Sitting of 13 March 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CLERICAL MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL

    SHELL BRAZIL BILL
    WINCHESTER CATHEDRAL CLOSE BILL
    Amended, considered to be read the Third time.

    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)>
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Space Research
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Minister of Aviation whether he has examined the possibility of co-operating with the United States authorities in the provision of launching vehicles for a joint programme of space research either in addition, or as an alternative, to co-operating with European Governments.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Yes, Sir. The United States authorities have already generously made the Scout satellite launcher available, and I have no doubt that cooperation in the field of space research will be carried still further in the years to come.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the Minister tell the House how that interlocks with his programme of consultations with European Governments, and will he assure us that there is no conflict between cooperation with the European Governments and co-operation with the United States Government in this matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no conflict. As the right hon. Gentleman has a later Question which touches on this, perhaps he will await that reply.
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Minister of Aviation whether, in view of Herr Strauss's recent statements, he will reconsider the whole question of a space research programme anew without any attempt to make use of the work put into the Blue Streak project.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. And I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not confuse the question of co-operation in pure space research with the separate but important question as to whether Europe should leave the manufacture of satellite launchers to America and Russia.
    Mr. Strachey: Surely these two Questions are inextricably interlocked. As we understand it, the Minister has attempted to undertake a scheme of joint research on the basis of completing the Blue Streak project. Is he not aware that many of us think that this has turned out to be an error and that it would be far better simply to have a project of joint space research and if people wish to use the Blue Streak project, that is for them? But I cannot help thinking that the Minister is putting off his possible collaborators by his present procedure.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Most Questions are connected to some other Question, but these happen to be different. One is whether we should co-operate in space research—everybody agrees that we should. The other is and I agree that it could be answered either way—whether it would be right for Europe to say that in the West a complete monopoly should be left with the United States in the manufacture of satellite launchers, no matter what they were used for, whether space research or commercial purposes. This is a matter which I will not debate now, but we have discussed it on other occasions.

    Southampton Airport
    Mr. J. Howardasked the Minister of Aviation what is the present position in relation to the proposed closure of Southampton Airport in April, 1961.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The terms of sale to the Southampton Corporation have been agreed.
    Mr. Howard: The fact that Southampton Airport is to be kept open will be a source of satisfaction to all concerned with the activities of the port and town of Southampton. Will my hon. Friend expedite agreement on a realistic price under the Crichel Down procedure for the remaining area of land within the perimeter of the airfield? Secondly, in order to keep the airport operational, will he ensure that the Ministry's technical staff are not withdrawn from the airport until the new operators have a reasonable opportunity of replacing them?
    Mr. Rippon: The remainder of the land, which constitutes the northern extension of the airport, has been offered back to the former owners on terms which are both realistic and reasonable. We have announced withdrawal of the technical services on 9th April, but, of course, a short extension can be arranged, if this is necessary to avoid a gap in operations.
    Dr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman continue to do all he can in using his good offices to support both the corporation and the prospective buyer of the airport to keep it in use as an airport?
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.

    B.E.A. Services (Leipzig Fair)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Aviation if he will give an assurance that the prohibition imposed on British European Airways to operate aircraft to Leipzig during the Fair will be lifted before the next fair in order that that airline may be able to share in the passenger traffic available now to its competitors.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no such prohibition so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it has been stated, I think by B.E.A. itself, that no services were operated because the West German Government did not wish them to operate? If this is not true, which I should be very glad indeed to hear, because it would seem more than stupid, will my right hon. Friend take steps to assure everyone in Europe and our exporters in this country that British
    956
    Airways can operate to Leipzig during the Fair if it so desires?
    Mr. Thorneyeroft: The Government certainly have not prohibited British European Airways from flying anywhere. If there is some question of inter-Governmental agreement, this would be a matter for the Foreign Office. I would remind my hon. Friend that similar problems which have arisen in trade were surmounted by us, as by the West German Government, by carrying on without inter-Governmental agreement.

    Prestwick Airport (Transatlantic Passengers)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation if he will provide separate Customs-free accommodation at Prestwick Airport for incoming transatlantic passengers intending to proceed to London.
    Mr. Rippon: Customs facilities already exist at Prestwick. It is for the airline concerned to decide whether to present passengers for clearance there or at London.
    Mr. Rankin: The Minister has not grasped the point of the Question. Perhaps that is my responsibility. Is he aware that after one of these long-distance aircraft has flown the Atlantic and has touched down at Prestwick for about 40 to 50 minutes passengers are kept on board? Is it not possible to give passengers the opportunity of a little release so that they may stretch their limbs before proceeding to London?
    Mr. Rippon: Arrangements are sometimes made for passengers to stretch their limbs a little, but Customs inspection as such would delay the aircraft, whatever the facilities.
    Mr. Rankin: The point of the Question is that there should be arrangements which would obviate the need for Customs inspection at Prestwick for those who are proceeding to London.
    Mr. L. M. Lever: Let them land at Manchester.
    Mr. Rippon: Customs inspection normally takes place in London with the large jet aircraft. This is a matter in which the airlines concerned attempt to determine what is the best procedure for themselves and for their passengers.

    Prestwick Airport (Communications)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation what progress is being made in providing improved facilities for transit between Prestwick Airport and Glasgow.
    Mr. Rippon: If the hon. Member will let me know what type of facilities he has in mind I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman keeping in close touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter of transit facilities? Does he realise that the first stretch of the new road passing east of the airport was opened on Saturday, four months ahead of schedule? Will he ensure that that applies to the rest of the road through Ayr and on to the south? If he does not, we shall still be faced with the congestion of traffic at the airport that we have faced during the last four or five years.
    Mr. Rippon: Of course, my right hon. Friend is in close touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and we will bring the specific point which the hon. Gentleman has just raised to my right hon. Friend's attention.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Venereal Disease
    Mr. Marshasked the Minister of Health how many patients were treated for venereal diseases in each of the last four years.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Marsh: Is it not well known that in 1959 the figure of freshly notified cases was in excess of 116,000? Has it not also been recently stated publicly by a large journal that the greatest increase of notifiable cases of venereal disease was in the 18 to 19 year-old age group.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman appears to be referring to new cases. His Question referred to cases treated.
    Mr. Marshasked the Minister of Health if he will consider the reintroduction of legislation, similar to Defence Regulation 33B.
    Mr. Powell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Marsh: Does it not appear that the Minister is treating this matter with a degree of casualness which is surprising? Is it not quite obvious to everybody that there is a rapid increase in the number of new cases of venereal disease and that this represents a major problem? Does not he think that his Department should do more than stick coy posters in public lavatories?
    Mr. Powell: It is quite true that the increase in the new cases of gonorrhoea gives cause for anxiety, but I cannot believe that the compulsory notification, examination and treatment of venereal diseases would help.
    Mr. Marsh: Is it not a fact that the 1959 figure of new notified cases of venereal disease was higher than that which existed when this Defence Regulation was introduced? Is it not also a fact that the only objections ever made to Defence Regulation 33B were on grounds of personal liberty? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that to defend the liberty of people it is necessary to infect young people with syphilis?
    Mr. Powell: I do not believe that the spread of habits and knowledge which might contribute to an improvement in this matter would be in any way helped—rather the contrary would be the case—by the introduction of compulsory procedures.

    Physiotherapists
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of male physiotherapists in training for the last available year and for 1953, together with the wastage for these years.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I regret that the figures are not available for men separately.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the recruitment of male physiotherapists is in a state which does not cause her anxiety? Is it not a fact that there seems to be a constantly decreasing number of people who avail themselves of these facilities?
    Miss Pitt: I cannot answer a question about the recruitment of male physiotherapists because men and women are

    959
    recruited together and we do not keep separate figures. But overall the recruitment figure has improved over the last three years. Although there is still a shortage, the number of people in training should help to remedy it.

    Transparent Plastic Bags
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the dangers to young children of transparent plastic bags; and what action he proposes to take to publicise these dangers, whether by way of circular to local authorities and other bodies or by other appropriate means.
    Miss Pitt: Yes, Sir. The Ministry and the local health authorities are taking every opportunity to bring these dangers to the notice of those in charge of young children.
    Mr. Montgomery: I am sure that the news is good news. While thanking my hon. Friend for her reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that when a small child puts one of these bags over his or her head and breathes in the sides are drawn against the face and immediately a vacuum is formed which makes it difficult for the child to get it off? Is she aware that the British Medical Association has warned that these transparent plastic bags are as potentially dangerous as the drugs which many people keep locked away in cupboards? In view of all this, will she get her Ministry to expedite the issue of this information so that parents can be warned about these bags?
    Miss Pitt: I am aware of the dangers. By means of health education we try to bring them home to parents, and in that we have the help of the Press, the B.B.C. and particularly the women's journals.

    Welfare Foods
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Health why he sent a circular to the medical officers of health of local authorities, limiting the supply to expectant mothers and infants of orange juice to two bottles a week, of cod liver oil to one bottle a fortnight, and of vitamin tablets to two packets a month.
    Mr. Powell: I have sent no circular to this effect. I am, however, sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular which he may have in mind.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the Minister aware that I obtained the information from one of those who said that he was the recipient of this circular? Does he deny that the effect of the circular is on the lines of my Question? Does it not mean that, in addition to the hardship which will be caused by the right hon. Gentleman's new Bill, mothers and others who are entitled to these services will be denied them because they have not fully used the rights which they had before the introduction of the Bill?
    Mr. Powell: Oh, no. There is no question at all of people not getting their entitlement.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the circular which he has sent out has put into operation the effect of the Question? People are now being limited in the amount of the commodities which they can get.
    Mr. Powell: No. They will be able to get their full entitlement. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) would like to look at the circular. I will gladly send a copy to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater).
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is it not a fact that before the Minister's action a pregnant mother could have a full nine months' supply and draw it at once? Is it not now a fact that she can draw her supply only up to 1st June, possibly a fortnight at a time? Quite apart from the parsimony of this action, is it not improper that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance should have anticipated legislation in that these circulars were sent out before the relative regulations were laid before the House?
    Mr. Powell: No. There is no question of people not getting their entitlement.
    Mr. Redheadasked the Minister of Health what recent instructions he has given to local health authorities concerning the issue of welfare food coupons to expectant mothers; and what consultations he has had on this matter with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
    Mr. Powell: Welfare food coupons are issued on behalf of my Department through the local offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and not by the local health authorities.
    Mr. Redhead: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to an earlier Question, does he not appreciate that the instructions which he has issued have had the effect of denying to expectant mothers the right, which they have hitherto enjoyed, of drawing upon their allotment of vitamin foods in any quantity at any time they liked and that the whole purpose of these instructions was to anticipate an Order which was not made until a month late? Does the Minister believe that the negligible saving which he has thus effected was really worth while for this cumbersome administrative machinery? Does he not consider it an incredibly mean thing to do?
    Mr. Powell: Certainly not. There is no question of anyone not getting her entitlement in full. If this House should decide to make a humble Prayer to Her Majesty against the requisite Order, nobody will have lost anything.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Why is the Minister being so evasive about this? Will he not make it clear to the House that there has been a change and one which is detrimental to expectant mothers in that they are not now able to get what they were able to get before? We can debate this further when we come to pray against the Order, but will not the Minister make that admission now?
    Mr. Powell: On the contrary, it would have been quite wrong, if the terms of supply are to be changed from 1st June, for them not to be different for everyone from 1st June.
    Mr. Paget: Is not this attempt to economise on prenatal health foods crazy? Is not the Minister aware that any farmer who treated his cows like this would soon be out of business?
    Mr. Powell: This has nothing to do with economising.
    Mrs. Slater: Why do it if it is not to economise?

    National Health Service (Charges)
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Health his estimate of the cost that would fall on the National Health Service by providing free medical, dental and optical treatment for children up to the age of 16 years.
    Mr. Powell: I have no means of estimating the cost of exempting children's prescriptions from the charge. Apart from this, free treatment is already available.
    Dr. Broughton: Does the Minister realise that he and his colleagues in the Government carry a heavy responsibility for the health of the nation? Has he read the article in today's The Times entitled "High Rejection Rate of Army Recruits "? Does he not agree that the proposal contained in my Question would improve the health of the rising generation?
    Mr. Powell: The answer to the first two of the hon. Member's questions is in the affirmative. As regards the third, I have no reason to think that proper treatment of children in the medical service will be in any way interfered with.
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Health his estimate of the cost that would fall on the National Health Service by providing free medical, dental and optical treatment and free vitamin and other welfare foods for expectant and nursing mothers in England and Wales.
    Mr. Powell: I have no means of estimating the cost of exemption from charges for prescriptions or spectacles. The estimated cost of supplying vitamin supplements free would be about £½ million a year.
    Dr. Broughton: Whatever the total sum may be, does not the Minister agree that the investment of this money to provide full and free medical care for mothers and the newborn would do much to promote robust health in the people of tomorrow?
    Mr. Powell: Full and free medical care are available at the moment.
    Hon. Members: No.

    Dental Treatment (Holiday Periods)
    Mr. Redheadasked the Minister of Health what steps are taken by his Department to promote and encourage schemes whereby the dentists in any given area shall arrange between themselves that one of their number shall be available within the area, on rota, to give emergency dental treatment at week-ends and bank holidays.
    Mr. Powell: Experience indicates that the demand would not justify my Department seeking to arrange formal schemes for this purpose.
    Mr. Redhead: If I send the Minister details of a case which recently came to my notice, in which a young man sought to obtain emergency dental treatment for his wife on a Saturday afternoon and succeeded only after hours of inquiry and seventeen abortive telephone calls in finding a dentist available to give the service and then had to take his wife by hired car a journey of six miles, will he look into the matter again and consider the suggestion contained in my Question?
    Mr. Powell: I will certainly look at it, but I know that where arrangements for this purpose have been made they have had to be discontinued owing to lack of demand.

    Leprosy
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Health how many notifiable cases of leprosy have occurred in the United Kingdom in the last five years.
    Miss Pitt: One hundred and ninety-four in Great Britain. In all cases the disease was contracted abroad.
    Commander Kerans: Can my hon. Friend say whether the increase in leprosy in this country is due to increased immigration from tropical countries? Can she further say how many leper colonies exist in this country?
    Miss Pitt: In reply to the first part of that question, there is no evidence of a direct connection between the increase in leprosy, which is small, and the number of immigrants. We do not know the country of origin or bithplace of patients because that is not required to be stated under the regulations. I am sorry that I cannot answer the second part of the question without notice.
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Minister of Health what was the number of people suffering from leprosy in the United Kingdom at 31st December, 1960, as compared with 31st December, 1959.
    Miss Pitt: 248 in Great Britain, compared with 212.
    Mr. Pannell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1951 there were only 46 cases of
    964
    leprosy in this country? Is she not alarmed at the progressive increase from year to year? Does she consider that some restriction should be placed on the entry of such people into this country?
    Miss Pitt: No, that would not be for my Department in any event, but the cases of leprosy are really few, and I am advised that they do not constitute a risk to public health. Moreover, there is adequate provision in this country for treatment.

    Dentist, Reading (Patient)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a Reading dentist, details of which have been sent to him, who refused to treat an acute case because the person was coloured; and whether he will introduce regulations making this kind of discrimination illegal.
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the case of a dentist in Reading who refused to treat a patient on grounds of colour; and what action he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of this.
    Mr. Powell: I am informed that the dentist concerned authorised no such refusal and that this patient was treated.
    Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister perfectly satisfied that all the stories about colour discrimination in this case were unfounded and that the newspaper was at fault in publishing them in the first place? If there is any shadow of doubt at all, will he give his own firm condemnation of such discrimination so that newspapers which publish such stories abroad will realise that very few of us support this kind of thing?
    Mr. Powell: I am sure that that attitude is held in all parts of the House, and I can assure the hon. Member that I am satisfied that, as I said, this dentist authorised no such refusal.
    Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) did not do me the courtesy to inform me that this Question about my constituency was being put on the Order Paper? Does he realise that in this case there was a complete misunderstanding, that the

    965
    patient who came for treatment did not notify this dentist that an appointment had been made for him, and that the dentist rightly suggested that the person would have to come for treatment because he already had an appointment? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the dentists of Reading do a superlative job for dental health?
    Mr. Powell: I am satisfied that there is no question of this dentist refusing treatment on the ground of colour or any other, and that the treatment was given.

  HOSPITALS

    Calderstones Hospital
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Health, if, in view of his correspondence with the hon. Member for Salford, East regarding a Salford woman who had been detained for twelve years in Calderstones Hospital, he will set up an inquiry into other cases there to end possible wrongful detentions.
    Mr. Powell: The cases of all patients detained since before 1st November last will have been reviewed by the end of next month.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not extremely odd that this young woman, who had never been certified and whose family had constantly sought to free her, should have been released within a few days of the application of a Member of Parliament? Will the Minister receive a dossier from my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) and Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) and myself of a number of such releases obtained recently of people who had been in Calderstones for between twelve and thirty-three years? While I do not in any way wish to blame the medical superintendent, who had been there only a few weeks, does not all this suggest that there are many other people wrongly detained at Calderstones? Therefore, would the Minister consider a special inquiry particularly into the 738 cases who have been there for more than ten years?
    Mr. Powell: I have already told the hon. Member that their cases will be, if they have not already been, reviewed before the end of next month. There is
    966
    nothing odd about this in view of the fact that this inquiry is required under the Mental Health Act. I will gladly look at any evidence which the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, likes to put before me. There is, however, no evidence whatever that the detention of this patient, who was detained under compulsory powers, was wrongful.
    Mr. L. M. Leverasked the Minister of Health what investigations he has made into the case of Wilfred Boughton, who has been an inmate of Calderstones Hospital, Whalley, Lancashire, for the past 33 years, about which particulars have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Powell: This patient is at present on six months' leave and, unless it proves necessary to recall him, the authority for his detention will lapse at the end of that time. I am writing to the hon. Member about the detailed points which he raised.
    Mr. Lever: Will the right hon. Gentleman order an immediate inquiry as to what special medical treatment this man received during his detention, what work he did, what periods and dates he was unable to work and what wages he received for his work? We cannot understand why this man, who is rational and reasonable, should have been detained for 33 years and the information given only a few days ago following the special inquiry which I as Member of Parliament for the constituency made. Will the Minister give us a satisfactory reply?
    Mr. Powell: I am not aware that this information was called for before. Certainly had it been called for, there is no reason why previously, any more than now, it should not be forthcoming. This person was detained under the Mental Deficiency Acts. I cannot find that there has been any impropriety at any stage, and, as I have said, the detailed information for which the hon. Member has asked is being made available to him.

    Nursing Cadets
    Lord Balnielasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in some hospitals the conditions laid down for the employment of young nursing

    967
    cadets have not been complied with; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. I have recently asked hospitals to ensure compliance with the conditions.
    Lord Balniel: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the recent questionnaire, which showed that 770 hospitals were employing juvenile hospital cadets, revealed that in some of these hospitals juveniles were being asked to work longer hours than the recommended maxima for adults and that one-third of the hospitals were failing to comply with my right hon. Friend's recommendation that one day a week should be set aside for part-time education? Is he further aware that in some of the hospitals these children are being asked to work at night and are being asked to work in operating theatres and in general wards, all of which is prohibited by his regulations? How will my right hon. Friend enforce his regulations? Will he, for example, consider publishing the names of the hospitals which abuse the regulations?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, I am aware of the circumstances to which my noble Friend referred, and, indeed, that is the reason for the issue of my circular. If I have any reason to think that it is not being fully and punctually complied with, I shall call for returns and I shall take individual action.
    Mr. K. Robinson: While not attempting in any way to condone the practices of which the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend has complained, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to do anything to discourage the development of these very desirable nursing cadet schemes, which do not receive all the encouragement they might from the nursing profession?
    Mr. Powell: One of the main ways in which they can be encouraged is to ensure that proper conditions for these cadets are observed.

    County Hospital, Griffithstown
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the failure to install a lift at the County Hospital, Griffithstown, is endangering life; and what action is being taken to remedy this situation.
    Miss Pitt: The contract for a lift will be let this week.
    Mr. Abse: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary—it is not very often that I can thank her so readily—for such prompt action?

    Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Health what is the average delay for barium X-rays or enemas for in-patients and out-patients, respectively, at the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport; and what steps are being taken to end the delays.
    Miss Pitt: All urgent cases are X-rayed immediately; other in-patients are X-rayed within a week; for non-urgent out-patients there has been hitherto a delay of four to eight weeks, but the recent appointment of an additional consultant radiologist should largely eliminate this.
    Mr. Abse: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would be very difficult, since these techniques are used for diagnosis, to anticipate whether out-patient cases were urgent or not? May I express the hope that these arrangements will prove effective, since they may be not only costly as far as beds are involved but quite clearly can be very relevant as far as out-patients are concerned?
    Miss Pitt: The new arrangements have mentioned have already brought down the waiting list for out-patients at the Royal Gwent Hospital for barium meals from 271 in October to 38, and the number waiting for barium enemas has dropped from 63 to 48. We expect in a month's time that even this position will still further be improved.

    Ashington Hospital, Wansbeck
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Health how many surgical beds were available in the Ashington hospital in the Wansbeck area of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board at the most convenient date in 1961; and what plans exist for a development of this service.
    Miss Pitt: Forty-two. The ward block now being built will provide 19 more for general surgery and 18 for orthopaedic surgery.
    Mr. Owen: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in 1948 for a population of 99,000 people there were 52 surgical beds in the hospital and that now today for a population of 150,000 there are 42? This is essentially a mining area where surgical beds are top priority. I appreciate the fact that the proposed extension is now on the plans. Will the Minister do all he can to expedite this as a very urgent need in this area?
    Miss Pitt: Yes, the new surgical and orthopaedic beds form part of the four-storey block to be completed in March next year at a cost of £250,000.
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Health what progress is being made in the provision of a maternity unit for the Wansbeck hospital area of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board; and whether he will make a statement.
    Miss Pitt: The regional board has included a maternity unit in its plans for the next phase of development of Ashington Hospital.
    Mr. Owen: Yes, but as I am informed that plan was included in the regional hospital board's submission in 1954. At the moment, taking the available facilities at the Mona Taylor Home and Beulah House, Blyth, over a period of 13 years, the additional facilities have been six beds. There is an urgent need again for some intensive development for this service in this area.
    Mr. Speaker: During Questions hon. Members should be careful to couch their supplementary Questions in interrogatory form.

    Operating Theatres
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Health whether he sets down minimum standards for operating theatres which have to be complied with by hospitals under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Powell: When designing theatres, hospital boards are expected to follow the recommendations in my Department's Building Bulletin No. 1. They have also received guidance on a number of aspects of the use of existing theatres.
    Mr. Emery: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he realises that some of
    970
    the older theatres in this country are operating in very strange conditions? Does he realise that in the theatre at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading the sterilising of instruments and anaesthetising all has to be done in the same very small theatre? This is in fact the cornea grafting centre for the whole of Wessex. Does my right hon. Friend not consider that these conditions are about fifty years out of date?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, that is the reason why the ophthalmic theatre suite is included in the first phase of the redevelopment of that hospital.
    Mr. Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend.

    Physiotherapists
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to stimulate the recruitment of physiotherapists for the hospital services.
    Mr. Powell: The number of students in training has increased substantially in recent years. From next autumn Ministry of Health bursaries will be available to new students.
    Mr. Robinson: Would the Minister not agree, despite this improvement in recruiting, that there is still a serious shortage of physiotherapists? Would he not agree that this is largely due to their salary levels which are low even by National Health Service standards? Is he aware, for example, that many qualified physiotherapists receive less pay than equivalent clerical officers without any qualifications at all?
    Mr. Powell: I do not think that that can be the limiting factor, because it is the number of students under training which is the limiting factor. As my hon. Friend told the House a little before, the number of students in training has very rapidly increased, and at the moment most of the schools are full, and there is a shortage of trainers for additional students.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) says is to a large extent true? Is he aware that physiotherapists are not at all satisfied either

    971
    with their salary scales or with the methods of negotiating increases in those scales?
    Mr. Powell: I understand that there is a proposal for a salary increase before the relevant Whitley Council at the moment.

    Mental Hospitals
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health what initial steps he proposes to take in furtherance of his recently announced policy on mental hospitals.
    Mr. Powell: I shall shortly be sending to hospital authorities a memorandum about the planning of services for the mentally ill.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the policy to get rid of out-of-date mental hospitals, which we welcome in principle, has nevertheless given rise to some fears and misgivings on the part of the existing staffs of those hospitals, and will he, therefore, give two assurances, first of all, that there will be plenty of work for all existing staffs to do whatever the setting in which mental patients are treated, as far ahead as one can see, and secondly, that Exchequer moneys will be freely available to develop psychiatric units in or attached to general hospitals?
    Mr. Powell: I certainly recognise the importance of the psychiatric units in general hospitals and I shall expect those to feature in the long-term plans which are coming forward in the course of the year. Although the method and the place of mental treatment will, I hope, change rapidly over the years, I have no reason to suppose that there will be any diminution in the amount of effort which has to be devoted to it.

