retail trader to check the quantity of goods for which he had got warranty. At present he has to do that
602
only if the warranty comes from abroad. Under the Bill he will have to do it even if the warranty is provided by a home wholesaler. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, thought this was a little hard on the retailer, and we had a very full discussion on that. Perhaps the present provisions of the Bill are a little too exacting, and we will consider that in another place. Possibly it would be preferable not to require the retailer to check the quantity if he has good reason to believe that the warranty he has received from the home producer is accurate, but to require him to check it only if he does not have good reason to think that the warranty is correct.
On tobacco, Her Majesty's Government undertook to reconsider the difficulties which might arise from applying Part VI of the Eighth Schedule to soft foil packets of tobacco, and the possibility that this might result in increasing the price. This question was raised rather too late for your Lordships to see it through, and I understand that the trade have asked my right honourable friend to receive a deputation on the subject. All I can say now is that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the arguments which were put forward on this point by the noble Lords, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve and Lord Ampthill.
One piece of information which I was unable to give your Lordships, although it was persistently demanded, was official figures showing the quantities of vodka and "Bloody Mary's" which are drunk in this country. Some of your Lordships were rather indignant that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, who levy the duty on spirits, were not able to give us this information. I have looked into it, my Lords, and I find that vodka and gin—that is to say, vodka made in Britain and gin made in Britain —and also some liqueurs, are all made from the same raw spirit and it is on this raw spirit that Her Majesty's Excise levy Excise Duty. They do not know how much of this raw material ultimately goes down people's throats in the form of vodka, how much in the form of gin and how much in the form of other interesting concoctions.
My Lords, my advice, which your Lordships did not see your way to accept, was that since this Part of the Bill does not come into operation for three years,

603
the most sensible course might perhaps be to wait until we had got this information, and that it would then be a simple matter to bring in vodka by an Affirmative Resolution under Clause 22 of the Bill, which will have to be done in the case of a good many other commodities. But your Lordships in all parts of the House were determined, evidence or no evidence, that "Bloody Mary" should be dealt with by this Bill—like the trial at the end of Alice in Wonderland: sentence first, conviction next, and evidence last of all. If your Lordships are right, as I think you probably are, we shall then be saved the trouble of introducing an Affirmative Resolution in 1964. On the other hand, if the evidence should show that consumption is not sufficient to justify the inclusion of vodka in the Bill it will then be just as easy to remove it by an Affirmative Resolution under Clause 22 as it would have been to insert it under converse circumstances. Meanwhile, so far as I am concerned, I am delighted that vodka should stay in the Bill, and I see no reason at all why this interesting legislative achievement on the part of your Lordships should be interfered with by another place.
I know that there are a number of other points, on some of which I am in communication with some of your Lordships, to which you would like further attention to be given; and I will certainly do my best to see that your Lordships' views are fully considered by the Government when the Bill is before another place. I have said nothing at all, for reasons of time, about the immeasurably wider field in which our prolonged deliberations on this Bill have ended in final, and I hope fruitful, conclusions. The Bill is a much better Bill now than it was when it was first introduced, and I am truly grateful to your Lordships in all parts of the House for the careful thought and the heavy labours on your Lordships' part which have led to this result. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (The Earl of Dundee.)
2.45 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should like to express what I am sure will be the feeling, of all Members of the House: our thanks and appreciation for the
604
detailed and thorough consideration which has been given to the matters which the noble Earl was good enough to promise would be given consideration or on which he gave certain assurances. I am sure we are all pleased to know that "Bloody Mary" has survived the tergiversations of the inquiry and considerations of this House; and I suppose that Russia can regard the position concerning vodka as the second achievement this week-end.
This is an important measure, as the noble Earl has said. It is a step forward, an appreciable step forward, towards consumer protection, for which there is a great need. The Bill leaves this House, as the noble Earl has also said much improved as a result of the activities not only of the Members of the Opposition but of noble Lords generally. It would, of course, have been a better Bill if more of our Amendments had been accepted, but they can be dealt with in another place. I apprehend that the question of delivery of small parcels of coal will be dealt with by the miner representatives to be found in the other place. We shall, perhaps, have success there in some respects in which we have failed in this House.
The Bill was for those concerned with it pretty considerable labour, and I aim sure that everyone would wish to join with me in paying a tribute to the urbane, co-operative and friendly way, and helpful way, in which the noble Earl conducted the Bill through your Lordships' House. He kept his tone; he kept a friendly tone, an easy temper, and realised—indeed, he often conceded —points made by us, though he was unable to embody them in Amendments. We greatly appreciate that. I recall that after my noble friend Lord Stonham and I had been, shall I say, closeted with the noble Earl for some five hours I said to an Officer of your Lordships' House, who must of course remain anonymous, "Who is the fellow who discovered weights and measures?" Promptly he said, "Crœsus", Which I thought was not inappropriate. However, I will not seek to draw a moral or to adorn a tale there.
May I also join in this tribute the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald? I think it was perhaps the first major measure with which he was concerned, and he carried a share of the responsibility,

605
which was some ordeal. If I may say so with respect and all friendliness, he did not take his jumps too well at the start. As a matter of fact, he did not seem to be riding his own horse. But he rapidly improved on his own mount, and jumped Amendment after Amendment—and there are more ways than one of interpreting the word "jumped" in that connection. He brushed some of his fences; he was a little timorous; but he got over, if sometimes only just. However, we should like to express our felicitations to him.
There were, of course, inevitably, in the course of discussion of the Bill certain harsh words of criticism of certain Government Departments, notably of the Board of Trade and its officers. That is, of course, part of democracy: there is no ill-feeling. I am sure that we all appreciate the immense labour that must have gone into the drafting of this Bill and the very heavy task the draftsman had not only in drafting it but in fitting in some of the Amendments which were moved and accepted. On the whole, I am sure we all feel that we have done something in the interests of the public in being associated with this fundamentally comprehensive measure for the protection of the consumer.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NURSES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons: read 1ª. and to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a statement on the state of public safety in Northern Rhodesia.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES
2.51 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to move to resolve, That this House condemns the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for increasing the contributions and charges for
606
the National Health Service. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not often in this House that we have to put down a Motion such as this, condemning the Government—and let there be no mistake about it; that is the intention of this Motion. Normally, we are content to state our case with such force as we can and then, perhaps after a Division, we agree to differ, usually quite agreeably, as we have done in the measure which we have just passed. But there are occasions— and this is one—where the proposals of the Government seem to us so wrong in principle, so harmful to the community and, as in this case, so clearly a piece of class legislation directed against the less fortunate sections of our people, that no ordinary Motion and debate would be wholly adequate.
The statement in this House and in another place last Wednesday on the Health Services shocked the conscience of all sections of the community, regardless of political persuasions, who care about the welfare of our people. The National Health Service came into being following a declaration by the Coalition Government in a White Paper in 1944, when the end of the war was in sight. In had, of course, been preceded by the historic Report known as the Beveridge Report, upon which the later legislation was based; and I am sure the whole House will be glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, the author of that Report, is following me in this debate. The White Paper laid down two fundamental principles upon which a National Health Service should be founded. These were: first, to divorce the care of health from questions of personal means or other factors irrelevant to it; and, second, to see: that all medical facilities were available to all the people.
In 1946, the Labour Government sought to implement this all-Party declaration: it introduced the National Health Service Bill. But by then the mood and spirit of the war-time Coalition had begun to fade away. The Bill was opposed and voted against on the Second Reading by the Tory Opposition, and it was voted against on the Third Reading. It was also, at that time, strongly opposed by large sections of the medical profession; but I am glad to say that, after some fourteen years' working,

607
the medical profession are to-day almost wholly in support of it.
There are many in the Tory Party who have never really become reconciled to a National Health Service, and who have all through devoted their energies to undermining it. They believe that the individual must pay for his health to the extent of his capacity, and that it is not the business of the community to accept responsibility unless he is devoid of means in such a way as to require and qualify for National Assistance through the National Assistance Board. The Minister of Health, throughout his political career, has made no secret of the fact that he takes this view—the view that, unless a person is devoid of means, he ought to pay for his health services—and to-day the Minister has secured the approval of the Government for carrying this policy into effect. The alleged financial reasons, and especially the proposed hospital programme, are simply a pretext. Mr. Powell was always in favour of transferring as much as he could of the cost of the Health Service on to the shoulders of those least able to bear it. The Estimates for 1961–62 merely provide him with just the pretext he was looking for. He and the Government are obviously concerned less with the question of providing a healthy nation than with the question of who pays for it.
What is this question all about? The net Estimates for 1961–62 how an increase, according to Mr. Powell, of 11 per cent. on 1960–61. These Estimates have not yet been approved by the House of Commons. The Minister says, Let the sick pay, by way of increases in charges for medicines, dentures, spectacles and such things as orange juice, cod liver oil and so on, for their treatment and their medicines." We say, "Place the burden on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, on income tax and surtax payers; or impose a capital gains tax." After all, we have to remember that the income tax and surtax payers—those who pay direct taxation—have in the last ten years had relief to the extent of £1,000 million, while those primarily bearing the cost of the Health Service have had their charges steadily going up. The cost of the insurance stamp to the worker is something like
608
four times what it was in 1946. This imposition of the burden on those best able to pay is elementary justice and humanity. The services are, after all, as much in their interests as members of the community as they are in the interests of anybody else. They want, or ought to want, a healthy nation, and they can best afford to pay for it. We do not accept the principle that those who are compelled to take advantage of our health services should necessarily bear the cost of treatment or, alternatively, seek State charity. A healthy nation is a national asset.
These proposals are part of a gradual process of shifting these burdens from progressive taxation to a flat-rate, whole tax. It saves no money to the community. The expenditure remains exactly the same. If this proposal is accepted and developed, we shall find the Government further increasing health charges whenever, for budgetary reasons and not for health reasons, they find it politically expedient to do so. We shall find the Government, on the same argument, extending the principle to our education services, if there is an increase in the Estimates. And, on this argument, why not charge parents when new and more costly primary schools are built, or when the cost of textbooks or stationery or teachers' salaries goes up? Is not the argument exactly the same? Indeed, there are many in the Tory Party to-day who are already toying with these ideas, and if they had their way they would already have implemented them.
Why did not the Minister of Health employ legitimate means of reducing the costs, if he felt that the Health Service was costly? Why did he not look into the question of the cost of drugs, of the wastage in their distribution, of the free samples that are provided to doctors, and so on? I should have thought there was ample scope for dealing with the question of the cost of drugs. While the Government are placing this burden on the sick, pressure is being put on them by their own followers to enable private patients to secure the benefit of prescriptions under the Health Service. So you have a two-way traffic: on the one hand, imposed burdens on the sick; on the other hand, charge to the National Health Service the cost of providing prescriptions for those who do not take advantage of that Service.
I should like to ask the Government what is the urgency of this matter. Why could not these proposals have formed part of the Budget in two months' time, and been dealt with in the context of the finances of the nation as a whole? We should have seen the matter then in its proper perspective—which, I suspect, is just what the Government did not wish us to do. We should have found if we had seen the matter in its proper perspective, that, allowing for increases in population and in the national income, the proportion of net cost to the Exchequer had remained fairly constant throughout the past ten years. So have the relative costs of the services to the contributors to the National Health Service. In fact, we should have been able to take this increase in our stride without having to burden the sick and the least-well-off section of the community. A discussion might also have found alternative sources of revenue, and, as I have said, of savings. But this would not have suited the Minister's book, because he regards this as a matter of principle and not solely a question of finding the necessary revenue to meet the additional cost of the Estimates.
My Lords, the increased charges will create hardship among a substantial section of the community. Let me instance some of them. There are the low-wage earners with dependent families. We are told that the average wage to-day of a worker is £14 to £15 a week. That is the average figure. But we have to remember that, included in that figure are as many persons earning less than £15 as there are persons earning more than £15 a week. About half the earning population is getting less than that figure, and I assert that these charges will constitute to them a hardship. About one-fifth of the population, or about 11 million members of families, have about six guineas a week free, after paying their National Insurance contributions. Six guineas a week for a family! Even then they have to pay for their rent, food, clothing, and so on. That means there is not much left for medicines, spectacles, dentures, and for all the expenses which a family requires.
We must consider the effect that this will have on elderly widows, widows of small means and spinsters who are unable to work; upon the chronic sick—people who are in constant need of
610
medical attention and medicines; upon, diabetics who need frequent doses of insulin, which, incidentally cannot be given on a large scale because it deteriorates. All these people will be put to extra expense at a time when money is most needed. It will also affect nursing and expectant mothers and young children who have been deprived of cheap orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets under the welfare foods schemes. Incidentally, I cannot help recalling that in the debate in another place one honourable Member had the impertinence to suggest that some of this orange juice was used for mixing drinks with which we are well acquainted, and that cod liver oil was being thrown away or used for dogs. I could not help feeling that this was a particularly heartless kind of suggestion to make at a time when we were dealing with the health and welfare of our less fortunate people. These latter items, the orange juice and so on, would save a very trifling sum of money; but, of course, no trifle is too small if it comes out of the pockets of the poorer section of the people.
There are certainly a large number of people who would not be able to afford the little comforts that are needed in times of sickness in the home, and which are so valuable and, although perhaps having an intangible effect, nevertheless are vital if you are going to help cure the sick. They have a psychological value. Further, these proposals will have a deterrent effect in a family such as I have described, where every penny counts; these proposals will tend to delay the visit to the doctor, the dentist, or oculist. People will be disposed to leave it till the last moment, or even until it is too late, and this might do irreparable damage, especially in the case of children. Our object should be to encourage people to go to the doctor or the other professional people at the earliest possible moment. We should encourage preventive treatment rather than curative. But in fact we are doing just the reverse and ensuring that people will not go to the doctor until they cannot avoid it.
Another mean charge is that of doubling the cost of the amenity beds. There is not a lot of money in it—£125,000 a year—but, as I said., every little helps. These amenity beds are of

611
the greatest value in a hospital and should be used for the benefit of patients who need these beds but can ill afford to pay. The doubling of the cost will mean that a number of patients who really need these beds will not be able to afford to have them.
I am well aware that one or other of the noble Lords who are to reply to this debate will refer to the action of the Labour Government in 1950 and suggest that that forms some kind of a precedent. It does nothing of the kind. That happened six years after the end of the war at a time of exceptional financial difficulty. We had the Korean War. It was a temporary proposal, which was to come to an end at the end of three years. And I am bound to say that a great many members of my Party were most reluctant to accept those proposals. They were strongly opposed to them. In fact, we had three resignations from the Government—of Mr. Aneurin Bevan, Mr. Harold Wilson and Mr. John Freeman. I should be very interested to see how many members of the present Government resign in protest against these proposals. Furthermore, my Party pledged itself to annul these charges as soon as we had the opportunity.
The present proposals have been critically received by large sections of the Press, by many individual practitioners, by many consultants, by the Lancet and by all medical organisations. I should like to quote one or two extracts from statements made by these organisations. The British Medical Association, which is surely a non-Party organisation, say:
"We have opposed prescription charges since they were first introduced. We feel they create a barrier between the patient and the treatment he may require."
The Medical Practitioners' Union say:
" The higher prescription charge must be deplored by every doctor in the country. The increases are disgraceful."
May I quote also from a newspaper, which I am sure will carry great authority amongst noble Lords opposite? The leading article of the Sunday Times of February 5, says this:
" If the proposal is looked at purely as one of raising £850 million, the cost of the health service and the different sources as taxation under various guises, it is not good in principle to off-load from a graduated income tax
612
or from a tax on consumption goods to a poll tax on the gainfully occupied or to a levy on the sick, as the extra charge for prescriptions can be made out to be."
I have said nothing about the National Insurance contribution, but similar objections, though not quite in the same degree, apply to these increased charges, as I have already mentioned. We have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of the increased charges on national health and national insurance. These will not only adversely affect the classes of person I have mentioned, but in the aggregate they establish a strong argument for increased wages to meet the increased cost of living, and this, in turn, will have the usual unhealthy effect on our ability to compete in the export market.
My Lords, I hope that I have established beyond any doubt that these charges are unfair, anti-social and inhuman; that they will inflict great hardship on many of our people, particularly on those less able to look after themselves; that they are likely to create a precedent for still further charges in future, and that they will tend to have a deterrent effect on many ill persons and will delay earlier treatment and cure. It is for all these reasons that we feel the Government are to be condemned. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House condemns the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for increasing the contributions and charges for the National Health Service.—(Lord Silkin.)
3.18 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, your Lordships can hardly doubt that I am deeply interested in the subject of this debate. In one sense, I think I may be called the father of the Health Service, through having made it one of the three assumptions of social security under the Beveridge Report. There were Assumption A—children allowances; Assumption C—full employment; and Assumption B—the Health Service. Though, to some extent, I may regard myself as the father of the Health Service, I am by no means whatever its inventor. Invention was the work of Mr. Aneurin Bevan in 1945 and 1946.
I want to point out that, among other things, the Beveridge Report left entirely open the question of whether or not a payment towards the cost of the Health

613
Service should be included in the social insurance contribution. The making of that contribution for the cost of the Health Service was the decision of those who introduced the Bill which led to the Health Service's becoming law. It had nothing whatever to do with me, except in so far as, in asking the Government Actuary to prepare the costs of the whole scheme of social security and Health Service and all the rest of it, I allowed him to work out his estimate of the cost of the Health Service contributions.
Let me say that I am not committed in any, way to-day on the issue raised by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. In so far as the much greater cost of the Service now is due in part to the wage-earners themselves asking for more wages for the same or less work under full employment, so, in combination with their employers, who raise prices to correspond with the increases in wages, causing money to fall in value through inflation, I find it a little difficult to condemn offhand the Government's proposals to meet some of that greater cost to-day by higher contributions from those who will benefit by the Service.
The case of the Government, as they put it in the other place, is essentially that the additional payments they ask for from users of the Service to-day are not larger in relation to the average of wages than the earlier payments were. In so far as that is proved to be correct, it is a good argument, so far as the wage-earners are concerned. I need hardly remind Members of this House that the late Sir Stafford Cripps—whose action as Chancellor of the Exchequer at one stage of putting a ceiling on the total cost of the Service was used rather freely by the speakers for Her Majesty's Government in the other place, and may presumably be used by them again—was as strong an opponent as I am of inflation as a curse to society. It is a thousand pities that, in face of the trade union attitude, he could not succeed. So, on the facts as I have read them (and I suppose, like many of your Lordships, I have read practically the whole of the speeches made on this subject in the other place), I find it difficult to condemn off-hand what the Government are, proposing in this case.
I must remind them, however—and hope the House will not mind my doing
614
so—that the aim of the Beveridge Report under its Assumption B was that no one should continue under illness or disability through lacking means to pay for treatment. Let me quote the actual words, as they are rather impressive at this moment:
" Restoration of a sick person to health is a duty of the State and the sick person, prior to any other consideration."
And previously it says: that the Service should be
"provided where needed without contribution conditions in any individual case".
That assumption is in accord with the definition of the objects of medical service proposed by the Medical Planning Commission of the British Medical Association.
I want to ask Her Majesty's Government to make sure that they are not failing to ensure that all sick and disabled persons can and will, in practice, get what they need to make them well again, if they can be made well again, irrespective of payment; irrespective, let me say, of knowledge: and irrespective, often, of taking the trouble to find a way to get the treatment. Any proposal that did not guarantee to people that opportunity of getting the necessary treatment, irrespective of their means and of their knowledge, would deserve condemnation.
All of us who take the trouble to discover the facts know that, while most people in Britain are far better off to-day than they were fifteen years ago, and can afford the greater contributions asked for by the Government, by no means everybody is in that position. Many old people are both poor and solitary, trying to live on savings made inadequate by inflation, by what has made others rich. I am personally concerned with two or three organisations designed especially for the help of old people. I may say that, with the help of experts and organisations concerned in this field—that is, the care of old people, their need, and the extent to which they are neglected by the people who ought to look after them: sometimes, as I know, their own children —I hope to make a study of the aged poor and lonely in an affluent society my next main task
But, apart from age, there are other causes why particular individuals miss