    GERMANY (HERR ALFRED KRUPP)
    Mr. Millanasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress of the discussions with the Governments of the United States of America, France, and Western Germany on the future of the coal and steel holdings of Herr Alfred Krupp.
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that there is
    972
    a growing anxiety about the decision to delay by a year the disposal of the bulk assets of the coal and steel holdings of Herr Alfred Krupp; whether he has considered a resolution passed unanimously at the recent annual conference of the Metropolitan Area of the British Legion condemning the decision, details of which have been sent to him; and what steps he proposes to take to expedite the implementation of the agreement in this respect made between Great Britain, the German Federal Government, the United States of America and France.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of us are extremely dissatisfied with the lack of progress of the Mixed Committee on this matter, and will he convey to the other Governments concerned that the British Government are still serious about this and do not intend that the provisions of the Bonn Settlement Convention should be frustrated by these continual delays?
    Mr. Heath: As the House knows, we are in touch with the other Governments about this subject. I think it is important to be clear about the purpose of the Mixed Committee, which is only that of deciding whether, because of the circumstances and the criteria laid down by the Settlement Convention, an extension for another year should be provided, as was recommended last time. It may be sitting again for this forthcoming year.
    Sir B. Janner: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will indicate to our representatives on the Committee that there is a considerable amount of anxiety throughout the length and breadth of the country, that as recently as only a month ago the area committee of the metropolitan area of the British Legion at its annual conference, referred to in my Question, viewed this decision with dismay in a resolution carried unanimously by it, and is he aware that this is not merely a question of the sale but of dealing with the property which was utilised for the purpose of getting slave labour actively engaged in the interests of our enemies?
    Mr. Heath: I recognise that these anxieties exist, but the members of this Committee act in an independent capacity and do not take instructions from their Governments.

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE (STUDY TOURS)
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the terms and conditions subject to which study tours for workers are arranged by the Cultural Division of the Council of Europe.
    Mr. Heath: In January, 1961, the Committee of Cultural Experts of the Council of Europe decided to limit the choice of workers for workers' study tours abroad to those working in some cultural field. The decision was not unanimous, the British delegate voting with others against the proposal, and the Committee therefore agreed to review the decision at a full Committee meeting next May.
    Mr. Johnson: In view of the fact that trade unions had been previously invited to submit applicants for consideration on behalf of their workers and in view of the support which there is for this scheme, would the right hon. Gentleman press for a rather wider interpretation of the rules in future?
    Mr. Heath: As I have explained, we were opposed to the particular course adopted. The reason that it was adopted was that there were more applicants than places available and, therefore, the Committee decided on this form of selection.

    DISARMAMENT
    Mr. Millanasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will appoint a panel of independent experts to advise him on disarmament problems.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that many of us feel that the problems of disarmament are not given sufficient attention in this country? Will he consider taking advice from everyone who can give worth-while advice on the question of disarmament, particularly with the view to drawing up
    974
    a detailed plan for disarmament which can go to the United Nations and to our next meeting with the Communist countries?
    Mr. Heath: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Foreign Office and other Departments of the Government give the utmost consideration to the disarmament question. We have been in contact with other bodies outside the Departments, and particularly with the Institute of Strategic Studies. We are always ready to take advice and suggestions on this subject from bodies outside.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: If it is of advantage that the Prime Minister should recommend to the United Nations Assembly to set up a body of experts to prepare proposals, why is it not an advantage for Her Majesty's Government to do the same here?
    Mr. Heath: I do not think that the two things are comparable. We have our own experts to deal with disarmament, but the whole point of the Prime Minister's suggestion was that it should be a multi-national gathering of experts which should reach agreement and make recommendations.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Lord Privy Seal telling us that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to detailed proposals to put to the United Nations?
    Mr. Heath: We have on a number of occasions put very concrete and detailed proposals to the United Nations. I said that we had experts on this subject to deal with these things.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that he does not rely entirely on admirals, generals and air marshals to advise him, because he might as well get the brewers to advise him on temperance?

    SUDAN (RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Lord Privy Seal what guarantee for the continued payment of pensions to retired British civil servants Her Majesty's Government obtained when the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan obtained self-government in 1955.
    Mr. Heath: In November, 1954, the Governor General of the Sudan was authorised to assure his officials that Her Majesty's Government intended to ensure the security of their pensions by means of a formal agreement to be entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Sudan Government. Unfortunately, despite repeated approaches by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Khartoum, the various Sudan Governments since independence have felt themselves unable to conclude such an agreement. On 22nd April, 1954, however, the first Sudan Government declared that it recognised and respected expatriates' rights to pensions and we are confident that this undertaking will continue to be honoured.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only are Sudanese civil servants' pensions below those of the United Kingdom under the 1959 Pensions (Increase) Act, but the pensioners are very worried about their basic pension, especially as the Sudan is dependent on one crop, and will he bear in mind that if anything should go wrong there might be a considerable time gap when the pensioners might get nothing at all?
    Mr. Heath: I will note the point which my hon. Friend has made. I explained to him in an answer to a Question on 22nd February that, despite a number of representations, the Sudan Government had informed us in September that they were unable to make any further increase of these pensions.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the civil servants recruited in Great Britain to serve the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium of the Sudan were regarded as being in the service of the Crown.
    Mr. Heath: These officials were not so regarded.
    Mr. Tilney: Is not this a very bad advertisement for those who wish to serve Her Majesty indirectly overseas? Was not the Condominium a shared responsibility under the Crown with Egypt?
    Mr. Heath: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is to a certain extent a technical point, but on the best advice that we have been able to obtain the
    976
    situation is as I have described it. The Governor-General held no commission from the British Crown and members of the Sudanese Civil Service were recruited by the Sudan Government. Relations between. Her Majesty's Government and the Sudan Government were effected through the Foreign Office and that is sufficient basis for saying that these officials were not regarded as being in the service of the Crown.
    Mr. Paget: In view of the fact that we are in the process of handing over various Colonial Territories to self-government and that it is of tremendous importance that British civil servants should continue to serve, is it not of great importance in cases like this that it should be made quite clear that the British Government stand behind the civil servants and their pension rights? If the Government swindle people in this way, they will not get the service.
    Mr. Heath: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member about the Colonial Service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been paying great attention to this matter, as the House knows. The point about this Question is that these servants were not in the same position, for the reasons I have stated, but that does not alter the fact contained in my Answer that Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to arrange with the new independent Government of the Sudan the best arrangement possible and have made representations on behalf of these civil servants about their pensions.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Sudan Government that we are exceedingly jubilant and happy about the excellent relations existing between our two countries since independence, but that that jubilation will be prejudiced if fair treatment is not given to that fine band of British servants of their country who did so much to make independence flow so well after the political decision was taken?
    Mr. Heath: As I have already explained, we have made representations on several occasions to the Sudan Government, and when a suitable occasion occurs I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

    CONGO (ARMY RECRUITMENT)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the recruitment in this country through the Belgian Embassy of a military force to be sent to the Katanga Province of the Congo.
    Mr. Heath: I am satisfied that the Belgian Embassy in London has not been recruiting for the Katanga, and no representations have been made.
    Mr. Allaun: Was the Minister aware of this recruiting before it was reported in the Press? I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that there was some admission about this by the Prime Minister last week, and if the Government knew about it why did they not stop it earlier? On the other hand, if they did not know about it, why not? Was M.I.5 asleep, or was it too busy chasing school teachers and students with Left-wing ideas?
    Mr. Heath: As I said in my Answer that the Belgian Embassy has not been recruiting, so neither of the alternatives put forward by the hon. Gentleman apply.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Has the Lord Privy Seal not seen the reported account of the activities of the assistant military attaché, which has never been denied?
    Mr. Heath: I have seen them and they have, indeed, been denied. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the account which I have here in the Daily Herald, he will see that it was an offer of service filled in by the gentleman concerned as a technical assistant for civilian employment.

    EGYPT (PAYMENTS)
    Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the progress which has been made in desequestrating property of British nationals by the Egyptian Government; how many British nationals have been allowed to take capital out of Egypt under the terms of the financial settlement; and when he expects to be able to finalise the claims for compensation.
    Mr. Heath: According to our latest reports from Cairo, 4,875 applications
    978
    had been submitted up to 28th February, 4,238 applications had been accepted, and 3,053 Release Agreements had been signed or were ready for signature.
    I cannot say how many British nationals have made transfers of capital under Article V of the Financial Agreement, because there is no obligation on the persons concerned or on the Government of the United Arab Republic to supply this information to Her Majesty's Government.
    Claims for compensation cannot be finally dealt with until all property formerly under sequestration has been returned and the owners have submitted all claims for compensation that may arise to the Foreign Compensation Commission. I cannot say when this will be.
    Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that the terms of the Agreement are being observed and that British nationals have been allowed to take out the £5,000 to which they are entitled? Can my right hon. Friend give some idea when all this matter will be cleared up? Is it not a fact that the Egyptian Government and the British Government would welcome a final settlement of these claims?
    Mr. Heath: I am sure that we should all welcome a final settlement but the difficulties are well known. There have also been certain difficulties in the actual administration of this Agreement. These are under discussion in Cairo between members of the U.A.R. Administration and Sir George Rendel who has gone out from the Foreign Office for that purpose.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not a fact that all kinds of difficulties are being put in the way of a settlement of these claims by the Egyptian Government and other authorities in Cairo? Is it not intolerable that the British Government should have been dealt with in this way?
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Member is going too far in saying that difficulties have been put in the way but certainly in the operation of the Agreement there have been snags which we are trying to remove.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In the cases which have been dealt with, would my right hon. Friend say what the sum was in relation to the sum claimed and whether he is satisfied with the difference?
    Mr. Heath: If my hon. Friend will put that question on the Order Paper I will try to answer it.

    ICELANDIC FISHERY LIMITS
    Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement about recent negotiations with the Icelandic Government over fisheries limits.
    Mr. Heath: The Icelandic Parliament on 10th March approved the proposals agreed between our two Governments for settling the dispute. The Exchange of Notes bringing the settlement into force accordingly took place in Reykjavik on 11th March. Copies of the Exchange of Notes embodying this settlement have been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Wall: While welcoming the settlement of this rather long-standing dispute between two allies, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend can say anything about outstanding claims made by the Icelandic Government against British trawlers alleged to have been fishing inside the 12-mile limit during this period?
    Mr. Heath: I am glad to say that the Icelandic Government have announced a waiver of past charges since April, 1960, when the last waiver was granted.
    Mr. Crosland:Will the right hon. Gentleman observe that this agreement which appears to be for a 12-mile limit is in fact for a limit nearer 20 to 30 miles when the base lines are taken into account? What assurance have we that the Icelandic Government at the end of the three-year interim period will not put forward further claims extending, for example, to the complete Continental Shelf?
    Mr. Heath: It is true that the limit is affected by the four base line changes which I announced when the agreement was proposed. As for the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, he has a Question later on the Order Paper on that subject.

    UNITED NATIONS FORCE
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will consider giving instructions to the United Kingdom representa-
    980
    tive at the United Nations to propose that plans be prepared for the creation of a United Nations force to which member States would be asked to make a contribution, including recruits enlisted by the United Nations, the costs of which would be met out of United Nations funds and the control exercised by that organisation.
    Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government support the principle of a United Nations permanent force, while recognising the practical difficulties of administration and financing that such a force would create. This has been stated at the United Nations and also in the House on a number of occasions. But the establishment of such a force would require a wider measure of agreement than is at present forthcoming.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a good idea? If it is, why does he not press it?
    Mr. Heath: It is a good idea. We have pressed it, but we have not yet had full support for it.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend also agree that a directly recruited international force would prevent contingents being withdrawn at the whim of national Governments?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. That is one of the advantages.
    Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that objections to this proposal have been made by some Commonwealth Governments, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say if an attempt is being made this week to reach agreement on a general Commonwealth approach at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?
    Mr. Heath: As the hon. Member knows, discussions of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference are always confidential.
    Mr. Shinwell: In spite of the apparent difficulties, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these are not always insurmountable and could he not press the case?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, when a suitable opportunity occurs.

    NEPAL (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal why the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been visiting Nepal.
    Mr. Heath: My noble Friend was in attendance on Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether sufficient care was taken of the security precautions? Is he aware that the Foreign Secretary was attacked by a tigress and might have been eaten if he had not been protected by 326 elephants and 500 men? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Foreign Secretary is more dangerous here than in Nepal? Is it true that the Foreign Secretary has been awarded the "insignia of the She Rhinoceros"?
    Mr. Heath: I should not like to discuss any of the figures mentioned in this case, and I think that in the last part of his supplementary question the hon. Member has missed the target as well.

    EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
    Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal why he did not inform the leader of the French delegation to the recent talks in London on European economic problems of his new proposals for British association with the Common Market.
    Mr. Heath: My statement to the Western European Union Ministerial Meeting on 27th February did not contain anything on this subject which had not been said in the talks with German and Italian officials, and reported by German officials to the French officials. Information about my speech was given to the leader of the French delegation himself at the beginning of the talks with the French officials on the same day.
    Mr. Healey:In view of the absolutely decisive importance of the French Government's position on these issues, is it not really the greatest blunder that the French Government delegation were not acquainted with these proposals in time to have a serious discussion on them in
    982
    London? Even if the right hon. Gentleman is not interested in keeping his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in full touch with the proposals, surely the French Government are in a most important position here.
    Mr. Heath: The French Government are in a most important position and everything possible was done to keep them informed. As I have said, the leader of the French delegation was told and the French Government realised, as we both did, when the date was fixed for the visit of the French officials, that it was the same as that for the W.E.U. meeting.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is it not time that the Government stopped shilly-shallying and came out with a statement that we desire to negotiate entry into Europe?
    Mr. Heath: The Government have not in any way shilly-shallied. They are exploring the possibilities with other Governments of finding a basis of settlement. With a problem as complex and difficult as this, that is bound to take some time, but it is better that we should do it in this way than that we should risk failure in negotiations by starting without preparation.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties that private Members of the House, particularly on the Government benches, have on this complex topic is that we have no knowledge of the attitude of Commonwealth Governments to the latest British suggestions for association with the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend cease to regard that aspect of matters as entirely confidential and publish statements from time to time about the prevailing attitude of Commonwealth countries in this matter?
    Mr. Heath: It is for the Commonwealth Governments themselves to express their views about any proposals which might be made. From time to time some Commonwealth Ministers have done so. Recently two have expressed their views in their own countries.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 9th March.]
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  First Schedule.—(PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN FIRST SCHEDULE TO NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, 1957.)
  Amendment moved [9th March], In page 3, line 12, col. 2, leave out "2s. 8½d." and insert "1s. 11d.".—[Mr. Houghton.]
  3.31 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I was in the middle of a sentence on Thursday night when the Guillotine came crashing down at half-past eleven. For some minutes before that there had been so much commotion and ribaldry from the Government benches that I was having difficulty in making myself heard. It is very likely that in those circumstances the force and cogency of my arguments in support of the Amendment escaped the notice of many hon. Members opposite, and I should probably be justified in starting my speech all over again. However, the Guillotine is still hanging over us and we shall be feeling the tug of the gag throughout the rest of the day. Therefore, on this side of the Committee we have to arrange our time to the best advantage.
  The Amendment, which is a simple one and is the first of nine which seek to reduce the increases proposed in the First Schedule, relates to employed men and proposes to reduce the increase in the National Health Service contribution to the lowest possible within the rules of order—an increase of ½d. from 1s. 10½d. to 1s. 11d., whereas the figure proposed by the Government is 2s. 8½d.
  The arguments that I was using in support of the Amendment are the general arguments against increased contributions for all classes of contributor. We shall have an opportunity later in the day to debate the Motion, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill", and we shall
  984
  then have an opportunity of deploying further arguments against the increases as a whole. In those circumstances, and since hon. Members opposite will today probably be more Lobby fodder than participants in the debate——
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Rude.
  Mr. Houghton:—the best thing to do is to get them on the move now and keep them on the move.
  Therefore, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to bring the debate on this Amendment to a very early conclusion. We can then move on to discuss a group of contributors about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) will have something to say.
  I propose, therefore, to register the dissent of my right hon. and hon. Friends from the increase for employed men and to ask the Committee to consider against these increases all the arguments that have been used in earlier stages of the Bill against the Government's proposals in general.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): While we have all enjoyed the short speech which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has just made, I think that all of us on this side of the Committee enjoyed even more the speech, even though it was frequently interrupted, which he made last Thursday evening.
  I think that we should like to condole with the hon. Gentleman, possibly, on the fact that his leadership of the party opposite has been such a short one. If hon. Members refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings last Thursday night they will see that when the hon. Member for Sowerby was speaking my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), with his accustomed moderation and courtesy, said, in an intervention to the benches opposite:
  "Where are your leaders? Where is little Hughie?"
  The hon. Member for Sowerby replied:
  "At the present moment, I am the leader on this side"—.[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March; 1961; Vol. 636, c. 838.]
  I would remind the hon. Gentleman, whom hon. Members on all sides hold in great esteem in this Committee, of the

  985
  closing chapter of a famous Victorian novel, "Vice Versa", when Dick and his father resume their accustomed places as father and son and one of Dick's scapegrace friends says to him, "Goodbye, old boy. Like the Serbian Crown, eh? Always a happy reminiscence."
  The hon. Member for Sowerby has reminded us this afternoon of the fact that the combined effect of this Amendment, with others in the name of the hon. Gentleman, would be to reduce the proposed new amounts of the Health Service contributions for everyone except employers to the existing amounts of the contributions plus ½d. for an employed person and a penny for a non-employed person. The hon. Member has rightly and fairly pointed out to the Committee that this would be a wrecking Amendment designed entirely to defeat the main purpose of the Bill. I will not say anything about the discussion in Ways and Means, but we had a very full discussion of the Bill on Second Reading. In effect, we had another fairly full discussion of
  the principle of the Bill on one of the Amendments to Clause 1, and on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". If we make progress with our present Amendments we can have a further discussion, in effect, on the principle of the Bill on the Question, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill", and we have, of course, all Thursday of this week for the remaining stages of the Bill.
  Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby, and would say that I am not sure that it would be wise for the Committee to have yet one more discussion of the general principle of the Bill on this Amendment. I support what the hon. Member for Sowerby said and suggest that the Committee might care to come to a decision on this Amendment straight away.
  Question put, That "2s. 8½d." stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 142.

  Division No. 92.]

  AYES

  [3.39p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Iremonger, T. L.

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

  Dance, James

  Jackson, John

  Arbuthnot, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  James, David

  Balniel, Lord

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Barber, Anthony

  Duthie, Sir William

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Eden, John

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Barter, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Batsford, Brian

  Emery, Peter

  Kerans, Cdr. J. 8.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Bell, Ronald

  Farr, John

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Fell, Anthony

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Finlay, Gnome

  Kitson, Timothy

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Fraser, fan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lancaster, Col. C. C.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Gammans, Lady

  Leavey, J. A.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Bossom, Clive

  Goodhew, Victor

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Green, Alan

  Lindsay, Martin

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Brains, Bernard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

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

  Harvey Anderson, Miss

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  McLaren, Martin

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hicks Beach, Ma). W.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.)

  Chanson, H. P. G.

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

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hill, J. E. B. O. Norfolk)

  MacLeod, John (Roes & Cromarty)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim N.)

  Holland, Philip

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hollingworth, John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Niell

  Hornby, R. P.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Cordeaux. Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Madden, Martin

  Cordle, John

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Maitland, Sir John

  Costain, A. P.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Marshall, Douglas

  Coulson, J. M.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Marten, Neil

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Mawby, Ray

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Mills, Stratton

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Rees, Hugh

  Turner, Colin

  Morgan, William

  Renton, David

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Morrison, John

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Robertson, Sir David

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Roots, William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Noble, Michael

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Russell, Ronald

  Wall, Patrick

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Sharpies, Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Shaw, M.

  Watts, James

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Whitelaw, William

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Speir, Rupert

  Wills, sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wise, A. R.

  Peel, John

  Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

  Percival, Ian

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Worsler, Marcus

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Pott, Percivall

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Temple, John M.

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Gibson-Watt.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Hannan, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Albu, Austen

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Peart, Frederick

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pentland, Norman

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Healey, Denis

  Popplewell, Emest

  Beaney, Alan

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Benson, Sir George

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Probert, Arhur

  Blackburn, F.

  Holman, Percy

  Randall, Harry

  Blyton, William

  Houghton, Douglas

  Rankin, John

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

  Hoy, dames H.

  Reid, William

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hughes, Emrya (S. Ayrshire)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bowles, Frank

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Ross, William

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Short, Edward

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N-)

  Chapman, Donald

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Collick, Percy

  King, Dr. Horace

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Cronin, John

  Ledger, Ron

  Stones, William

  Crosland, Anthony

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Logan, David

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  MacColl, James

  Sylvester, George

  Deer, George

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Delargy. Hugh

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Timmons, John

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Tommy, Frank

  Edelman, Maurice

  Marsh, Richard

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Edwards, Robert (Bliston)

  Mason, Roy

  Warbey, William

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Finch, Harold

  Millan, Bruce

  Weitzman, David

  Fitch, Alan

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Monslow, Walter

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Morris, John

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Williams, D. J. (heath)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mulley, Frederick

  Williams, LI (Abertillery)

  Ginsburg, David

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oswald, Thomas

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Grey, Charles

  Owen, Will

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Paget, R. T.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Grlmond, J.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Caine Valley)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Irving and Mr. Redhead.

  Dr. Horace King: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, column 1, after "including", to insert "widows and"
  The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for

  989
  Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the names of other hon. Members, in page 3, line 27, at the end to add:

  s.

  d.