615
the medical, surgical or nursing treatment they need. I am old enough to tell your Lordships that often I do not want to bother to go and find a doctor: and there are lots of old people who feel that way. They say: "I will get better somehow without the doctor". They are ignorant of what is available for them. The Ministers who spoke for the Government in the other place on February 8 said that they realised all this and would take steps to put it right. They said they would make treatment accessible to, and indeed would force it on, people who would not take the trouble to get it; and they promised to make known the fact that these people can get treatment and be rid of their disabilities. I hope that those Ministers who spoke in the other place, and any noble Lord who may speak on behalf of the Government in this House to-day, will not mind if, as a very old civil servant with much experience, I remind them that turning the words of Ministers into deeds calls for continuous hard work. It is the function of a civil servant or of a committee appointed specially for that purpose.
I hope that the Government will not just leave us with the persuasive words that they spoke in the other place, but that here they will be able to tell us that they will take positive steps to see that it is the business of somebody—a committee, possibly, of two or three people —working with the local authorities and the medical associations, to make certain so far as possible, that no person need suffer from disability through not getting the treatment which he or she ought to get—indeed, which they ought to have thrust upon their attention, if they do not know about it. I should also like to use that body, or a similar one, to investigate for instance, the costs of the makers of pharmaceuticals, to see whether they are getting too much out of the Health Service. If we are going to put burdens on people who are, after all, wage-earners, and the dependants of wage-earners, we ought to make certain that the makers of profits do not get too much profit by selling.
I shall come back later to my point about trying to make certain that nobody fails to receive treatment through ignorance or poverty. May I now add two small points of detail?
616
First, the Government proposals deal rather specially with dentistry. The remuneration for dentistry in hospitals, for some reason to which I do not know the answer, is on a different basis from that of doctors and surgeons. It is based not on time, not on salary, but on payment by the job. I can assure your Lordships that one very distinguished dentist expressed to me his distrust of that method of payment. He said that all dentists, or most dentists, were perfectly honourable and hardworking, and were not worrying about money, but that the present practice did lead to some dentists doing jobs that were not strictly necessary. I wonder whether, as was reported by the Minister in another place on February 8, the fact that the number of dentists is up by 10 per cent., and that treatments are up by 20 per cent., has anything to do with the fact that they are paid by treatments and not by hours. At any rate, I hope that Her Majesty's Government, now that they are overhauling the Health Service, will consider this particular point.
Let me come to one more reason why I am interested in this debate. Just before Christmas I spent twelve days in St. Thomas's Hospital as a Health Service patient. I had a room to myself, and therefore paid for that; but for everything else I was a Health Service patient. I cannot say how great an admiration I had for the service and the kindness of everyone I saw towards the patients, and the delight in being an old gentleman of 82 who was treated exactly like a small boy of five who came there with his mummy and grandma. I suppose that St. Thomas's, which has a big building scheme, can be made even better than it is, but, personally, I am more than content with it as it is, and I think institutions like that reflect great credit on all successive Governments who introduced the Health Service and carried it out.
I come to my conclusion, and perhaps to some extent the same point—my point of the Health Service being designed to make certain that no one, either through want or ignorance, or through carelessness, shall fail to have treatment that might end his or her disability. I hope that in this House the Government will say, not in general terms, but with some

617
indication of definite administrative action, that they will set up a special committee or body of people who will work continuously to see that that is carried out in practice.

NORTHERN RHODESIA: TERRITORIALS' CALL-UP
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I think it might be convenient at this moment if I repeated here the statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is making in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the state of public safety in Northern Rhodesia, in view of the calling out of Federal troops. The statement is as follows:
" There is tension in all communities in the territory, who are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference. The call-up of territorials in Northern Rhodesia was decided upon by the Federal Government. The Acting-Governor was informed and concurred in this step as a purely precautionary measure. Any use of troops in aid of the civil power in the territory is a matter for the Northern Rhodesia Government."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving us that information. I understand that there was no request from the Northern Rhodesian Government, or from the Acting-Governor, for this call-up. This, apparently, was a step taken on the initiative of the Federal Government. I am very happy to see the last sentence that
" Any use of troops in aid of the civil power in the territory is a matter for the Northern Rhodesia Government."
As this still remains a Protectorate of the British Government, the Opposition, and I am sure many noble Lords opposite, will be very concerned as to how that is actually operated. In the course of these very delicate moments in the Conference, I hope that we can be assured that this action of the Central Federation Government has been really justified.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the important point is the last sentence of the statement—namely, that
" Any use of troops in aid of the civil power in the territory is a matter for the Northern Rhodesia Government."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Earl, but I am not quite clear who asked for the decision to be taken.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Who asked for the decision about the call-up?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The statement says that the call-up was decided upon by the Federal Government; but the rest must be read as part of the whole, as the noble Viscount knows. I think it hangs very closely together.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We know that there was no request from Northern Rhodesia as such.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think what is important is that the Acting-Governor was informed and concurred in the step.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES
3.38 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, at the beginning of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the Opposition do not often table Motions of censure upon Her Majesty's Government. Although I have many recollections of debates on Motions of censure in another place, I certainly have never been present when there has been one in your Lordships' House, let alone taken part in one. Ever since I knew that it would be my task to-day to speak on behalf of the Government, I have been wondering what it would be like. I suppose I shall know the answer by the end of the debate or, perhaps, before the end of my speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made his case with firmness and clarity, and with his customary fairness. I hope he will think that what I am going to say is equally fair. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I suppose, is more entitled to

619
speak on matters of this kind than anybody else in your Lordships' House. I was therefore grateful to listen to the qualified sympathy which he expressed for the Government's proposals which we are debating to-day. The noble Lord expressed in moving terms his fear that there may be people who, for one reason or another, are not getting, or will not get in the future, the treatment which they need. I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured by what I am going to say, or, at any rate, if not, by what my noble friend the Leader of the House will say later on.
The heat of the public discussion of the Government's proposals for increasing the charges and contributions for the National Health Service has, I think, rather obscured what it is that the Government are actually doing. The details were, of course, announced in this House by my noble friend the Leader of the House on February 1, but in order that the nature and scale of the charges may be quite clear to your Lordships I should just like to repeat them briefly.
The charges for dentures will be increased by amounts ranging from five shillings to fifteen shillings, but children and expectant and nursing mothers will be relieved of charges which they now pay for dentures. The charges for spectacles will be increased by five shillings a pair, with a higher charge for bifocal and multifocal lenses, but children from the age of ten will no longer be charged for lenses in adult types of National Health Service frame. The maximum charge for amenity beds in England and Wales will be doubled. The prescription charge will be increased from one shilling to two shillings per item. Orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets will in future be sold at cost price. The National Health Service contribution will be increased by one shilling a week for the employed man, of which ten-pence will be paid by the employee and twopence by the employer. Those are the proposals, and I do not wish to belittle those increases, but I want to suggest to your Lordships that they should be viewed with a sense of proportion. They are not, I submit, of such a kind as to introduce any fundamental change in the conception of the Service or in the tremendous benefits which we all receive from it.
620
What, then, are the reasons for making these changes? If the National Health Service is to expand and develop with progress in medicine, and in conformity with changing needs, we must from time to time see what can be done to limit expenditure already being incurred so as to ensure that the money which can be made available for the Service is spent to the best advantage on the new developments, and we must not allow past commitments to mortgage future progress. The resources which can be devoted to this Service, as to any other, are not unlimited, and the Government have a duty to see that whatever sums can be made available are spent to the best effect. This cannot happen if all present arrangements must be regarded as unalterable no matter what the need may be to limit expenditure in some directions in order to provide resources for expansion in others.
We have reached a point where there are tremendous opportunities for further progress in three main directions: first, the expansion of the great programme for the better care of the mentally ill and mentally subnormal which is taking shape following the Mental Health Act, 1959. Over the next ten years there will be a special capital allowance for the modernisation of mental hospitals. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that this is a scheme which gives me great personal satisfaction. I suspect that the care of the mentally ill is, if not the biggest, at any rate very nearly the biggest, of all the problems confronting the National Health Service, and I very much doubt whether there is a single adult in this country to-day who does not know, either directly or indirectly, of at least one person who is or has been mentally ill. Such is the scope of the problem as I see it.
For more Than ten years I was a member of the management committee of a large mental hospital group, and I had necessarily to resign a few months ago when I was given the task of speaking in this House about health matters for Her Majesty's Government. But ten years was long enough for me to know the problem of old buildings, the difficulty of staffing mental hospitals and, above all, the exceptional degree of patience and compassion which are required from those who care for the mentally ill, and particularly the senile.

621
But, my Lords in those years we were able to improve our hospital all the time: we improved the wards, we improved the various amenities for the patients, we provided better opportunities for occupational therapy and many other things as well.
This is the point which I wish to make and why have indulged in this brief personal reminiscence—that we should not have been able to improve that hospital in the way I have outlined if Her Majesty's Government since 1951 had been actuated by that hatred of the National Health Service which some of its critics like to make out. If further progress along those lines is going to be made possible, as I am confident it will be, by the kind of arrangements which we are discussing to-day, then I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion, for what if is worth, those arrangements are fully justified.
The second direction for further progress is to be seen in the far-sighted ten-year programme for rebuilding or improving our hospitals launched by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health last month. And the third is the expansion of community care needed as a supplement to the hospital building programme. These advances will depend partly on capital development, on the hospitals, hostels and homes provided by the hospital authorities and the local authorities; and partly on the number and quality of the staff, the doctors, nurses and all the many other workers who will be caring for the sick and others in need of help, both in hospitals, in other residential institutions and in their own homes.
The hospital authorities throughout the country are now drawing up their ten-year programme in response to the request of the Minister. The task is a heavy one but it can give a most helpful stimulus to the whole hospital organisation. The capital to be provided includes, as I have already said, a special allowance for the modernisation of mental hospitals. The Government cannot enter into commitments at this stage as to the rate of future expenditure, but the basis on which plans are requested shows that it is expected to be generous, and your Lordships may possibly recall that on February 8 my honourable friend
622
the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave in another place the details of schemes which have been approved. It is a long list; I have it here.
The local authorities are already well embarked on the expansion of their mental health services. Training centres for both children and adults are being provided on an increasing scale. A start has been made on residential accommodation both for some of those attending training centres and also for other mentally disordered, such as those recently discharged from hospital who are not yet ready to live on their own in the community. Old people who are mentally confused are being received in suitable cases into old people's homes, which are also being provided at an increasing rate. The home visiting services are being expanded.
We are also on the threshold of great opportunities for making long-awaited improvements in the organisation and calibre of the staff of the Health Service, on whom progress depends even more than on the quality and quantity of the buildings. The Report of Sir Robert Platt's Working Party on the Medical Staffing of the Hospital Service, which has been so eagerly waited, should be published next month, and it will be immediately followed by consultations between the Health Ministers and the medical profession. On the local authority side we have the Report of Miss Eileen Younghusband's Working Party on Social Workers, which has been recognised as an epoch-making document in this field. The intention to introduce legislation to give effect to its recommendations has already been announced, and Sir John Wolfenden has agreed to act as Chairman of the National Training Council for Social Workers and of the associated training Council for Health Visitors. This is a fact which in itself should go a long way to ensure the success of the work of these Councils which will determine the future of the professions for years to come. Among the social workers will be the mental welfare officers who have so large a part to play in the community care of the mentally disordered and who attach great importance to a proper and officially recognised training.
I have been putting some emphasis on the training of all these officers, because anyone who is acquainted, as I am sure

623
many of your Lordships are, with the day-to-day operation of what is called community care—that is, the care of a patient in his own home—knows how essential they are to its success. Indeed, the whole pattern of successful community care turns on the proper training of those who will be responsible for it and the proper organisation of their work. I hope that what I have just said may strike the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge as being appropriate to what he said in his speech. I have gone at some length into the great opportunities for development and progress now facing us because what the Government have done is intended to ensure that resources will not be lacking to make the most of these opportunities and to keep the emphasis on progress and development, which is surely where in any lively and vigorous Health Service it ought to be.
I now turn again to the changes in charges and contributions which are the subject of this Motion of censure, because your Lordships will wish to know, and obviously it is my duty to explain, why these particular items have been selected for increase. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have recognised that dentures, spectacles and prescriptions constitute a field where the patient is in a position to exert a certain amount of pressure on the dentist, optician or doctor to go perhaps a little beyond his better judgment. Consequently, both Labour and Conservative Governments have thought it right to place on the patient a measure of financial responsibility.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain how a dentist, in supplying dentures, goes beyond his natural responsibility as a result of patient-pressure?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should have thought that it may be possible to bring pressure to bear on a dentist to do rather more than he thought was absolutely necessary.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me once again to intervene, may I say that I do not think a dentist would really take out teeth and fit dentures unnecessarily because a patient brings pressure. I do not think there is any evidence of that.
LORD NEWTON: Well, my Lords, perhaps I could go on to say that when, on October 24, 1949, the Government announced that it was proposed to impose a charge of up to 1s. for a prescription, the Prime Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that the purpose was
" to reduce excessive and in some cases unnecessary resort to doctors and to chemists."
The Labour Government did not, in fact, carry out its intention. But what I am concerned with at the moment is the argument in favour of a prescription charge used by the Government of the day in 1949.
Charges for dentures and spectacles were first introduced by the National Health Service Act, 1951, and it seems clear to me that those items were selected largely because charges upon them would not generally have to be paid by people who were sick. I would remind your Lordships of the speech made by the late Lord Haden-Guest when moving the Second Reading of the Bill in this House on May 9, 1951. He said—and I quote from Columns 813 and 814:
" It has, regrettably, been found that the only way to enable expansion to continue in other directions is by shifting some of the expense to the patients. All other alternatives were explored and reviewed … In selecting the services for which charges are to be made, the Government tried to choose the field where charges would obviously do least harm, and they chose the field of spectacles and dentures, because to a large extent they affect people who are well in health and able to make their own way…Charges for appliances under the National Health Service are not new: I wish to emphasise that point. It is suggested that these charges are a departure from the principle of the National Health Service Act, and that no charges should be made. But charges have been made for appliances, some since the inception of the Service. The Government already have power to charge for medicines."
I submit that these are substantially the same arguments that I am using this afternoon, and I would particularly ask your Lordships to note two points made by Lord Haden-Guest: first, that all other alternatives to the charges were explored and reviewed, which must mean that the alternative of raising more money for the National Health Service by direct taxation was considered and rejected—in other words, the Government decided that there was a point beyond which rises in the cost of the

625
Service should not be borne by general taxation. The second point to which I beg to invite your Lordships' attention is that, in the view of the Labour Government, to impose charges was not to change the principle of the National Health Service.
There will be a fuller opportunity to discuss these higher charges which the Government now propose when the Bill already introduced in another place comes before your Lordships' House. I should, however, like to say that the new charges for both dentures and spectacles do no more than reflect the increase in their cost. The power to impose and vary prescription charges by regulation is provided by Section 16 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1949. When one contemplates that date one is immediately struck by the fact that it was very soon after the beginning of the Health Service that the Labour Government of the day decided that it was necessary to take power to impose a charge.
I have already mentioned the Government statement about the proposal to impose a charge of up to 1s. and the reason given by the Prime Minister. The increased prescription charge now proposed is still a modest proportion of the cost of the average prescription, and I would suggest to your Lordships that it is not an unjust imposition when one remembers that since 1949. when the 1s. charge was first proposed, benefits and wages have more than doubled, and that since 1952 when the charge of 1s. per prescription form was imposed they have nearly doubled.
I should like to speak a little later about the arrangements for the relief of hardship, but I will now turn to the welfare foods. The position of these foods must be seen against their history. They were first introduced as an insurance against the inevitable restrictions on diet in time of war; they have become progressively less necessary as the variety of the diet available and the financial resources of the average family have improved. The stage has now been reached when it seems clear to Her Majesty's Government that the great bulk of the population are in a position to provide their children with a proper diet, and to pay for any necessary vitamin supplements. At this point the
626
continuance of an indiscriminate subsidy is surely no longer required.
The charge for amenity beds is in a wholly different category because it is not a compulsory charge. Ordinary beds are available free of charge on medical needs. No one, therefore, need pay this charge and it will not, in any circumstances, exceed the same proportion of the cost of the accommodation as was envisaged when the present charges were fixed. The change is simply an adjustment to take account of rising costs.
I should now like to say something about the proposal to increase the National Health Service contribution by 1s. to 3s. 4d. per week. This is the new rate for the man in employment. There are to be other, lower, rates for women and boys and girls, and for the self-employed. The benefits of the Service are, of course, open to everyone, and that is the most important fact about them. They are not conditional on any qualification such as having had to pay a certain number of insurance contributions. But, from the beginning, there has been a sense in which the people as a whole have been insuring themselves against the costs of medical treatment of all sorts by agreeing that a part of the weekly contribution which they make should be used for the Health Service.
The major part of the cost has always been met from general taxation and will continue to be so met. I will not risk boring your Lordships or confusing you on a subject on which I find it very easy myself to run into mathematical confusion, by talking about the percentages of the cost of the Service which have been met in the past in this way or the other, but I wish to emphasise that we have to think in terms of the 1960s. This country, in the 1960s, is a very different place from what we had any right to expect, or to hope for, at the time, during the war, when the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, was preparing his famous Plan. There is no high unemployment to-day—thank God! Average earnings have risen and so has the standard of living of the people of the country.
In this situation it is not unreasonable to ask people to pay a little more when they are well for the benefits of the Service which will take care of them when