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

  1

  5

  Dr. King: That would be convenient, Sir Gordon.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for inviting me to move this Amendment. In view of what the Financial Secretary has just said, I say to him that we on this side of the Committee are very proud of the leadership which my hon. Friends are giving us from the Front Bench in this battle against the Government's bad Bill. While my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby may have been only temporary leader of the Opposition on Thursday night, for about 14 minutes, it is certainly true that he has been our leader for a number of years now on questions of social insurance, and we are proud of the able leadership he shows in all our debates on them.
  Mr. Nabarro: Much better than little Hughie.
  Dr. King: I do not propose to take any notice of the interruptions made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has tremendous ability, but who defeats his own cause and does Parliament no good by some of the interruptions that he indulges in in serious debates.
  The part of the Schedule which we are discussing excludes from the payment of weekly contributions women over the age of 60 who have ceased to be employed. Our Amendment would similarly exclude all widows who work from such payment, and for the first time it would give a benefit in British law, even if small, to all widows. As I hope to show, all other insurance benefits which are given are given to different groups of widows of varying ages. The second Amendment is much narrower and would cut down from 2s. 0½d. to 1s. 5d. the contribution made by all working widows. The aim is, first, to give at least a modicum of benefit to all working widows and, secondly, if the second Amendment is accepted, to give a benefit of 7½d. to working widows.
  990
  I do not wish to repeat the general arguments which we have continually advanced throughout the debates, except to say that they apply to widows especially, because most widows are poor. Throughout the Committee stage, we have been seeking to isolate groups to whom the new poll tax means special hardship. Our general case against the poll tax, as everybody knows, is that it is paid equally by rich and poor. The two Amendments seek to pinpoint a group which, with very few exceptions, consists of poor women—the widows of Britain. I count it an honour to move the Amendment, because from time to time I have tried to call attention to the needs of the British widow.
  Let us look, first, at the general picture of widowhood, which is a complex picture. First, there are the widows of men who died before July, 1948. They are divided into two groups. First, there are those whose husbands were insured under the old contributory pensions legislation and who might get a flat-rate contribution of 10s. a week. They are the so-called 10s. widows—10s. which, despite our efforts, has never been changed throughout all these last years of the so-called affluent society. On the other hand, if the husband died before July, 1948, and was not paying under the old contributory pensions schemes, we have the second group who get no widow's pension at all, the so-called no-shilling widow.
  Those are the first two groups and those groups are ageing. They must work to live, unless they go to the National Assistance Board, and if they are working, already most of the 10s. that they get—if they are lucky enough to get even 10s. a week goes in their National Insurance and National Health Service contributions. We seek to exempt those getting 10s., or no shillings, from the new charges, and if the Amendments were carried those widows would benefit by 2s. 0½d. a week.
  Then there is the second great group of widows, those who were bereaved after July, 1948. They fall into three groups. First, if the husband paid a minimum contribution of less than 150 stamps, that is, if the widow had been married only a short time, that group is entirely excluded from State benefit. Up to a point, the whole Committee will

  991
  accept that, for we could not contemplate keeping the young widow indefinitely. There is no difference between us about that, although I hope to show that the case I am making can be applied to those young widows, too.
  Then there are widows under the age of 50. They get widow's allowance of £4 a week for the first thirteen weeks, to tide them over the economic and spiritual crisis of bereavement. If they are under 50 when their husband dies, after that thirteen weeks they get nothing, unless they have children. Such a widow, like the young widow, after thirteen weeks would have to go out to work in order to live.
  Then there is the group over 50 when they are bereaved. They get £4 a week for thirteen weeks and after that continue to get £4 a week. But I hope that no hon. Member will say that in a society in which, we are told by the Government, the average worker's income is £14 a week, £4 a week is a sum on which the widow can keep herself. Even those widows over the age of 50 will have to supplement their pension by some kind of work if they are to live at all decently.
  The third great group of widows consists of those with children. The widow with one child get £4 a week plus 25s. for the child. Widows with more than one child get 17s. for each extra child. To gather those groups together—we have a group getting no shillings a week from the State; a group getting 10s. a week; a group getting £4 a week; the widowed mother with one child getting£5 5s.; and the widowed mother with two children, £6 2s.; and so on.
  I am the first to admit that during his long period in office the Minister of Pensions has steadily stepped up improvements for the groups I have mentioned. He has raised the widow's allowance and especially the allowance for widowed mothers and their children. But even under this Minister, the 10s. group and the no-shilling group have had nothing.
  In these great groups there are widows of various kinds. Most of them go out to work. They have to go out to work. They are allowed to earn another 71s. a week before they start whittling away their pensions. That means very little
  992
  to the no-shilling and 10s. widows, but it may mean something to the widow getting £4 a week and who then earns another 71s. a week.
  In 1951, there were 2½ million widows. That is a frightening figure. Many of those widows lost their husbands in the defence of Britain in either world war. Of that 2½ million, more than 1 million are over 70, so we can ignore them from the point of view of the debate. There are 400,000 who are over 65, and we can ignore them, because they are not caught by the Government's poll tax. About 350,000 of them are over 60, many of them having to work. We have about ¾million widows who can gain any benefit from what we propose in our Amendment, if they go out to work and pay insurance contributions. In that ¾million there will be some of each of the categories which I have mentioned, and of course some who do not work and will not benefit from this Amendment.
  The 10s. and no-shilling widow group must be a rapidly diminishing one. In the nature of things, their husbands having died before July, 1948, they are rapidly approaching the age of 60, and on to 65. If they go over 65, even this Minister does not want a poll tax from them.
  4.0 p.m.
  I also ask the Committee to note that as long as the widowed mother has children to look after she gets children's allowances and widow's allowance, but that that all goes when the children grow up, except for the widow's allowance; and sometimes they may even lose their widow's allowance if they were under 50 when they lost their husbands.
  I have often spoken in the House on the depth of the tragedy of widows; the sudden descent from comfort to poverty with the death of the bread-winner; and the limited kinds of work available to widows, especially older widows, and those without any previous experience of outside work except the noble work of bringing up a family.
  Motherhood is a full-time job. My daughter, who is bringing up two children, does a hard day's work at home, and she could not possibly go out to work. I cannot imagine how the widowed mother manages to cope with her task when she has to go out to work

  993
  to supplement the allowance for doing what she ought to be doing, and what the State ought to encourage her to do, the full-time job of looking after her children. Thousands of widowed mothers with young families have to go out to gain some money to supplement the allowance we give them.
  It is extremely hard for a widow to have to go out to work late in life. Having given her energies to bringing up a family, it is extremely hard for her to go out to seek work at the age of 50 or 55, with the alternative of living on £4 a week. Moreover, most of the part-time jobs which women can get are drudgery jobs, and most of the full-time ones are those which nobody will take on unless economic circumstances compel them to do so. They are badly paid, with long hours for the money earned. I believe that we need a widows' trade union—just as we need a married women's trade union—to protect widows, and especially ageing widows, from being exploited by employers in their desperate need for money.
  In the debates in this House I have always pressed the tragedy of widowhood per se, and the fact that we ought in some financial way to recognise widows' needs. The Amendment provides a chance to do a little good. It must be galling to the widow who receives 10s. a week from the State to have to pay most of it back—8s. to 9s.—to qualify for the other National Insurance benefits. Next month she will have to pay a stepped-up National Insurance charge, and if the Amendment is not accepted she will have to pay 2s. 0½d. for National Health benefits. By the Amendment we seek to relieve her of a bit of her National Insurance burden.
  Moreover, most of the widows who go out to work, or to part-time work, even with the best possible grants which they can get from the State, and with the best possible jobs, fall into the group whose incomes are so meagre that every increase in the flat-rate contributions means a real hardship. The 2s. 0½d. which we are seeking to reduce may not seem very much to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is a very real sum indeed to most of the widows whom I know, who are living on depressed income.
  994
  The main Government case for the general increase in poll tax is that average wages are now up to £14 a week. That is a fallacious argument. If it is true that wages are up to that extent, the Government could easily get from those who have had the wage increases, the profit increases and the dividend increases the extra bit which they need by stiffened-up graduated taxation. That would ease the burden on those who get less than the average wage. Even if it is true that the average wage is £14 a week, it is not true that the average wage of widows is anything like that figure. Nobody can argue that as the nation's prosperity has increased, and as we have moved away from the war, widows have adequately shared in that increased prosperity.
  I know that the Treasury is opposed to creating new categories; of hiving-off any new category for taxation exemption. It does not like such grouping, and it says, very often rightly, that it is hard to define a group. It is even possible that the Financial Secretary will argue that, although I have stated what is generally true of widows, there are a handful of rich widows who would benefit, and that it would grieve him very much not to collect their contributions. But even if it is true that there is a handful of rich widows in the category we seek to exempt, it is much more true that in the flat-rate contribution which the Treasury is imposing on all the British people there are millions of people who, because of their poverty, ought not to pay the extra sum.
  Here is a clearly defined group in which almost every member is in the low income group. The widows, and especially the widowed mothers, are doing a noble job under grave handicaps. There can be no hon. Member on either side of the Committee who does not know from personal experience the noble work done by widows. They are an inspiration to the whole country. I therefore ask the Government to ease them at any rate of this burden. I pay tribute to what has been done by the Government in other respects, but I do not think that they have done enough. They could accept the Amendment and bring a little benefit to the widows.
  Apart from the first tragic thirteen weeks of widowhood, recognition has

  995
  never been given to the simple fact that the widow loses the best half of her life; that on top of great sorrow she faces great deprivations; and that for the rest of her life she faces a bitter struggle, doomed in all cases never to achieve the standard of living she enjoyed when she was happily married.
  One of the finest things about the Retired Police Officers' Association has been the way in which, during the last few years, it has fought on behalf of the dead comrades of policemen. It has gained some remarkable successes. In a letter to the Minister of Health, on 8th February, the Association protested bitterly against all new charges, including this one, and said:
  "It is not justice further to depress widows and pensioners who are compelled to conform to the principles of taxation both direct and indirect out of their miserably low means."
  Unfortunately, there is as yet no organised national body to voice the claims of widows. Apart from the efforts which people like the police officers make, there is as yet no spokesman and no organisation which can speak for and press their rightful demands. That is why I am happy to be able to do it in this debate.
  I urge the Government to accept this Amendment and make the concession which we seek, because it is worth while. Last week, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) said that he thought that we had reached the limit of poll tax. I suggest that the limit was reached for widows a long time ago. If the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment, in the years ahead when we open the new hospitals which have been promised by the Minister of Health, invitations to the opening of one of them should be sent to the no-shilling widows, the 10s.-widows and the £4-a-week widows, because, by their enforced contributions, the widows of Britain will have paid for one of those hospitals.
  Were this Amendment accepted, it would not solve the economic problem of the widows, any more than the Amendment moved last week on behalf of those earning £9 a week and under would have solved their economic problems. But it would help. Much greater assistance is needed than we can give merely by cutting down the cost of
  996
  their insurance stamps. But this Amendment would help, and the help which it would give would be the greatest for those whose incomes are the smallest. That is not only good Socialism; it is good human justice, and ought to appeal even to the occupants of the Treasury Bench.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), the group of people whom we are trying to help are unorganised. Much of the assistance which has been given to the old-age pensioners would never have been accorded had they not organised themselves, and it would appear that this group of people should organise themselves and make their voices heard.
  My hon. Friend referred to widowed mothers. No one in his right senses would say that a widowed mother with, for example, two children to look after, who is in receipt of £5 a week, could possibly be doing her duty to herself and to her children and keeping up an adequate standard of living. Every woman whose husband dies finds that her standard of living is reduced, but most of them have to carry on facing the same responsibilities which they previously shared with their husbands.
  Some have to take over the buying of the house and others must face the task of continuing to pay the rent. All must buy the necessities for the household and often this has to be done with a standard of living which brings them below the poverty line. A widow with children has the added responsibility of ensuring that her children are able to take advantage of any further education facilities for which they have the ability.
  4.15 p.m.
  These widows are compelled to go out to work—they have no alternative—if they wish to keep their home going. Even with the increased assistance, it is not very long before a widow who goes out to work finds her pension is taken away because the earnings allowance is so small. We must remember that the no-shilling widow or the 10s. widow already face a great disadvantage. Every hon. Member of this Committee has received complaints from widows, and

  997
  particularly from the 10s. widows, for whom representations are repeatedly made to us. The only answer we can give is, "There is not much which can be done for you".
  Today, we are trying to help this large group of people. We are asking that something shall be done for them at a time when more and more women are being asked to go out to work. The Government are inviting former members of the teaching and nursing professions to come back to work; they are begging them to come back. The widowed mother who goes out to work has also to rush home to get a meal ready, do the shopping, keep the house tidy and see to the sewing, mending and darning in the same way as every mother has. We may be told that there are many women who do this, but we must remember the great responsibility which a widow has to bear of being the only person responsible for the running of her home. She must face the fear, the worry and the sorrows of widowhood.
  Last week, when we sought to reduce the contribution for another class of people, we were taunted and told that a reduction of 2s. 8½d. represented little more than the price of 10 cigarettes for that class of person. But in this case the 2s. 0½d. which we are discussing is very important to people in the low income group. It may make the difference between whether the Sunday joint is meat of the best quality, or whether the family has to make do with a few chops. It can make the difference between whether a widowed mother can afford to buy fruit for her children, or the salads which they should have; and 2s. 0½d. represents a considerable amount of bread or milk.
  The acceptance of this Amendment would accord some measure of justice to this group of people. Not only have we an economic duty to them, but we also have a moral responsibility and I ask hon. Members opposite, in view of that moral responsibility, to ensure that the Amendment is accepted.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Of all the Amendments which have been moved from this side of the Committee during the proceedings last Thursday and today, this probably is the one most worthy of sympathy from the Government. We have not had very much sym-
  998
  pathy up to the present, but we hope that at least this will appeal to them.
  We have had Amendments about the aged, the young and those with under £9 a week. Now we come to a section of the community which probably finds it most difficult to get along. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is a section of people who not only find themselves on very small incomes, but who, in a vast majority of cases, have to make considerable adjustments in their standard of life because their husbands have died. That itself imposes a very great strain and considerable hardship on the women concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) was quite wrong in saying that the type of job available for the widowed mother is usually a low-paid job, such as that of a school cleaner. She has to do that kind of work in order that she may also look after her home while supplementing her income.
  We have not been told what this Amendment would cost if it were accepted. I should doubt very much whether it would cost more than £2 million, judging by the figures which have been given by the Treasury Bench in respect of other categories. It might help if the Economic Secretary would give the figure now. It places the Committee at a disadvantage if we cannot be told now how much it would cost. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could nod to indicate whether £2 million is right or wrong. Surely when £49 million is being collected under these proposals, there would be room for the Treasury to manœuvre.
  Mr. Houghton: May I appeal to the Economic Secretary to assist the debate by giving us the answer which would help my hon. Friend and the rest of the Committee? He need not save the answer until the end of the debate. We should like to know now.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): If it will help the Committee, I shall certainly answer. On the basis of these two Amendments, which I think is narrower than the arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), the cost would be about £300,000 a year.
  Mr. Willis: No wonder the hon. Gentleman was hiding the figure until

  999
  the end of the debate. It is almost unnecessary to debate this matter at any length.
  Surely, for a matter of £300,000, the Government are prepared to do justice to one of the most deserving sections of the community. That sum could not hold up the great programme of hospital building which is held out before us. What would happen if the Government did not get this £300,000? I cannot see that anything would happen. The Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Force would drop £300,000 into their laps and think nothing of it. Millions of pounds are nothing to those people. This is a paltry £300,000 to do justice to a very deserving section of the community.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: One could get that amount in a football pool.
  Mr. Willis: Surely the Economic Secretary will not resist this Amendment on the ground that it cannot be afforded. The only other reason I can see for resisting it is the one which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, that the Treasury does not like to have special classes. I cannot see why we should not have special classes, for there are special classes of people. To refuse to recognise that is to refuse to recognise the society in which we live, the pattern of that society and the hardship suffered by certain groups in it. If a particular group has to suffer hardship as the result of what we do in This House, we should put it right whether the Treasury likes that or not.
  Surely we are not to be told that this cannot be afforded out of a Budget of £300 million or £400 million, or that we cannot create special categories. A very good case has been made on the ground of hardship in respect of these widows. In the light of what has been said, I hope that the debate will be shortened by the hon. Gentleman springing to the Dispatch Box to tell us how much he welcomes the Amendment and that he is glad to assist the Opposition in doing their duty in trying to protect the weak.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not see how the Government can resist the eloquent and very human appeal made by my hon. Friends the
  1000
  Members for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), and the unanswerable argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on statistical grounds.
  On the humane argument, there is no doubt that, although this is regarded as a comparatively negligible sum by financial and statistical experts who are used to thinking in terms of millions of pounds, it comprises a definite hardship for very poor people. This concerns people we meet on buses and trains when we are coming to the House in the morning, such as cleaners, who do very useful drudgery work for our civilisation. I suggest that if the Government are to give any concession this is the occasion on which they should do so.
  I remember that many years ago, before public assistance committees were heard of, I served on a Scottish parish council. There we considered the means of very poor women who, when their husbands were killed in the mines, were called upon to do cleaning work in the local school. Often there was great difficulty because there was competition for these jobs. To clean a school or an office was very badly paid work. I do not know the actual income of these people, but I do know that they have every right to object to the new imposition made by this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North was right in stressing the grievance of the 10s. widow.
  I was surprised that the Economic Secretary had to be enticed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), or almost conscripted, to rise to explain what the Amendment would mean. He had to be drafted to rise to his feet to say what it would cost. He knew that £300,000 is such a paltry sum that there must be a feeling of shame in resisting the Amendment. The £300,000 is about the same as that which goes to the Privy Purse in the Civil List. Taking other items into consideration, this Amendment is one which my hon. Friends are justified in bringing before the Committee. It should be accepted by the Government.
  4.30 p.m.
  Comparisons cannot be avoided. Why is this amount of £300,000 in extra contributions being asked for? It is to pay

  1001
  the other bills of the Government, to pay part of the £1,600 million which we shall have to consider tomorrow. So the widow's mite is being taken in this way. I hope that the Government will be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I hope that the next time the Minister rises to the Dispatch Box it will be to announce that he has decided to exercise common sense and humanity and to satisfy what I believe to be the overwhelming opinion of people in the country on this issue.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: I want to support the Amendment. I was interested in the argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) about the comparison that is always made about this extra contribution costing two cigarettes or a packet of 10 cigarettes. This argument has gone on for many years, but everybody appears to forget that the price of cigarettes has gone up substantially. That is especially hard if one's income is very small; and we are dealing here with a section of the community whose income is very small.
  A school cleaner, which case has been used as an illustration, has a particularly difficult time. Only last week I put a case before the Minister in which a widow was working as a school cleaner and had to go off duty ill. As a result of that, she will get a little extra insurance benefit, but the Ministry deducts the 10s. pension she is receiving as a widow. That seems to me to be rather mean and contemptible, but it is upon that section of the community that the Government propose to make this added imposition.
  Surely, when one considers the tremendous sums of money which are dealt with by the House of Commons, it is difficult to understand why the Government are resisting this Amendment, because it is quite obvious that the Government will resist it. The Economic Secretary has already disclosed that this concession would cost only £300,000 per annum, and, realising that that was all that was involved, if the Government had any intention of accepting the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman would have done so with alacrity. What will he argue when he replies?
  It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,
  1002
  Itchen (Dr. King) that it is very difficult to divide sections of the community into categories. In other words, it is difficult to single out this particular type of contributor from all the others. I would point out to the Minister that we do this very thing every day, either in connection with the incomes of people or the insurance contributions which they pay, because we have a graded contribution for different sections. All that we are asking here is that the Minister should go a step further to deal with what is perhaps the most deserving class of contributor whom we shall he considering during the proceedings on the Bill
  I appeal to the Economic Secretary to help this very small section of the community, which is perhaps the most hard hit section. I hope that he will allow a little humanity to enter into the discussion, that he will now rise and say that the case put is so overwhelming that he is willing to recommend that the Government should accept the Amendment, and thus exclude this category, who are already in very great difficulty because of the burdens which the Government have imposed upon them.
  Mr. William Ross: I am surprised that the Economic Secretary did not rise a long time ago and say that he accepted this Amendment, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, if there is any Amendment which they should accept, this is it. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) put a most comprehensive and most convincing case, and I was indeed sorry that we did not get an immediate response from the Government.
  Let us look at this case. The only widows who are penalised by being asked to pay the additional sum of 8d. per week in respect of this contribution are those who are contributors under the National Insurance Acts. That does not mean all widows. It is not to the advantage of all widows to pay full insurance, because there is nothing to gain from it. If they get a pension already or a widowed mother's allowance, which will become a pension, they have nothing to gain by insuring against unemployment benefit. If they were unemployed, they would not get anything because they get a widow's pension, and it is the same

  1003
  with sickness benefit and retirement pension. These are the widows whom we seek to help.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to acquaint themselves with the people who are being affected by their legislation. I have a feeling that one of the reasons why we get the Guillotine on a Measure like this is because it shortens the discussion, and, therefore, the process of educating, not only back benchers but sometimes Ministers as well, on what their Bills actually mean and on the people who will be affected by them, is thereby equally shortened. Sometimes, I think that that is the real reason for the Guillotine.
  The position is that, although there are about 500,000 widows in any one year receiving widows' benefits of one kind and another, when we start to analyse the figures we find that, of that ½million, there are about 100,000 who receive only 10s.—that is all. There is a considerable number who do not receive anything at all, and who are not even recorded in the statistics of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It is only when we see just who are contributing and paying full insurance that we get the complete picture.
  The number of people paying full insurance as employed persons is 190,000, and, obviously, most of these are widows with 10s. or no pension at all. There are 20,000 self-employed widows, and they will be asked to pay on the new rates an additional 6d. There are the non-employed widows, numbering 30,000. When we examine these figures, we find that, out of a total of just over 200,000, 140,000 are between the ages of 45 and 59. This is the important point. These are the widows, and the only widows—the worst-off widows, from the pensions aspect—who are being asked to pay this extra amount. The widows with a pension do not pay it; the widows with no pension do pay it.
  How can hon. Members opposite defend this kind of thing? In this affluent Britain, is this the only way in which we can build our hospitals? I find it very difficult to justify, in logic, why we should build hospitals in this way at all, but I find it even more difficult to justify why certain categories of people are to be made to pay while others are
  1004
  not. There could be no real social justification for what is being done, but this is what is to happen.
  I would ask the Economic Secretary to appreciate exactly what class of widow is involved here. I appeal to him in another way. The only widow who will benefit by paying full insurance is the widow with a war pension, because that is the only duplication of Government payments that can be made. Therefore, the war widow who works to acquire for herself an additional pension at 60 is also singled out for this payment. Can hon. Members opposite really justify that? This is meanness carried to its limits. It is shabbiness. I am sorry to say that in social legislation it is Toryism. That is the philosophy, "Let's get the money, and let's not ask the House to spend too much time examining where we are getting it." I am quite sure that if hon. Members opposite realised how this money was being raised they would find it very difficult to support the Government's proposal. I hope that the Economic Secretary will give us a reasonable answer. and will say that the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Barber: I am sure that all hon. Members, particularly those on his own side, will agree that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) moved the Amendment not only with his usual modesty, but with obvious knowledge of the subject matter. The purpose of this Amendment and of the Amendment that we are considering with it is to reduce the contribution paid by employed widows from 2s. 0½d., as the Bill proposes, to 1s. 5d.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has just said that the Committee should consider with care what widows are involved. That is very important because the hon. Member for Itchen said, if I heard him aright, that all widows might benefit, but I understand that these Amendments are confined only to employed widows. Therefore, all we are considering at present are those widows in employment.
  This is important, because the Amendments do not relate to all widows.——
  Dr. King: When I spoke of "all widows" I meant all widows in the category, which I gradually narrowed down.
  Mr. Barber: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. We are considering, then, only those widows who are in employment.
  The second aspect which is of great importance is that if these widows are receiving National Insurance benefits, or if they are war widows, then, although it may pay them to pay National Insurance contributions, they are, in fact, under no obligation to pay and, consequently, under no obligation to pay the National Health Service payments.
  One hon. Member took as an example the widow with children who had to go out to work——
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has just said that if they are in certain categories these widows are under no obligation to pay the contributions. Will he also say that they do not receive benefits and may want to pay contributions so that they may receive benefits?
  Mrs. Slater: Would not the Economic Secretary also agree that it is very much more important that a widow should pay the full contributions than it is for a woman who has just married and whose husband is living?
  Mr. Barber: I do not say for a moment that there are not a limited number of widows who choose to pay the contributions because it is to their advantage, but I made careful inquiries about this and I am informed that, in practice, nearly all the widows who are in receipt of these benefits, or are war widows, choose not to pay because, in general, it is of no advantage to them. I went into this very carefully, because I wanted to satisfy myself whether or not this was so——
  Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the statisics I used were not accurate? They were taken from the Quinquennial Report of the Ministry of National Insurance.
  Mr. Barber: Obviously, I cannot, without notice, comment on the hon. Gentleman's figures. All I can tell him is that my inquiries have led me to the conclusion—and I have no doubt about this—that nearly all those widows who are in receipt of National Insurance benefits, or are war widows, choose not to pay the contributions because it is of no advantage to them to do so. That is important,
  1006
  because we have to realise that we are here dealing only with widows in employment and only those who choose to pay, assuming that they are in receipt of National Insurance widow's benefits or are war widows.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about cost, and I gave a figure of about £300,000. The reason for that figure being so limited is that we are concerned with such a limited number of people—and I will come in a few minutes to deal with what I consider to be certain implications of that, because this aspect cannot be considered in isolation.
  4.45 p.m.
  Who are these widows who are in work, but not in receipt of National Insurance widows' benefits of one kind or another? Normally, a woman who was widowed after the beginning of the National Insurance scheme and has children to support is entitled to National Insurance children's benefits, and would not be obliged to pay a contribution. Similarly, a woman widowed before the National Insurance Scheme came into operation, but who had eligible children to support at the beginning of the scheme would also be entitled to National Insurance benefits and, consequently, would not be obliged to pay the contributions. It follows that the only widows who are covered by these Amendments are those who are obliged to pay contributions, and some of those who are employed but who, in general, do not have children to support.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh East asked why we should not make a special class of these individuals, while the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) said that he was sure that I would refer to administrative difficulties. I would ask the Committee to consider this as a matter involving some principle. A quite tenable view prompts one to ask: why should this limited number of individuals to whom I have referred be put in a special class, and separate from the spinsters? If these Amendments were accepted, so that there would be the benefit of a lower rate of contribution for widows who are working, I fail to see why one should not extend the same reduced rate of contribution to spinsters. Ever since the 1946 Act, it has always been thought that these two categories of people should be treated on a, par——
  Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and I am trying to follow it as well as I can. There is a very distinct difference in principle between widows and spinsters. In very many cases the widow is seeking to maintain a home for her children and is deprived of the double allowance for taxation purposes that she would have had if she had had the enjoyment of her husband. On the other hand, spinsters are very often living with parents or with other people and are in quite different circumstances. While I have every sympathy with the hard-hit spinster who may have to maintain a home for aged parents, and who, in some ways, is in a similar position to widows, the very many widows who have to maintain a home and are deprived of the husband's allowance for taxation purposes are very much worse off than the spinsters. It is wrong to consider the two classes as being identical.
  Mr. Barber: I am not saying that they are identical. I am saying that it would not be right to provide for a lower rate of contribution for one class without doing something for the others. We cannot consider this aspect in isolation. When we think of the consequences of accepting these two Amendments, we cannot think simply in terms of about £300,000.
  The widow who goes out to work to help to support her children is normally in receipt of National Insurance widow's benefits in respect of those children and, consequently, she has the option of not paying contributions at all, and in general it does not benefit her to pay them. I am not making a political point, but it is fair for the Committee to remember that under the 1946 Act the health element in the National Insurance contributions was the same for all employed women, whether widows or spinsters. I believe that that principle, which is the principle which we are now following, is right and fair.
  We all know from our own experience, not as Members of Parliament but as individuals, of the sorrow which arises from widowhood, but I am not satisfied that that in itself is an argument for accepting these two Amendments. As I have said, they relate only to employed widows, and when we are considering the impact of the Bill it is surely right to consider their earnings. The hon.
  1008
  Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) referred throughout her speech to widows who went out to work—quite rightly, because they are the people whom we are considering.
  As I am sure the Committee realises, there are no earnings figures which apply only to widows, but, while making due allowance for the fact that widows earn less than other women, on the average—that is my view—we can, nevertheless, bear in mind that the average earnings for women of 18 increased between October, 1948, just after the health scheme came into operation, and October, 1960, by £3 13s. 10d. a week. The average earnings virtually doubled in that period.
  Making due allowance for the fact that some widows have not shared to the full in that increase—in my view the average widow has not—I still think it fair to ask the Committee whether it is not reasonable to propose an increase in the Health Service contribution for widows which will make it only 1s. 6d. a week more than the health element which was paid under the 1946 scheme.
  As I have said, no change in principle is involved in the Government's proposals. I do not believe that it would be right to make this concession without going further and without dealing with other people, too, including spinsters; and I do not believe that it would be right to make such a concession. The basic principles which have existed since 1948 are right. The simple question which the Committee has to consider is whether a widow who is in work should pay 1s. 6d. a week more for the health element in her contribution than in 1948, or whether she should be relieved of this increase, bearing in mind that the average earnings of women have risen considerably since that time.
  I do not believe that the Government's proposal is unreasonable, and, consequently, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
  Mrs. Slater: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I point out that last Thursday I gave figures of the average wages of most women and showed that nearly all were less than £7 a week. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these women are almost forced to pay the full contribution because the only way in

  1009
  which they can get full benefits, should they fall ill—and their tendency to be ill is greater than with other people because of the heavy strain on them—is by paying the full contribution?
  Mr. David Weitzman: I listened with amazement to the Economic Secretary's reply. I have never heard a meaner and more contemptible argument by the Government. Earlier, I listened to speeches by my hon. Friends, and I suggest that if the Government benches had been filled by those hon. Members who, shortly, will troop into the Committee to vote against these Amendments, those hon. Members would have been sympathetic towards the case which we have made. The only answer by the Government was, "Do not differentiate between widows and spinsters, because you will find that spinsters are in an equally bad state. As spinsters are in an equally bad state, we therefore should not help widows".
  Having heard the case put by my hon. Friends, how can the Government refuse to accept Amendments of this character? There can be no doubt whatever about the difficulties which widows experience compared with other sections of the community and no doubt whatever that a most deserving case can be made for them.
  Mr. Barber: I want to make it clear that the reason that I referred to spinsters was that I was trying to indicate to the Committee that the figure of £300,000, which it would cost to accept these Amendments, was not a realistic figure for the Committee to take into account.
  Mr. Weitzman: I do not care what the figure is. The Economic Secretary must recognise that it is very small compared with the £49 million which it is intended to raise by this poll tax. The amount involved in this small class must be extremely small. I suggest that anyone who has listened to the case which has been put forward must readily recognise how deserving it is.
  What frightens me about this legislation is that hon. Members who have not heard the case put forward, who know nothing about the details and who have not heard a word about the hardships which will be inflicted upon these people will support the Government in this
  1010
  mean and contemptible attitude. That is disgraceful.
  Mr. Loughlin: I was not surprised at the stumbling which went on by the Government spokesman when he was replying to the debate. The Committee ought to pause at this stage and to ask whether there is not a serious challenge to the very basis of the form of Government which we are supposed to have in this country because, irrespective of the arguments advanced in the Committee, there is a rigidity on the part of the Government Front Bench which compels them to refuse to consider accepting any Amendments.
  The Economic Secretary admitted that these Amendments will cost £300,000. He went on to talk about the possibility of having to include spinsters, if we give preferential treatment to widows, even if it were only those widows who are working. I can understand the hon. Member's partiality for spinsters but, having listened to him advance the argument about spinsters and having listened to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) which demolished his case altogether, I cannot understand why he intervened when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) argued the case for widows.
  It is not good enough for the Government spokesman to talk about employed widows who have no obligation to pay contributions. What the hon. Member said, in effect, was that if we raise the contributions high enough we shall preclude people from paying them. If we believe in the Welfare State—I know that the hon. Gentleman does not—it is our duty to see that insurance cover is applied to the majority of people, whether widows or not. Experience proves that widowed women in employment pay the contribution for one good reason—they want to have the cover of the insurance benefits. I do not for a moment accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument that widows in industry do not subscribe to this insurance scheme.
  5.0 p.m.
  I think that there is general acceptance—and I want to reiterate it—of what my hon. Friend for Westhoughton said about spinsters. If it is argued

  1011
  that the spinsters are just as badly off as the widows, then the case is not that the widows should not have some consideration, but that they should both have it. It is a valid argument to advance that widows are maintaining a home for their families, even if their children are growing up, whereas the average spinster—perhaps the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will correct me if I am wrong—is invariably living in lodgings of one kind or another, without family responsibility.
  The total cost of this concession is alleged to be £300,000. What is the function of this Committee? It is to try to make the Bill, whether we like it or not, more equitable for everyone in our society. The Economic Secretary ought to recognise that, where there is the possibility of an injustice being done, he should accept the Amendment. What worries me is the fact that in Bill after Bill, whether it be upstairs in Committee or on the Floor of the House, we repeatedly see this adamant attitude on the part of the Government, in no circumstances being willing to accept any Amendments irrespective of the arguments deployed in favour of them.
  Unless hon. Members opposite wake up to the fact that without discussion, compromise and willingness on the part of the Government to accept Amendments of this type, we shall be entering a form of totalitarianism, and that will be for the ill of this country. I should like to see fewer speeches from hon. Members on this side of the Committee and hon. Members opposite advancing arguments. It may well be that they would be arguments to refute what we say, but at least they would be arguments—legitimate arguments. Unless hon. Members opposite do that we are not really having a Committee stage of the Bill at all.
  I should like the Economic Secretary to stop fumbling and stumbling at the Box. If he cannot come with a brief that is worth while, then he should remain seated and allow some of his hon. Friends to advance those arguments that should be advanced.
  Mr. A. V. Hilton: I, too, was very disappointed at the reply given by the Economic Secre-
  1012
  tary. Our great complaint against the whole of the Bill, and, in fact, against the majority of the proposals which we claim are undermining the Health Service, is that they are designed to hit those people who are least able to bear the additional financial burden. Surely what we are discussing this afternoon is a clear example of that sort of thing.
  Once again, the widow, who, after all, is trying to be independent and trying to help herself, is to be penalised. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee frequently receive letters from widows who are finding things very hard these days. I did not receive a letter from a widow this weekend, but I was approached by one on Saturday, and, once again, listened to the heart-rending story that she had to tell. After hearing that story, and after listening to the fine case put this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) when moving the Amendment, to have to listen to the reply made by the Economic Secretary was a great disappointment.
  We are told that this concession would cost about £300,000 out of a total bill of about £50 million. Had we not wasted such vast amounts of money on Blue Streak and other projects—I must not develop that, because, otherwise, I shall be ruled out of order, though I want to make the comparison—many more widows and those in the lower income groups could have been helped. Although £300,000 may not be much as far as Government expenditure is concerned, the additional coppers that widows are being asked to pay mean quite a lot to them. They will have to pay an additional 7½d. a week.
  I should have thought that this Amendment was the least that the Government could have accepted. Many other Amendments moved from this side of the Committee on Health Service Measures have been turned down out of hand, but I should have thought that this was really a case where it would not have been difficult for the Government to accept our Amendment. It is not too late for them to do so even now. I remember that last week the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who is not now in his usual place, quoting a passage from the Book of Jude. I should like to quote a passage

  1013
  from the Gospel of St. Mark, where it says:
  "For he that hath, to him shall be given; and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath."
  That is the philosophy which the Government are adopting in rejecting this Amendment. They are taking away from the poor widow who is trying to help herself and who is trying to be independent. I appeal once again to the Government Front Bench to have another look at this matter. We shall soon have Easter here—it is Lent now—and it would be a splendid thing if we could get this one crumb from the Government.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I rise to express my own bitter disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to agree to this relatively minor concession for which we are asking. It is quite obvious to me and to every other intelligent hon. Member who has taken part in these debates why the Government wanted the Guillotine to operate on the Bill. They wanted it because, knowing that they could not defend by logical argument the case we should present against the Bill, they wished the clock to do what their own intelligence and power of argument could not do.
  As he knows, I have personal respect for the Economic Secretary. I was very sorry indeed to see him put in the position this afternoon of having to speak from the paltry brief he has to defend something quite indefensible in any terms of Parliamentary procedure. I am not anxious to exaggerate anything, because the facts speak for themselves, but the Minister referred to the fact that women's wages, including widows' wages, have increased substantially in recent years. This may well be so. Of course, they must go on increasing in relation with the cost of living which is always increasing as a result of the Government's policies. But let us not have it suggested that there is something which can be called the "average widow" which can be statistically measured and given as evidence in the House of Commons to defend a Measure which is quite indefensible
  The Minister mentioned a figure of £7 a week. Has he forgotten that a great many widows who, because of their circumstances, are forced to go out to work
  1014
  cannot work full-time? They are often women who have to dodge about, doing charring and all kinds of odd domestic work so that they can be home after school hours to make their children's meal and be at hand to help them when they return home. It is nonsense to describe as average women widows of this class who are, very often against their own better instincts, driven to go out to work to maintain their children who have been deprived of a father.
  In some cases, widows may take advantage of the provisions in the National Insurance Act which allow them to opt out of insurance payments, but it is a very bad thing for anyone to opt out of insurance. Only the pressure of economic circumstances compels many of these women to opt out. I have had considerable experience in the trade union world, and it has always been the policy of my trade union, so far as I was able to influence it in any way, to advise all our people, whatever their circumstances, to maintain full rights of insurance.
  What is the position of these widows if they take the cheap insurance and pay only for industrial injuries benefit? If they are out of work, or if they are sick, they are deprived of benefit as a right and they have to go to National Assistance. It is just those widows who will go out to work against their own feelings, putting up with all the difficulties and inconvenience of doing so to keep a home together but yet be able to be there when their children come home from school, who will not wish to go to National Assistance.
  I have been present during a very great deal of our debates so far, and all that I have heard from the Government side has indicated that there is an underlying assumption on the part of the Minister of Health and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury who are advising him—this is a Treasury Bill, after all—that, if people do not like it and they find themselves in deep water, they can go to National Assistance. I tell the Minister frankly that in my part of Lancashire there are very many people who shrink from any necessity to go to the National Assistance Board. Anything which puts pressure on our people to resort to National Assistance goes against their independent spirit.

  1015
  They may be wrong in taking that attitude. They can have National Assistance as of right, and I pay my tribute to the many improvements which have been made over the years in the administration of National Assistance, but I hope that the Minister will take it from me that there are still many people of the old tradition who will not seek National Assistance even when they are right up against the wall.
  The clock is ticking away and the longer we take now the more likely will it be that other important matters may not be discussed, yet the Minister tells us, apparently quite seriously, that even after the Government have claimed a tax of £49 million from the British people under the Bill they cannot afford to give about £250,000 back to a deserving section of the community. This will not do. We have made our protest. The Guillotine will come down and, as my hon. Friends have said, hundreds of hon. Members within the precincts will, blindly and quite unthinkingly, troop into the Lobby to vote against us without any understanding or knowledge of the merits of the case.
  The prestige of the Government is low enough in all sorts of ways, apart from this Bill. If they had any sense, they would give way occasionally. They would be less inflexible and more prepared to meet a genuine case when it is presented to them. If they did so, their reputation would at least be less tarnished in the minds of many with a progressive outlook on life than it is.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Randall: Why do the Government want to wring the last penny out of the most deserving and, probably, the lowest-paid section of the community? I just cannot understand it. There was no logic at all in the argument which the Economic Secretary put to the Committee this afternoon. The inference is that this is just another 7½d., just a few more coppers. He does not understand the sort of life which widows have to live. On a Thursday or a Friday, it may well be that there are only coppers in their purse.
  I myself know of one widow who was quite unable to get the medicines prescribed for her because she had not a single copper in her purse. What does
  1016
  the Economic Secretary say to that?—that she can afford to pay another 7½d.?
  The truth is that neither she nor thousands of other widows can afford it. There are hundreds and thousands of widows quite unable to pay the additional 7½d. or, if they do pay it, as they apparently will have to, something else will have to go. The Economic Secretary may not understand just what they will go without. It is quite surprising what some women can do with even a few coppers.
  I appeal again to the Government. If they wish their Bill to find some favour, they ought to make a gesture for widows. The amount of money involved, £300,000, in comparison with the £50 million or so which is to come in by this poll tax, is really negligible. Why cannot the widow be excused? There can be no argument for it at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) quoted one of the Gospels. I shall not quote the Gospels, but I am reminded of the story of the widow's mite. Even that is being taken from her. I hope very much that the Economic Secretary will tear up the brief which has been provided for him. Will he allow his heart to prevail? He may get into trouble, but at least he will earn the good will of many people in the land.
  Mrs. Alice Cullen: Is the Minister under the impression that widows go out to work for the fun of it? If so, the sonner he gets that idea out of his head the better. Widows with children go out to work not for the fun of it, but because they must do so. In my own family, one of my daughters is a widow. She has to provide for six children. She could not do so without going out to work. The sooner the Economic Secretary realises that and does the right and just thing by the widows the better.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am rather dismayed that on an important Amendment like this there is not enough stuffing among hon. Members opposite that one of them is prepared to get up and try to justify what the Government are doing.
  Mr. Charles Curranhave made three attempts to speak in this debate. When the hon. Gentleman stops speaking, I will be glad to speak.
  Mr. Manuel: I am glad that I have stimulated some courage, thought and initiative on the benches opposite. I hope that the contribution of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) will be a bit better than that of the Economic Secretary, who made very heavy weather of trying to answer the cogent and strong arguments put forward by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and on the back benches in trying to assist widows who are working.
  Throughout the Bill what we have been trying to do by every Amendment—it was inevitable that we should try to do it—is to get some amelioration and relief of the situation of the weaker sections of the community. We must have a better argument from the Economic Secretary in reply than the one which has already been advanced. He reminded me of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who tried to repel the arguments which we advanced on behalf of the old-age pensioners. We are getting to a stage when, whatever argument we may use, no reasoned logic is applied to our arguments.
  There have been no concessions made on the Bill. Anyone who has been present in the Chamber, or anyone who has listened intelligently to our discussions in Committee must admit that we have not had a reply to the strong arguments which have been advanced by us. Not one hon. Member opposite has tried during our discussions on the Amendment to justify the case which the Government say they have for imposing this further 7½d. on the widows.
  It may appear to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that 2s. 0½d. a week is not a great sum for a widow to have to find. But they must have their constituency problems and get definite proof of people living in the direst of bad conditions because they have to scrimp and save every halfpenny and to make do with the cheapest of food. Certainly, we on this side have had this proof. The widows are in that category.
  The things which have been said outside this Chamber by hon. Members opposite are just not true. The Tory Central Office of Information has given very misleading information about this Bill.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: How does my hon. Friend know?
  Mr. Manuel: I have been concerned in a little controversy in my local Press with the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). Bolstered up by the Tory Central Office information, he tried to reply at great length to what I had said. First, he said that the Labour Government started the prescription charges. He admits that that was wrong, but then he goes on to say:
  "Anyone on National Assistance can get an automatic refund of any charges paid, and anyone else in need can also get a refund."
  I hope that the Economic Secretary will explain that statement—"anyone else in need", whatever the need. It is a block statement. Then he says:
  "Those who are ill or unemployed do not pay contributions and neither do widows …"
  The Economic Secretary is bound to admit that that statement is false. By this Amendment we are proving conclusively that widows do pay.
  We refer to the 10s. widow. Whether she is working or not, she has to pay this contribution each week. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary is bound to know that many widows cannot go out to work. It would be interesting to know the proportion of 10s. widows who have to pay this 2s. 0½d. a week when they are sick in order to qualify for the retirement pension and how many of them have their contribution covered by National Assistance. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will answer that. What a ridiculous situation it is that we should regiment people through the Bill and then pay the contributions of certain of them from another source. Are the Government trying to humiliate people by holding out a begging bowl——
  Mr. Barber: I cannot understand some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be suggesting that someone on National Assistance should pay contributions. That is impossible. No one on National Assistance pays contributions. The hon. Member was talking about health charges. What we are concerned with here is nothing to do with that. He was also speaking about widows who could not

  1019
  go to work. These Amendments are concerned solely with widows in employment.
  Mr. Ross: Is the Economic Secretary aware that every 10s. widow must contribute——
  Mr. Manuel: That is what I am saying.
  Mr. Ross:—whether she is working or not? If she is not working, she has recourse to National Assistance. In that case, National Assistance may well be paying for the stamping of her card.
  Mr. Manuel: A card has to be kept so that she may——
  Mr. Barber: It is important that we should get this matter right. As I understand, if a person is on National Assistance her card is credited, but she does not pay and does not draw a sum from National Assistance with which to pay.
  Mr. Manuel: No, but say, for instance, that the widow——
  Mr. Ross: May we have the assistance of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, who was at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for quite a time? She could decide whether the Economic Secretary or myself is right.
  Mr. Willis: On a point of order. I wonder whether you, Sir James, could give us some guidance. A very important matter has been raised in connection with this Amendment, and it now appears that the Government Front Bench does not know anything about it. In view of this ignorance of the Government Front Bench, what can we do about the matter under discussion?
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): That is neither a point of order nor a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Manuel: I do not want to aggravate the point of difference between the Government and ourselves. What I am certain about, as the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary must be certain, is that the 10s. widow has to pay the increased contribution.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt) indicated assent.
  Mr. Manuel: If a widow has to get National Assistance, her card will be credited with that amount. If she went to work, she would have to pay, but whether she was at work or not and if she had only 10s. coming into the house without National Assistance she would have to pay. The Economic Secretary cannot get round that, no matter how much he tries.
  The Government Front Bench is in this difficulty. The hon. Member for Barrow, who always jumps into the breach — [HON. MEMBERS: "NO — Barry."] I am sorry; I hope that I am not slandering anybody. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is strangely lacking today. I hope that we shall have his assistance, along with that of the hon. Member for Uxbridge, who says that he will spring to attention when I sit down and will introduce some false courage and reasoning into the debate.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Curran: With some of the speeches which have been made on behalf of the Amendment, I have a great deal of sympathy. Furthermore, if this matter could be considered in the abstract, I should be happy to vote for the Amendment. So far from approaching it in any spirit of hostility, I approach it with the greatest sympathy. But I suggest that the arguments that have been advanced from the Opposition benches in favour of the Amendment illustrate vividly a basic defect of the Welfare State. That State is based, among other things, upon an assumption about the economic position of women and, in particular, about the position of widows which does not correspond with reality.
  Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do that the Welfare State was constructed on the observed assumption that widowhood is not of itself a disability and that a woman who loses her husband does not thereby become somebody who ought to get the support of the community. That assumption has been common to both political parties. It has governed the Welfare State since the end of the war. It is an assumption, as we all know from our constituencies, which is not accepted as valid by large numbers of women. I am astonished that the organisations which set out to speak on behalf of women have not challenged it vigorously a good many years ago. In spite of emancipation and sex equality, it remains

  1021
  a fact that for the ordinary woman, marriage is a career and that when she loses her husband, she is in the position of a man who suffers the loss of his job or who suffers an industrial injury.
  The Welfare State, however, is not constructed on that basis. It was constructed, with the support of the Labour Party—this has nothing to do with the Tories; the Labour Party has stuck to it since the war—on the basis that a woman who loses her husband is not thereby entitled to be treated in the same way as a man who suffers an industrial injury. It can well be argued that she ought to be so treated. If it were argued, I believe that that proposition would command the enthusiastic support of the great majority of women voters.
  That, however, is not the assumption. Consequently, all the arguments to which we have been listening are based upon a completely false premise. The Opposition now seeks to argue that we should treat widows as people who are in a special category because they are widows. If that proposition is argued in general terms, I have the greatest sympathy for it and, as I have said, I believe that the great majority of women voters would support it, too.
  We cannot do this by a side-wind. We cannot do it by an incidental Amendment. If we want to do it, we must make a radical reconstruction of the Welfare State. [Interruption.] One moment. I have listened to a great many words from the benches opposite and I invite Members there to let somebody from this side put his case without being bawled down and without being jeered at. I have given careful and silent attention to the speeches of hon. Members opposite and I invite them to do just as much for me and my colleagues. We have a case, too. So far from being apologetic about the Bill, so far from being dumbfounded by it and ashamed to speak un for it, we have a case. It is a case with merit and substance. We are entitled to put it.
  I believe that all the debates on the Bill, including the point now being discussed—whether being a widow is a state which calls for special sympathy in a way that being a widower does not—illustrate one basic fact. It is that the assumptions on which the Welfare State was set up at the end of the war are
  1022
  assumptions which do not correspond with contemporary reality.
  I believe—I want to say this plainly and, perhaps, brutally—that we ought to reconstruct the Welfare State, the Health Service and the other social services, too, for the purpose——
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of widows.
  Mr. Curran: Exactly, Mr. Thomas. I was putting the point parenthetically; I did not propose to develop it. I was saying that the need for reconstructing and for revising the basic assumptions of the Welfare State, a need in which I believe profoundly, is illustrated by the Amendment. The assumption on which we are arguing is an assumption that most of us regard as nonsense.
  Mr. Manuel: I should like the hon. Member to answer this. I think he would agree that hon. Members opposite could today take a definite step forward by saying that, while we are not relieving widows entirely, we agree that their payment of 1s. 5d. is sufficient and that we will not increase it by another 7½d.
  Mr. Curran: That allows me to go on and develop a point which I want to make. When we talk about widows, just as when we talk about other groups who receive the benefits of the social services, we are talking about people at all income levels. There are rich widows, well-off widows, poor widows and almost destitute widows. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members opposite to allow me to put the case. When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was putting his case, I did not keep on barracking him. I kept quite and listened.
  The point which the hon. Member has put to me lets me go to the root of it all. If we are distributing a universal concession, we shall be giving it both to the people who need it and to those who do not. I believe that we should reconstruct the Welfare State, both in this matter and in other matters, so as to concentrate every farthing we can upon the people who need help and to let the others look after themselves. For that reason also, I am not prepared to support the Amendment. It would distribute a benefit indiscriminately to widows who do not need the money as well as to widows who do

  1023
  I am urgently in favour of two things: first, of giving the utmost possible help to the hard-up widow and, in particular, to the hard-up widowed mother. Secondly, I am in favour of re-examining the foundations of the Welfare State in respect of this matter so as to treat widowhood—as, in fact, it is—as a disability which should be compensated in the same way as industrial injury for a man.
  Mr. Houghton Mr. Houghton rose
  The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Houghton.
  Mrs. Slater: Before the hon. Member sits down, will he, therefore, say in plain English that he agrees with the Bow Group that even in this case there should be a means test and that that is the basis of the Welfare State?
  Mr. Curran: If I may reply in detail, I shall be happy to do so. I refuse to be bullyragged by this turnip ghost of the means test. We are told told by the Opposition that we cannot distinguish between the people who need help and those who do not unless we raise the ghost of the poor law. This is their constant cry. This is the kind of emotional blackmail in which the Opposition constantly deal. [Interruption.] I am sick and tired of this dishonest blackmail about the poor law. I insist that in our society we ought to be able to distinguish between the people who need help and the people who do not, without going back to the poor law. [An HON. MEMBER: "In all sections?"] Yes, in all sections. After all, we need not go to the poor law or even to the Assistance Board. We could go to the Inland Revenue——
  The Temporary Chairman: Is the hon. Member reaching the end of his reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater)? I had called the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
  Mr. Curran: I have one sentence, Mr. Thomas. I did not want the Committee to suppose that I was not prepared to meet this taunt about the means test. I think I have demonstrated that there is an answer to it. Having said so, I will
  1024
  gladly sit down and listen to what hon. Members of the Opposition have to say.
  Mr. Houghton: I am sure that after two hours the whole Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) for turning a one-sided argument into something of a debate. The hon. Member said that he had listened to our arguments with a good deal of sympathy. His hon. Friends have listened to them with a good deal of silence. Had we had contributions from hon. Members opposite earlier in the debate, we might have had a much more satisfactory two hours on this matter.
  The hon. Member said that he has a case and that he is entitled to put it, and so he is. It is a very different case from that put by his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. Had we the time, it would be interesting to see how far the two cases—the Front Bench case and the Uxbridge case—could be reconciled. I remind the hon. Gentleman and indeed the whole Committee that the Guillotine overhangs the whole of this debate.
  Mr. Nabarro: There is a long time yet.
  Mr. Houghton: There may be a long time yet, but there is a great deal to do in that time. I know that there are many hon. Members sauntering about the Corridors, looking to 11.30 when this debate must automatically come to an end, but we wish to debate other groups concerned with this Bill in the time remaining.
  The Economic Secretary needs no reminding that his reply was grievously disappointing to my hon. and right hon. Friends, but I will say to the hon. Member for Uxbridge that we cannot in this debate on this Bill reshape the whole structure of widows' benefits in the Welfare State. It may well be, and we believe it is, desirable, for the position of the widows to be reconsidered in the light of contemporary conditions in Britain today. The position of the widows has been looked at several times since the Labour Government had responsibility for the National Insurance Scheme and laid the social security measures. I do not believe that we have got the answer right yet, but at the moment we can concern ourselves only with whether we should provide relief