627
they are sick. But having said that, and having claimed that it is reasonable to ask people in the present circumstances to pay a little more than the Government asked them to pay immediately after the war, I agree that the obligation remains strong on the Government to ensure that in absolute terms this is not too heavy a burden on the people. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that the burden is still just about all right in the sense that although the percentage which the total weekly contribution bears to total earnings has fluctuated a bit, it does not show any serious increase.
I think the truest guide to your Lordships in this matter comes from a consideration of the relationship of the total weekly contribution to the earnings of a group who are, on the whole, among the lower-paid sections of the community. I am thinking of agricultural workers. The wage rates for these workers were increased recently and we have not yet got any figure for the average earnings in the industry later than April of last year, but even taking that figure and making the quite unrealistic assumption that earnings will not rise between then and next July—when the new rates of contribution are to be introduced, if Parliament approves —the ratio has risen by only 1 per cent. comparing October, 1948, with the situation after next July—from 4·7 per cent. to about 5½ per cent.
In the light of what I have said this afternoon I believe that the changes which Her Majesty's Government propose are generally fair and reasonable; and I believe, too, that they will be accepted as reasonable by the public which has, after all, accepted for some years now a system of charges and contributions. All the necessary arrangements for meeting hardship will be continued and applied to the new charges. War pensioners will continue to be entitled without charge to all medicines needed for their accepted disabilities. All those in receipt of National Assistance are entitled to refunds on charges for medicines, dentures and spectacles. The National Assistance Board also make refunds to people who are above the Board's normal standards of need, including those who are actually working. The Board's scheme for pro-
628
viding welfare foods free of charge relieves, and will continue to relieve, those in need. In cases where medicines are regularly required by the chronically sick, doctors are able and encouraged to prescribe for periods up to three months.
I believe these arrangements will ensure that the proposed changes will not result in hardship. Moreover, my right honourable friend the Minister has pledged himself to examine any case of potential hardship due to prescription charges which may be brought to his notice. The Government proposals which we are debating to-day form part of their plans for promoting the continued progress and development of the National Health Service. I ask your Lordships to decide that they call not for condemnation but for approval.
4.7 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I rise to-day to speak on a subject in which I have a profound interest, and therefore I find that the conventional handicaps attaching to a maiden speech are weighing rather heavily upon me today. I propose to exercise great self-restraint, but if I do err I cannot be justly charged with introducing a partisan note, because the British Medical Association, which cannot claim to be an ally of my Party, have themselves opposed these health charges. In the first place, I should like to stress the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Beveridge, in his poignant speech, and to emphasise the iniquity of taxing a section of society which demands the maximum degree of indulgence from us—the aged, the chronic sick and the children. And have your Lordships realised that this same measure will leave completely untouched the well-to-do hypochondriac who cares to press his doctor to prescribe expensive proprietary drugs?
I believe that everyone on both sides of this House will agree that, to the aged, easy access to the doctor should be regarded as a necessity and not a luxury. No financial barrier, not even what the noble Lord has just described as a small one, this increase of 100 per cent. on the charge for medicines, should come between the aged and medical help. And let us think of the details. May I remind the noble Lord who has just spoken that these figures which he dismisses in such an easy way mean, in

629
fact, that in the winter months an old person will be called to pay for a bottle of cough mixture and a bottle of liniment—not luxuries, surely—the sum of 4s. The noble Lord has told us to-day that it is proposed to refund this sum. Has he thought of the mechanics of that? Has he realised what it means to an old person, sick and lonely, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, to be told he has to fill in the appropriate document and deliver it, or arrange for it to be delivered, and that he will then be able to have a refund of his money? My Lords, to put aged people who are on a small pension to the positive task of retrieving their money when they are already ill is to place an extra burden upon them just when they are in extra need of our help.
We have heard to-day about hospital building. We have been told what it is proposed to do in the future in respect of mental hospitals and general hospitals. But I would remind noble Lords that it has been argued time after time in another place that, while the revenue accruing from these sums is to be used for the hospital programmes, nevertheless the only way to reduce the pressure upon the hospitals is to improve the domiciliary service. To put any barrier between the patient and the general practitioner is to diminish the therapeutic and preventive value of service of the domiciliary service and will undoubtedly increase the demand for hospital treatment. Indeed, I foresee that all these new beds we have heard about this afternoon will already be mortgaged as soon as they are provided if it is intended to diminish the value of the domiciliary treatment in this way.
Everybody knows that the aged patient who fails to obtain advice immediately may well need hospital treatment when finally a doctor is called. Again I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who said, quite rightly, "Unfortunately, the aged, when sick, cannot be bothered to call in a doctor". Precisely! There is the picture, the picture from which perhaps we are a little remote in this House at times. And when, finally, a relation calls a doctor the doctor says, "This patient must go into hospital". I have therefore tried to emphasise to your Lordships that the hospital schemes of which
630
we have heard, which have been described by the Minister of Health in another place, can be satisfactory only if at the same time we improve the domiciliary service.
Now I come to the chronic sufferers —that is, those suffering from diabetes; the bronchitics, or those suffering from tuberculosis and nervous disorders—who need a continual supply of drugs. I would remind your Lordships that these are not people who are enjoying an average wage of £14 a week. These are people who are trying to live on the National Insurance benefit; and these are people who will feel this imposition very keenly. We have just heard that it is proposed to tell the doctors—indeed, the doctors have been advised before—to prescribe for these people for a long period. I am surprised to learn from the noble Lord that he suggests two or three months. But does he not know that similar advice has been given to the doctors on other occasions, and it has been learnt that reducing the total number of prescriptions does not solve the problem? May I recall to him the Civil Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General? What did he say on this subject? He said:
" Although the total number of prescriptions dispensed fell from 228 million in 1957 to 227 million in 1958, their total cost rose from £68 million to £73 and the average cost per prescription rose by some 10 per cent. from 5s. 11½d. to 6s. 6½d. Within this total the cost to the Health Service of proprietary preparations had risen by 1958–59 to some £34½ million and represented over 70 per cent. of the cost of ingredients of all prescriptions."
I might remind noble Lords, too, that this figure for the average cost of prescriptions is completely out of date. To-day, a prescription in this country costs over 7s.
I come next to the children. I do not think that anybody here is unaware that there has been a spectacular improvement in the physical condition of the children in the last twenty years. Nutritional disease, particularly rickets, is almost non-existent; and the infantile mortality rate and morbidity rate of children's diseases have dropped in a dramatic manner. All this has taken time, and has involved the education of the mother in the necessity to use medical facilities and welfare foods. And I say that to reverse this policy now, to make a visit to the doctor an added

631
expense and the welfare foods a luxury, is bound slowly to undermine the fine achievements in the field of preventive medicine. We cannot possibly see the results immediately. It will be an insidious process, and only the social historians will be able to point to the folly of this action.
People who have the greatest knowledge of the subject, who have lived with it, not just surveyed it briefly for a few weeks, namely, the medical profession, as organised in the British Medical Association, recognise the profound un-wisdom of this step. I realise that the new Minister of Health has not, and cannot have after a few months of office, an intimate awareness of the problems involved. I am afraid that I have to say—I say this very gently—that he has not viewed it as a compassionate Minister of Health but as a fugitive from the Treasury. Indeed, he views his primary function solely as a close ally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, he is virtually undertaking the same task of which he found himself baulked at the Treasury a few years ago.
On the question of drugs, I feel that I have not to appeal to the noble Lords opposite me in vain. There have been repeated appeals (I have made them myself time after time, to successive Ministers of Health) to curtail the huge profits of certain drug houses. Nothing effective has been done, then or now. The Minister (I think it has been repeated from the opposite Bench) said that he proposed to take action. I can only quote to the noble Lord what was said in the British Medical Journal of December 24, 1960, under "The Minister and the Drug Firms".They said:
"The recent rumours in the press that the Minister of Health was taking a much tougher line with the pharmaceutical industry than his predecessors when negotiating renewal of the voluntary scheme for the regulation of drug prices seem to have been exaggerated. The modifications which he announced in Parliament last week, though important, are not likely to reduce the drug bill substantially.
My Lords, in the interests of the country, I would esteem it of great importance if you would concern yourselves with the drug traffic ("drug" is a generic term) in this country. An outrageous exploitation of the sick by the drug firms has been exposed by a Senate Committee of the United States of
632
America, under the chairmanship of Senator Kefauver. The special significance to us and to this country is that most of the drug companies which Senator Kefauver castigated for extracting colossal profits in the United States from the sick have now established subsidiaries in this country and are conducting their business in precisely the same way, with high-powered salesmen, in order to take the maximum profit from the National Health Service. Because of this, I believe that this action which is proposed to-day will fail to have the desired effect, in view of the powerful interests which encourage the "bottle of medicine" habit.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to make a few constructive suggestions. I think we need a bold and imaginative campaign designed to re-educate the people. There should be more research, in order that doctors should be given only authoritative information about the most effective drugs; and successful clinical trials of drugs should be the sole criterion of their worth. There are still those—knowledgeable people—who think that the new, expensive antibiotics are infallible. People should be told that already, in consequence of using these antibiotics for trivial complaints, we are left with resistant organisms which to-day defy antibiotics. Furthermore—and I agree with the noble Lord when he talks about the importance of mental disease in this country—statistics reveal that one-third of the drugs prescribed are for some form of nervous disorder, including, of course, the psycho-sematic complaints. Here is a challenge, not only to the Ministry of Health but to the Ministry of Education and to the Home Office. I believe that action along these lines is long overdue. Meanwhile, we fiddle with a measure which is calculated only to penalise the poor. Surely, my Lords, the criterion of a civilised society is that the strong should succour the weak, and I therefore ask you to oppose these proposals, on moral and practical grounds.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, it has fallen very agreeably to me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, on her first intervention in our debates in this House. My regret is that this task has devolved on such a junior Member of your Lordships'

633
House. The noble Baroness has experience of high office in two Departments of Government; and, furthermore, she is a member of a profession for which I personally have always had a very high regard indeed. She has therefore been speaking from first-hand knowledge of her subject. I remember, too, that when I was Minister of Food, the noble Baroness and I, at Question Time, almost bi-weekly, indulged in verbal sparring, if the noble Lady will forgive that expression borrowed from what I know she regards as an ignoble art. But, whatever may he her views on pugilism, she is known as a stern critic and an exacting taskmaster, or taskmistress, and certainly in her instruction she does not spare the rod. She is always practical; she speaks often from first-hand knowledge, and I am sure that noble Lords will feel that our characters are likely to benefit and be strengthened by advice from the noble Baroness on many future occasions.
My Lords, the broad subject which we are discussing to-day—the treatment of ill-health—is not one that we should consider purely in the dry terms of finance because it clearly has to deal with suffering misfortune, hardship and sacrifice, and it is excusable that each of us, in his or her own way, should feel a little emotionally about these subjects. I am not going to take on the noble Lady on her technical ground, because I also, of course, am a fugitive from the Treasury, and I know that there are those who feel that my heart, if I ever had one, was atrophied by two and a half years' service in that Department. But because of that temptation or incentive that I have mentioned, to think emotionally, I am sure that we must be on our guard and must try to keep a sense of perspective and remember just what are these proposals that have caused this Vote of Censure.
There are, first of all, no new principles compared with the practice of the past ten years. The principles which have been followed, and which are to continue to be followed, as I understand it, for allocating the cost of the Service, are principles that were officially approved by the Government of the Party opposite. As the proportion of the gross national product or national income, the National Health Service has about kept, I believe, its percentage, though we must remember that no one service has any prescriptive
634
right to do so. In fact, if room is to be found for educational progress, for instance, it is perfectly clear that some other services will have to contract in the proportionate demands they make. To date, I think there can be little doubt that people, as recipients of social service benefits and as against their position as taxpayers, have actually improved their position over the past ten years. They have improved their position and their claims, not merely in real terms but relatively to other demands. Nor again, as I understand it is, there any intention that there should be a substantially different ratio between the direct contribution from the individual, whether in stamp or in stamp and charges combined, and the contribution from the general Exchequer revenue. Therefore, one wonders at first sight what all the indignation is about.
I think that the main trouble is that many members of the Labour Party have never really accepted the decisions of their Government, or the strong insistencies of two of their Chancellors of the Exchequer, that a strict upper limit must be set to the cost of the Service falling on general public funds. Speaking from memory I believe that in the days of the Labour Government that limit was fixed at £400 million. Many members of the Opposition seem to feel that, because treatment of ill-health is a good thing, it must be morally wrong to question the amount spent on it, quite regardless of other commitments, and that it must be right that the whole of that expenditure, whatever it is, must fall on general public funds. Incidentally, I noticed during my time at the Treasury a fairly widespread inclination to feel that, if only one could shift something from a specific heading of account to the general account that was almost as good as saving the expenditure concerned. I think that some of us, in our private transactions, perhaps do the same. Payment seems to cause much more heart-burning when it is a question of producing cash from one's wallet than it does when it is a matter of meeting it by banker's order and having it added to one's overdraft.
It may be, of course, that some time in the future changes in our social economy may cause the whole concept of the financial principles on which the

635
National Health Service has been based to be called into question; I do not know. But the point I want to make is that that is not being done here in the proposals that are being put before us. The Government's proposals, as I understand them, are in fact of an extremely limited nature. They are designed to ensure that the Service will continue to develop, with the cost shared in approximately the same proportions as hitherto between the individual's direct contributions and general funds respectively. The Minister of Health, in what I thought was a very able speech in another place, made it clear beyond doubt, I thought to anyone, that there could be no question whatever of the Service being either attacked or undermined. The figures he quoted of the record of the past decade, both as regards expenditure and achievement, I think spoke for themselves. So far from the Service having been undermined in these ten years, in real terms it has been substantially developed; and for the future, the Government plans we have heard of provide for further development on a broad front. So there is really no proposal before us that could amount to any cut in the Service in any way.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made, as is his habit, a reasoned and temperate criticism, but it seems, from proceedings in another place, that once again the Opposition have planned to destroy the Government by an explosion of moral indignation of nuclear proportions. I doubt whether that will be successful, because, really, the facts are against them. Noble Lords opposite are no doubt doing their best, with the strong sense of duty which characterises them to work themselves up to desirable temperatures and pressures, but their fuel supply is lacking. It might be said of them, as I think was said of one great statesman of the present century, that if the facts were against him, so much the worse for the facts.
It seems to me that there is really only one point that is directly relevant to our discussions to-day, and that is whether the proposed proportions between the sources of financial contributions are reasonable ones or whether there should be no direct contribution from the individual at all. If I may,
636
at this stage I should like, in parenthesis, to mention my own attitude to the National Health Service. It is this. I favour the scheme because I believe the financing of the treatment of ill-health is something which it is sensible and advantageous to us, as individuals, to tackle on a comprehensive pooling basis—the insurance principle—even though this scheme itself is not strictly and literally an insurance scheme.
I did not vote for the particular National Health Service Bill at the time it was started, because, as I think I made clear in a speech at that time, I thought the scheme as brought forward then was too big a one to digest in one bite without serious loss of quality. But I was all in favour of a National Health Service scheme of a fairly comprehensive kind. Secondly, I personally most strongly favour the principle of meeting the main part of the cost of treatment while people are in sound health—the insurance principle. Thirdly, and because this is a direct service to the individual, it seems right that each beneficiary should, during his working life, while in good health make some direct contribution as an insurance premium to the cost of the scheme.
Now, what precisely the figure should be is of course, an arbitrary decision. When both costs and incomes are changing from year to year it would obviously be wrong to think permanently of just a monetary figure. The relevant considerations, surely, are: what relation should the direct contribution bear to the total cost of the Service, on the one hand—or, to the cost of specific items of the Service, if that is what it is dealing with; and, on the other hand, its relation to the level of personal incomes.
I think the Minister told us in another place that the direct contributions—the stamp and the charges together—have recently been substantially lower than the proportion at the inception of the scheme. I understood that, allowing for these new increases, they would not be much higher. In terms of cash per week, the stamp will be, I think, 2s. 8½d. for the employed man; and in relation to current levels of incomes and the fact that it is not paid by the old, the young, or certain other categories, I cannot myself think that that is an excessive Percentage, or other than a very

637
moderate insurance premium for such very comprehensive cover. I believe that a failure to adjust this direct contribution in any way in the light of the rapidly rising cost of the Service, and so to allow the present decreased percentage which is now substantially less than it was originally, to be further eroded away, would be a cause for which no case, I think, has been made out.
The Party opposite are strong, even fanatical, believers in the principle of progressive taxation; and, indeed, it is a principle that is firmly established in our taxation system and which, to a greater or less extent, all of us accept. But even a sound principle of taxation, like an improved method of medical treatment or an educational idea, must not be pushed without any regard or consideration for the need of a sound balance. If it is, then the beneficial effects of it will be destroyed.
My Lords, I have heard it said that there are three things not worth running after—a woman, a bus, or a taxation principle, because if you wait a little while, another will come along. I think there is a good deal of evidence that, in the light of experience, the present levels of direct personal taxation linked to earnings are still too high and must be further reduced if the incentive to earning is going to be safeguarded. It is true that a still greater part of the cost of the National Health Service scheme could be met by further increases in indirect general taxation; but I believe, there again, that the present percentage of the gross national product taken, in the aggregate, by the central Government through general taxation, though substantially less than ten years ago, is quite high enough. Indeed, every effort must be continued to be made to reduce it further. So, in all the circumstances, I believe the maintenance of a proportion of round about a fifth or a quarter of the cost of the scheme, to be covered by direct contributions of stamp and charges together from the individual, cannot be regarded as anything but moderate and reasonable. So I entirely support the proposal to increase the weekly stamp.
The proposals to put up the charges merit, I think, a still closer look, because here there is an expense falling directly
638
on those who need treatment. If that were carried too far, then it would conflict with the principle I have referred to earlier, that the main cost should be paid by those in sound health. The real justification, to my mind, for imposing a charge on the individual to cover part of the cost of prescriptions is if it discourages waste and abuse. One would expect a charge to have some effect, on balance, in that direction; how much I do not prefess to know. But clearly the charges must not be so heavy as to conflict with the principle I have mentioned.
I know that when I was at the Treasury the aspect of National Health Service expenditure which afforded me the most concern was the rapid and continuous rise in the drugs bill, from £31 million to start with to something over £80 million foreshadowed for next year. This was also the item over which there was least control. I know the medical arguments for the uninhibited use of the latest drugs, which are also often the most expensive. Looking back, I am hound to say that I do not think that the Ministries concerned have been very successful to date in tackling this matter. I am not sure whether the independent Committee appointed helped them very much. But, having said;that, I agree that it;is an immensely difficult field of action for the Government to limit or interfere with the clinical judgment of the doctors. But the evidence of waste is, I think, pretty compelling. I am glad to hear that the Ministers concerned are going to make still greater efforts to see whether they can find ways to ensure greater efficiency and economy in the use of drugs and in getting best value for money.
If the object of increasing the prescription charges were simply to find some revenue as a means of helping meet this greatly increasing bill, then personally I should have preferred a still bigger increase, if necessary, in the stamp: but if it is considered—and I understand that it is, and personally I think that there are good grounds for this—that the maintenance of a charge representing a proper proportion of the cost (not too big) does help to reduce waste and abuse without involving hardships to those of small means, then I think that the course is justified. I understand that the Minister