  1025
  to a certain group of widows by this Bill.
  It is true that right from the inception of the present scheme widows have been divided into several categories, some of whom have been regarded as deserving of more liberal support from the Welfare State than others and some of whom have not been regarded as deserving of permanent help from the Welfare State at all, but that conception comes under challenge when the burden to be imposed on widows reaches the point when it seems to be unreasonable, having regard to the position of widows in the labour market in Britain today.
  We have to consider what type of widow we are seeking to relieve of the National Health Service contribution. Let me remind the Committee that the National Health Service contributions we are talking about are governed by National Insurance contributions devised under different conditions and for different objects, and they are an additional tax on the health of widows.
  There are many things challenged in the arrangements for our Welfare State. The Government have selected the contributors to the National Insurance Scheme as taxpayers in these contributions to the National Health Service—[An HON. MEMBER: "Regardless of income."] regardless of income, regardless of the conditions under which they contribute to the National Insurance Scheme. We shall be coming in a moment to another group of people—I refer to married women—some of whom contribute and some of whom do not, under the National Insurance Scheme. The reasons which govern whether they contribute or do not contribute have nothing to do with claims on the National Health Service but only to their interests and benefits under the National Insurance Scheme. The Treasury waylays them and says, "I am a tax gatherer disguised as a contribution collector and I impose on you contributions to the National Health Service".
  Mr. Barber: I take it the hon. Member is not saying that, under the Labour Government, National Health contributions were not provided as part of the expenditure of the National Health Service?
  Mr. Houghton: I am not going to start on that one now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have refuted that suggestion time and time again in these debates, and I did it as recently as Thursday evening. I do not propose to spend Guillotine time, which is precious to us on this side of the Committee, in examining that proposition any further.
  Mr. Barber: I shall be brief, but I should just like to ask the hon. Member to deal with the passage in the White Paper presented to Parliament by the Labour Government in 1946 about the Health Service, when it was said that the National Health Service has to be financed partly from the Exchequer, partly from local rates, and partly from the help which National Insurance contributions will give.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Houghton: I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to read my speeches in previous debates on this matter. There he will get the answer.
  I want to come to grips with this problem of the widows, and what I am saying is that we can deal under this Bill only with the relief to be given to those who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme, because they are the only people on whom this tax falls. We acknowledge that we are dealing with widows who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme. If they do not contribute they do not pay National Health Service contributions. So we can do nothing for them under the Bill. As for the position of widows generally, we would have to do it otherwise. We were debating these matters when widows' pensions and benefits were under discussion last autumn. That was when the Government made certain proposals to improve the position of widows and when we urged them to go further than they did.
  At the moment, however, we are concerned solely with relief to be given to certain widows who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme because they and they alone suffer this additional National Health Service contribution. The hon. Gentleman should realise that this batch of widows are mostly those who were widowed before they had reached the age of 50 and had

  1027
  no young children at the time and therefore had no widow's pension after the initial period of their widow's allowance. We are also dealing with those who began as widowed mothers and whose children left school before the mothers had reached the age of 45, and who, therefore, get no widow's pension. When the last of their children reached school-leaving age the widowed mother's benefit ceased and the widowed mother's allowance ceased with it. So in those circumstances she has now no benefit at all and she has obviously to maintain herself and must go out to work, and if she goes to work as a widow she becomes a contributor to the National Insurance Scheme and, as a contributor to the National Insurance Scheme, she has this additional National Health Service contribution placed upon her.
  We are also dealing with the 10s. widow whose husband died under the wrong scheme. Had her husband died under the new scheme she would have been more favourably placed for widow's benefits. She has to go out to work unless she has other resources and is not in receipt of any widow's benefit which exempts her from paying contributions. We have tried in this Committee again and again to improve the position of the 10s. widow and we have been defeated every time.
  Take this block of widows who go out to work. They are, therefore, middle-aged widows. They have had their working lives interrupted by widowhood. Since the hon. Gentleman can never become a widow I do not hope to convince him that there is all the difference in the world between widowhood and spinsterhood. Many of these widows had their family lives disrupted; their working lives had been interrupted earlier on. They had to recover some kind of position in the field of employment and, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, many of these widows were at a great disadvantage in their earning capacity. They had lost their skill. They had, in many cases, little ability to earn a reasonable rate of pay.
  I would remind the Committee that it is almost three years to the day since a similar Question was before the Com-
  1028
  mittee on the 1958 Bill, when Mrs. Jean Mann, a respected Member of the House and then Member of Parliament for Coatbridge and Airdrie, made a most moving appeal to the Committee in support of more consideration for the widows upon whom the National Health Service contribution would be imposed. We made no impression on the Government Benches then, and it does not look as though we are making any impression on the Government Benches now.
  The starting points on the two sides of the Committee are poles apart. On the other side of the Committee, the Government have introduced this Bill to impose charges on all who come within the Schedule. The Government say that all should pay; we are against any one within the Schedule paying additional contributions. The Government say all; we say none. That is where we start. That fundamental argument has not yet been resolved and cannot be until we come to the Third Reading. In the meantime, we can seek relief for particular categories whom we regard as harshly treated under the Government's proposals. That is a process of selection and any process of selection is bound to lead to marginal difficulties and considerations of equity. We believe that this category is clearly distinguishable from other categories covered by the Schedule.
  What we seek today is not to change the whole structure of widows' benefits, but to try to relieve them of the additional burden as the proposition comes to us and as we go along. Sometimes the best in the enemy of the good. What good we want to do is to stop the Government from imposing this additional burden. We cannot remove the Health Service contributions entirely from them. All that we can do is to mitigate the hardship which by this increase the Government propose to inflict. We believe that this category is distinguishable and deserving. Without prejudice to our views on the wider issues of the treatment of widows within the Welfare State, we believe that this small relief would be welcome to them. We believe it to be fully justified and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of it.
  Question put, That those words be—there inserted:—
  The Committee Divided: Ayes 178, Noes 260

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES

  5.54 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Hannan, William

  Peart, Frederick

  Albu, Austen

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pentland, Norman

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Healey, Denis

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Probert, Arthur

  Beaney, Alan

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Proctor, W. T.

  Benson, Sir George

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Randall, Harry

  Blackburn, F.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Rankin, John

  Blyton, William

  Holman, Percy

  Reid, William

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

  Houghton, Douglas

  Reynolds, C. W.

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hoy, James H.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bowles, Frank

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Ross, William

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Short, Edward

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Callaghan, James

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Cliffe, Michael

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

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Collick, Percy

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Snow, Julian

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Kelley, Richard

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Cronin, John

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Crosland, Anthony

  King, Dr. Horace

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lawson, George

  Stones, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Ledger, Ron

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, L.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Logan, David

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sylvester, George

  Deer, George

  MacColl, James

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Mackie John

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

  Dempsey, James

  MacMillan. Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Driberg, Tom

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Timmons, John

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Tomney, Frank

  Edelman, Maurice

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mason, Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Warbey, Willam

  Evans, Albert

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, Tudor

  Finch, Harold

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Weitzman, David

  Fitch, Alan

  Monslow, Walter

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Moody, A. S.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Morris, John

  Wigg, George

  Forman, J. C.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Ginsburg, David

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Owen, Will

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Grey, Charles

  Padley, W. E.

  Woof. Robert

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Paget, R. T.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Grimond, J.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Gunter, Ray

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

  Hall, Rt. tin. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Burden, F. A.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, Si)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Allason, James

  Bingham, R. M.

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

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

  Bishop, F. P.

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bossom, Clive

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Balniel, Lord

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Barber, Anthony

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Barlow, Sir John

  Brains, Bernard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Barter, John

  Brew's, John

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Batsford, Brian

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Bryan, Paul

  Cole, Norman

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Bullus, wing commander Eric

  Cooper, A. E.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Cordle, John

  Jackson, John

  Pitman, I. J.

  Corfield, F. V.

  James, David

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Costain, A. P.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Pott, Percivall

  Coulson, J. M.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Cunningham, Knox

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Curran, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Daikeith, Earl of

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Dance, James

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees, Hugh

  Merles, W. F.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Kitson, Timothy

  Renton, David

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)

  du Cann, Edward

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Duthie, Sir William

  Leavey, J. A.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Roots, William

  Eden, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Russell, Ronald

  Emery, Peter

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Seymour, Leslie

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Sharples, Richard

  Farr, John

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Shaw, M.

  Fell, Anthony

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Freeth, Denzil

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Speir, Rupert

  Gammons, Lady

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Gardner, Edward

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset N.)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Godber, J. B.

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

  Storey, sir Samuel

  Goodhart, Philip

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Goodhew Victor

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Simmers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Gough, Frederick

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington),

  Cower, Raymond

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Donald (Orpington)

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

  Green, Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marten, Nell

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vero (Macclesf'd)

  Mouthing, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Turner, Colin

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hastings, Stephen

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mills, Stratton

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wall, Patrick

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Morgan, William

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hendry, Forbes

  Morrison, John

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Watts, James

  Hiley, Joseph

  Heave, Alrey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Whitelaw, William

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

  Noble, Michael

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hobson, John

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Wise, A. R.

  Holland, Phillp

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hollingworth, John

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Hornby, R. P.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Peel, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and

  Mr. Frank Pearson.

  Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, column 1, after "including", to insert "married women and".
  The Temporary Chairman: This Amendment can be taken with the Amendment in page 3, line 22, column 1,

  1033
  after "including", insert "married women and"; the Amendment in line 26, column 1, at end insert "not including married women"; and the Amendment in line 27, at end add:

  s

  d.

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

  1

  5

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

  1

  9

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

  1

  9

  Mr. Houghton: Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. Your suggestion is very welcome. I fully accept that the Amendments can be taken together.
  I will be frank with the Committee and say that I do not feel as deeply about this Amendment as I did about the one which we have just discussed, but it is worth while spending a short time looking at some of the anomalies which are created by the imposition of National Health Service contributions on those, and only on those, who pay National Insurance contributions. The Amendment is designed to leave all married women out of the additional National Health Service contributions, whether employed or self-employed. Married women who are working, whether employed or self-employed, can elect to pay or not to pay National Insurance contributions. There may be a number of factors such as the age of husband and wife respectively, the economic circumstances, and even the relationship between husband and wife, which govern a wife's decision whether to pay contributions for a pension in her own right.
  I emphasise, however, that the decision when she takes it will be solely in relation to her position in the National Insurance Scheme. If she decides to pay contributions for reasons of her own under the National Insurance Scheme, the Treasury imposes upon her under the Bill the additional National Health Service contribution. If she elects not to pay National Insurance contributions she has no National Health Service contribution to pay at all, and she would escape not only the additional contributions under the Bill but the earlier contributions under the 1957 and 1958 Acts,
  1034
  I wish to stress that this question of election whether to pay or not to pay contributions by a married woman at work has everything to do with how she thinks she will stand under the National Insurance Scheme and has nothing whatever to do with how she thinks she will stand under the National Health Service. Mostly the married women who are more than five years younger than their husbands may decide not to pay, because it is all a question of whether the wife will reach the age of 60, and become entitled to pension in her own right if she retires, before the time her husband reaches 65. If the husband is under 65 by the time the wife reaches 60 she will have to wait for her pension, unless she had paid for it in her own right, until her husband reaches 65.
  Therefore, this question of the relative age of the husband and wife is all-important when the married woman decides whether to contribute or not. But whether the wife decides to contribute or otherwise has no effect upon her claims on the National Health Service. In that respect she is in the same position as any other citizen. I think that it is unfair not only in this context but in other connections as well to select only the contributor under the National Insurance Scheme to bear this additional tax towards the National Health Service.
  This is the issue and the theme which runs right through the examination of categories of this kind. We are not in favour of rectifying this anomaly by bringing the married woman non-contributor within the scope of National Health Service contributions. We are in favour of reducing the burden on married women contributors. We cannot leave them out of the Bill altogether. They must still continue to pay National Health contributions under previous Acts and all we can do is to seek by Amendment to reduce to a derisory amount the sum for which the Schedule provides. We cannot solve all the problems. All we are doing is to do what we can to mitigate hardship or inconvenience where we see it in the extent and imposition of the National Health Service contribution.
  Mr. Barber: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has been very brief and to the point in dealing with

  1035
  this series of Amendments, and I shall try to be the same.
  The hon. Member has explained the effect of the Amendment, and so I need not go over that ground again, but I would stress that we are dealing with a position in which married women may choose whether to pay the National Insurance contribution or whether they are content with the benefits earned for them by the contributions paid by their husbands. I am informed that about two-thirds of the married women in employment choose not to pay the contribution. The reason is fairly obvious when one realises that the husband's contribution earns a widow's benefit of 57s. 6d., maternity and death grants and a wife's retirement benefit of 35s. which is added to her husband's retirement pension as soon as he has qualified for it.
  But, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are certain circumstances in which a married woman may decide that it will pay her to contribute. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case where the wife is older than the husband and, consequently, she may want to qualify for a pension before her husband reaches the age of 65. There is also the case of the married woman who wants to qualify for unemployment or sickness benefit in her own right.
  I understand the point which the hon. Member was making about a possible anomaly here. He said, very fairly, that if there is an anomaly it is due to the fact that the liability to pay the National Health Service contribution follows the liability to pay the National Insurance contribution. I take his point, although I do not think he would wish me on this Amendment to go into the more fundamental question which is involved there.
  I should like just to make a comment with regard to a possible anomaly in the case of married women. The National Health Service contribution is, after all, a flat-rate contribution from all classes of contributor, and if it is said that there is any anomaly in the case of a married woman, it might well be said that there was a strong case for arguing that all married women, whether or not they opted out of paying the National Insurance contribution, should pay the National Health Service contribution.
  1036
  This, I should have thought, was the real anomaly, but I need not pursue that further, firstly, because the hon. Gentleman says that that is not a way in which he would advocate dealing with the situation, and, secondly, because to put it right would create, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, certain difficulties of administration which led the Government to accept the present position on an earlier occasion.
  I do not wish to go into great detail on this series of Amendments, nor do I wish to refer to what the principle was in 1948 or anything like that. However, I should like to tell the Committee that here basically, I think, the issue is one of amount. In 1948 the health element of a married woman's contribution was 6½d. and that of an employed man's contribution 8½d. Therefore, it was then thought reasonable that the woman's contribution should be, as it were, 76½ per cent. of the man's contribution. The position was similar with regard to the self-employed and non-employed. Under the Bill the percentage of the woman's contribution in relation to the man's contribution will have been reduced to 75 per cent. In other words, the relationship between the married woman's contribution and the man's contribution is much the same as it has always been since the beginning of the scheme.
  Bearing in mind the fact that no married woman is obliged to pay the National Insurance contribution and, consequently, the National Health contribution, there really is here no question of principle involved. It should also be borne in mind that the National Health Service contribution to be paid by a married woman bears much the same sort of relationship to that which has to be paid by a man and also that, without going into details, earnings have risen considerably since 1948. In view of all that, I should have thought that it was not unreasonable to increase the contribution as proposed in the First Schedule. For these reasons, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Ledger: I do not want to spend a long time on this Amendment, but I feel that something must be said because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Economic Secretary to the case put by my

  1037
  hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). The Economic Secretary seems to miss the whole point. When he says that this is merely a matter of amount as compared between today and a former period, he is missing my hon. Friend's point, which was that married women who go to work are able to elect to pay the National Insurance contribution or not, and, if they do pay it, it is obviously for some very good reason, perhaps as a safeguard. In all the cases that I know there are very good reasons connected with the age of the wife compared with the husband, there probably being a benefit which has been very carefully worked out by the woman.
  The increased contribution is in respect of the element which goes towards the National Health Service cost. What the married woman who stays at work elects to pay when she pays the National Insurance contribution is on the National Insurance part of the stamp, because of the extra benefits which she will get; she gets a benefit over and above what is obtained by the married woman who decides not to pay the contribution. When the amount which goes towards the Health Service charges is increased, the woman is paying for something over and above the insurance element, and yet she is not at the same time getting any benefit for the extra she is paying. At this point, although she is being asked to pay more, she will still get from that payment only the same benefit as the married woman worker who pays nothing.
  The Economic Secretary says that there is no principle involved here, that there is not really a big difference and that it is just a matter of amounts. That is ridiculous. If it was purely and simply a question of the extra amount which was being paid we might have a little difficulty with the Amendment; but it is the principle of the matter which is involved here. I ask the Economic Secretary to think again about this. On this side of the Committee we are coming to the conclusion that there is one speech on each Amendment which it does not matter if one does not hear, and that is the speech from the Government Front Bench, for it seems totally to disregard the arguments put forward from this side of the Committee. It
  1038
  seems to me that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are not taking the Bill with the seriousness that it demands.
  It seems to me that the Economic Secretary completely ignored my hon. Friend's case. I would ask him seriously to consider the unfairness in the situation that, when a married woman has elected to pay a contribution because she is staying at work, the Government tell her that for that part of the stamp for which she gets no preferential treatment over and above those who do not pay for it they are going to charge her more.
  If the Economic Secretary wanted to take his point further, he would say that all married women should now pay this extra amount. We take his point, and are making the argument strongly that it is not necessary to charge any married women—or, indeed, any men—this extra on the stamp. The hon. Gentleman knows our case, and the point we make is simple. He should give a serious reply.
  What is to be the position of those married women who stayed on at work and elected to pay the contribution, but are now being asked to pay a further amount? It is totally unfair, because they will gain no extra benefit above those women who elected not to pay the contribution.
  Mr. Barber: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) asked me a specific question, with his usual courtesy. The National Health Service contribution had not any separate existence before the Act of 1957, but an element of the National Insurance contribution was allotted to the National Health Service. I want to make it clear—there can be no dispute about this—that no attempt was made between 1948 and 1957 to reduce the National Insurance contribution paid by married women to allow for the fact that they should not have been asked to make such a notional contribution to the Health Service.
  It was with that in mind that I said that there was no question of principle here, unless the Opposition, as they are entitled to do, have changed their mind since 1948. I tried to deal with the question of the alleged anomaly. That is what I meant when I said that no question of principle was involved.
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) has dealt with the anomaly which the Economic Secretary refuses to see. After listening to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, I find it difficult to understand why the Economic Secretary fails to see the anomaly. A group of women who are paying insurance are now being asked to pay more for an element out of which they will get nothing. That is an anomaly, and I would have thought that the Economic Secretary would have recognised it and have been willing to accept that we had at least a case.
  One argument of the hon. Gentleman's, to which we have listened each time he has replied to an Amendment, is that a certain thing was done in 1946 so it should not be changed now. I am astonished by that attitude. Every time we examine a Bill we should do so on the basis of experience gained since the previous legislation was passed. If we accepted his idea that we should not change something because it had been done 12 or 15 years previously, we would never make any progress. How far do we go back before the Economic Secretary's argument becomes irrelevant? In terms of his argument, it would be right to say that because we did something in 1861 we should not amend it in 1961, or that because there was no National Health Service then we should not have one now. That is the logic of the argument he always adduces.
  On each Amendment he says, "Ah, but the Labour Government did it this way." That attitude always touches me. It seems somewhat pathetic that the Government should have to argue like this. They put forward the pathetic belief that what the Labour Government did must not be altered. I am the last person to claim that, and I am surprised that it should be a Tory argument. Legislation of the Labour Government should be altered in the light of experience.
  The Labour Government were putting into operation for the first time a new and imaginative scheme. No one expected that scheme to be perfect from the beginning, or that its provisions would become immutable laws of the country. We expected to reconsider this
  1040
  legislation in the light of experience, and that steps would be taken to rectify anomalies where they were seen to have arisen. We are now, with this Amendment, trying to deal with an anomaly which has become bigger as time has passed and as the contribution has increased. Every time the contribution towards the National Health Service is increased the anomaly becomes greater, and the case for making a change becomes greater.
  This anomaly has been clearly stated, and the time has come to do something about it. During today's debates on the various Amendments, we have heard one speech from Members opposite. It was a treat to hear the views of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) instead of reading them in the Press——
  Mr. Manuel: Or on television.
  Mr. Willis: I do not often listen to him on television. But we usually have his views in the Press rather than on the Floor of this Committee.
  The Opposition are being modest with this Amendment. We say, "Here are some small things that can be done; let the Government look at them and do something about them." That is a modest approach and a realistic one, in accordance with the manner in which we in this Committee carry out our business. I cannot understand how the Economic Secretary can refuse this Amendment. Our case is a good one, and he might at least have attempted to answer it by adducing some arguments against it.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unduly, because I have a strong interest in some later Amendments, and I do not wish the Guillotine to fall and cut them in half. This Amendment gives yet another example of the anomalies which are occurring now in National Insurance legislation as soon as the amounts concerned become sufficiently large to be important.
  To that degree, I agree with the Economic Secretary that this is partly a matter of amount and partly a matter of principle. The principle enshrined in the Labour Government's legislation was incorrect, but he is right in saying that it is only when the amount involved becomes substantial that one seriously becomes worried about the principle.

  1041
  There is an anomaly enshrined here which, when it was a matter of 4d., we did not worry about. But it is now becoming a matter of substance, the shoe pinches, and the principle is no more valid than it was in the early days, when we took little notice of it. This is only a further example, of which we have a number in our taxation system, of the difficulties in which we have placed ourselves owing to the failure of society in general to regard women as persons. It looks upon a woman as some kind of sub-being who has no individual personality.
  6.30 p.m.
  I am not proposing to enter into a long feminist discourse on the matter, but I point out that some of our difficulties arise from the fact that historically women have been regarded as having no personality in the legal sense. For some time we have been moving towards the position of recognising that they have such a personality, and women have become persons of some economic consequence, but it is difficult to adjust our legislation to take account of their modern position and to treat them as persons in their own right. If we were taxed, assessed and paid contributions separately as persons, with due allowance for children and families, that would avoid many of the troubles of which this instance is but one.
  The married woman, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, is being unfairly treated. On the insurance side, it depends on the woman's age relative
  to that of her husband whether it is worth her while to pay for insurance purposes. She and her husband get nothing like the full benefits, because her husband is not able to obtain them, although he has paid exactly the same as the man who does, whereas the married woman who has paid as much as a single woman does not get more benefit at the end. Men and women paying insurance contributions together do not reap benefits equal to those which they would have received if the arrangements has been straightforward.
  I still think that the anomaly of women paying a percentage is without logical foundation when related to their earnings. The Minister said that women paid 75 per cent. of the contribution paid by men. I have said before that women's earning in industry are half men's earnings and for them to pay a 75 per cent. contribution is completely inequitable. Average earnings for men in industry are £14 10s. 8d. per week, while for women the figure is £7 8s. 4d. per week. In manufacturing industry alone, average earnings for men are £15 0s. 3d. a week, while for women they are only £7 8s. 3d. A contribution of 75 per cent. for women is therefore inequitable and has no relation to earnings. I do not want to go over the ground again, but the Minister's reply on this occasion has been no more satisfactory than those given previously.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 248.

  Division No. 94.]

  AYES

  [6.34 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Albu, Austen

  Cronin, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Cullen Mrs. Alice

  Ginsburg, David

  Awbery, Stan

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Beaney, Alan

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Benson, Sir George

  Davies, !for (Gower)

  Grey, Charles

  Blackburn, F.

  Deer, George

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

  Blyton, William

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Boardman, H.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Grimond, J.

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

  Dempsey, James

  Gunter, Ray

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Coins Valley)

  Bowles, Frank

  Dugdate, Rt. Hon. John

  Hannan, William

  Brockway, A. Farmer

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Healey, Denis

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regls)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Evans, Albert

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Callaghan, James

  Finch, Harold

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Chapman, Donald

  Fitch, Alan

  Hilton, A. V.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Fetcher, Eric

  Holman, Percy

  Collick, Percy

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Forman, J. C.

  Hoy, James H.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Neal, Harold

  Stones, William

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Heel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

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

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Swain, Thomas

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Oswald, Thomas

  Swingler, Stephen

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Owen, Will

  Sylvester, George

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Padley, W. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

  Paget, R. T.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Kelley, Richard

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

  Thornton, Ernest

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Peart, Frederick

  Timmons, John

  King, Dr. Horace

  Pentland, Norman

  Tomney, Frank

  Lawson, George

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Ledger, Ron

  Probert, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lipton, Marcus

  Proctor, W. T.

  Warbey, William

  Logan, David

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Watkins, Tudor

  Loughlin, Charles

  Randall, Harry

  Weitzman, David

  MacColl, James

  Rankin, John

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Reld, William

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mackie, John

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Wigg, George

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wilkins, W. A.

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

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Ross, William

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Mason, Roy

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Short, Edward

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

  Millan, Bruce

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Milne, Edward J.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Woof, Robert

  Monslow, Walter

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Moody, A. S.

  Snow, Julian

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Morris, John

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Mort, D. L.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Moyle, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mulley, Frederick

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Cordle, John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Allason, James

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

  Coulson, J. M.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Barber, Anthony

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hastings, Stephen

  Barlow, Sir John

  Curran, Charles

  Hay, John

  Barter, John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Batsford, Brian

  Dance, James

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  d'Avigdor-Coldsmid. Sir Henry

  Hendry, Forbes

  Ben, Ronald

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bingham, R. M.

  du Cann, Edward

  Hobson, John

  Bishop, F. P.

  Duthie, Sir William

  Holland, Philip

  Bossom, Clive

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Hollingworth, John

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Eden, John

  Hornby, R. P.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Emery, Peter

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Brains, Bernard

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Brawis, John

  Farr, John

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Fell, Anthony

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Brooman-White, R.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & stone)

  Jackson, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  James, David

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Freeth, Denzil

  Jennings, J. C.

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

  Gammons, Lady

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Godber J. B.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gough, Frederick

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Kimball, Marcus

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Kitson, Timothy

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Green, Alan

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Cole, Norman

  Halt, John (Wycombe)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hamilton Michael (Wellingborough)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harris Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Speir, Rupert

  Lindsay, Martin

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Longden, Gilbert

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Percival Ian

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

  pitman, I. J.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Pott, Percival)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Turner, Colin

  Maddan, Martin

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Maginnis, John E.

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Maitland, Sir John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Wall, Patrick

  Marshall, Douglas

  Rees, Hugh

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Marten, Neil

  Renton, Davies, W. R.

  Watts, James

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Renton, Devid

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Whitelaw, William

  Mawby, Ray

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

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

  Royce, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Wise, A. R.

  Mills, Stratton

  Russell, Ronald

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Seymour, Leslie

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Morgan, William

  Shaw, M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Morrison, John

  Shepherd, William

  Worsley, Marcus

  Naharro, Gerald

  Simon. Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Heave, Airey

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.

  Noble, Michael

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 15, column 2, to leave out "2s. 0½d." and to insert "1s. 5d.".
  This is the female partner to the Amendment in page 3, line 12, column 2,
  which has been before the Committee. I therefore move it formally.
  Question put, That "2s. 0½d." stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 181.

  Division No. 95.]

  AYES

  [6.44 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Eden, John

  Allason, James

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Emery, Peter

  Arbuthnot, John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Farr, John

  Barber, Anthony

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Barlow, Sir John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Barter, John

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Fisher, Nigel

  Botsford, Brian

  Cole, Norman

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bell, Ronald

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Freeth, Denzil

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Gammons, Lady

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Cordle, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Bidgood, John C.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Bingham, R. M.

  Costain, A. P.

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Coulson, J. M.

  Godber, J. B.

  Bossom, Clive

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gough, Frederick

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Cunningham, Knox

  Gower, Raymond

  Boyle, sir Edward

  Braine, Bernard

  Curran, Charles

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Brewis, John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Green, Alan

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Dance, James

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  d'Avigdor.Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Broome, Percy (Torrington)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  du Cann, Edward

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

  Duthie, Sir William

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Boyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Russell, Ronald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maddan, Martin

  Seymour, Leslie

  Hay, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sharpies, Richard

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Maitland, Sir John

  Shaw, M.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Shepherd, William

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Hiley, Joseph

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Skeet, T. H. H.

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

  Marshall, Douglas

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Marten, Neil

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Hobson, John

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Holland, Philip

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Speir, Rupert

  Hollingworth, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Hornby, R. P.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

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

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Mills, Stratton

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morgan, William

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morrison, John

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Nabarro, Gerald

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

  Jackson, John

  Heave, Alrey

  Temple, John M.

  James, David

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Jennings, J. C.

  Noble, Michael

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Turner, Colin

  Kimball, Marcus

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Peel, John

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Percival, Ian

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Leavey, J. A.

  Pickthom, Sir Kenneth

  Wall, Patrick

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pitman, I. J.

  Watts, James

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Pott, Percivall

  Whitelaw, William

  Lindsay, Martin

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Wise, A. R.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Rawilnson, Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Worsley, Marcus

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Rees, Hugh

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Renton, David

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Mr. Chichester-Clark.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Albu, Austen

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Grimond, J.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crews)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gunter, Ray

  Awbery, Stan

  Deer, George

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  de Freltas, Geoffrey

  Hannan, William

  Heaney, Alan

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Benson, Sir George

  Dempsey, James

  Hayman, F. H.

  Blackburn, F.

  Driberg, Tom

  Healey, Denis

  Blyton, William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regls)

  Boardman, H.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

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

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Edwards, Robert Bilston.)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Bowles, Frank

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Holman, Percy

  Brookway, A. Fenner

  Evans, Albert

  Houghton, Douglas

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Finch, Harold

  Hoy, James H.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Fitch, Alan

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Callaghan, James

  Forman, J. C.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Chapman, Donald

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Cllffe, Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Cellick, Percy

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Cmrthn)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Ginsburg, David

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

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

  Cronin, John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Culten, Mrs. Alice

  Grey, Charles

  Kelley, Richard

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Paget, R. T.

  Swain, Thomas

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Swingler, Stephen

  King, Dr. Horace

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Sylvester, George

  Lawson, George

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

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Ledger, Ron

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Peart, Frederick

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Logan, David

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Loughlin, Charles

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thornton, Ernest

  MacColl, James

  Probert, Arthur

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Timmons, John

  Mackie, John

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Tomney, Frank

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Randall, Harry

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rankin, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

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

  Reid, William

  Warbey, William

  Manuel, A. C.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Mason, Roy

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Weitzman, David

  Mellish, R. J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Milian, Bruce

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Milne, Edward, J.

  Rose, William

  Wigg, George

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Monslow, Walter

  Short, Edward

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Moody, A. S.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Williams, D. J. (heath)

  Morris, John

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Mort, D. L.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

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

  Mulley, Frederick

  Snow, Julian

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Neal, Harold

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Woof. Robert

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Oliver, G. H.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stones, William

  Zilliacus, K.

  Owen, Will

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Padley, W. E.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, column 1, after "18" to insert "not including apprentices".
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that with this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss the Amendment on page 3, line 27, at the end to add:
  11. Apprentices under the age of 18 … 11d.
  Mr. Ross: This Amendment is a particularised aspect of the following Amendment which covers the actual payments with the increases, and, finally, what the Government suggest should be paid by the 18 to 21-year-olds.
  We have already had a good discussion on the 18 to 21s when we discovered that some hon. Members opposite adjudged whether or not it was right to put an increased payment on the young people on the basis of teenage squanderers. They seemed to be spending so much money in doing all sorts of wonderful things——
  Mr. Loughlin: Riding motor-cycles.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, riding motor-cycles and all the rest of it, and hon. Members opposite suggested that they could easily afford this little extra. If we are to take what people spend as a criterion of their ability to pay, I think that the tax gatherers will have a rich harvest to draw
  1050
  in before even touching the young people; but it is a rather fallacious and dangerous argument.
  Here we are dealing with apprentices, young people in industry who have taken a step which, I presume, the Government want them to take. In Scotland and in England I hear Ministers proclaiming the value of apprenticeships and the desirability of securing skilled manpower. They deplore the fact that there are so few apprentices in industry today. I hope that the Government will be prepared to mitigate this increase in respect of apprentices.
  We have to bear in mind that the Government seem to work with strange and divided minds regarding this kind of thing. Only in September of last year I received from the Ministry of Pensions and National Service a notification of the new family allowances in relation to apprentices. It states:
  "A 17-year-old apprentice can count for family allowances if his weekly earnings are less than 89s. 6d. For apprentices aged 16 the limit is 87s. and for those aged 15 84s. 6d."
  This increase, as recent as September of last year, was a recognition that the limits existing at that time were too low. Obviously, it would follow that if the Government now presume to raise by 6d. the allowance in respect of National Health Service contributions paid by

  1051
  apprentices, they ought to raise this limit by another 6d.
  The interesting thing is that it states, in this official document:
  "This is the effect of a decision, published today, by the National Insurance Commissioner on an appeal by the mother of an electrical engineering apprentice. The Family Allowance Act covers apprentices whose earnings do not Provide 'wholly or substantially a livelihood'."
  That is an important ruling. It is not a ruling from this side of the Committee, or from the Government; it is a ruling by the National Insurance Commissioner who, in September of last year, stated that these payments did not provide "wholly or substantially a livelihood".
  The Commissioner ruled that that meant earnings up to the amounts stated. What justification can the Government have for making an increase in circumstances in which, as we all know, some apprentices earn very much less than the earnings which the National Insurance Commissioner himself says do not provide "wholly or substantially a livelihood"? Why should the Government snap on another increase in respect of the National Health contribution? The case is as simple as that.
  I sincerely hope that the Government will not plead administrative difficulties in this matter. If a thing is right, let us find a way to do it. That is what the minions behind the hon. Gentleman are for—to ensure that the administration is so moulded as to cover cases which the House of Commons decides should be treated in a special way. We suggest that these Amendments are worthy not only of the consideration, but the support of every hon. Member in the Committee.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir E. Boyle: The effect of this Amendment, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly said, would be to reduce the rate for apprentices under 18 from 1s. 4½d. to 11 d. Perhaps I might remind the Committee of the present arrangements regarding apprentices. Those apprentices who are not paid at all of course pay no National Insurance, and consequently no separate National Health contribution. They are treated the same as girls and boys who stay on at school. Those
  1052
  who are paid are treated as employed persons.
  The difficulty about the Amendment is that we have been discussing today and on previous occasions whether we should select categories which are not to pay this particular contribution. Without going into the arguments we have used in discussion of earlier Amendments, as I see it this Amendment is in a sense selecting a category within a category. My reason for asking the Committee to reject the Amendment is that I do not think there is sufficient justification for treating apprentices differently from any other lower paid juveniles. The apprentice is unlikely to have dependents and, to that extent, is in a better position than a number of older men or women with higher earnings but greater family liabilities.
  I think the figures quoted by the hon. Member bear this out. Some idea of the level of earnings generally accepted by apprentices can be gained by noting that for the purposes of family allowances qualification, a reasonable livelihood for an apprentice under 18 is of the order of 85s. That provision of the Family Allowances Act has been changed on more than one occasion since the Act came into force as a result of the operations of the National Insurance Commissioner.
  I cannot feel that there is a sufficient case for treating the apprentice in a separate position from other lower paid juvenile workers. I do not consider that in our system of social services apprentices in general are treated unfairly. Without getting out of order in developing this point, I can say that I think a number of people, including, if she were here herself, the late Miss Eleanor Rathbone, might be surprised to discover this figure of 85s. It would surprise many who were originally responsible for the Family Allowances Act. I cannot think that there is a sufficient case for acceptance of this Amendment, and for that reason I advise the Committee to reject it.
  Mr. Loughlin: I deliberately waited until the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had spoken because I was hoping that we had at last reached the stage at which he could find something to concede to us in the series of Amendments we have submitted. It does not

  1053
  appear that the hon. Gentleman has any intention of conceding anything about anyone.
  It is true that the Amendments we have moved and these two Amendments have sought to place certain people, including widows and apprentices, in special categories. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think apprentices constituted a category which ought to be privileged in this way. The same answer has been given to every case we have put up so far. No doubt it will be given to every case we present until the end of this discussion. If rejection of these Amendments is on the ground that the persons concerned do not constitute a special category and if that argument is applied to every category we advance, there is no purpose in submitting our series of Amendments. It might be pertinent to ask the Financial Secretary, in view of the continual use of this argument, to indicate what people he would be prepared to accept in separate categories needing specialised treatment under these provisions.
  He knows, and we all know, that the trade union movement, employers of labour and the Government have for years exhorted the institution of apprenticeships in practically every trade in the country. It is very difficult to persuade young boys into them when they are asked to pay increasingly on rates of wages which do not bear comparison with those paid to other youngsters of the same age who go into jobs where they are not tied down by indentures. It is no good the Financial Secretary saying that the average apprentice in industry today is quite capable of meeting the additional costs which this Government place upon him.
  This matter may be only a matter of coppers, but many apprentices have to think in terms of coppers. The other night hon. Members opposite were arguing that youngsters in this country had an enormous amount of money to spend. One hon. Member opposite related how many youngsters with high rates of wages were riding motor-cycles and Vespars. I believe he said that £900 million was spent by young people in one form or another of pleasure seeking. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that if we are to start talking in terms of ability to pay,
  1054
  the argument applied by hon. Members opposite to youngsters in industry who can afford a certain amount of pleasure seeking should apply equally to many people whose interests are represented by hon. Members opposite—and I do not mean their constituents.
  The Government ought to look at the possibility of encouraging apprentices in every possible way. Unless there is a quickening of apprenticeship schemes in industry, in fifteen years time we shall he in a difficult position. In other countries the emphasis is on creating technicians who will be required in the technological revolution which is taking place, but here the tendency is not to create them. The Government by low rates of wages are not encouraging the creation of apprenticeship schemes yet they are imposing these charges. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the average boy in an apprenticeship scheme does not receive anything like the rates of wages paid to boys who are not apprenticed. If the apprentice sees other youngsters of the same age in receipt of higher wages and yet has to face additional charges envisaged in this Bill, his younger brother who might otherwise have become an apprentice will be very reluctant to do so. In any case it is unfair.
  The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we need apprentices. He has the opportunity now to give an indication that the Government want to encourage apprentices. We are in a dangerous situation. I believe in democracy and in debate and discussion. I believe in this House hammering things out and getting the best we can for the people of the country, but hon. Members opposite have been neglecting their duties completely in these debates.
  Those who are arguing this case to improve this Measure are not on the Government side of the House, and when one hon. Gentleman on the Government benches rises to speak a cheer goes up. I am very worried about this, because not merely is it happening on this Measure, but on many more Measures as well. The Government are showing a complete rigidity they are not prepared to listen to arguments or to make any concesssions, and I make the prediction that they will not concede anything on any one of the Amendments which we are advancing from this side

  1055
  of the Committee in the course of the discussions on this Bill.
  I think it is about time that the Financial Secretary looked at this matter again. I have a great respect for him, and I hope he will not take this in a personal way, but I hope he will be a little more considerate to the arguments we have advanced. We are advancing this case for a number of reasons, not merely the moral issues which are involved in this poll tax on people who cannot afford to pay, but also from the long-term aspect of this question and the effect on the production of apprentices for British industry. It is as much the Financial Secretary's responsibility as it is mine to see that we do not do anything to stop the encouragement of apprentices. I therefore ask him to look again at this matter.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hands of the Financial Secretary are tied on this matter?
  Mr. Loughlin: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but even if the Financial Secretary's hands are tied, after all he represents the Treasury. If, having heard the discussion in this Committee, he cannot say that he will accept the Amendment, there is nothing to stop him indicating to us that, although he cannot accept it in its present form, he will consult his right hon. and learned Friend and bring back an Amendment to meet the points made in debate on Report stage. I ask him to do that.
  Mr. Ledger: I should like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to clear up one small point. I had a feeling, when the hon. Gentleman was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that he was almost conceding a point with which we on this side of the Committee would very much agree. I have the feeling, having watched the hon. Gentleman during the past five or six years, that he is very much a man of principle, and that his principles have been giving him a lot of trouble during the course of these debates.
  The hon. Gentleman was making the point that he could not accept this Amendment because, he said, it would
  1056
  give the apprentices a preference or a privilege over young people of the same age who might be earning less. The simple point I put to him is that if he were prepared to concede that these young people under 18 should be treated in exactly the same way as we wish apprentices could be treated, he would have our full agreement. We do not want this difference between apprentices and young people who are not apprentices, and this is where we would be all the way with him.
  I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would indicate whether it was our attitude in wanting what may appear to be a privilege for apprentices which has given him his difficulty. I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee in saying that, if he would accept this Amendment or a similar one to provide that all young people under 18 should have the benefit of the Amendment, he would carry everybody on this side with him.
  Mr. Ross: I was hoping that the Financial Secretary would reply to the points which have been put to him. After all, we have tried so hard to reach his heart. We try with whole categories, but he places one against the other and says that it is impossible. We then try with a special category, and the hon. Gentleman then says, It cannot be done, because it would not be fair to the others within the category." Here we have two Amendments which marry them both—one relating to a specialised number of people within a category, as well as the whole category of the 18 to 21-year-olds itself, and still the hon. Gentleman refuses.
  Why does not the Financial Secretary be honest and say that the Government are determined that they are not going to have a Report stage on the Bill and that it has to be finished, as far as this House is concerned, by Thursday. The hon. Gentleman is put there to stonewall and stonewall, and this is really what it comes to. This is futility, and it is reducing the House of Commons to a farce, but it is probably inevitable under the proceedings under the Guillotine.
  Let us look at the situation, and the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite had better face it. Here we

  1057
  have the National Insurance Commissioner telling us, in respect of a category of people, that if they are not being paid a certain amount they are not receiving a sum of money which will constitute "wholly or substantially a livelihood," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to tax that section of the population additionally. There is no way out of this. So long as those people hold National Insurance cards, they will pay, and it is no good hon. Members opposite comforting themselves with the thought that they pay only 6d. It is only 6d. more, but that makes the total contribution in respect of the Health Service contribution 1s. 4½d. per week. If we look at their cards, we find no stamp for the National Health Service contribution, because that is only a part that is incorporated within something else.
  7.15 p.m.
  What they are paying at present is 5s. 5d. What they will pay in April as a result of the Act passed last year will be 6s. 3d., and the result of the Bill now before us, if this Amendment is turned down, will be that on 1st July they will pay 6s. 9d. That is what comes out of the wages of apprentices or young people under 18, and that is what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should face. I am not going into the argument whether we should specialise in getting our hospitals built this way. We have had that argument before and we shall be returning to it. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech about four times, and no doubt we shall hear it again, though it is no more convincing now than it was the first time.
  It is dreadful that we cannot get one hon. Gentleman opposite to rise in support of his own Government. They make their speeches, if they make them at all, at the weekend, outside this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have lost all their courage."] It is not that they have lost all their courage, but that they have lost leadership. They have no interest in this. I feel very sorry for the Financial Secretary that he should be left to carry this miserable baby. I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter to a Division, because I think the Government have no justification for what they are doing, either in respect of a whole category, and certainly not in respect of apprentices as such.
  Sir E. Boyle: If I take the mood of the Committee correctly, it is that hon. Members want to come to a conclusion fairly rapidly on this Amendment. I would not wish to be thought discourteous to any of the hon. Members who had spoken, but, remembering the trouble I got into once for making two speeches in two hours, I was wondering whether making two speeches in a quarter of an hour would go down too well.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger), who made a perfectly reasonable point, I would say that we were addressing ourselves, in particular, to an Amendment to insert the words "not including apprentices". It was perfectly legitimate, in these circumstances, to say that, in my view, there would be no justification for treating apprentices differently from other lower paid juveniles, but, since the point has been made, I hope that you, Sir William, will not rule me out of order if I "come clean" with the Committee and say that in regard to lower-paid workers, we have disposed of that Amendment. I would find it difficult to be convinced that whether or not those persons should pay contributions should depend on their age, and I quite admit that if Amendments directed to those points had been put down I should be opposing them, too.
  My experience in the House is that it is quite common, with a short Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution, that no Amendments get accepted in Committee—but I say that, obviously, without prejudice to any further Amendments that may be moved this evening. It is not at all unprecedented in the proceedings of this House that when a short Bill is introduced, as I say, founded on a Ways and Means Resolution, that the Bill leaves the Committee stage as it came to it. I am merely stating the facts; I do not seek to do anything else. I speak only of my own experience.
  With those few words of mine, perhaps the Committee might agree fairly soon to take a decision on this fairly narrow Amendment, and then get on to the next Amendment, which raises issues of considerable interest.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divied: Ayes 181, Noes 239.

  Division No. 96.

  AYES

  17.21 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pentland, Norman

  Albu, Austen

  Healey, Denis

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Probert, Arthur

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Proctor, W. T.

  Awbery, Stan

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Randall, Harry

  Beaney, Alan

  Holman, Percy

  Rankin, John

  Benson, Sir George

  Holt, Arthur

  Redhead, E. C.

  Blackburn, F.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Reid, William

  Blyton, William

  Hoy, James H.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Ross, William

  Bowles, Frank

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Short, Edward

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Silverman, Julius (Aston

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney C.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Callaghan, James

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Snow, Julian

  Chapman, Donald

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Kelley, Richard

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Collick, Percy

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Stones, William

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lawson, George

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Logan, David

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sylvester, George

  Deer, George

  MacColl, James

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Mackie, John

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Dempsey, James

  MacMillan, Maloolm (Western Isles)

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Timmons, John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Tomney, Frank

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mason, Roy

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Evans, Albert

  Millan, Bruce

  Warbey, William

  Finch, Harold

  Milne, Edward J.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Fitch, Alan

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Weitzman, David

  Fletcher, Eric

  Monslow, Walter

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Moody, A. S.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Forman, J. C.

  Morris, John

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mort, D. L.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Moyle, Arthur

  Williams. D. J. (Neath)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Srmrthn)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Ginsburg, David

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby. S.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oliver, G. H.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Grey, Charles

  Oswald, Thomas

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanetly)

  Owen, Will

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Padley, W. E.

  Grimond, J.

  Paget, R. T.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Gunter, Ray

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Hannan, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Cronin and Dr. Broughton

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Peart, Frederick

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

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

  Bingham, R. M.

  Burden, F. A.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bishop, F. P.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bossom, Clive

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Barber, Anthony

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Barter, John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Batsford, Brian

  Braine, Bernard

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Brewis, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Bell, Ronald

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Brooman-White, R.

  Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Cole, Norman

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Cooper, A. E.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neil

  Jackson, John

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Cordle, John

  James, David

  Pott, Percivall

  Corfield, F. V.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Contain, A. P.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Coulson, J. M.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Cunningham, Knox

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Curran, Charles

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Currie, C. B. H.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Redmayne, Rt Hon. Martin

  Dance, James

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees, Hugh

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Renton, David

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Leavey, J. A.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  du Cann, Edward

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Russell, Ronald

  Duthie, Sir William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Sharples, Richard

  Emery, Peter

  Lindsay, Martin

  Shaw, M.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Shepherd, William

  Fell, Anthony

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Fisher, Nigel

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smith, Dudley

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Freeth, Denzil

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Speir, Rupert

  Gammans, Lady

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Gardner, Edward

  McAdden, Stephen

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Godber, J. B.

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

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Goodhew, Victor

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Gough, Frederick

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Gower, Raymond

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Grant, Rt. Hon, William

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

  Green, Alan

  Madden, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marten, Neil

  Turner, Colin

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Mawby, Ray

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Mills, Stratton

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Hay, John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Morgan, William

  Wall, Patrick

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Morrison, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hendry, Forbes

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Watts, James

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Neave, Airey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Whitelaw, William

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

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wise, A. R.

  Hobson, John

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Holland, Philip

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hollingworth, John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pannel, Norman (kirkdale)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Peel, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. Noble.

  Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, column 2, to leave out "1s. 4½d." and to insert "11d."
  This Amendment deals with the whole group of employed boys and girls under 18. A few moments ago the Financial Secretary criticised the last Amendment on the ground that it dealt with a group within a group. The Committee has rejected the proposed Amendment to give relief to the group within the group and
  1062
  we therefore seek, by this Amendment, to give relief to the whole of the group.
  All I need add is that the Financial Secretary, with his customary disarming candour, told us that it was very unusual for any Amendments to be accepted to a short Bill which had been the subject of a Money Resolution hut, to preserve his constitutional position, he added that what he said was without prejudice to the

  1063
  consideration of later Amendments on the Notice Paper.
  We now know that it is not without prejudice to the remaining Amendments on the Notice Paper. The Amendment which I have moved is prejudiced by the general considerations to which the Financial Secretary referred. I will not
  bandy further words with him about the Amendment. I will not waste my time. The Amendment is prejudiced from the beginning. It will not be carried, but I ask the Committee to divide on it.
  Question put, That "1s. 43d." stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 180.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES

  [7.33 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Allison, James

  Godber, J. B.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

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

  Goodhew, Victor

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gough, Frederick

  Maddan, Martin

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gower, Raymond

  Maginnis, John E.