639
in another place has said that though the charge of 2s. a prescription would be double, the cost per prescription has more than doubled in the time that has intervened.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he has read the justification for these increases made by the Minister in another place? It was exactly the one which the noble Viscount has just said he would oppose, if that were the reason—namely, in order to meet the extra cost of the Service. The Minister did not say that the justification was to deal with waste and abuse.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will know that I am expressing my personal view and saying where my own preferences would lie, because I believe so strongly in this principle of paying while your are in sound health. I think that the proposed increases in charges, on balance, at the moderate level to which they are being raised, should help to effect economy without damage and prevent abuse. But I am expressing purely my personal view.
I was about to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, to which I am sure we all listened with respectful interest, because he is speaking on a subject on which he knows so much, He mentioned inflation as being a deadly enemy which must be combated with all possible resolution. I could not agree with him more. The noble Lord spoke of the difficulties that confront the elderly, who are always the first victims of inflation. That is why I am sure that the finance of a Service like this must be looked at very carefully. After all, the prevention of inflation is the first and best service of all that we can render to the elderly who have to live on small incomes.
This is one of the occasions, of which there have been a number in the past few years, where some members of the Opposition a living a little in a world of fantasy unrelated to what is going on in the real world around them. My noble friend Lord Newton mentioned this. All the time they seek to find wicked dragons for slaughter. Tory Ministers who confront them seldom measure up quite to the dragon-like specifications (if I may put it like that), so they invent a
640
caricature of Tory political attitude, then shut their eyes, raise the battle-cry and charge. The charge is exhilarating but less than decisive, because the enemy are not there.
I remember once teaching a young chap to shoot and having to reprimand him for inaccurate marksmanship. He said, "I am not inaccurate. I shoot absolutely straight, but when I fire, the rabbit is no longer there". Substitute "the Tory dragon" for a rabbit and I think that there is some truth in this.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, has it not been said constantly of the Tories over the last fifty years that they have always been condemned for stealing other people's clothes while they were bathing?
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, so long as the clothes are the right clothes their source does not matter so much. There was a General in ancient history whose prepared attacks were models of military art and whose aggressive spirit was superb, but he never won his battles because, when the time came, the enemy were never there.
If I may respectfully say so, the Opposition have once again invented an issue out of their imagination, an issue of the alleged destruction of the Health Service, which simply bears no relation whatever to the actual proposals which are before us. I suggest that we ought to confine our attention, though it may be less exciting to do so, to the actual proposals being made to us by the Government. I am convinced that if we do so, then we shall find them reasonable and justified and likely to contribute to the further development of the Service, to the benefit of the nation at large
4.48 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in congratulating my noble friend Lady Summerskill on her delightful maiden speech—her non-controversial maiden speech, because those noble Lords who have seen her and heard her in controversy will know that to-day was but a small taste of things to come and of things past. She is a redoubtable and formidable fighter. When I was a new Member of another place, I viewed her with the

641
greatest respect and a little alarm and apprehension; but she was so helpful to those of us who were new that our fears soon disappeared.
I remember that on one early occasion I was supporting the Government on a measure. My noble friend was sitting on the Front Bench, obviously not agreeing with the Government at all, and she was indicating her disagreement in no uncertain way. Finally, she turned round co me and said. "Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs." I was sure that I was right and I am sure that she was equally sure that she was right. My noble friend is an expert not only on medicine but also on that kind of feminine logic which we all know in the home and know the effect of—that: is: how to save money by buying a new hat. I am delighted by the addition not only to our medical strength but also to our strength on the ladies' side in future and we look forward to many interesting speeches from her.
I was delighted to listen to the very reasonable speech of the noble Viscount. Lord Amory. At least half of it could have been delivered from these Benches and the other half was the most reasoned arid reasonable presentation of the case that I have heard. It really is the only substantial statement that has been made in attempted justification of the increases in charges. It was notable at once that the noble Viscount had great doubts about the increase in charges on prescriptions, even though he was quite ready to defend the increase in charges on contributions. And if one is going to defend anything, he was correct in his choice of strategy, because the increase in the charge on prescriptions is the difficult, dangerous, unpleasant and thoroughly bad one. The noble Viscount said, very honestly, that when the National Health Service was debated he voted against it, because he said it was too big a thing to tackle at one bite. Of course, he was wrong, and I am sure he will be the first to admit it; just as, if I may say so, the Labour Party were wrong when, eleven or twelve years ago, they introduced a charge for health services. I have no doubt that we were wrong to do that and I see no virtue in continuing to pretend that one must support what one has done eleven or twelve years ago even when it is obviously erroneous.
642
A few days ago the Lord President of the Council announced what the British Medical Journal described as "Hailsham's Law" (I do not know if he saw it), which is that a Party is absolved from its proposals by defeat at a General Election. The noble Viscount may recollect that he was replying to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about doctors' free prescriptions for private patients. He quite rightly said that a Government are not bound by their proposals made at an Election when they are defeated. Of course, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I have no doubt that we were wrong to put these charges on. They have been tested and re-tested for ten years and have been found wanting, even by the Government's own Hinchliffe Committee. Therefore, say the Government, they must be increased.
The Government's argument, as I see it, is that the increase in cost in the National Health Service is such that either the Service must be cut or the charges and flat-rate contributions must be increased. This is a wholly false dilemma, and it is an argument which could have been applied every year since the National Health Service has been in existence, because every year the cost of the National Health Service has gone up. In a society where national economy and national wealth are increasing, it is right that the amount devoted to the health of the people should also increase, so, that health gets at least the same share. Indeed, the attempt by Sir Stafford Cripps to put a ceiling on the cost of the National Health Service was not only mistaken but quite impossible. He tried to do it, but could not do so, for the simple reason that where wages and prices are increasing, inevitably the costs of the wages and prices of those inside the Health Service must also increase. In fact, it was never done. Over the years ahead it is certain that the cost of the National Health Service will continue to increase, as it has done every year under the present Government. So each year there has been, and each year there will be, an excuse, if one is wanted, for increasing the charges to the patients. It has happened every year.
Why then have the Government picked on this year? We know that the real reason is the particular philosophy of

643
the present Minister of Health. But he has a little better case this year than he might have had last year, or will have next year, because, for technical reasons, the increase will not be the same each year: some years it will be a little bigger than other years. This year we have had to absorb not only the effect of the Royal Commission on Doctors' Pay—and doctors' pay has not gone up steadily, but in a series of jerks at three or four yearly intervals, because of the machinery for adjusting their pay—but we have also to face their back-pay award, all pushed into the one year. That is the main reason for the increase in the Health Service Estimates. It has nothing to do with hospitals, and although it may have a little to do with drugs it has little to do with anything else: the real reason is the absorption of this increase in doctors' pay, which we should consider as a continuous curve as part of the cost of the National Health Service over the years.
If we look at the increase in hospital costs, we find that it is microscopic. It is only £5 million over previous Estimates, as compared with the £75 million which these increased charges in contributions are going to yield. The hospital building programme is very desirable, but in this context is quite a political red herring. Incidentally, we finance our hospital building in a peculiar way. We pay the total capital cost (the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, will correct me if I am wrong) out of current revenue; we do not fund it and spread it over the life of the hospital, as we do with, say, a factory, a house or any other building. This is a peculiarity of the National Health Service and I should have thought that a financially-minded Minister of Health would be much better looking at the way hospital building is financed than doing this particular kind of squeezing that has been going on.
The third item to which the noble Viscount. Lord Amory, quite rightly referred is the increase in the cost of drugs. This is not due to public profligacy. Admittedly there has been, and there always will be, some small wastage of medicine; you cannot avoid that. The increase is partly due to bad prescribing. But the main reason for the increase in the cost of drugs is the enormous volume
644
of rubbish which descends every morning on every general practitioner in this country. I took the chair at a conference of general practitioners a couple of months ago, and one of them asked when we were discussing the drug industry, if he could bring in exhibit A. It turned out to be two boxes, each four times the size of the Dispatch Boxes in this Chamber, crammed full with circulars, booklets and what-not. They represented fourteen months' deliveries by the drug firms at that doctor's house. Imagine the chaotic state of mind if the doctor tries to read but one-tenth of this!
I am not on their mailing list, but I get three or four every morning; and once or twice a week, I usually get a parcel of drugs, beautifully packaged and some of them looking like "hundreds and thousands". But the effect on the doctor's prescribing habits must be substantial, or the firms would not go on doing it. We beg them not to do it, but they take no notice and go on pushing out this stuff. It is partly due to the pharmaceutical industry, its highly competitive methods and its non-coordinated research activities, and partly to the real improvements in medicines. Drugs are better and are still getting better. It is true. as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, that we must have better information services for doctors, and that we must also, somehow, get the pharmaceutical industry to serve the public interest. One does not say more than that it should do that. One does not say that it should be nationalised or socialised. If only it will serve the public interest, we shall have it working as a part of this great public service.
The pharmaceutical industry is a most interesting one. It is highly competitive, and that should make it highly efficient. But it does not. It is highly profitable, and also highly secretive. As those of your Lordships who served on the Public Accounts Committee in 1937–38 will know, the Ministry of Health find it difficult to drag information out of the pharmaceutical industry. There are two divisions of the pharmaceutical industry. There are the genuine manufacturing firms, and there are the packaging firms, who simply buy from other people, wrap the stuff up and advertise it—and

645
occasionally they compound it a little. They are purely parasitic. They need very little capital to get going, and they contribute nothing beyond the wrapping and the, advertising. I think we could do, without these parasitic pharmaceutical firms. The genuine manufacturers have done much good work and produced many excellent things. However, they still waste an immense amount of public money, first, on competitive research, and secondly, on competitive advertising.
In research, there is the most extraordinary overlapping. If we have, say, ten firms, each having a small research team looking for either an antibiotic or a tranquilliser, then each team is treading exactly the same ground. In medicine, we combine and pool the knowledge, but here it is impossible because these firms are in acute financial competition and must not give away their secrets to each other. There was, in fact, one attempt to make such a combination, and four of the big firms got together to build a thing called the Therapeutic Research Corporation. I am not absolutely certain but I think they were B.D.H., Boot's, Burroughs and Well-come, and I.C.I. There I stand open to correction. It was a complete failure; they could not do it. It has disappeared, and any attempts at combined pharmaceutical research have, so far as I know, met with complete failure.
So what happens? A firm expends, say, £50,000 to £100,000 in looking for a new antibiotic. They find one which looks promising. Tests are started, and the results are a little equivocal. In medicine, at this point we write off that line of research and return to our laboratory benches. Not so in industry. The investment in research must be made to yield a return, so the product is marketed and boosted, hoping that it will recover its costs in a short run of popularity—for they only get a short run of a couple of years and then they disappear; that is the usual sequence. There are a few which go on, but most die a pretty early death before they have got properly costed and any control starts to operate.
All this has happened in the case of a drug which claims to be the first antibiotic to act against the viruses. A factory was opened by this firm in the North of England, in an area of substantial unem-
646
ployment, thus giving the Government a reasonable and real interest in its success. As a matter of fact, it was opened by my noble friend Lord Boothby. I told him that I was going to mention him to-day, so I am not taking an unfair advantage of the fact that he is not here. He opened it with a very merry speech, in which he said that he was a confirmed taker of pills. This firm is marketing this so-called antibiotic. I am not going to name it, but it is marketing it with tough publicity. I was invited, with the local doctors in my area, to see a film strip show and to partake of an excellent buffet lunch. The film strip was shown, arid then our local doctors, who are very intelligent, cross-questioned the representatives. First, they learnt that it was no good against any big viruses; then they learnt it was no good against any small viruses, and then they learnt it was no good against any fatal or severe viruses. It was claimed to be any good only against those from which one recovers spontaneously, mainly influenza and upper respiratory infections. It was claimed to be good not only therapeutically but prophylactically. What a wonderful opening for this drug!—everybody needing it, and everybody able to take it with a clear conscience to prevent these things.
To prove this requires very careful control therapeutic trials. We were offered therapeutic trials with about 70 persons, conducted by some Swedish gentleman, which were completely and utterly inadequate to show that this stuff did anything. Unless I am thought to be exaggerating. I will quote to your Lordships what the British Medical Journal had to say about this drug in its columns:
"Thus it is quite impossible, on the basis of work published on this drug so far, to form a clear estimate of its therapeutic value, if indeed it has any."
The basic National Health Service price is 48 tablets for 15s. Up and down the country these sales representatives are pushing this drug as hard as they can, no doubt with the aid of other good buffet lunches, and certainly with the aid of the film strip. I reckon that of least £1 million of National Health Service money will be wasted on this product, in the absence of any evidence that it does any good at all, before it goes out of fashion. I have not named the firm or the drug, but I would say that this is a fairly typical story, and I am certain

647
that the only proper answer is not to rely upon internal departmental investigation but to have a proper Royal Commission on the pharmaceutical industry as soon as we possibly can.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord in not naming either the firm or the product; I think it would be most unsuitable to do so. But as he has said this about it, I hope he will give it to me in confidence at a later stage.
LORD TAYLOR: With the greatest pleasure. I shall be delighted to furnish the noble Viscount with full particulars. Indeed, I am sure his own Department will be only too familiar with these extraordinary claims.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, might I inquire whether the drug in question is in fact on the list of those prescribed under the National Health Service?
LORD TAYLOR: I understand that that is so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We will soon find out.
LORD TAYLOR: When we take the overall picture of the cost of the National Health Service, the real measure of whether we can afford it is, as has been said, the proportion of the national product devoted to it. Here the figures are quite simple: 3·8 per cent. of the national product in 1949–50; 3·7 per cent. in 1950–51; 3·2 per cent. in 1954–55—notice that it is going down—3·4 per cent. in 1956–57 and 3·6 per cent. in 1959–60. Compare that with the proportion of the national product which we spend on defence, which I understand is about 8 per cent. I understand that it is the custom for honourable and right honourable gentlemen in another place habitually to defend the Defence Estimates on the grounds that they amount to about 8 per cent. of the national product. That is a fair defence, but, surely, it is equally a fair defence to say that we should have our National Health Services financed in the same way as Defence. We do not finance that by contribution charges or charges for Home Guard uniform
648
or what you will on the users at the time of service.
Moreover, if we are to have defence forces, surely we must have something worth defending, and one of those things is the National Health Service. Manifestly, we can, and are, affording the National Health Service quite well. The present charges are a matter of budgetary convenience only. I think we could, and should, afford up to about 4 per cent. of the national product, and I am not claiming any completely extensible ceiling. The noble Viscount said that we must have a ceiling on essential services. That is fair enough; but let us express it as a percentage of the national product, as that is the only fair ceiling to take.
I should have thought that if we take it at 4 per cent. of the national product it would be about right, bearing in mind that we have to finance an increased capital expenditure in the years ahead, because we have let the thing run down. We have had virtually no capital expenditure in the last ten years except on maintenance of existing buildings, and that pretty poor. Secondly, we have defeated the easy diseases. We are now running into a very difficult situation, because more and more people are living on into old age. They are not dying of quick pneumonias, but from chronic illnesses which take prolonged treatment over weeks, months or years and very often end in death. But they are going to provide us with an increasing volume of work; and that volume will increase.
Behind the National Health Service, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, there are two great conceptions. The first is that we should relieve those who are sick of the unnecessary financial burdens of ill-health. The second is that we should all pay for our National Health Service when we are well, according to our capacity to pay. The effect of the new charges is to shift the method of payment: an increase in the poll tax —the flat per capita tax—to avoid putting the cost on the graded tax; that is, income tax according to capacity to pay. Increased contributions hit everybody equally, regardless of income, and they hit the poorest hardest and the richest least. Increase in the payments at the time of illness are much more serious. These hit at the time when the payments are hardest to make.

649
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, about old people and poverty. He is going to inquire into their position in an affluent society he were to look at poverty in an affluent society he would find that most of the sick are poor, and the reason they are poor is perfectly simple; it is because most of the sick do not get their wages continued when they are sick; they go on to sickness benefit. They are the people we are now penalising by these increased cash contributions on medicines. It is not so bad, perhaps, if you are a wife—though it may be bad in other ways—if you are sick and in bed. But if you are a wage-earner, and you are sick and in bed, you are not only ill, not only losing wages, but now you will pay two, four, six or eight shillings a week for your medicines as well. I think it is a shame. It is a negation of what the National Health Service stood for.
Here we have the extraordinary discrimination between hospital medicines and extra hospital medicines. If you are sick in hospital, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, was in St. Thomas', and as I was later on, you get your drugs free. But if you are sick outside you have to pay 2s. a bottle or packet. If the Government charge for drugs outside hospitals and not for in-patients, the logic is that one is more necessary than the other. And this, my Lords, at a time when the Government are urging doctors to treat patients at home and save money on hospital beds!
Many people have the idea that general practitioners do not look after the seriously ill: that what goes on in doctors' surgeries is a lot of nonsense. But it is not so. I have sat in many doctors' surgeries and we have produced statistics of the amount of serious illness the general practitioner sees. One in five of the visitors to the surgery are suffering from serious illness, illness so serious as to carry the danger of risk of death or so severe that the person has got to alter his manner of life very substantially. One in five of the people in doctors' surgeries are in that category. Among those the doctor visits at home the proportion is one in two—except, of course, in time of epidemic, when the minor complaint group shoots up. Most of the people the doctor visits at home are seriously sick. They are the people who will have
650
to pay two, four, six or eight shillings for every prescription they have taken to the chemist.
Doctors have always opposed the charges for medicines, because it puts back the cash barrier between the doctor and patient. It is particularly hard on the chronic sick. About 20 per cent. of all patients in this country suffer from bronchitis and other respiratory infections. Chronic bronchitis is a terrible thing, particularly in the North and Midlands. People get bronchitis and then slowly develop heart failure. As a result, they are kept going by drugs, digitalis for the heart, the anti-cough medicines, sedative cough medicines, and usually sleeping medicine as well, because they cannot sleep. This goes on not for six months but five or ten years. It is the basis of their life. They cannot get by without it. Those are the people we are taxing six or eight shillings a week for their medicines. Of course they cannot take them en bloc, because if you keep cough medicine it gets a mould on it after a week or two.
We have heard about the mentally sick. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred very seriously and graphically to it. But we are being urged under the Mental Health Acts to treat more and more at home, and this is possible only if we can prescribe quite elaborate sedatives— largactil and the other tranquillisers, as well as sleeping tablets. Those people are not fit to work. We are being asked to keep them out of hospital beds; yet we are being asked to prescribe costly drugs at home for which the patient has to pay. Time and again the doctor will find himself in the extraordinary dilemma that the 2s. charge will be more than the cost of the drug he is prescribing. The only thing lie can do is to write another prescription on an ordinary piece of paper and say "Take that along and pay 1s. 6d. for that one", which is fantastic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was saying, it is quite unrealistic to expect the chronic sick, or their relatives, to go traipsing along to the National Assistance Board. They cannot do it. There is nobody available. It is hard enough to get anybody to cook a meal, let alone to go for long bus journeys to gel this money back. It is all nonsense. My only conclusion is that those who framed this legislation

651
have no idea whatever how poor people live or how sick people live. They just do not know.
The increases in charges for welfare food are in a different category. This is quite a small item, because most of these welfare foods are being taken up only by a small group. Only a few people are using these welfare foods free, but they are the people who need them most. They are the feckless, rather stupid, mothers, who cannot be got to do what they ought to do. They are the people who are getting these free welfare foods from the clinics, and it is a jolly good thing, because this is preventive. They are the people who will develop rheumatic carditis when they get older, and will be a burden on the community for twenty years because they have not had prophylactic foods. It seems to me absolutely dotty". I sincerely hope that, whatever else the Government do, they will drop that particular bit of nonsense.
The right answer is, surely, a graded National Health Service and National Insurance tax, a graded one as a proportion of income tax. How simple it would be! You would get over this business of industries all over the country having to do the whole job twice, first with P.A.Y.E. and then with stamps. Really the stamps are not fair; they are a poll tax. As national income rises so would contributions to such a scheme rise.
The Government have, up to now, enjoyed, I think, a remarkable measure of electoral success, and the reason is mainly, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said, that they have been up to the old game of "dishing the Whigs by pinching their policies." If the Government's Commonwealth and Colonial policies had come from Labour Ministers, the roars which would have come from the other side of the House would have made one sick. I am all for their "pinching" our policies; I think it is the most sensible thing they can do. I am interested in this new programme of hospital expenditure of £50 million a year. It is identical with what we had in our pre-Election booklet, Members One of Another, setting out our Health Service policy. It is very intelligent of them; they have it exactly right. This is the first misjudgment of
652
the people they have made. They have gone absolutely off-beam here, and they base it on pure ignorance. They do not know how ordinary people live or get ill or die, and because of this I hope that those of your Lordships who do care about the sick and the needy will join us in the Division Lobby, or at least will abstain and show what you feel about this wrong.
5.20 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord who introduced this Motion for bringing about this debate I have one personal regret, and that is the shortness of the notice which came our way—though I appreciate that it was not entirely his fault. It also is a pleasure to join in the congratulations to the noble Lady opposite on her first contribution in this House. I only wish that her stern self-control in regard to controversial matters had been exercised with more thoroughness, shall we say; and I shall use all my firmness to control my temptation to be controversial on the matter in return. Let us hope that it will not be long before we shall have an opportunity of again crossing swords on this or some other subject.
I am concerned on this matter of National Health Service charges not only as a member of the public, but also (and this noble Lords may not know) as chairman of a group of pharmaceutical companies who manufacture distribute, wholesale and export, pharmaceutical chemicals and supplies. I am not a chemist; I am not a pharmacist. In fact, any skill I possess, if I possess any at all, is that of an industrial administrator and a student of man management.
My connection with the pharmaceutical industry is entirely fortuitous. It happens that this is an important industry in my native city, to which I returned after a number of years in the Tropics, where I had been at the receiving end of many thousands of grains of quinine. But, further than that, I have a childhood background of connection with the medical profession. I was brought up by an uncle who was an eminent professor of physiology, and all my life I have been connected with the talk or the jargon of medicine and the knowledge of frequent contact with laboratory work and research. It is therefore fasci-

653
nating to me to find myself concerned, as I am to-day, with the (intricacies of this highly competitive business—highly competitive, remember, in an international sense.
It is an extremely complex industry. Would it were as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, seemed to indicate in some of his remarks! It is a highly speculative and a highly rewarding industry. I say that deliberately, because I do not mean "rewarding" in a remunerative sense, but in the sense of ethical reward for services rendered. I am a member of an industry which, in spite of what all the noble Lords opposite have said, has made, and is making, a real contribution to the welfare of the nation. In passing, I would remind your Lordships of the important part played in the community by the pharmacist, the ordinary chemist, and sometimes by his wife as well. They are qualified and skilled people. They are respected. They render a 24-hour service. They have considerable responsibilities, not only to the customer and to the public, but to the doctor and also to the law. In the village the chemist's shop is the first-aid post. Not only is the chemist a professional man, but he has the added burden of making a business pay. Often, indeed generally, it is his own business. At the research and manufacturing end his colleagues are deeply engrossed at the highest level of scientific expertise, striving to improve the service which renders what it does to medicine, and which contributes what it does to the exports on which we live. It is a matter of pride to me to be associated with this business.
With that disclaimer, I would turn to the charges which are the subject of the Motion, and accept what my right honourable friend the Minister in another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, here, have said in regard to the necessity for more finance in order to pay for the necessary development in the hospital services. When I have the task of moving the Motion in regard to road construction later this week, I shall be referring (and I hope that I shall get support from him) to Lord Taylor's point about the need for financing capital work from capital. But more money is needed. I do not think that anybody in any part of the House will doubt that, whatever may be his ideas as to where it should come from.
654
On the subject of the hospitals I have but little to say, except to join in the remarks which have been made in all parts of the House about the wonderful attention obtainable in British hospitals from the staff —from the doctors, the nurses, and everybody. There is one point here which I have come across and which I would mention that in dealing with the cost of the hospital service I feel that my right honourable friend will sooner or later have to face some increased differentiation between the wages and salaries paid to trained and senior nursing staff as compared with the wages of junior nurses and domestic staff. Though much has been done and is being done, more has still to be done, about the conditions under which nurses live. I had occasion to talk the other day with a colleague whose daughter has within the last couple of years nursed in both the United States of America and this country: and whereas she was in no doubt as to the comparison and standard of nursing qua nursing, it meant a great deal to her that the conditions under which nurses live on the other side of the Atlantic were infinitely more conducive to their fitness for their duties.
I will not go further in reference to the charges until I come to this problem of the prescription charge. Other noble Lords are better able than I am to develop the hospital side of it. But on this problem of the prescription charge I find myself, a little to my surprise perhaps, but no more than to the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in entire agreement with him. Some have maintained that the application of the increased charge will reduce the off-take of drugs and their consumption. I personally doubt it. The effect was slight when the 1s. charge was first put on, but it soon swung back again. I do not think their consumption will be reduced more than temporarily; nor do I believe that the increase will reduce waste. Nor do I believe that it will have the effect of improving prescribing: it will only encourage over-prescribing.
Another side-effect will be the encouragement of self-medication. Perhaps the noble Lord will have found the reference in the Hinchliffe Report that we were discussing just now. That Committee were not only against the 1s. charge, but were against an increase and in favour of complete abolition of a prescription charge. As the noble

655
Lord has pointed out, the problem as it now arises is that with 2s. per item you get a prescription charge on a number of items which exceeds the cost of the item itself. From the pharmacist's point of view, that is going to lead to a strain in chemist-customer relations. It will lead to the customer not putting in a prescription and going in for self-medication; or even, perhaps (and this is particularly so in the case of those in need), going in for no medication at all. This point has been made before. Although the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, made it in a gentle sort of way, I should like to reinforce what he said with almost the same force as the noble Lord. Lord Taylor. Doctors are opposed to it, and I therefore hope that the Government will agree to have another look at it.
In the debate in another place one honourable Member indicated figures with which I have no reason to quarrel showing that this charge will go unnoticed by 80 per cent. of the people; that 10 per cent. will be borne by National Assistance anyway but that for the other 10 per cent. it will represent real hardship. If finance has got to be found for this, surely it should and must be found somewhere else. In the light of what has been said, I was going to read only a portion of a letter I have here from a colleague, who is a doctor of medicine; but I will read more because it sets out very clearly the position of people in need who would now be subjected to this increased prescription charge. The letter says:
" Anyone who is on National Assistance, but not employed, can get a receipt for the prescription charges from their chemist and have the money refunded at a post office on displaying the National Assistance book.
" An unemployed person receiving a disability pension can proceed in the same way, using his disability pension book as proof.
" An unemployed person receiving unemployment benefit can obtain a refund at the employment exchange.
" Old age pensioners do not automatically qualify for a refund; if they are not on National Assistance they have to make a special claim to their local National Assistance office.
" Anyone who feels that the prescription charge causes him undue hardship can make a claim on the National Assistance Board for a refund, and this is likely to be allowed if his income is at, or only slightly above, the level at which National Assistance would normally be granted."
656
Your Lordships will appreciate the trouble this will bring to some poor, ill, tired old person. My colleague, who is a doctor of medicine, goes on in his letter to say:
"These rules do nothing to help the proud old age pensioner who normally just manages, but whose economy may be completely upset by the necessity of paying perhaps four to six shillings a week in prescription charges. I can remember patients for whom even the old charge was too much, but who were too proud, or unable, to go to the Assistance office, and one often had to produce the odd shilling oneself. I am sure that this must be the experience of most general practitioners. I cannot suggest a solution, for manifestly the old age pensioner who is paying surtax should not be let off his subscription charges! Equally, it seems rather an imposition to ask the G.P. to decide which of his patients should have to pay and which should not."
If I do not refer further to the question of charges it is not because I have no views, but because they are views which have already been stated or are points which are to be made by other speakers. But I do press that Her Majesty's Government should think again on this matter, and either alter their proposal or take steps, very urgent and earnest steps, to see that the means for making recoveries for poor people should be facilitated, and, indeed, that it should be possible for them to get the cost of prescription charges in advance.
My Lords, I now turn again to the pharmaceutical industry. This has been described in another place as a "dragon". I have a feeling that my noble friend Lord Taylor and the noble Lady who has just made her maiden speech feel rather the same way as their friends in the other place. I believe that they have made a mistake. They have mistaken for a dragon what is, in fact, a serpent; and a very prudent serpent. I refer to the serpent of Aesculapius which, if memory serves me right, was very cunning in finding healing herbs. I have already said I am associated with this "serpent", but I would say that I am not in any way a mouthpiece of the industry. I have no place in their hierarchy. It is just that I come into day-to-day contact with the problems of the industry; therefore I feel that I have a contribution to make to your Lordships' deliberations.
I gather that several noble Lords opposite, and their friends in the other place, feel that there is something wrong with the industry. Or is that putting it

657
too mildly? Be that as it may, I propose to show that there is something right with it. Admittedly the National Health Service is the industry's largest customer; of course it is, in a country with such a Service. But, broadly speaking, only one-third of the product of the industry goes to the State. One-third is sold over the counter and the remaining one-third goes for export. That is a very important point, and I feel that it is important to have those proportions clear in our minds in turning to the accusation of over-extravagant advertising.
Noble Lords will, of course, know that the advertising to the public, and on television, if you like, do not affect drugs which are prescribable under the National Health Service. Those are over-the-counter drugs, and that form of advertising, therefore, does not come into our calculations. The "glossy" type of material, to which the noble Lord. Lord Taylor referred, which is posted and distributed to doctors, may be, and in some cases is, extravagant. I think that can be definitely accepted. The industry as a whole does not like that kind of feeling and I know that they are keeping an eye on it.
Nevertheless, my Lords—and this is why I mention this matter immediately following my reference to the fact that one-third of the drugs produced are exported—it is not that other places are so different from this country but that we in this country are rather different from other places; and this particular type of sales promotion applies elsewhere throuhgout the world. Actually, the industry has a difficult task in promoting sales abroad, and on that I feel I should read a cutting from the City Press of October 28 last, in which the reporter says:
"From daily contact with customers all over the world, the industry is painfully aware of the harm which has been and is being done in overseas markets by the campaign carried on at home against proprietary preparations. By the constant battering of uninformed critics, the term proprietary preparations' has come to have almost a derogatory connotation.
" This attitude does not pass unnoticed abroad, and it is perhaps not altogether coincidence that a fall in the average rate of increase in exports of pharmaceutical products in the early 1950s coincided with the adoption of this short-sighted policy."
658
I should like to make that point and to press home the fact that, where we have to live by exports—and as the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary made so plain to us last week, exports are our very life-blood—it is a pity that any member of the nation should be injudicious in attacking an industry which provides a great deal, and will provide more, to the export trade of the country.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene for one moment? Surely it is equally important that the quality of what we export as pharmaceutical products should be maintained.
LORD FERRIER: Does the noble Lord suggest that the quality of our pharmaceutical exports is inferior?
LORD TAYLOR: I suggest that on some occasions they are the type of remedy of which I was speaking; that as a result of this multiplicity, by very slight modifications in drug structure, alleged new drugs are produced which are not, in fact, new drugs at all; and that there is, on occasion, an accidental as it were, misleading of the receiving public at the exporting end.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I think that "on occasion is the operative phrase there. Knowing the largest single exporter in our industrial community in this country, I cannot believe that the largest exporter could have such an imputation made on any of his products. I do not want to weary your Lordships, but I could turn to an American paper which says that there are wails in America at the low costs of drugs which are obtainable from this country.
While on this subject, I would say that there has been criticism of the industry's force of representatives, of travellers really bitter criticism and. in my view. quite unfair criticism. This staff of excellent men are employed calling upon doctors. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, himself made the point—and do we not all in business know it, as in every other walk of life?—that you cannot read everything you get nowadays. The fact is this—and correct me if I am wrong. In my view, the fact is that the great majority of doctors rely on a visit from the representatives of reputable firms to keep them in touch or to draw their attention to developments as they come

659
along. I have personal knowledge of a large number of occasions in which this has happened. In my own locality I was pleased the other day to be talking to a doctor who indicated the same thing.
The traffic is two-way traffic, because not only does the doctor keep in contact with the industry through the representative, but the industry keeps in contact with the doctor through the representative. At the teaching hospitals and the like they have the main medicaments, and problems in regard to packaging, storing and the like are always accessible to the manufacturer through this force of representatives. They are, as I said. an important link in the chain of service that strives to relieve sickness; and the traffic is two-way traffic.
I made some notes while the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was speaking, and I feel it would be only fair if I referred to one or two of them. I have dealt with the problem of the suggestion that the industry does not operate in the public interest. I would refute that with every ounce of my energy. That is just not so. If there are black sheep in the family, well, that occurs in every walk of life. But to brand the whole industry in that way is quite out of reason.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I was very careful not to brand the industry in that way.
LORD FERRIER: Good!
LORD TAYLOR: I certainly did not intend so to do. I said that there are many firms doing excellent work, and then I went on to explain why they were not doing better work.
LORD FERRIER: I thank the noble Lord. I am glad I made that point. Frankly, that was not the impression I got when the noble Lord was speaking. There was another point he made regarding competitive research. Again, I said in my opening remarks how I wish it were as easy as the noble Lord thought it could be. On pooled research he mentioned The Therapeutic Research Corporations which, he admitted, broke down. The problem is one which, to my simple mind, is this. The only way to pool research is to nationalise the whole industry, and if you do that you
660
get a muddle and your research becomes a whole lot of—
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, that is precisely what we have done with medical research as a whole, nationalised it, and we have had the Medical Research Council. It has not proved a muddle but an absolute example to the world.
LORD FERRIER: I said, first a nationalised industry. That is where we come up against it. The problem is this. If we centre or concentrate research in one place, then who is to make the product that is invented? That does not apply to the problem of medical research. It is a question of trading which, as I pointed out, applies only as to one-third of the requirements of the country. One other point I should like to make is that the noble Lord referred to a drug which he criticised very adversely. I should like to know whether it is in fact on the list. I rather doubt it myself. If it is, he would not be criticising the drug industry; he would be criticising the medical authority which permitted a drug which is apparently of no practical use to appear on the Government list.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, surely many drugs appear on the official recognised list of prescribable substances which are of very doubtful therapeutic value, with a note that they are of doubtful drug therapeutic value.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, judging by the activities of the noble Viscount who is to reply, I feel certain that we shall get something from him on the subject, and we need not go on with it at the moment. They are classified clearly by the medical profession. This rapid development in new drugs is one of the imponderables of this very complex trade. These new drugs are almost invariably more costly than the old. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is not in her seat, because I think it is fair to say that it is "pie in the sky" to believe that the more complex drugs become the cheaper they are going, to get. It is going to be the other way. It seems to me inevitable that that should be so. For instance, it is possible to put down a plant for the manufacture of a new drug—I know that this occurred in one instance—where not one thing is produced by the plant

661
because by the time the drug is ready a new drug has been invented which supersedes the original one.
There is another point to be made while we are talking of the cost of drugs. I feel that it is fair to consider—it is often not considered—the credit entry opposite the debit entry for the cost of drugs. It is quite incalculable. I think noble Lords will agree that, with improved drugs, the pattern of hospital admissions has changed altogether as the years have gone by. The duration of stay in hospital has varied and fallen and fallen. Of course, that can be calculated in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, but it is not possible to calculate the savings to the nation which result from prevention or early cure by modern therapy before patients are hospitalised.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, on the question of these costs—I am very interested in the argument—could the noble Lord, during the course of his speech, give sore indication how it is that the costs of drugs have gone up so enormously, by giving us the basic cost of units of drugs leaving the factory and what they cost when they come to the consumer? Could he say what margins there are to the wholesaler and retail chemist? I wish we could get it.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I really was trying to make that point in an oblique way in pointing out that there are costs in connection not only with research but with obsolescence of plant and the like, which it is quite impossible to apply to any single drug. No rule can he applied to any single drug. That is what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. If I may make a rather simple comparison, it is this. I remember well when I was a young man that I got a boil on the back of my neck, and it was pretty painful. I should say that the total cost of the drugs required in those days was 1s. 10d., for a little mag. sulph., a little glycerine and a little plaster and cotton wool. It meant ten days' agony and three days off work. To-day it would mean three shots of penicillin at 7s. 6d. a shot—22s. 6d.— and no boil at all, and not a day, not an hour, off work.
LORD TAYLOR: Is it not down on 7s. 6d. a shot? It is 4s. 3d., is it not?
LORD FERRIER: A shot?
LORD TAYLOR: Yes.
LORD FERRIER: Plus prescription charge. There are three of those. That is the point, perhaps, which the noble Viscount was making. And it is the same to-day. You go on from your penicillins to aureomycin, and the like. As they increase in effectiveness, so they increase in cost. But the credit entry in terms of pain saved, lives saved and grief saved, quite apart from patient hours in hospital, is out of all proportion to this figure about which—and here I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Amory—such a fuss is being made. Because, quite frankly, we realise—do we not?—that we are talking of trying to reduce a cost of something under £50 million. When you take off the cost of appliances and the distributing costs of that share of the National Health budget which goes to drugs and appliances, it conies to just less than £50 million.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain to us some of these costs? When you walk into certain chemists' shops, some of them under the chain principle, you can buy quite a quantity of say, aspirin for 4d. When you go into another shop and maybe take a prescription, it costs you 1s. for what you pay 4d. for, perhaps, somewhere else. Is it not time we had art inquiry into the different margins of profit on these drugs which—and I concede this at once to the noble Lord—because of their necessity in treatment, are costing far too much to the scheme?
LORD FERRIER: I have not quite got that point. The aspirin in one shop is sold across the counter at 4d.?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
LORD FERRIER: And the other at 1s.?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
LORD FERRIER: But that is not aplicable to the National Health Service. Correct me if I am wrong. An aspirin would be a charge at so much aspirin B.P. Is that not right?
LORD TAYLOR: I think the noble Lord is right. It is a standard rate when is comes on a prescription.
LORD FERRIER: That is why I emphasised that we were talking of three equal shares—National Health, over the counter and export. What you like to pay over the counter does not affect this debate. It is perfectly possible—and personally I prefer it—to buy a certain proprietary article over the counter rather than to buy the same tablets B.P. I prefer it. It is put up neatly in a little tube that will slip in the pocket, and I prefer to do that; but it is not obtainable under the National Health Service by prescription.
My Lords, I have talked about research, and I have switched to this problem of the credit side and have made the point that new drugs are naturally more expensive than the ancient and the simple remedies; but, remember, there is other than ordinary chemical research. The research department is not just a bunch of boffins chasing molecules. There is a great deal more to do. There is clinical research, and there is biological research before that. Then comes the chemical engineer and the problem of how this drug can be produced commercially. Then there is the cost of raw materials, market research and the like. All these things have a bearing on the cost of drugs, and I feel they have got to be borne in mind by noble Lords opposite who criticise what is being done.
However, my Lords, here we have a factor on which your Lordships may wish to ponder. I read the cutting which I have here about the export trade earlier in my speech, so I will turn to the question of profits and meet the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, made. On the subject of profits, it is necessary to remember that only one-third of the industry's production is sold to the State, and all of it at very reasonable prices. The overall profits which noble Lords have criticised so adversely refer to overall business, of which one-third is over the counter and one-third is for export—and that is worth pondering. Remember, also, that the actual receipts for drugs by the industry from the State is less than £50 million. It is not the gross figure which appears as a proportion of the £850 million.
664
I have, I hope, added to your Lordships' proceedings with some contributions which will be useful. In conclusion, I should like to return to the points which I have principally made. First of all, I hope that the noble Viscount who is going to reply will give us some cheer about the question of the 2s. prescription charge; and I trust that, as it is opposed by the medical authorities, by the Hinchliffe Committee and by so many parts of the House, that will be given careful consideration. If it cannot be adjusted, then action might be taken to make it easy for the poor and sick person to make a recovery against it. Further, I trust that noble Lords will be as balanced as they can in their meditations on the matter of the pharmaceutical industry, which is a very valuable and, indeed, vital part of the industrial set-up of this country to-day.
5.57 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, one of the things that impressed me most about the delightful maiden speech we heard this afternoon was where the noble Baroness said how unfortunate it was that any prescription charge at all should stand in the way of the aged, sick person; and when it comes to the question of doubling prescription charges one wonders whether part of the object of the exercise here may not be defeated when one considers the possible temptation that may be placed before doctors to tend to over-prescribe in quantity in order to absolve some of their patients from having to pay the double prescription charge twice, or over and over again. I had intended to say a few words about drug prices, but, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Taylor on this topic just now. I shall not attempt to add any words of my own, except to say simply that, notwithstanding what has been said upon the other side of this question by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for my part—and I think I can say this on behalf of other noble Lords who sit on these Benches—I wholeheartedly join with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in his demand for a Royal Commission on the pharmaceutical industry.
The topic that I was going to touch upon mainly this afternoon, and that not for many moments, was the question of the proposed charges as they are likely to affect private patients. Private patients, as I think is well known, are a class who,