  Barber, Anthony

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Maitland, Sir John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Green, Alan

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Barter, John

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Batsford, Brian

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Bell, Ronald

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Marten, Neil

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mawby, Ray

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Masclesf'd)

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

  Bingham, R.M.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Mills, Stratton

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bossom, Clive

  Hastings, Stephen

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hay, John

  Morgan, William

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Morrison, John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Braine, Bernard

  Hendry, Forbes

  Heave, Airey

  Brewis, John

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Brooman White, R.

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hobson. John

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland, Philip

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hollingworth, John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Hornby, R P

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Peel, John

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Jackson, John

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  James, David

  Pott, Percivall

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Jennings, J. C.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Cole, Norman

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Johnson, Erie (Blackdey)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Cordle, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Costain, A. P.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Coulson, J. M.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Craddock Sir Beresford

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees, Hugh

  Cunningham, Knox

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Curran, Charles

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Renton, David

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Langford-Holt J.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Dance, James

  Leavey, J. A.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Dudes, W. F.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Russell, Ronald

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Sharples, Richard

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Shaw, M.

  du Cann, Edward

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Shepherd, William

  Duthie, Sir William

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Emery, Peter

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chlswick)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Fell, Anthony

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Speir, Rupert

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Freeth, Denzil

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Gammans, Lady

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Gardner, Edward

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

  Stoddart-Scott. Col. Sir Malcolm

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Turner, Colin

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Tweedemuir, Lady

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wise, A. R.

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Temple, John M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Wall, Patrick

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Watts, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. Noble.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Whitelaw, William

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Healey, Denis

  Pentland, Norman

  Albu, Austen

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)

  Price, J.T. (Westhoughton)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Probert, Arthur

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Awbery, Stan

  Hilton, A. V.

  Purvey, Cmdr. Harry

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Holman, Percy

  Randall, Harry

  Beaney, Alan

  Holt, Arthur

  Rankin, John

  Benson, Sir George

  Houghton, Douglas

  Redhead, E. C.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hoy, James H.

  Reid, William

  Blyton, William

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Ross, William

  Bowles, Frank

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Brockway, A. Penner

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Short, Edward

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Callaghan, James

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Snow, Julian

  Chapman, Donald

  Keiley, Richard

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Collick, Percy

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  King, Dr. Horace

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Stones, William

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Ledger, Ron

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Logan, David

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Swingler, Stephen

  Deer, George

  MacColl, James

  Sylvester, George

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Mackie, John

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Dempsey, James

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Thornton, Ernest

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Edwards, Robert (Bliston)

  Mason, Roy

  Timmons. John

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Tourney, Frank

  Evans, Albert

  Millan, Bruce

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Finch, Harold

  Milne, Edward J.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fitch, Alan

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Warbey, William

  Fletcher, Erie

  Monslow, Walter

  Watkins, Tudor

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Moody, A. S.

  Weitzman, David

  Forman, J. C.

  Morris, John

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mort, D. L.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wigg, George

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Ginsburg, David

  Neal, Harold

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Williams, Li (Abertiliery)

  Grey, Charles

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Owen, Will

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Grimond, J.

  Padley, W. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Gunter, Ray

  Paget, R. T.

  Woof, Robert

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hannan, William

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

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Peart, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

  Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, column 2, to leave out "2s. 10d." and to insert "2s. 3d."
  1066
  The Amendment deals with self-employed men. We think that they, too, should be relieved of the full impact of the proposed increases.
  Question put, That "2s. 10d." stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 180.

  Division No. 98.]

  AYES

  17.43 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Neave, Airey

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Allason, James

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Noble, Michael

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

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macelesf'd)

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, John

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrle

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Barber, Anthony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Barter, John

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Botsford, Brian

  Hendry, Forbes

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Bell, Ronald

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

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

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Berkeley, Humphry

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

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Bevine, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bldgood, John C.

  Hobson, John

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Bingham, R. M.

  Holland, Philip

  Pott, Percivall

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hollingworth, John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Bossom, Clive

  Hornby, R. P.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Braine, Bernard

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Brewis, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rees, Hugh

  Brooman-White, R.

  Jackson, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  James, David

  Renton, David

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Jennings, J. C.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Burden, F. A.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

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

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Russell, Ronald

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Seymour, Leslie

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Sharples, Richard

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Shaw, M.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Shepherd, William

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Smith. Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Speir, Rupert

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Leaver, J. A.

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Cole, Norman

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Cordle, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Costain, A. P.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Sotrey, Sir Henry

  Coulson, J. M.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Summers Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Sumner, (Orpington)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Curran, Charles

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Temple, John M.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Dance, James

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Deedes, W. F.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Thornton Kemsley, Sir Colin

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Turner, Colln

  du Cann, Edward

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Tweednmuir, Lady

  Duthie, Sir William

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Emery, Peter

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Maddan, Martin

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maitland, Sir John

  Wall, Patrick

  Fisher, Nigel

  Marmingham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Freeth, Denzil

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Watts, James

  Gammons Lady

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gardner, Edward

  Marshall, Douglas

  Whitelaw, William

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marten, Neil

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Godber, J. B.

  Mawby, Ray

  Wise, A. R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gough, Frederick

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Stratton

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Morgan, William

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Mr. Peel and Mr. Frank Pearson.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pentland, Norman

  Albu, Austen

  Healey, Denis

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regie)

  Probert, Arthur

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Proctor, W. T.

  Awbery, Stan

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Purvey, Cmdr. Harry

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Randall, Harry

  Beaney, Alan

  Holman, Percy

  Rankin, John

  Benson, Sir George

  Holt, Arthur

  Redhead, E. C.

  Blackburn, F.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Reid, William

  Blyton, William

  Hoy, James H.

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bowden, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Ross, William

  Bowles, Frank

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Short, Edward

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Silverman, Julian (Aston)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

  smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Snow, Julian

  Callaghan, James

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Chapman, Donald

  Kelley, Richard

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Cliffe, Michael

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Collick, Percy

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  King, Dr. Horace

  Stones, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lipton, Marcus

  Swain, Thomas

  Daves, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Logan, David

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sylvester, George

  Deer, George

  MacColl, James

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Mackie, John

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Dempsey, James

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Timmons, John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Tomney, Frank

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mason, Roy

  Ungned-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Evans, Albert

  Millan, Bruce

  Warbey, William

  Finch, Harold

  Milne, Edward J.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Fitch, Alan

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Weitzman, David

  Fletcher, Eric

  Monslow, Walter

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Moody. A. S

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Forman, J. C.

  Morris, John

  Wigg, George

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mort, D. L.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wilkins, W. A.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthm)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Ginsburg, David

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Grey, Charles

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Owen, will

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Padley, W. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Grimond J.

  Paget, R. T.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Gunter, Ray

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

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

  Hannan, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Peart, Frederick

  Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

  Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, column 2, to leave out "2s. 2d." and to insert 1s. 9d.".
  This Amendment deals with self-employed women. My hon. Friends have reminded me that all hon. Members of this Committee have an interest in the position of self-employed persons under the National Insurance Scheme. I think that on their behalf I should declare that we all have an interest, but it is not in
  our own interests that I move this Amendment. We are thinking of all self-employed persons outside, on whom this additional burden would bear harshly, and we want to mitigate it as far as possible
  Question put, That "2s. 2d. "stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 236, Noes 179.

  Division No.99.]

  AYES

  [7.52 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

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

  Barber, Anthony

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Allason, James

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Barter, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Bell, Ronald

  Hay, John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bishop, F. P.

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

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Boasom, Clive

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

  Percival, Ian

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hobson, John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Pitman, I. J.

  Brains, Bernard

  Hollingsworth, John

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Brawis, John

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pott, Percivall

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Howard, John (Southampon, Test)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otto)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Sir Anthony

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Bullus, Wing Commander Erie

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Burden, F. A.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rawlinson, Peter

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

  Jackson, John

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  James, David

  Rees, Hugh

  Campbell, George (Moray & Nairn)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Renton, David

  Can, Robert (Mitcham)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Cary Sir Robert

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Russell, Ronald

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Kerans, Cdr J. S.

  Seymour, Leslie

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Sharples, Richard

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Shaw, M.

  Cole, Norman

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shepherd, William

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Cooper-Key, sir Neill

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Cordle, John

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Contain, A. P.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Speir, Rupert

  Coulson, J. M.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Knox

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Dance, James

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

  Longden, Gilbert

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Beetles, W. F.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lucas, Sir Jecelyn

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

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Temple, John M.

  du Cairn, Edward

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Duthie, Sir William

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Emery, Peter

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

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Fell, Anthony

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford. W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Turner, Colin

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Madden, Martin

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Freeth, Denzil

  Maginnis, John E.

  van Straubenzee, W. B.

  Gammans, Lady

  Maitland, Sir John

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Gardner, Edward

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Wall, Patrick

  Godber, J. B.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil

  Watts, James

  Gough, Frederick

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Whitelaw, William

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Green, Alan

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

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Crimston, Sir Robert

  Mills, Stratton

  Wise, A. R.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Morgan, William

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Heave, Airey

  Worstey, Marcus

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Harvey, John (Waithametow, E.)

  Noble, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Peel and Mr. Frank Pearson.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Awbery, Stan

  Blackburn, F.

  Albu, Austen

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Blyton, William

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Boardman, H.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Benson, Sir George

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

  1072

  1073

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  Bowles, Frank

  Hoy, James H.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Randall, Harry

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rankin, John

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Reid, William

  Callaghan, James

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Reynolds, C. W.

  Chapman, Donald

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Clife, Michael

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Collick, Percy

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

  Ross, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Short, Edward

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Kelley, Richard

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Davies, G Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Snow, Julian

  Deer, George

  Lawson, George

  Sorensen, R. W.

  de Freitas Geoffrey

  Ledger, Ron

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Logan, David

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stones, William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  MacColl, James

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mackle, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Sylvester, George

  Evans, Albert

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

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Finch, Harold

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Fitch, Alan

  Marquant, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mason, Roy

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

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Forman, J. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Milne, Edward J.

  Timmons, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Tomney, Frank

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Monslow, Walter

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Ginsburg, David

  Moody, A. S.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, John

  Warbey, William

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mort, D. L.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Grey, Charles

  Moyle, Arthur

  Weitzman, David

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Neal, Harold

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Crimond, J.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wigg, George

  Gunter, Ray

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hannan, William

  Owen, Will

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Padley, W. E.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Paget, R. T.

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

  Healey, Denis

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

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

  Woof, Robert

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Hilton, A. V.

  Peart, Frederick

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Holman, Percy

  Pentland, Norman

  Zilliacus, K.

  Holt, Arthur

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

  Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, column 2, to leave out "1s. 6d." and to insert "1s. 3d.".
  This Amendment deals with self-employed boys and girls under the age of 18. It is linked with the Amendment already disposed of in line 16, column 2, and was partially debated in principle on the Amendment in line 16, column 1. Therefore, it will be sufficient if I formally move the Amendment.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I am beginning to wonder whether this Committee has become an automatic machine. I understand that the purpose of the Committee is to state a case, to have a Government
  reply and then for other members of the Committee to consider the case which has been stated and the reply. I should like to know the Government's attitude on the Amendment, especially with regard to self-employed boys and girls under 18 years of age. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. May we have a little order at this end of the Chamber, Sir James? I cannot hear what my hon. Friend is saying.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): I hope that hon. Members behind the Bar will keep quiet.
  Mr. Loughlin: Thank you, Sir James.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I was making the plea that the stage had arrived when we should

  1075
  have a statement from the Financial Secretary. I plead guilty and admit that for about forty minutes I have not been present in the Committee, because I have been dining. All of us want food at some time, so I am not speaking critically of other members of the Committee who may not have been present.
  Dr. King: Is not the answer to my hon. Friend's anxiety that we are under a Guillotine and find it difficult to do what we would very much like to do?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, but the Guillotine on this Amendment has not fallen yet. I am protesting because it appeared from observations that too many hon. Members were regarding the Committee as an automatic machine. Democracy has not become that yet. While time is available, when an Amendment of this character has been moved we are entitled to hear the Financial Secretary's statement concerning it and why he cannot accept it.
  Mr. Loughlin: I did not want to intervene in this debate, but I thought that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) had appealed to the Financial Secretary to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) he would have responded. [Interruption.] I cannot hear even myself. It may well be that I should be delighted, as some hon. Members have said, but it is they who were waiting for dinner, not I. I can stay here, as I usually do, until any hour.
  It is a travesty of the proceedings of the House of Commons that so many hon. Members on the opposite side are concerned more about getting through into the Division Lobbies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Look at you own side.']—after the persistent appeals from this side, throughout the whole debate, to have a contribution on any of the Amendments from back bench Members opposite. As I recollect, and I have been present for the whole of the discussion, we have had a minute contribution from one hon.
  Member opposite. On our last Amendment, a case was presented from the Front Bench on this side and no attempt was made by the Government to reply. We now move a further Amendment and, apparently, no attempt is to be made by the Government spokesman to answer the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby.
  As I have said time and time again this afternoon, unless we arrive at the position where hon. Members on the Government side are prepared to take seriously these issues, which vitally affect the constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member, and attend to their business and the welfare of their constituents, this is a travesty of the proceedings of the House of Commons. I hope that on this occasion at least, the Financial Secretary will attempt to answer the points put by my hon. Friend.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am glad to explain why I did not rise a few moments ago in response to the appeal of hon. Members. There is a simple reason. This Amendment would reduce the rate for juvenile self-employed persons—that is, self-employed persons under the age of 18—from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 3d. There are practically no specimens of juvenile self-employed under the age of 18 in existence. Therefore, I did not think that this was quite an occasion for taking the time of the Committee.
  In replying to the Amendment, I am a little reminded of a Latin construction which one used to learn in old-fashioned school about futurum fuisse ut, of which there were precisely two specimens in the whole of Latin authors. I suggest that the Committee might be more usefully employed in coming to a decision on this Amendment and spending rather more time on the next Amendment, about which there is a good deal more that is worth saying.
  Question put, That "1s. 6d." stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 179.

  Division No.100.]

  AYES

  [8.10 p.m.

  Aitken, W.T.

  Barber, Anthony

  Bennett, F.M. (Torquay)

  Alian, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Aliason, James

  Barter, John

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

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

  Batsford, Brian

  Bidgood, John C.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Bingham, R.M.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bell, Ronald

  Bishop, F.P.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hiley, Joseph

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Bossom, Clive

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

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

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

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hobson, John

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Braise, Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Peel, John

  Brewis, John

  Hollingworth, John

  Percival, Ian

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Pitman, I. J.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Bullus, Wing Commander Erie

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Pott, Percival

  Burden, F. A.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Jackson, John

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jennings, J. C.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Chichester. Clark, R.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Rees, Hugh

  Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, David

  Cole, Norman

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Cordle, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Russell, Ronald

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Seymour, Leslie

  Costain, A. P.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Sharples, Richard

  Couison, J M.

  Langford-Holt. J.

  Shaw, M.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Leavey, J. A.

  Shepherd, William

  Cunningham, Knox

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Curran, Charles

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswiek)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Smyth, Brig Sir John (Norwood)

  Dance, James

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lindsay, Martin

  Speir, Rupert

  Deedes, W. F.

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  du Cann, Edward

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Duthie, Sir William

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Emery, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Fell, Anthony

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

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

  Finlay, Graeme

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  Temple, John M.

  Forrest, George

  MacLeod. John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Gammans, Lady

  Maddan, Martin

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Godlier, J. B.

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Turner, Colin

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marshall, Douglas

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Gough, Frederick

  Marten, Neil

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gower, Raymond

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Green, Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wall, Patrick

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Mills, Stratton

  Watts, James

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Morgan, William

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Wise, A. R.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Heave, Airey

  Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Noble, Michael

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hay, John

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Worsley, Marcus

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Campbell.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Benson, Sir George

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Albu, Austen

  Blackburn, F.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Blyton, William

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Boardman, H.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Helper)

  Awbery, Stan

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

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Beaney, Alan

  Bowles, Frank

  Callaghan, James

  1078

  1079

  Chapman, Donald

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Randall, Harry

  Cliffe, Michael

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rankin, John

  Collick, Percy

  day, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Reid, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cronin, John

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Ross, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Short, Edward

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Deer, George

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  King, Dr. Horace

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lawson, George

  Snow, Julian

  Dempsey, James

  Ledger, Ron

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dodds, Norman

  Lipton, Marcus

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Driberg, Tom

  Logan, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  MacColl, James

  Stones, William

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackie, John

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

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Swain, Thomas

  Evans, Albert

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Finch, Harold

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

  Sylvester, George

  Fitch, Alan

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mason, Roy

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

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

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Millan, Bruce

  Thornton, Ernest

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Milne, Edward J.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Timmons, John

  Ginsburg, David

  Monslow, Walter

  Tomney, Frank

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moody, A. S.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Morris, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Grey, Charles

  Mort, D. L.

  Warbey, William

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Watkins, Tudor

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Weitzman, David

  Grimond, J.

  Neal, Harold

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Gunter, Ray

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Gienvil (Colne Valley)

  Noel-Baker. Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Wigg, George

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wlicock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Hannan, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Owen, Will

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Padley, W. E.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Healey, Denis

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

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

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pearson. Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Woof, Robert

  Holman, Percy

  Pearl, Frederick

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Holt, Arthur

  Pentland, Norman

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hoy, James H.

  Probert, Arthur

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Mr. Redhead and Mr. Her Davies.

  Mrs. White: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, column 1, after "65", to insert:
  "not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".
  The Temporary Chairman: I want to make clear that if this Amendment is not carried, the following Amendments
  fall:
  In line 26, column 1, after "60", insert:
  "not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".
  In line 27, column 1, at end insert:
  "not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".
  In line 27,column 1, at end insert:
  "not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognized educational estabilishment".
  In line 27, at end add:

  s.

  d.

  11. Non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment

  1

  3

  and in line 27, at end add:

  s.

  d.

  11. Non-employed men between the ages of 18 and 65 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment

  2

  3

  12. Non-employed women between the ages of 18 and 60 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment

  1

  9

  Mrs. White: I am well aware of that, Sir James.
  This Amendment and the others which you have named, Sir James, which

  1081
  are connected with it deal with the position of students, that is, persons over 18 undergoing full-time education. I would remind the Committee that students are in a peculiar position in that while they are students they are not obliged to pay any contribution. Consequently, not having paid their contributions, when they cease to be students and enter employment they have a choice. One course open to them is that they can leave matters where they stand, in which case their entitlement to benefit is considerably impaired, because their average over the necessary period of years will be diminished. That means that, on retirement, their pension and that of their wives would be less than otherwise, or should they die and leave a widow, her pension and sums paid to dependent children similarly might suffer. The other course of action open to them is that in the first six years of employment they can make up any contribution which they did not pay while they were still students.
  The contributions that they are liable to pay as students are at the non-employed rates, which are somewhat different from those which they would pay were they employed. But as soon as they leave the training college or university and take employment they then pay the ordinary employed person's rate of contribution and, if they opt, they can make up retrospectively at the non-employed rate for the period during which they were students.
  As long ago as 5th February, 1954, I discussed in the House the question of National Insurance contributions by students. At that time I proposed that the Minister of Education should take cognisance of this in the grants paid to students. I had a reply at some length and with great ingenuity from the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) who, during that period, was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. He pointed out the reasons which convinced him and Her Majesty's Government at that time why an allowance should not be made to students which would enable them to pay these contributions whilst they were still at college.
  Only last week the present Minister of Education, in reply to a Question, confirmed that the Ministry was absolutely against making any allowance to students
  1082
  in their grants which would enable them whilst still studying to pay these contributions. The point was that to exempt them altogether would not be fair to other contributors, and to make an allowance from the Ministry of Education fund would not be fair to the taxpayer.
  The Government's attitude, therefore, is that students should make these contributions. An ordinary student is quite unable to do it while at college. Therefore, if he is to make up these contributions and safeguard his position in future or that of his wife and children, he has the option of paying retrospectively during his six years of employment. Included in this amount that he is expected to pay is not merely the contributory part of insurance contribution, but also the health charge, which is what we are discussing on this Amendment. To include this in a retrospective payment seems to me quite illogical and this is the basis of my case on the principle.
  The principle of it is that while the man or woman is at college he or she is treated as though the student had contributed as far as the National Health Service is concerned. In other words, the student is fully entitled under the Health Service without question asked. Any treatment that the student may require during his period of study is given. Any medicine or anything else that he may need he obtains on the same terms as anybody else, as though the contributions had been paid.
  There is no question, therefore, on the health charges, of any difference being made later, according to whether or not the contributions had been paid. It is on a completely different footing from the insurance part of the payment. The insurance part is, as it were, part of a life-long series of payments which entitles a person in certain circumstances to monetary benefit. It can be reasonably argued, therefore, that it is necessary that these contributions should be paid at some stage or another so that one may be properly, financially and morally, entitled to payment. But this does not apply to the health part, because the person has already had the treatment.
  The one-time student is under no legal obligation to make this retrospective

  1083
  contribution and, therefore, if he chooses not to make it, he can get away with it completely free where the Health Services are concerned. There is no reason why he should not. The law does not say, "You have been having the benefit of the Health Service for the last few years and, therefore, you must pay now."
  I shall refer mainly to men, because it is more important to them since they may have dependants who may be affected as well, but let us take the case of the woman at college who gets married immediately she leaves, as happens more and more frequently. She decides not to pay at all the three or four years' contribution while at college. She may have enjoyed the benefit of the Health Service, but she is under no legal obligation whatsoever to make up the health part of the contribution. If she wants to get in her own right insurance benefits, then like anybody else she has to pay the insurance part of it.
  One can at least see the logical argument there. But I cannot honestly see that one should say that there is a logical argument for expecting retrospective contributions where the health charges are concerned, particularly as it is completely open to the choice of the individual whether he pays retrospectively or not regardless of whether he has had anything under the Health Service. That is the principle of the matter.
  I want now to come to the finances of the matter. I repeat that I shall base my argument mostly on the man's contribution, because it is not quite so important for the woman as for the man. The woman is usually concerned only with her own benefits, whereas it is extremely important that a man should make up in his first six years of employment anything he has missed while a student.
  From July next the non-employed rate for a man will be 11 s. 5d. a week. That is the rate at which he will have to pay retrospectively for his student years. If my arithmetic is correct, that comes to £29 13s. 8d. per annum. Therefore, if a person has been studying for three years he has to make up in his first six years of employment roughly £89. Of the £29 per annum which has to be made up at the non-employed rate, seven guineas
  1084
  represents the health charges. Taken over three years, health charges represent £22 of the £89.
  If the man were at college for four years or for three years, and then took teacher training for a year—I want particularly in a moment to refer to teachers—the total amount that has to be made up is about £118, of which about £29 represents the Health Service element. I suggest that these are very considerable sums. As was said when we were discussing the position of married women, earlier, the small contribution that used to be paid was not a matter to worry about, but now it is a quite substantial sum and we really have to take it seriously.
  8.30 p.m.
  When the young man starts work he has to pay the ordinary insurance contribution like everybody else. I understand that from next July this will amount to 12s. 2d. per week for an employed man. Therefore, he has to pay his 12s. 2d. per week as well as make up what he did not pay during the years when he was a student. According to my reckoning, if the man had been a student for four years his current insurance together with his retrospective payments spread over six years amount together to a total of over £50 a year. If he was only three years in college the total sum comes to a little under £50 a year, but only a matter of 30s. or so. The combined payments that the young man will have to make in his first six years of earning amount to about £50 a year, of which the health part is not the major part, although it is substantial.
  In these circumstances, one has to compare what the man has to pay with what he is likely to earn. I have here the scale of salaries for teachers. Teachers form a very large proportion of those who are affected by this provision, because they go to training college or university, or sometimes both. The scale of pay for teachers at present starts at the relatively small figure of £520 a year, and it goes up for someone who has had training by increments of £30 a year, and if one is a graduate one has an additional payment of £90 a year, and if a good honours graduate, another £75. That means that even if one goes to the end of the six years the non-graduate

  1085
  trained teacher will be getting only £670 a year, the graduate with training but without an honours degree will get £760 and the honours graduate with training will get £835.
  If we turn these figures into weekly average earnings to obtain a comparison with average weekly earnings for the country as a whole, it is only the honours graduate with training who, in his fifth year, will exceed the national average. The other teachers, even at the end of their sixth year, will still not have reached the average earnings for men in the country as a whole.
  Therefore, the students who are being asked to repay what they have missed while they were students as well as paying their current insurance contributions will be doing so out of incomes—with the exception of the last two years for the honours graduate—which are lower than the average male earnings in the country. It is quite untrue to say that just because someone has been through training college or university he is in the first six years of earning, whatever may happen afterwards, earning more than the ordinary manual worker. He is not; it simply is not so. The figures make it perfectly clear that it does not follow that because one has been to a training college or university one is necessarily getting a very large sum in the early days of earning.
  The important thing is that if a man is to make those retrospective payments they have to be made within the first six years of employment, no matter what his ultimate prospects may be. It is, therefore. exceedingly important that the sums which have to be paid should not be so great as to be a disincentive to the person who has to pay, so that he feels. "This is really just too much for me. I just cannot face this extra payment. I will pay my current contributions, but will not make up what I did not pay while I was at college."
  The man may be very much too optimistic about all this. He may not realise fully what damage he may be doing both to his own ultimate comfort in his old age and, more important in some ways, to any widow or dependent children if he should by any chance die through illness or accident at an early age. Therefore, it is exceedingly important that the feeling "I cannot face these big pay-
  1086
  ments as well as the current contributions" should not prevail.
  I suggest, therefore, that, although the portion of the payment which represents the health contribution—which is all that we are really entitled to discuss under the Bill—is not a very large one, it is nevertheless sufficiently substantial possibly to turn the scale for someone who is trying to decide whether or not he should face the payment of the sums which he has failed to pay while a student.
  I suggest that the extra £29 or so for a four-year student is a substantial sum for someone earning the relatively small amounts which I suggested they might be earning as teachers or as persons in comparable occupation, and that it might mean that someone was, in whole or in part, sufficiently discouraged not to pay the contributions, possibly with serious effects, especially where widows and orphans are concerned. Teachers do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) knows only too well, have pensions for widows and orphans yet, though those may come. That is a very serious aspect of this matter.
  I do not wish to detain the Committee, because I know that the Guillotine falls only too soon, but I have made out a substantial case for the Financial Secretary to answer. There is no logic in the retrospective payment of the portion of the contribution which represents the health charge. Although it is not the major part of the charge, it is nevertheless, sufficiently substantial possibly to deter a student from making the payments on which must depend the future happiness and comfort of himself, and, to an even greater degree, if he is so unfortunate, his widow.
  Dr. King: My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has raised an important point, which she has stated with her usual clarity and ability. In reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I must say that a number of important points have been involved in previous Amendments, but the reason why we have not been able to discuss them all is due to the fact that the Guillotine is hanging over us. The result is that those who support this Amendment will speak very briefly.