665
although they pay their compulsory contributions towards the Health Service, do not receive the drugs and medicines that the Health Service provides. Now so far as Cam aware, Her Majesty's Government do not frown upon private patients as a class, and their policy towards private patients has, in my submission, always been both amicable and perfectly dear. It is, I think, enshrined in the following words—and I do not apologise tor quoting these words for the second time in your Lordships' House. The words are these:
"We shall allow private patients to obtain free of charge drugs prescribed by their doctor on a parity with the people in the State Scheme "
Those words did not first appear, as some have since thought, in a possibly hastily prepared election manifesto. They appeared in July, 1949, in the Conservative Party's publication The Right Road for Britain, which, as its sub-title made quite clear, was a calm statement of Conservative policy at that time. It is also worth remembering that the final paragraph of that booklet, under the heading "Final Words", said:
"We have sought in the foregoing pages to set forth the constructive theme of Conservatives during the next five years."
The Party opposite came into power in October, 1951, at a time when there were nearly three years to run of the five-year period which had been planned for when The Right Road for Britain was published. Neither in October, 1951, nor at any time since, so far as I am aware, has there been any ministerial denial of any kind that this pledge in the booklet, given to private patients, was not to be kept. I suggest, my Lords, that at this distance of time there can be no question whatever of going back on that 1949 pledge. The only question that can now possibly arise is: when is this undertaking to private patients going to be implemented? For my part, I suggest that the time to implement that undertaking is now, because if it is not implemented now private patients are going to pay by way of compulsory contribution, in the very near future, still more toward drugs and medicine; which they will not, in fact, receive under the National Health Service.
6.2 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to give full support to the increased charges proposed by Her Majesty's
666
Government. I do so particularly because these charges have bean raised only in proportion to the increased cost of the Health Service, and it is unthinkable that the standards of the Service should be lowered, which is the only alternative. With regard to drugs, I had understood that the cost had risen twice as fast as that of any other section of the Health Service, and therefore I do not think that the new charge of 2s. per prescription is excessive. But I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who is to reply, what happens if a drug is prescribed which costs less than 2s. Does the patient have to pay the full cost, even though it may only be 6d. or 9d. over the counter?
I was going to say something about drug prices, but this subject has been exhaustively discussed by two noble Lords much better informed than myself, so I will refrain from saying anything except that I feel quite sure that the Minister will watch the situation and where he thinks it necessary will make representations to the industry. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made a very good case for private patients to receive their drugs on a National Health basis in accordance with what was foreshadowed, as he has said, in the Conservative programme in 1949. My Lords, there is another point with which I should like to deal, and it is this. I think that only in a minority of cases is there a tendency for members of the medical profession to 'be extravagant in their prescriptions concerning the more expensive drugs, but I think it would be right for the Minister at this time to draw their attention to the necessity for economy.
The most expensive part of the Health Service is the cost of running hospitals, which is. I believe, about two-thirds of the total budget. The time has now come when a considerable number of new hospitals will have to be built and very large sums will be needed to modernise and replace old buildings, many of them dating back well into the last century. I think it is fair to say that, in the provision of new hospital buildings, this country is very much behindhand compared with some Continental countries, and certainly compared with other parts of the Commonwealth. I hope that when these buildings are being

667
planned, study will be made of the latest trends in hospital architecture, not only in this country but all over the world.
I should like to say a few words about the amenity bed, a feature of the Health Service which causes me some concern. I regret to say that in certain cases the amenity bed has become a gentlemanly racket. It is used largely on an "old-school-tie" basis for sick members of the medical profession, the nursing staff and their friends. I am not saying that this is universal, but it occurs quite often. I am therefore glad that the Minister has doubled the cost of these beds. Personally, I should have gone further and abolished amenity beds altogether. And, having done this, I should have replaced them with something else. I should have replaced them with the type of bed which has been used in Australia for many years with great success. This type of bed is known as the intermediate bed. It is rather different from the amenity bed and brings considerable revenue to the hospitals. These beds are open to anyone, subject to certain upper income limits, and the charges made far them are exactly half the full bed costs of the hospital. Doctors who attend patients in these beds are allowed to charge one half their normal fees, and these beds fill a considerable gap between the private bed and the ordinary public ward bed. There are a considerable number of people in these days who, when they get ill, can afford and do like a certain amount of privacy when they go to hospital. This is made easier for them by the number of excellent voluntary schemes—hospital provident schemes—such as the Hospital Services Plan and the British United Provident Association.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt? I am very interested in his remarks and his suggestion that we should abolish amenity beds, but is not his alternative proposal that, having abolished them, we should recreate them and charge a lot less for them?
LORD GIFFORD: No, it is not that. I think the charges would be slightly more, in addition to which there would be a saving on the total hospital bill. Because I am going to suggest that, when building new hospitals, a great many of
668
these beds should be provided. In a big general hospital, there should be, say, 50 to 100 of these intermediate beds, in small wards. I think they would be very popular and would bring considerable revenue to the hospital and a saving in the cost of hospital services. I particularly ask my noble friend whether he will look into this Australian scheme, because, to my knowledge, it has run now for not less than 30 years, with great success; and believe that it is something that we should adopt here. Having made what I hope is a constructive suggestion, I will conclude by saying once again that I strongly approve of these charges which the Government have proposed.
6.10 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first and foremost, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on her hard-hitting and always interesting maiden speech. For some time, while the noble Lady was Member for Fulham in another place, I was an officer of 'the local young Conservatives and we had a number of bouts. Although our side never secured victory, sometimes we suffered a defeat, which could be called a defeat "on points only". I am sure that we all welcome her to your Lordships' House. She will be a useful addition, particularly to our controversial debates, and certainly she acquitted herself well to-day.
I am on the board of a children's hospital, and therefore hospitals and the Health Service are one of my main interests. I should like to say, first of all, a word about welfare foods. I am the father of a daughter who is not yet two and have had a little experience of the welfare centres, which do a fine job. I aim convinced that there is a certain amount of wastage in these foods. At the time the scheme for distributing cod live oil and natural orange juice was started, there was a lack of proteins in our national diet and the children badly needed these foods. I am not suggesting that the scheme should be abolished but I think that the organisation of the supply needs looking into. As has been said, the number of parents who bother to collect these amenities is very small. Let me quote from an article in last week's Economist, which is not a pro-Government paper in any great form. It said this:

669
" Only between one-tenth and two-fifths of those who qualify seem to bother to collect the various welfare foods anyway and they are not necessarily the poorest people either."
I think that it can be said that it is not necessarily the neediest who benefit from the supply of these foods. In outlying districts, where chemists' shops and doctors are in short supply, there is a case for this service; but I feel that in the cities and towns there is reason for looking into the scheme, bearing in mind the present-day diets of this country.
Reference has been made to the position of diabetics. I would urge Her Majesty's Government to give a great deal of thought to the matter of insulin, which I believe should not be included in the increased charges. I support the charges applying to cough mixtures, and items of that sort, but not to insulin, which is something that diabetics need all their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will correct me if I am wrong.
I would also urge my noble friend to consider the possibility of exempting from these increases children under five years of age. If there should be an outbreak of measles, or even of pneumonia, in a family of three or four young children, several of them may go down and a great many drugs might be needed. That would impose great hardship. I would go so far as to suggest that, if necessary, the prescription charge could be increased for, say, those between 15 and 50 to meet the extra financial commitments of this proposal. I know that this is not a Second Reading debate, so not press this point too hard now. However, it seems to me to be a point that could be considered, and I would ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House if the could perhaps consult his right honourable friend about the justification or otherwise of this suggestion.
The Party opposite has said on a number of occasions that we have tried to kill the National Health Service. I have read carefully the Second Reading and Third Reading debates on the National Health Service Bill in 1946, and honestly I can find little support for these allegations. Admittedly, the House divided, but we gave one very good reason for dividing; that was, that the whole Bill then was far too centralised and far too little freedom was given to the medical profession. I have always supported the idea of a National Health Service.
670
When we consider countries such as America, where it costs a fortune, literally, to be ill—although President Kennedy is now seeking measures to obviate this—we can say that we are fortunate in possessing this wonderful Service. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider whether more reciprocal arrangements could be made with countries overseas. I was talking to a doctor friend the other day. There are countries, such as Portugal, where I believe if one has treatment for a serious illness one has to pay a great deal of money. I am not entirely opposed to foreigners' getting National Health Service treatment when they come here, but I feel that the Government might look into this matter a little more carefully and see whether, through diplomatic channels, more reciprocal arrangements could be made.
I will make but one reference to drugs. There has been a great deal of building of new factories for pharmaceutical products which obviously costs a lot of money. I do not know whether the Government make any grants towards factories for this purpose, but, if not, it seems to me that the proprietors of these drug firms have a case for making reasonable profits. I do not think that the idea of a Royal Commission to look into the industry is necessarily a sound one, but perhaps a Select Committee could look into it. It is obviously something that needs looking into quickly. I support the Government on these increased charges, hut there are certain matters, such as a probe of some kind into the pharmaceutical industry, which I think are necessary. Having said that, I would add that I believe that the Minister, who is a very humane man, has done the right thing in bringing in these charges. We shall have more opportunity to debate the matter in full at a later stage, but I, for one, will support the Government on this occasion.
6.23 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, before I come to the main matters on which I wish to speak in this debate, there are two points that I should like to mention quite briefly. The first is the increase in the weekly contributions. These have gone up by 1s., of which 10d. is to be paid by the employee and 2d. by the employer. That does not seem to me to be a fair

671
balance. If we must have an increased contribution, I wonder whether the employer's share should not be somewhat bigger and the employee's share not quite so great. The second point is on the question of amenity beds. No one, I think, will grumble that the price of these beds has been put up, but I trust that it will not lead to an abandonment of the principle, which I think is a good one, that supposing a patient needs a single room for medical or even social reasons, that room should not be denied to him because he cannot pay the increased charge for an amenity bed. I know that at the present time quite frequently amenity beds are filled by people who need a single room for medical reasons, and I trust that this practice will continue and that the increased charges will not make any difference to it.
The next point I wish to touch on is the question of whether charges for welfare foods should be increased or not. Personally I have no objection to the fact that they are now to be sold at cost prices, because I never believed in a subsidy for important things like that. People should be paid a sufficient wage or should get sufficiency in allowances to make it possible for them to buy these goods and not to have them as part of a general subsidy. What I think we can say now is that the majority of people do get a reasonable wage, and mothers of families receive a certain amount for the children: I know that they get nothing for the first child, but they do receive a children's allowance for the second and any subsequent children. Therefore, I have no particular objection to these charges being made.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, when this provision of welfare foods was first instituted the nation was living on very short commons; and it was important that the children should be given extra food, both during the war and for a long time after the war. But now that food is plentiful again, and most children are given a normal, good, mixed diet, I am doubtful whether it is necessary to supplement it with this large amount of extra vitamins and other substances. I do not think a great deal of danger is caused by giving them to children who do not require them but it has been shown that there can be danger
672
from taking too much cod liver oil, which is why, I believe, the standard dose has been drastically reduced in the past few months. Therefore I am not going to cry a great deal about the fact that the welfare foods are now going to be sold at cost prices.
There will be a few unfortunate people and a few improvident people, and I think it may be necessary for them to apply to the National Assistance Board for money to get these foods, supposing the doctors and nurses in the clinics feel that they are really necessary. If it is said that parents will not willingly pay this sum, then I think it is the function of the doctors and nurses at the clinics to instruct and guide them and bring them on properly.
But when it comes to the question of increased charges on subscriptions, I think that the Government are on far shakier ground. It is true that to a number of people, probably the majority, who are not likely to be taken very ill often, and who are getting good money, the increase will not make a great deal of difference. But there are a number to whom it will make a substantial difference, and I have particularly in mind those with longstanding illness. Reference has been made to diabetics, who need insulin for a long time and may require it when they are quite young. For the most part they will be able to work, but they will certainly have this burden with them for the rest of their lives. I am not referring particularly to these people, however. Nor am I necessarily referring to the elderly people, because there is a way (I do not say it is a very satisfactory way) of assisting them. Those to whom I refer particularly are the people for whom more than one drug is needed, who are able to do a full day's work or part of a day's work, provided that they can get these drugs. I have in mind the large number of patients suffering from chronic bronchitis and the various complications of that illness. These may need to take four or five drugs regularly, and particularly during the winter months, to kep them fit and well.
It may be said that a doctor can give a prescription to cover several months and, therefore, the cost is not very great. But that is not a good practice, because the drugs these people take are rather

673
strong and potent, although they are not dangerous drugs under the terms of the Dangerous Drugs Act. I should be extremely reluctant to allow a patient of mire to go away with several months' supply of some of these drugs. Then again, people in this state of health probably need to be seen by their doctor from time to time, so that it will not be possible to make out these prescriptions to cover a long period. This means that they may be subjected to what may often be an extra weekly, fortnightly or, maybe, monthly charge of 8s. or 10s., which, to my way of thinking, is a large sum and one of which I do not approve at all.
One can say that the elderly persons can claim a refund from, I think, a post office or the National Assistance Board. But that again, I think, shows a lack of appreciation of what elderly people can do. It. is true that they can, but they find great trouble writing the necessary letter, and they find even more trouble in going round to the post office or National Assistance Board office to claim their refund. It is quite true that the Assistance Board officers are very good: they will call if asked to do so. But here again it is a question of writing a letter, finding a stamp and posting it, all of which sounds comparatively simple to young folk, but I assure your Lordships that it is not at all easy for old people living by themselves.
If the Government want to economise, would it not be better to focus attention on the prescriber of the drugs, and upon the manufacturers of the drugs? When I say "the prescriber", I mean the doctor, because there are quite a large number of drugs which can be supplied in various forms and types. I have a list in my hand. There is a drug which we all know by the name of cortisone, which is used for various diseases. There are various forms of cortisone, and the price varies from 6s. 9d. to 25s. 2d. I am not going to say that the cheap ones can be used for everybody. I think many people get rather carried away in prescribing something new because it is new, without thinking of the cost. There are quite a number of things of a similar nature among the other new drugs. For example, there are various kinds of tranquillisers, popularly given as sedatives, and antibiotics. They can all be
674
obtained in various kinds at different prices. Some people do not find that the cheaper ones do them any good, not because they are cheap but because they do not contain the right drug. But I am sure that a great deal of money could be saved if that point were really put across.
The cost of drugs has certainly increased, and it will, I think, go on increasing as more and more potent drugs are discovered and prescribed. But one has to take into consideration the converse, because the probable result of these useful but expensive drugs is that illness has been shortened, a good deal of ill-health has been prevented, and the call on hospital services has probably diminished. Many of your Lordships will remember that in our young days young people got pneumonia in their twenties and thirties. It was an extremely serious illness, and a large number died. That sort of thing does not occur now because of these expensive drugs. So one has to be rather careful, when one condemns the increase in the drug bill, to make sure that one is not unintentionally cutting out a thing which may be reducing the costs of the Service in general a great deal.
I have never from the start been entirely happy about the prescription charges, both when they first came in and about the present increase. That, I think, is an opinion shared, certainly by noble Lords who sit with me on these Benches and, indeed, by other noble Lords and Ladies in the House. I am sure that what the Government wish to do, and what I should not mind doing, if there is to be an increase in the price of drugs or in the charge, is to have some check on the valetudinarian. But he rather enjoys it the more he has to pay, and the more prescriptions he is given, because he would rather be given prescriptions than food. That kind of person will not be shocked or checked at all by this increase in the charges.
I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Airedale has said; that there should be some inquiry into the drug industry. Because although there may be absolutely nothing which is not entirely correct—the profits may not be excessive, and an excessive amount may not be spent on advertising—there is a certain popular feeling that this is the

675
case; and the best way to stop that, once and for all, is to have some kind of inquiry on the lines suggested by several noble Lords this afternoon.
6.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, speaking from these Benches, I do not wish to add to the political controversy. There is, however, one aspect of the drug question which has not, in my view, received due emphasis. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that the public are too pre-occupied with medical treatment. They are curiously unalive to the fact that treatment is subordinate to diagnosis. Diagnosis depends primarily on a careful case history and meticulous physical examination, with or without additional help from radiologists and clinical pathologists. This is a time-consuming and exhausting occupation, which is not well fostered by overcrowded surgeries. The pressures on the doctor to prescribe, without adequate diagnosis, are tremendous. Many of the public are positively hostile to the medical disciplines of interrogation and examination. They discern in them, or suppose they do, a lack of diagnostic flair, an absence of magic and a peculiar reliance on a rather plodding, pedestrian approach to the medical art. These people wish their doctors to prescribe with or without a scientific rationale. This attitude is a carry-over from the time, not so long ago, when medicine was largely inexact and most or much of the treatment empirical and directed to the relief of symptoms, not causes.
The position of medicine to-day is transformed, and the frontiers of knowledge and understanding are extending from moment to moment. Scientific diagnosis is a reality over much of the medical field, but many of the public still adhere to outmoded beliefs and clamour for treatment regardless of causes. It is only necessary to stand for a short time in any chemist's shop to test this hypothesis: "My cough is no better; my pain is worse. The doctor's medicine has not helped. Now, what can you suggest?" I believe that somehow the public's image of the modern doctor must be changed, so that he is seen, not as a potential cornucopia of drugs, often very expensive and quite frequently having undesirable side effects, but a thoughtful, humane scientist
676
whose primary consideration is, or should be, accurate diagnosis. The best way to attain this desirable end is, I think, conjectural. Having at first been sceptical about the value of such television programmes as, "Your Life in their Hands", I now believe them to be of the utmost educational value. They eschew morbid dramatisation, they on the whole present the art and science of medicine as it is to-day, and they afford an opportunity for the public to see and, I should hope, understand that they and the medical profession are partners in a joint endeavour—the scientific alleviation of pain and distress, an endeavour in which basic causes are paramount and treatment subordinate to these.
6.40 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I confess that I participate in this debate this evening with a feeling of shame that in the year 1961, after two great wars and all the sacrifices that they entailed, we should be discussing such shabby and shoddy proposals as were embodied in the statement made by the Minister of Health some few days ago, proposals for the transfer of £50 million of expenditure in 1961 and £69 million in a full year from the Exchequer to the backs of those unable to bear the burden. It is the case, of course, that whenever this question is raised the old spirit of the Poor Law emerges and expresses itself by suggestions that application should be made to the National Assistance Board, which of course is the descendant of the Poor Law and the Guardians and of the relieving officer which any self-respecting nation would exclude from its social institutions.
But it is not only we who object to this interposition of the National Assistance Board, for, whatever his views may now be, I find that on March 27, 1952, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, who at that time was much concerned with health and local government problems, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 498, col. 964]:
" The last conclusion I wish to leave in the mind of my right hon. Friend is that I think I am right in believing that, particularly with the poorer people, health expenditure is a marginal expenditure and one of the first things which goes by the board if anything has to be paid for."
That is precisely what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said in her

677
brilliant and impressive speech. He went on to say:
"Surely, then, it follows that, if there is a much greater deterrent charge—and I hope that the Ministers will look at this—it may be that they will be able to come to the House and, by an Order in Council, achieve what we are trying to achieve in this Bill with a much smaller charge."
I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, state in his otherwise impressive speech that inflation was due to the action of the workers because, as he said, they did less work for more pay There is nothing in history to justify a statement of that kind, which I feel sure the noble Lord would like to revise when he considers its implications.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I really ought to answer for the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who no doubt will be very well capable of looking after himself, but I think, in fairness to him, as he is out of the Chamber, I should remind the noble Lord that that is not what he said. He said inflation was due to both employers and workers, and he did not say that they did less work for more money but that they did the same work for more money. I think it is only fair I should say that.
LORD LATHAM: We must look at the OFFICIAL REPORT. I was not expecting the noble Viscount to reply for Lord Beveridge.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, but I like to be accurate.
LORD LATHAM: I should like to point out this fact: that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said in connection with the agricultural workers that the increase in. the percentage of contributions in relation to wages was no more than 1 percent. from October 1, 1948. That goes to show that the wages go up with the increase in the contributions except to the extent of 1 per cent.; which means of course, as is the case, that if the contributions to National Insurance or any other imposed obligation is increased, then, in so far as those people are organised in trade unions or otherwise, they recover it through an increase of wages. That would seem to have disproved in some measure, what the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said.
678
I was interested to hear that the very admirable suggestion made by my noble friend, Lord Taylor, that there should be some inquiry into the cost of drugs—whether by way of a Royal Commission or a Select Committee or in some other appropriate and convenient way— has been received with support by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree; and I gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was not indisposed to support that proposal. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is not in his seat. He entertained us to a pretty lengthy defence of the pharmaceutical industry, but there are a number of aspects of that industry, knit, as it is, inescapably into the framework of the National Health Service, on which the National Health Service and health generally very largely depend, although perhaps not so much as the advertisments would at times have us believe. There are the questions of cost and overheads. The noble Lord said, I gather, that one-third of the output was sold to one customer, namely the State, to meet the requirements of the National Health Service. The question of adjustment of overheads on marginal costings and all sorts of things arise, which I think justify some inquiry on behalf of the State, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount may be able to indicate that this proposal will receive consideration at the hands of the Government.
I view this decision to increase contributions and to increase charges as being another step towards dismantling the Welfare State. It is, in my submission, a part of the policy of the Conservative Government, ever since it assumed power in 1951. It is to make the affluent society affluent for the rich and for those well circumstanced. These proposals to save £65 million a year are really an expression of a mean and wretched philosophy. They take one back to the atmosphere and the mood of 1910, when the first Health scheme was introduced and when we had processions of well-attired ladies, marching to the Albert Hall to protest that they would never lick stamps.
The Conservative Party have got back to the attitude of mind which was quite different from the attitude of mind in this House during the war. If. I may be a little personal, may I say that I

679
have been in your Lordships' House about nineteen years. I have been in the House longer, I think, than any one of the occupants of the Government Front Bench, and longer than any occupant of the Opposition Front Bench except my noble friend Lord Listowel. I remember in 1942, when this country had been in dire peril, there was almost an orgy of contrition from all sides on the part of Members of this House. In those days, nothing appeared to be too good for the people of this country who at that time were risking their lives, as we all did, in order to save not only this country but the world for freedom.
I was here, and I remember the appointment of Committees galore. There was the Uthwatt Committee, then the Scott Committee and the Beveridge Committee. There was a kind of conscience of guilt throughout the whole of 'the nation, especially among those who had been responsible for the affairs of the nation, at the wretched condition, in between the two wars, in many cases, of the working classes and the people, with unemployment reaching a figure of 3 million; the figure was nearly 1½ million when the war broke out in 1939. Notwithstanding that the people of this country had been—shall I say—cheated after the First World War, when they were told that they would have "homes fit for heroes", we know now that in the year 1961 there are several million houses in this country without a separate bathroom. We had Reports from the Uthwatt and the Scott Committees recommending that the benefits arising from community activity and action in connection with land should be the property of the nation and should belong to the people who had defended the land. We have seen each of those Reports torn up, including the Act which gave effect to Uthwatt and to Scott—the Act of 1947. They were torn up, and the bits have been thrown in the faces of those who defended this country during those dark and dangerous days from 1939 to 1945.
Among the other Committees there was the Beveridge Committee, in respect of whose Report the Coalition Government issued a White Paper in 1944, stating, as regards the National Health Service, that it was to divorce cares of health from the question of personal
680
means or other factors irrelevant to it, and to see that all relevant medical facilities were available to all people. Those words have already been quoted by my noble friend Lord Silkin this afternoon. These promises to the people who had borne the heat and burden of the day have been largely betrayed. We had the Land Report; we had the Act of 1946 on the National Health Service, and one in 1947 for Scotland. There was to be a free service of full facilities, as the Guillebaud Report at paragraph 718 clearly and unmistakably set out. It became the admiration and the envy of other nations.
Now the Government are engaged in dismantling this great Service, which I once heard described as the Magna Carta of the people's health. The Government are eroding its foundations bit by bit; they are burrowing. The National Insurance Act was primarily an Act not to provide for retirement pensions, but to recoup the Exchequer in regard to a large measure of its contributions to the finances of the pensions scheme. As the Economist said, it would save the Government £99 million in the first year, and that saving would rise to £420 million in 1981. At the time The Times said that it was none other than a crude form of income tax."
I ask, what right have the Government to destroy this public service, bit by bit, piece by piece, as the present Minister wishes to do? His philosophy is: transfer as much of the cost to the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it. There have been five increases of contributions, including one which comes into operation next July, in respect of National Health Insurance. There have been seven reductions in tax, mostly for the benefit of those who pay considerable sums either in income tax or in tax and surtax. As I have indicated, the new proposals will save the Exchequer £50 million in the year 1961, and £69 million in a full year. Of that, £49 million is in respect of the increased contributions.
A good deal has been said this afternoon, especially from these Benches, as to the percentage of the national product which the cost of the National Health Service represents. My noble friend Lord Taylor said it has moved

681
up from 3·2 per cent. to 3·8 per cent. in five years—those are the figures of the Minister. But it has moved down from 4·5 per cent. to 4·2 per cent. over the last ten years. I suppose it is interesting to comment, en passant, that the interest on the National Debt went up by £269 million between 1952 and 1958—nearly 50 per cent. Surely that small percentage of the national product devoted to the Health Service is one of the best investments that this nation can make. After all, it is not by a disease-ridden, sickness-ridden, working population that we can expand the productivity of this country or its output. It is by having active, healthy, lively, physically fit men and women—and children—that we can expand the economy of the nation and move forward into a greater degree of comfort and prosperity.
And this increase from 3·2 to 3·8 per cent. as a proportion of the national product would not have been the case had Her Majesty's Government pursued an active and vigorous policy to expand the economy, instead of imposing credit squeezes here and boom facilities there front time to time. Moreover, the increase in the percentage of the national product takes account, of course, as it must, of the effect of the increase in the population of this country and the change in the age structure. According to figures given to the Guillebaud Committee it was estimated that the change in age structure would represent an increase of expenditure of some 3½ per cent between now and 1971–72; and as regards the increase of population. would represent 4½ per cent. That must be taken into account when it is suggested that the expenditure on the National Health Service at the present time is getting out of hand.
Then it has:been said by those supporting; this change that the people's earnings at the present time average some £15 a week. That, of course, included overtime and the very high earnings of those engaged in the motor and aircraft industries. They are not earning £20 per week now. Many of them are on shoot time, and a large and increasing number are unemployed. There certainly is not much overtime available; and that figure of £15 per week was swollen (because I do not think they exist now) by the inclusion of the high earnings in those particular
682
industries. But the right honourable gentleman the Minister of National Insurance himself said, when he introduced the 'proposals for the National Insurance Bill, that in 1959 there were 7¾ million persons earning £9 or less per 'week. To say, therefore, that those who will have to pay this increased contribution and these increased charges can well afford to do so, because they are earning £15 per week, is not true at the present time; and generally speaking it was never true.
Then, what about maintaining stable prices if we are to have these increased contributions and increased charges? Surely they will have to be recovered, as other increases in prices are, by increases in wages, which of course moves away from the alleged settled policy of the Government to maintain a stability of prices? And what about the disincentive upon the workers? We are told a great deal about those who are subject to surtax: that it discourages them from marginal activity; that they sit back and say, "I have to pay so much in tax, what is the good of working hard or concerning myself with other activities?" That never was true. It is not true now. The Committee, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, on Taxation of Income and Profits came to the conclusion that there was no foundation for the allegation.
But in any case, the total of the surtax which relates:to income from employment, not from investment, is no more than about £52 million a year out of the total of £163 million, which I believe is the figure of tax collected from surtax payers. It is sometimes assumed that the increased cost of the social services is borne wholly by income lax and surtax payers. That, of course, is not the case. There is a contribution amounting to some £2,400 million a year arising from the taxation of consumer expenditure, principally (but not wholly) Customs and Excise, and purchase tax. There is indirect taxation of £2,400 million and direct taxation of £2,758 million; that is leaving aside the contribution under the National Insurance Act.
And so, my Lords, we have put down this Motion, a Motion of censure, because we take the view that the present Government are resolved to destroy the Welfare State. They have done so, as

683
regards land. Land now costs local authorities more per acre—and very much more on the present basis of ascertainment—than it did before the last war. Transport has been torn asunder, torn apart. The provision for old age and retirement pensions, as I have indicated, casts an additional burden upon the people and will save the Exchequer huge sums of money in the coming year. Now we have this attack upon the National Health Service. It is an affluent society for the few.
The present Minister of Health now conceives himself, as it were, as the saint of public economy and he is putting a hair shirt on the rest of the people of this country in testimony of his sanctity. We say these proposals are unworthy of this nation. They are shabby, shoddy and unfair. In my submission, no one can get up feeling a sense of self-respect and defend them. They are the measure of how much the Conservative Party care—notwithstanding the posters. This, we were told sometime ago by the present Prime Minister, is an "Opportunity State." An opportunity State for whom? For the speculators; for the wealthy (and I am using this word, which was also used, some years ago it is true, by the present Prime Minister), a State where in many cases the ethics of the casino prevail and not the ethics and morality of decent: men and women. This is another betrayal, in our submission, by the Tory Party. One is entitled, I think one is induced, to say almost: "May God forgive them, for they do know what they do!".
7.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, my work has been done so largely for me, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, with almost every word of whose speech I entirely agreed, by my noble friend Lord Amory, and by several noble Lords behind me, including Lord Auckland, that it is rendered very much more easy than it would otherwise have been. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, in introducing this Motion, that it was not common in this House to have a Motion of censure. It is a well-established right of an Opposition to put down a Motion of censure, and a well-established duty of the Government to answer a Motion of censure. The
684
trouble about a Motion of censure in this House is not so much that it is wrong as that common sense will keep breaking in. I am afraid that a good deal of common sense has broken into this debate, which renders it more difficult to retain the atmosphere of drama and heat than one would otherwise like in a Motion of censure. In his wilder flights of fancy—with the old spirit of the Poor Law and the entire people, except the affluent few, in a hair shirt; the sickness-ridden population and old age pensioners never worse off; and a long talk about the fate of the Uthwatt Report, and especially in his rather inapposite, I thought, perversion of the words from the Cross at the end, the noble Lord who wound up for the Opposition did his best, but I do not think he achieved very much.
The fact is, of course, as my noble friend Lord Amory pointed out, that this Motion of censure is very largely an air-shot. The dragon is not there. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, sought to put his case not so much upon the details of the proposals as upon the belief, which has been sedulously asserted by members of the Opposition in the country and elsewhere, that (as the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition put to me when we made our original statement) this is part of a combined attack on the Welfare State. It is impossible, I think, to attribute this fantasy which is sought to be created by noble Lords opposite to any insincerity on their part. We know that they are wholly sincere, and therefore I am bound to say that I attribute in part the public heat which has been expressed against my right honourable friend the Minister of Health and his proposals to wishful thinking. The fact is that the Party opposite have snatched at the belief that my right honourable friend has mounted a deliberate assault on the Health Service which it is his duty to defend, and the Welfare State, as a sort of lifebelt for their own Party in the stormy waters of internecine strife, enabling them, they hope, to unite against the common enemy.
They may be right. It may be easier for them to unite in a negative opposition against a policy at the present juncture than to unite in support of a constructive policy of their own. It may, for all I know, be easier for them to unite

685
against the Minister of Health than to unite behind the Leader of the Labour Party. It may be easier to look back to the palmy days of 1946, or even, in the case of the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, to the palmy days of 1910 and pictures of Tory ladies refusing to lick stamps. It may be easier to do that than to look forward to the world of the 1960s and its present needs and the future, and to the realities of a society of both full wages and full employment, which they are perpetually sneering at as an affluent society.
But before noble Lords rejoice too soon and entirely take leave of reality, it is my duty to tell them that they are proceeding on a false assumption. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of my right honourable friend's proposals which are under discussion, it is incorrect to say that we intend or regard them as an attack either on the Health Service or on the Welfare State. Our case, which it is as well to put, or at least to try to understand—and it is certainly not one which has been seriously met from the Opposition—is that, so far from being an attack on the National Health Service, these proposals are in fact necessary to its healthy growth; and we think that its healthy growth can no longer be delayed.
My noble friend Lord Newton, in speaking earlier this evening, referred to three fields in which we consider it is necessary for the Health Service to be developed in the near future: the fields of mental health, hospital building and the development of the community services, which (if I may say this in parenthesis) I think is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, had in mind when he asked from the Government an assurance that we were really going to do something to try to stop people missing the advantage of the Service from ignorance or carelessness. There, I would suggest to him, is a positive field in which we are already taking steps. These are, in fact, the new and expensive developments which my right honourable friend is determined to foster.
We shall, in due course, be coming to Parliament and shall be approaching the taxpayer for money to pay for these developments. But our case is that we do not think we shall be able to secure the sympathy of Parliament or the support of the taxpayer, who has to provide the
686
money, unless we are prepared to show ourselves seriously inclined to cut away a little of the dead wood which accumulates from time to time; to exercise a small degree—I am afraid I can only say a limited and small degree—of financial responsibility and discipline, and a willingness to ensure that this Service—upon which we are spending currently something like £800 million a year—is simply not going to be allowed to run away with unlimited quantities of the taxpayers' money in directions where, as I shall show, the philosophy of the 'forties needs correction after 20 years, in the light of the experience of the 'fifties and the realities of the 'sixties, to which noble Lords opposite seem really quite unable to accustom themselves. The dispute, therefore, is not between those who believe in the Health Service and those who do not: the dispute is whether the Service is to be allowed to stand still or, if not, how best it can be developed.
My Lords, I would say that, in a way, it is not unlike the dispute between the fundamentalists and modernists in the matter of religion. Both sides are, of course, sincere. Both sides desire to keep alive the true flame of religion. But the fundamentalists—the noble Lords opposite—regard the legislation of the 'forties as the Ark of the Covenant containing tables of stone, verbally inspired, engraven on Sinai, and incapable of serious improvement.
Now, my Lords, the modernists, on this side of the House, think of the Welfare State as an excellent but essentially human institution, sired, as he reminded us, by Sir William Beveridge (as he then was) out of the Coalition White Papers; and, though excellent. capable of improvement and needful of adjustment if it is to grow, or even survive, in decent health. In matters of social service, as in matters of morals, it is perhaps worth remembering, since we are to quote Scripture (I hope this time properly), the maxim:
"The letter killeth. The Spirit giveth Life."
The question is: what is the spirit of the Welfare State?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That, apparently, is going to be very aptly used, so far as I can see, to justify why the Tories run away from the promises which they made in the 1940's.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think that remark is either relevant or worthy. I am not at all ashamed of the suggestion that we perhaps develop occasionally in 20 years, and I do not think it can be shown that we have broken a single promise that we have made.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It was quoted against you.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps, in this connection, I might be forgiven for asking: what is the spirit of the Welfare State? What are the principles that underlay it which we are supposed to be dismantling? Perhaps here, too, as other noble Lords have done, I might indulge for a moment in a little personal reminiscence. Like millions of other people, during the war I found myself in the Army. My Lords, war having been defined as long periods of boredom interspersed with moments of acute fear, I spent my long periods of boredom largely reflecting upon the shortcomings of our society and the means of improving them after the war. By the end of 1942, when I was down-graded medically and could no longer hope to play a fully active part, I reached the conclusion that the two pillars of British society after the war ought to be a publicly-organised social service and privately-owned industry. It was to further these aims that I returned to the House of Commons at the beginning, of 1943, when, my Lords, at almost the same time, by a dramatic coincidence, the proposals of the Beveridge Report became public. I thought the proposals contained in that Report, and the assumptions which were made in it, exactly corresponded to the kind of thing which I then wanted to support.
My Lords, to-day we are discussing the meaning of the first of these objectives—a publicly-organised social service. I would define it in terms almost exactly identical to those which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, used to-day and which he quoted if I do not mistake, from the document of 1943. I would say that there are two broad principles: in the first place, the principle of public organisation; and, in the second place, the principle of accessibility irrespective of means. Of course, the first of the two principles is fundamental, and I think it is worth saying, so because it is this which one finds oneself arguing in
688
discussions with Americans and others who either have no experience of, or do not desire, what they call socialised medicine. It is worth saying, if only to limit discussion, that the fact is that all Parties in this country are fully committed to the principle, not merely in regard to the National Health Service but to all the social services generally. In nine years of Conservative Government, all the social services have grown —and, for what it is worth, they have grown much more rapidly than in the previous six.
Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the present proposal, the first principle, therefore, remains unaffected. The argument which we are having to-day concerns only the second. But, my Lords, it is worth establishing at the outset that here again the principle itself is not in dispute. It is that publicly-organised social services should be accessible to all irrespective of means. But, my Lords, I must point out that this is not at all the same thing as to say that they should be universally free, or universally paid for as to 100 per cent. by the taxpayer, or in every case available on absolutely identical terms. They should be universally accessible, and nobody should be deprived of them simply because he has not the money to pay.
My Lords, from the very first, as my noble friend reminded us, it has been accepted that different sources of finance are necessary in a fully developed Welfare State. Some of the services are financed solely at the charge of the Exchequer. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, remind us that the family allowances, which were one of his assumptions, are an example of this. This is because, even under a system of full employment, there is an element in family raising of which wages in the nature of things, cannot take full account; and, therefore, even under full employment, lack of means tends to concentrate with sinister discrimination where there are children, and an adjustment out of the taxes is necessary to counter an inbuilt injustice in any wage system. Other services, like education, are partly financed out of taxes and partly out of local funds. I need not repeat the arguments regarding children in relation to education, but I should have thought that they were clearly adequate to make

689
a complete answer to the argument which was, I think, a little fantastically presented by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who suggested that the education services were going to be treated in the same way as the health services. My Lords, they never have been. Other services—and the insurance scheme is the main example—are partly, at any rate, financed out of contributions. This is because we think it right that though part—and it may be the largest part—is borne by the State, some should be borne out of wages as a condition for benefiting from the service.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, seemed to me, by his speech, to prove too much. At one passage I thought he was arguing that the whole of the Health Service ought to be borne out of taxation. That is what he appeared to be saying; and if his argument had any validity, that is where it would lead. But the fact is that it never has been so borne. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, reminded us that from the very start, in the purest form of the tables of stone brought down from Sinai by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, there was an element in which people were asked to pay a proportion of the Health Service out of the stamp, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Amory: there can be no injustice in asking people to pay when they are well for a small proportion of what they need when they are sick. The question is not whether, but "How much?" This is a question of degree, not of principle. The present proposal is to put up that element because the service is worth more, because it is costing more and because, in conditions of full employment which were not envisaged at the present levels either in 1942 or in 1944, or in 1946, people are earning more—and the level of their wages is not affected as it would have been, even under Lord Beveridge's assumptions in 1942, by a level of unemployment as high as 8 or 10 per cent.
Now no one has really produced evidence that this burden is intolerable. No one can expect us to take from the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in view of, his wilder talk, the broad proposition that another is on the stamp (2d. from the employer and 10d. from the employee) is putting a burden on the backs that are unable to bear it. On the contrary, if the whole value of the stamp is taken into account, the National Insurance and the National Health Ser-
690
vice element combined, the relationship of the stamp to average earnings has remained, I believe, almost constant over the years. That being so, in regard to the increases in stamp, it becomes a question of whether, by themselves, these sources of finance are adequate for a healthy and efficient Service. I am bound to say that I should not have thought so. Almost from the start it was contemplated, as we have been reminded more than once, that some charge should be made for the use of the Service; not, indeed, for treatment or diagnosis, which is not under consideration now, but for objects like teeth and spectacles, and even bottles of medicine.
Of course, it is true that such a charge can bear hardly, if it is not humanely administered, when it is incurred by the sick—when it necessarily is, as my noble friend Lord Amory reminded us—and not by the healthy. Therefore, it is not in the same position as the stamp. That I fully agree. It is also true that it is unpopular. As has emerged from the debate to-day, it is unpopular with the doctors and the chemists, who do not like collecting it; it is unpopular with the patients, who do not like paying it; and I may add, if it will give noble Lords any satisfaction, it is unpopular with the Government, who do not like imposing it.
But the question is not whether it is popular, but whether it is right; whether, indeed, it is not our duty to impose such a charge—our duty, that is, if we are to achieve social justice and display a proper sense of responsibility in the administration of a public service. I cannot write off as easily as noble Lords opposite have done the fact that each successive Government has, in turn, felt such a duty. The Labour Government imposed charges for spectacles and teeth. They also passed in 1949 the enabling legislation for the prescription charge. The alibi of the Korean war will not do. The Act was passed a year before the Korean war. The ceiling of £400 million, which proved to be impracticable when Sir Stafford Cripps was faced with a similar crisis to the present, was imposed in April, 1950; and that is when the statement was made— months before the Korean war. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, really must not assume that memories are so short.

691
It is difficult to see, in view of these facts, how noble Lords opposite can claim that a prescription charge in a period of soaring costs is, in principle, either something which ought not to be levied at all or something which ought never on any account to be increased above 1s. The real trouble, as my noble friend Lord Amory pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, himself has candidly admitted, is that the Labour Party have never really accepted the Labour Government's decision in 1949 and 1950. My Lords, I am proposing to justify noble Lords opposite to their own supporters, and, if I may say so, it is an example of what I might, I hope not too facetiously, call "Hailsham's Second Law": "The responsibility of a political Party is in inverse proportion to its chances of getting office."
The justification for a prescription charge is twofold. It is equitable, and it is administrative. It is equitable because, in the kind of society which we now have, there is an essential social justice in asking people to pay a small sum—in this case a very small part of the cost of what they get—when they get it. It is not a good thing in principle to allow people to believe that, having a good job for good wages, they should then look to other people to supply them with everything except luxury. There is an administrative justification, too. I do not suggest (I do not think anyone suggests, although some people, not in this debate, have done so) that there has been, or ever was, a conscious abuse of the Health Service, either by patient or practitioner, on a scale sufficient to justify a general indictment. But if one is responsible for the use of public money, one must seek to put in some balancing factor to counteract the inbuilt defects of the system—the result not of conscious abuse, but of inherent tendency.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, interrupted my noble friend Lord Newton to raise the question whether we thought the dentists did not sometimes put in dentures which were not entirely necessary. My Lords, do not claim to be an expert in dentistry, but I do know that that is exactly what has been suggested at times: that the in-built ten-
692
dency of the Service was to cause people to have dentures which were not really necessary. That is why there grew a new doctrine in dentistry—the better sort of dentistry, called "conservative dentistry," the object of which is not to make dentures but to save teeth.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount says that the prescription charges are administratively justified. Has he read his own Government Committee's Report, The Cost of Prescribing, made by the Hinchliffe Committee, where they say:
"The present prescription charge is a tax which, besides stimulating the wrong incentives, has proved disappointing financially. Consideration should he given to the desirability of abolishing the prescription charge altogether."
That is a most serious Report which, so far as I can see, has been completely ignored by Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the arguments were put very powerfully by the noble Lord in his speech, but I am now seeking to answer the arguments which, although they could hardly have greater authority than the noble Lord himself, would, of course, have a very much added authority from the fact that they were supported by the Hinchliffe Committee.
But, my Lords, however conscientiously the system may be used, the fact remains that the tap of public expenditure is turned on by the combined action of the patient, whose natural tendency when he visits the consulting room is to expect, and in circumstances perhaps even to press for, a bottle of something, and the doctor, whose legitimate anxiety is to do something positive to give reasonable satisfaction to his patient. It is not unreasonable, only responsible, to put into the machinery some factor: an expense not small enough, we believe, to deter the proper use of the Service, but large enough to ensure the proper use of the Service. Obviously such a charge must be generously and humanely administered. It is also obvious that the cost has to be recoverable in suitable cases. But that is what is being done.
It is obvious that the chronically sick must be made a special case, and must be prescribed for in adequate quantities; and that also is being done. If there are any other ways in which experiences shows it

693
can be done better, I feel quite certain that my right honourable friend will do it. As experience grows, the harder cases would be identified and dealt with, at first individually, and later probably generically, by rule. With a total of 220 million prescriptions a year, there is bound to be room for improvement. But that is what the Government propose to do. In the meantime, I would submit that it really is too much to pretend that 2s. is in general, an excessive burden in a society where average wages for men still run, as at present, so I am told, to £14 10s. a week, and where social security payments are at an all-time high.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, discovered, and as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, also found (and may I, in passing, both congratulate her on a highly successful debut in this place, and also tell her what a great recruitment of strength she will prove to the Labour Party in debate, which, after all, was part of the object of the exercise; and for her own sake we are all very glad to welcome her), £14 10s. is only an average figure. But the question at issue has a good deal of bearing on that. The question at issue is whether, in order to make more easy the path of those to whom the payment of 2s. may be difficult, we have to give the service to all, every time they are ill, without any form of charge at all. That is the question. You really do riot assist that argument simply by pointing out that there are hard cases, which everybody is as anxious to deal with as, I think, the Party opposite.
There is no evidence, so far as I know, that the original charge of Is. inflicted any real hardship. It is, of course, true that the recovery in hard cases of the sum presents certain difficulties of what the noble Lady called "mechanics." But I must press on the House and on the noble Lady that the mechanics are just as difficult if what is recovered is 1s. as they are if what is recovered is 2s. That is an argument not against the Government's present proposals, which is what is under discussion this afternoon, but against the principle of a charge at all.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I think that the argument that the noble Viscount has just adduced is a little faulty in logic. There is a difference between parting with 1s. in the first place and parting with 2s.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, obviously there is a difference between parting with 2s. and parting with 1s., but the point which I was venturing to put and which I do not think is faulty in logic is that the difficulty in the mechanics of form-filling—which is what the noble Lady was referring to, as she will find if she will refer to her excellent speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT—is just as great when filling in a form for 1s. as when filling in a form for 2s.
To my mind, the weakest part of the case made against us is that relating to welfare foods—orange juice, for which at present 40 per cent. of those entitled put in; vitamin tablets, for which at the moment 30 per cent. entitled to it put in, and cod liver oil, for which 9 per cent, of those entitled put in. Here I think we can all agree about the necessity of a balanced diet and on the fact that, on the whole, mothers and young children have probably the largest vitamin requirement. No one denies the need for the availability of these supplements, or that, in suitable cases, they should be issued free. What is in question in the present proposals is a continuance of an indiscriminate subsidy long after the circumstances which gave rise to the need for it have radically altered.
The welfare food subsidy was essentially an emergency measure for war and its aftermath. Our general diet was then restricted. Bread and potatoes, neither of them usually rich sources of vitamins, were a substantial part of the general diet. Butter, a source, I believe, of vitamin D, blackcurrent juice, fresh fruit and vegetables were either difficult to obtain or obtainable only at high prices and in insufficient quantities. Moreover, a great proportion of the young adult male population—the breadwinners, as it were—were in the Services, earning rather less than their economic wage. The case then for a generally subsidised supplement to the diet of mothers and children was surely overwhelming. But none of these circumstances applies now, in 1961. As my right honourable friend said in another place, people must really be living in an unreal world if they suppose that in 1961 a mother has neither the wit nor the money to choose how the vitamin uptake of the family should he regulated, and requires a subsidy either to make good

695
her income or her absence of understanding. The smallness of the current uptake, to which I have referred, seems to indicate that, in the opinion of the mothers of the nation, an adequately balanced diet for their families can be had, in numberless cases, without recourse to these special supplements, and no evidence has been brought before the House of any cases where they ought to be made available for a general subsidy.
I am sorry to prolong this matter at some length, but I have had several points to answer. Several noble Lords have invited us to look to the drug manufacturers for part of the economies to be sought by the scheme. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and by other noble Lords. Of course, if and in so far as it is proper to do so, my right honourable friend will make full use of this suggestion, not instead of, but in addition to, his proposals in the present case. It is our duty to see that the National Health Service is not exploited in any way. But, without going the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I think I should urge one or two cautionary notes.
In the first place, our objective ought to be to achieve a just price in every case between the manufacturer and the Service. In so far as profits could be thought to be excessive, this must be recognised as a failure on our part which must be put right, irrespective of our general policy on these proposals In so far as profits are not excessive, then I think it would be wrong to look to the manufacturers, whose legitimate profits are, of course, subject to income tax, to recoup the Service by reducing prices to levels which may not be just. I must warn the House against too facile an acceptance of some of the figures which have been used. I must insist that the profits which are sometimes quoted relate, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, pointed out, to veterinary products, products for export and products sold otherwise than through the Health Service, and are not simply Health Service figures.
Secondly, I would say that in approaching the reasonableness of profits, it is reasonable and just to measure profits
696
in relation to turnover rather than in relation to share capital. At this stage, I think that perhaps I should say to the noble Lady, who quoted American figures, that I have some figures relating to American profits which indicate that, under the administration of a succession of Governments of different complexions, in this country, profits are less than one-third of what they are in America, which indicates that we have met with a good deal of success.
Thirdly, I would say in this connection that, if we are to pursue a policy, advocated I think on all sides, of industrial expansion, it is important to encourage industry in every way to expand its research, much of which, in the nature of things, is almost always abortive in the first instance. It is reasonable that an industry which devotes its money to the risk and expense of new discovery should be rewarded more richly than the business which pursues a legitimate but humdrum course of ordinary manufacture. When these higher rewards result in higher profits, I think we can trust the tax-gatherer to make the necessary social adjustment. What is wrong is to discriminate against the man who uses science 'by treating him less favourably than his less adventurous competitors.
I do not want to pursue, because it is not within the terms of the Motion, the interesting dispute which began to develop between the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier and Lord Taylor, about the position of research in the practice of manufacturing medicine, but I cannot resist putting forward my own point of view as Minister for Science in this connection. It is true that basic medical research is and ought to be financed by foundations and to increasing degrees by the State, through the 'Medical Research Council, but this is only parallel and analogous to the business of research in industry generally. There is a place in research for publicly financed research, usually that of a more refined and pure character; but between that and the application of research in actual commercial practice a great deal more science ought to be used than is being used and a great deal more science ought to be used than can be used simply by the national institutions or by teams working under national finance. Indeed, part of the trouble we have, not only in medicine but over the whole range of industry,

697
is to induce the commercial firm first to employ a scientist and then to use him so that the results of his science can be known. Of course, in a rapidly developing industry this will involve very often individual firms running in parallel lines of research. All the advice which I have received is that this is not necessarily a bad thing.
I would fully accept that we must be careful of the public interest in this matter, and I know that my right honourable friend will be greatly fortified in his dealings with the industry by the expressions of opinion which have been made, I think from all sides of the House, in regard to it. We must also consider the aspect of the matter which I felt it my duty to put forward. In a sentence, I may say that since the war we have succeeded in building up the medicine industry into one of the important exporting industries of this country. I think I can say that our prices are very competitive with those of the United States of America, and I hope that they will remain so.
I do not propose to spend time dealing with the extra charges for teeth, spectacles or amenity beds, although I have taken note of what my noble friend Lord Gifford and other noble Lords have said. I am sure we are all glad of the remissions for children, which we have been wanting to make for some time. It is difficult to see how any serious claim can be made that the increases for adults are not adequately accounted for by increases in costs.
I therefore conclude by a short reference to the general financial argument. Of course the need for any increase in charges must he justified in context. But the context in which we justify it is supplied by three groups of facts: first, the constantly rising cost of the National Health Service expenditure in relation to other needs; secondly, the desperate need for further expenditure by increasing the scope and value of this Service and other social services; and thirdly, the general needs of the nation for a policy of public action which will support the foreign policy we were talking about the other day. I do not now question, and I never have questioned, the sincerity of noble Lords opposite. I do not now grudge them, nor have I ever grudged them, the privilege—for it was a privilege—of
698
having been the British Government first to he able to carry out the measures of social security that we all planned in the last years of the war. Like my noble friend Lord Amory, however, I do twit them rather for not having moved since then; for being now nearly 20 years out of date. The people of to-day are fully employed, enjoying wages the consequences of half a generation of full employment. The mentality of this Motion of censure is ultimately a mentality which would condemn them to the financial corollary of pauperdom. The Welfare State, which noble Lords opposite largely created, will continue to grow and develop in Conservative hands and on the lines I have tried to indicate. But it will slough off the dead skin and characteristics appropriate only to a period of under-employment.
7.54 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords. I rise for a few moments to conclude this debate. I am sure we have all listened with great enjoyment, and certainly with interest, to the statement: of the noble and learned Viscount; he has given us an interesting and lofty example of debate and dialectics which we have very much appreciated. But I am bound to say that little of what he has said has been directed to the Motion which we have put down. We take the view that the real issue before us to-day is not that there is a danger of the cost running away with the Service, or that this Service will be in any way interfered with. We accept the fact that the Service is going to cost more in the coming years. The question and the issue before us is: who is to bear that cost? Is it to be placed upon the shoulders of the poorer section of the community, or is it to be placed upon the public as a whole?
Although the noble Viscount suggested that it was where my argument intended to lead, I am not necessarily saying that the whole of the cost should be borne out of taxation. That was not my case, because I was not dealing with the philosophy of the thing at all, but simply with the additional charges—the:£60 million in a full year—which are to be borne. Nor was I suggesting that the Government are going to do the same thing with education. My point on education was that exactly the same argument as they are putting forward for

699
putting the burden of the additional cost on the people who are going to suffer sickness can be made as regards increased costs of education. I am not suggesting that the Government have yet arrived at that conclusion, although it is possible that in the future, if there were heavy additional cost on the Educational Estimates, they might come to the conclusion, on the same line of argument, that it was right that that should be borne by the people who benefit by the education. What I did say was that I thought if there were any further budgetary difficulties on the Health Service, this would form a further precedent for increasing the charges.
I am not suggesting that large sections of the community are unable to bear this increased cost, but I say that a considerable number will be. I thought I gave some figures showing that it was going to affect a substantial number of people; that it was going to be a hardship on them, and that it was going to be a deterrent to their accepting treatment. It was for those reasons that I felt, and we on this side feel, that this ought to be resisted. I have a feeling that quite a number of noble Lords opposite have the same view about the additional charges for spectacles, teeth and prescriptions; I thought that at least three noble Lords opposite in their speeches expressed apprehension on that
subject. Certainly the same view was expressed by the Medical Association and by the Medical Practitioners' Union, two bodies that ought to know something about it; and, as I said, a good deal of apprehension has been expressed in the Sunday Times.
I do not think it is possible to develop the case any further at this time of night. I have made my own position quite clear. I thought I had made a pretty conclusive case for condemning the Government for seeking this method of providing the moneys for the increased health costs. I thought that there was a much more satisfactory alternative, and to some extent the noble Viscount has accepted the case—to a small extent, I admit—by recognising that there was the possibility of making savings, which is a concession we have not received up to now so far as the cost of drugs is concerned. If that will lead to an inquiry into the matter, it will be welcomed generally. I do not propose to add anything further to what has been said. We are fundamentally in disagreement on this question. We feel that the Government approach is quite wrong and unjust, and we propose to divide the House on this question.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents 79.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Granville-West, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Henderson, L.

Silkin, L.

Attlee, E.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Chorley, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

Dalton, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wise, L.

Darwen, L.

Pakenham, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Carrington, L.

Dundonald, E.

Ampthill, L.

Chesham, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Fortescue, E.

Atholl, D.

Colville of Culross, V.

Freyberg, L.

Auckland, L.

Conesford, L.

Furness, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gage, V.

Bathurst, E.

Crathorne, L.

Gifford, L.

Birdwood, L.

Croft, L.

Goschen, V.

Boston, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gosford, E.

Brand, L.

Davidson, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Brecon, L.

Denham, L.

Hastings, L.

Buchan, E.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Drogheda, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Carrick, E.

Dundee. E.

Howe, E.

Hylton, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Soulbury, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Onslow, E.

Spens, L.

Jessel, L.

Perth, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Kilmuir. V. (L. Chancellor.)

Radnor, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Lambert, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Swinton, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Rochdale, V.

Teviot, L.

Lothian, M.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Torrington, V.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Salisbury, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Savile, L.

Waleran, L,

Merrivale, L.

Sinclair, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Milverton, L.

Somers, L.

Wolverton, L.

Newall, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.