  1087
  I am pleased to speak in this case on behalf of the National Union of Students, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. This is a problem which has always existed for the university student. He works hard; he is an adult; he does not draw wages or salary; he gets a grant which is barely enough to live on, and if that grant is conditional on the means of his parents, and if his parents have more than a certain amount of means, then he does not even get subsistence but must exist on the money his parents provide.
  Mrs. Slater: Is my hon. Friend also including those students who attend training colleges, especially now that the course for trainee teachers is three years?
  Dr. King: I did not wish to give any indication that I was not including those at the teacher training colleges. I was talking of all those who take part in full-time further education.
  The question a student must ask himself is whether he should pay the National Insurance contribution. He has the option. He is young, and it is a gamble. He may argue that the chances of all the frailties that flesh is heir to coming to him are less than when he is older. In my own experience—and, I am certain, in the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—if something terrible happens to a university student, then he and his parents are very distressed indeed if they have not taken the cover which this great National Insurance Scheme provides. I feel that we should do everything we can to encourage students not to opt out of Insurance benefits but to opt in.
  We can use various methods. The best method would be to pay them an adequate maintenance at college so that this contribution would not be a great financial burden. Obviously, we could get rid of the means test, and then they would not have to think about this contribution in terms of whether they are imposing a second National Insurance contribution on their parents. But if I have carried the Committee with me so far, then certainly what we can do is not to add any of the poll tax element to the charges which we are asking the young students to pay.
  1088
  The Amendment seeks, in one tiny corner, to reduce the flat rate contribution by 7d., so that the university students will be less inclined to opt out of National Insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has pointed out that a student has the option, when he starts work, of buying himself into full benefit. But most students go into the teaching profession, which has an inadequate scale of salaries, with a long time to go before the maximum is reached and the period in which a young man can buy himself in is the very period when his salary is at its lowest and when his commitments as a young married man are heaviest.
  This is a problem, especially in this day and age, with its fantastic rents and fantastic burdens on young married persons from the moment they get married. I hope that the Financial Secretary, without conceding any of the great principles he has enunciated at various stages in this Committee—principles which we repudiate—will accept this Amendment. We know his keenness for education, and this would be a contribution to the social health of young students. I therefore support the Amendment with pleasure.
  8.45 p.m.
  Sir E. Boyle: On one matter all of us in the Committee would like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), and that is on having moved an Amendment on a good Committee issue. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have given some thought to this matter and I agree with the hon. Lady that it involves not merely the Health Service contribution scheme, but the whole question of grants to students and other matters with which I used to be rather more intimately concerned some time ago.
  The series of Amendments which we are discussing is designed to relieve from contribution all university students over 18 and those attending technical colleges and not least, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) said, teacher-training colleges. While it would be out of order to go into this matter at length, we should remember that there is a connection here with one of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee on awards to students, which was to the effect that arrangement should be made

  1089
  for university students to be able to pay contributions during their courses.
  It will be just as well if I remind the Committee once again exactly how matters now stand, because that is highly relevant to the subject of the debate. The position is that a student who spends three years at a college and does not pay contributions would have his single rate of retirement pension reduced by about 2s. if he otherwise had a complete contribution record. I quite realise that the effect on a widow's pension can be more severe. I take the slightly extreme case of a man who dies at about 35 and where the result might be a diminution in his widow's pension of about 10s. a week, although the children's allowances would not be diminished at all.
  As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East fairly said, after leaving college or training college, the student can later make up his contribution record at any time during the next six years of his working life. The hon. Lady was slightly inaccurate in one respect, for the student needs only to average 50 contributions a year and need not pay 52, so that at most he would have to pay 150 times 11s. 5d., which is the non-employment rate after 3rd July, and that comes to £85 12s. 6d. over the six years.
  Mrs. White: Surely the average of 50 is over this entire contribution life, so that unless he pays the 52 contributions a year over the time he is at university, if at any time later, either because he goes abroad or for some other reason, he falls behind, he would have nothing in hand.
  Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Lady is quite right. Over the contribution life as a whole he has to average 50 a year, but that figure of 50 does not apply only to the six years. There is no reason why he should put himself in a better position necessarily by paying the 52 contributions a year during the time when he is having to pay a double contribution. That was the only point I was seeking to make.
  We have always realised—and this is part and parcel of the whole scheme—that, for reasons connected with his assessment and the relative advantage of money in his pocket now compared with more money in his retirement pension later on, the student has to choose what he is to do. Whether he decides after
  1090
  leaving college to make up the contributions, entitling himself to a slightly higher retirement pension and his wife to a possibly more secure position, has always been recognised as a choice essential to the scheme.
  I do not want to make too much of this, but the Amendment deals simply with 7d. out of a total of 11s. 5d., and I find it hard to believe that 7d. out of 11s. 5d. would turn the scale in many cases.
  Mrs. White: I am arguing about the entire health element in the contribution which a student is expected to pay, but, for reasons of order, one is not able to put forward Amendments to that end.
  Sir E. Boyle: I appreciate that. It is important when considering the position which faces a student who has left college to have regard to the magnitude of the sums concerned.
  There are two issues here; the issue of principle, and the issue of whether our present arrangements, in financial terms, are fair to students. I have more sympathy with the hon. Lady's first point than with the second. On the issue of principle, I was glad that the hon. Lady, in what I thought was a very reasoned and moderate speech, did not take the point that there was an anomaly in putting a student who chose to pay contributions at a disadvantage. The hon. Lady put the other point, which is fairer, that there is rather an anomaly in that there is an uncovenanted advantage to the student who has used the Health Service while he has been at university or training college and then chooses not to pay contributions. Not simply from the point of view of a Treasury Minister concerned to get more money into the Treasury, but looking at it in terms of what the ordinary man thinks of as fair and just, I agree that it is the greater anomaly.
  On the other hand, and I think that the hon. Lady will probably agree—and this is a point I made to my hon. Friend who showed that he had considerable sympathy with this case—it would be administratively very difficult to collect the National Health Service contribution on its own from students who choose not to pay the Insurance contribution. Although the National Health Service does a different job from the rest of

  1091
  the total Insurance contribution, the one is part of an insurance scheme and the other, as we have agreed again and again—whether one calls it a tax or not is to some extent a matter of semantics—I have never disputed is money which the Exchequer is gathering in to help the financing of a particular service. I have never disputed that, as I think the Committee will agree, and therefore the Health Service contribution performs a different task from the rest of the Insurance contribution.
  It is only fair to remember that we have never had the practice at any time, though the Health Service contribution is now a separate legal entity, of collecting it separately from the rest of the Insurance contribution. I think that it would be extremely difficult administratively to do that. That would be my answer to the hon. Lady on the point of principle. She is right in saying that there is an anomaly here. Ministers did consider this carefully when we first brought in the Health Service contribution as a separate legal entity in 1957, but I think that administratively it would be extremely difficult to collect the National Health Service contribution on its own.
  Mrs. White: I appreciate that. Would there be any serious difficulty in waiving that contribution for those who are paying retrospectively? All one has to say is: "All you need pay in the six years of employment before this retrospective payment is a stamp of such-and-such value which covers your insurance contribution". Surely that would not present any administrative difficulty?
  Sir E. Boyle: That was the next point to which I was coming. I think that there would be real difficulty about waiving this part of the contribution for everybody; in other words saying: "During the next six years you must make up your Insurance contribution so that you shall be able to earn the pension to which you would then become entitled, and so that your wife may be secure from the point of view of a widow's pension if you die early. You must make up the Insurance part of the contribution if we let you off the National Health Service part".
  The obvious objection to it is precisely the point which the hon. Lady
  1092
  made, namely, that all students can use the Health Service during their time as students. If one went as far as the hon. Lady suggests, the obvious conclusion would be that students during their period as students should not have the benefits of the Health Service.
  I want to put two other relevant considerations to the Committee. First, I understand the hon. Lady's point about the pay of teachers during the first few years. I think the hon. Lady will agree that there has been a substantial improvement during the last ten years in the starting scale for the pay of teachers, but it is true that throughout most of these debates in the Committee we have for the most part been considering manual workers and wage-earners earning higher pay than they did at one time. The hon. Lady was right to make us think of lower paid salary earners in this connection. On the other hand, it is fair to say that a very high proportion of those being educated at our universities or colleges of advanced technology, or teachers' training colleges, as a result of the education they receive—in a large measure at public expense—are in many cases able to start earning larger salaries than otherwise they would be able to do. I think it would be unreasonable to treat them better than other people of the same age who did not have the advantage of further education.
  Although in a sense we are here dealing with a new problem, in another sense we are not. It is true that the National Health Service contribution had no separate legal existence before 1957, but, of course, this problem did not start in 1957. As we have said so often—I hardly like to face the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and say it again—an element of the National Insurance contribution was alloted to the Health Service from the first. I am sorry to make this point again, but in this context I think it is relevant. Here we are not dealing with a problem which began for the first time four years ago. There was no attempt between 1948 and 1957 to reduce the National Insurance contribution paid by students to allow for that, or to maintain that they ought not to be asked to make such a notional contribution to the Health Service. The conditions of liability for the element in the pre-1957 insurance allotted to the

  1093
  Health Service are the same as the conditions for the post-1957 National Health Service contribution.
  For these reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. the hon. Lady was on a perfectly fair point of principle, but I believe there would be administrative difficulties about collecting the contribution on its own; and seeing that all students are able to use the Health Service, I do not think it would be right that those students who wished to draw a full pension should pay for six years after leaving college but be excused the payment of the National Health Service contribution.
  On the money side, I appreciate the point the hon. Lady has made and I think she was right to draw our attention to the problems of the lower salary earners. One has to remember that as a result of their college education many will start in better paid jobs than otherwise would be the case. This is not a new problem which started in 1957. With those considerations in mind. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: That was a most astounding speech from the Financial Secretary. He congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) on her clear statement of principle. He even elaborated it to show how sound it is. Then, because the principle is hard to apply and because the Government and the Civil Service would have to do a little work to bring it into full effect, we must alter the principle which the hon. Gentleman so belauded. It was not a speech worthy of the hon. Gentleman. The main point seems to be, as was proved by my hon. Friend, that any woman who marries a prospective teacher is very foolish. That is the real deduction to draw from the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
  The Financial Secretary fails to realise that the comparison made by my hon. Friend between the teaching profession and manual workers merely proves that the boasted improvement in the salary scales of teachers has not altered the position of the teacher in the social scale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) was contemporary with me as a pupil teacher in the late years of the nineteenth century. He will know that in 1908, for the first
  1094
  time, I was a candidate at an urban council election. The members of the council said, "Now that we have a teacher as a candidate we shall not be troubled as much about raising the election funds."
  One had to find £15 in those days to be a successful candidate in an urban council election in my area. One could spend £10 and lose. People interested in municipal politics of those days know how true that is. I suggested that we should all put our weekly wages down on a slip of paper and hand it to the chairman to read. My pay was 35s. a week and I was the poorest man in the room.
  That, as my hon. Friend has proved, is still the position in this profession, on which the future of the country now depends more than ever before. The fact that, once again, we have the principles on which we should pay lauded, and it is pointed out that for a Tory Government it is too hard to stand by a principle, although it makes a good Tory speech, does not meet the problem.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not want to make a speech, but to ask the Minister two questions. He made it clear that he and other Ministers have given consideration to this matter. The first question is how many are likely to be involved? The second question, seeing that he is so sympathetic, is this: will he, between now and Report stage, consider doing what is done in other circumstances in which the card is franked? If there are not too many involved, why cannot their cards franked in circumstances of this kind?
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I do not want to keep the Committee for long, but I have followed these discussions with great interest and I hope that the Financial Secretary will not mind if I do not particularly take his side on this Amendment.
  I do not often agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), but, listening to her tonight, I thought that she put her case extremely ably and clearly. I think that all hon. Members who are present fully appreciate that. Obviously, she had gone into it with very great care and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King)

  1095
  added more facts from his personal experience. The Minister will not, I hope, think unkindly of me if I say that he can argue the hind leg off a donkey on any occasion, but he gave the impression to me and, I think, to many colleagues, that he was very much in sympathy with the case put on this problem tonight.
  I sincerely hope, even if my hon. Friend cannot address the Committee on this particular aspect, he will find some answer to it in due course, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). There cannot be a great amount of money involved, but this is a real problem for students. As hon. Members, most of us come into contact with a large number of students and we find that they are up against difficulties. Hon. Members are constantly trying to assist in getting more and more of them to take up the teaching profession. Those of us keenly interested in our constituencies want more and more people to come into the teaching profession.
  I am pleased that the hon. Lady particularly centred her remarks on the problems of young teachers who, having gone to tremendous lengths in their studies and treated them as a vocation, find, at the end of the first part of the main road, that they come out poorly in comparison with those who have gone into commerce, and also manual workers, although I speak with no disrespect to them.
  With all the opportunities that are open to young people today in business, commerce and in every walk of life, it is a hard job to encourage them to take up the teaching profession. I feel that this Amendment pinpoints the problem, so that we see what we are up against. There is no doubt that by this additional charge we shall be adding to the problems of young students, and I sincerely hope that the Minister, in conjunction with his Treasury colleagues, will in due course, although perhaps not on this particular case, find a solution to it.
  If the Financial Secretary will be good enough to note the feeling in the Committee tonight—and I appreciate that the argument has not been put from any party point of view, or with the use of any strong words, or feelings
  1096
  other than the facts arouse—I think that he would do a lot to encourage students, because this is a real porblem for them. It cannot be that the administrative problem cannot be overcome. We all know, both in business and in the Government, that answers to almost every type of problem can be found, and it cannot be because of administrative difficulty that this problem could not be overcome.
  Mr. Houghton: I am bound to remind the Committee that at half-past nine o'clock the absurd Guillotine will fall on this debate. It really is ridiculous that we should be in the middle of a useful and constructive debate of this kind, and that in a few minutes' time it must abruptly be brought to an end. After that, we go on for another two hours which are allotted to a discussion of the Second Schedule. This is not the way to do the business of this Committee. However, the House of Commons has so decided.
  We are on this side of the Committee very disappointed that the Financial Secretary had nothing more encouraging to say about this Amendment. From some remarks he made earlier, when we were spending some time dividing on several Amendments dealing with the rates of contributions, he expressed the hope that we could get on to this Amendment, where there was a substantial point to be put. That substantial point has been admirably and clearly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). She has shown how, when we begin to build one thing on another, the ultimate result makes the present arrangements regarding students and their contributions absurd.
  It is quite true, as the Financial Secretary says, that this is not in a sense a new problem. It started as a small one, and I am glad that the origins of the Health Service element in the National Insurance contributions are defined by the Financial Secretary in terms more acceptable to me. They are that there was a portion of the National Insurance contribution—an element, as he described it—allotted to the Health Service.
  That, I believe, correctly describes what was done in 1946, but it is very different indeed from what has been done since 1957 with a separate National Health Service contribution. However, it began

  1097
  like that, and the arrangements for students to pay their National Insurance contribution, either while still undergoing an educational course or afterwards, were made when the National Insurance contribution stood by itself, and when it was much smaller than it is now.
  But the Government came along to rivet a National Health Service contribution to the National Insurance contribution, and in the following year they rivet another. Now, for the third time, they rivet another one, so that the Health Service contribution is now a substantial addition to a growing National Insurance contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East pointed out, when one comes to pay the lot retrospectively in the first six years of employment, the total sum is substantial.
  The Financial Secretary spoke of administrative problems. I see none. There should be no difficulty in subtracting from the total amount the National Health Service contribution element when asking the student for the amount he should retrospectively pay to square his account for the National Insurance Scheme. That is not at all insuperable.
  What the Financial Secretary is really relying on is the fact that we have put the Health Service contribution on the National Insurance contribution—the two go together. Whether we pay them currently or retrospectively or do not pay them at all, they are always together. That is really his point, and in no case have we been able to separate the one from the other. But even when there is a strong case for separation, as there is here, the hon. Gentleman still feels that he cannot unscrew the Health Service contribution from being a fixture of the National Insurance contribution.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has said, as we are discussing the additional Health Service contribution in this Bill, that is all that we can try to get rid of in this discussion, although my hon. Friend was arguing cogently and forcefully that relief to be given to these students for the whole Health Service contribution—the amount that started in 1957 and was added to in 1958, as well as the present proposed addition.
  The whole position of students under the combined scheme now needs to be
  1098
  reviewed, having regard to the dimensions of the combined contribution that is now being imposed on these students currently or retrospectively. They have not increased wages out of which to pay their combined contribution during their period of extended education. All that is now being said about encouraging young people to stay at school, encouraging parents to allow their children to stay on at school, the need for education, the need for more technicians, the need for making ourselves the most intelligent and skilled community in the world—all these sound hollow exhortations when we also say, "We will tax you all the way along, and if you do not pay as you earn we shall demand it retrospectively, otherwise we shall 'take the micky' out of your widow or reduce your retirement pension when the time comes."
  That is not the way to treat our educated youth. We should be encouraging them by all means in our power to undergo these courses of education. Their brains have to be turned to the national account. As we have 50 million people in Britain maintaining this high standard of life and being promised that it will be doubled in twenty-five years, and all we have to do that with is our skill and our coal—those are about the only natural resources we have—we are bound to express great disappointment with the Financial Secretary's reply.
  We beg him to ask the Government to reconsider the whole matter; and to give some assurance at a later stage that the Government have it under review and cannot go on piling up contribution on contribution and expect the conventional arrangements regarding students to be tolerated without protest. There are further increases to come under the National Insurance Scheme—four further increases of 5d. each—and if my prediction is worth anything, as I am sure that it is in this context, there will be more Health Service contribution as well. In those circumstances, we really must challenge what the Government are doing in this connection, and I hope that the Committee will register its disapproval with the Financial Secretary.
  Mr. Weitzman: In his desperate effort to find an answer to the very able argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), the Financial Secretary said that as a result

  1099
  of the Government having spent the money the person who emerged with better prospects was in a better position. I understand that the person who emerges from a training college after that money has been spent receives £520 a year. She ought to have been a shorthand-typist at £12 a week.
  9.15 p.m.
  Sir E. Boyle: I recognise that in view of the timetable the Committee wish fairly soon to reach a conclusion on the Amendment, but I should like to make one or two comments. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) should bear in mind that there has never been a time when applications for our teacher-training colleges were in such great numbers; and, because of the expansion of the programme, the applicants have a chance of finding places.
  Sir Myer Galpern: What about Scotland?
  Sir E. Boyle: I am not referring to Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister in charge of a Bill applying to the United Kingdom to inform the Committee that he is not worrying about Scotland?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): That is not a point of order.
  Sir E. Boyle: I had a fairly lively reception some years ago from the National Union of Students when I spoke at the time of the General Grant Order, and I am only too well aware from what has been said that after this debate I should probably get an even livelier reception.
  I make no complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) was unable to agree with me. He has attended many of our debates, he is a very good listener and he makes less noise than my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who normally sits on the other side of the Gangway.
  I will not say that the Government will not review the matter, because I am sure that not only my right hon. Friend the Chancellor but also my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will take full note of the views which have been expressed; but I want to be fair to the Committee about this. As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education gave an Answer in the House on 2nd March in which he said:
  "National Insurance contributions are not compulsory for students, and grants were never intended to cover them. Arrangements already exist for students if they wish to make up, during their first six years in employment contributions which they did not pay while at college."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1736.]
  The hon. Lady said that that Answer seemed to imply that it was unlikely that there would be a major change of policy in the near future. In an interjection, made while sitting down, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) suggested that if the Government were to announce any change of policy, this would obviously be the occasion for it. In an Amendment of this importance I will not give an answer about promising to consider it, because it is the Government's job to have considered it before the Amendment was put down. It would be humbug of the type which bores me in the House when Ministers talk about considering things when it is clear from some fairly important piece of policy that the Government have decided what they intend to do and what they will not do.
  We have had a useful debate on an important subject. The Government feel that they must stick to the policy which they have followed in a sense ever since the Health Service scheme was introduced. I cannot promise any change of policy, but my right hon. Friends will take full note of the views expressed.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 239.

  Division No.101.]

  AYES

  [9.19 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Beaney, Alan

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Albu, Austen

  Benson, Sir George

  Bowles, Frank

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Boyden, James

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blyton, William

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Awbery, Stan

  Boardman, H.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

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

  Bulter, Herbert (Hackeny, C.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Randall, Harry

  Chapman, Donald

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rankin, John

  Cliffe, Michael

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Redhead, E. C.

  Collick, Percy

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Reid, William

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cronin, John

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Ross, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kelley, Richard

  Short, Edward

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Deer, George

  Lawson, George

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Ledger, Ron

  Snow, Julian

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dodds, Norman

  Logan, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  MacColl, James

  Stones, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nees (Caerphilly)

  Mackie, John

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Swain, Thomas

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Evans, Albert

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

  Sylvester, George

  Finch, Harold

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Fitch, Alan

  Mason, Roy

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Forman, J. C.

  Milne, Edward J.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Monslow, Walter

  Timmons, John

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Moody, A. S.

  Tomney, Frank

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, John

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mort, D. L.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Moyle, Arthur

  Warbey, William

  Grey, Charles

  Mulley, Frederick

  Watkins, Tudor

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Neal, Harold

  Weitzman, David

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Grimond, J.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Collie Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Hannan, William

  Owen, Will

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Padley, W. E.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Healey, Denis

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Peart, Frederick

  Woof, Robert

  Holman, Percy

  Pentland, Norman

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Holt, Arthur

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  Hoy, James H.

  Proctor, W. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Dr. Broughton and Mr. Irving.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Deedes, W. F.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Burden, F. A.

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Allason, James

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Atkins, Humphrey

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

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Barber, Anthony

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  du Cann, Edward

  Barlow, Sir John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Duthie, Sir William

  Barter, John

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Eden, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Emery, Peter

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Bell, Ronald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Farr, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Bidgood, John C.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Forrest, George

  Bingham, R. M.

  Cole, Norman

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Freeth, Denzil

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cordle, John

  Gammans, Lady

  Bossom, Clive

  Corfield, F. V.

  Gardner, Edward

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Costain, A. P.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Box, Donald

  Coulson, J. M.

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Godber, J. B.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Braine, Bernard

  Cunningham, Knox

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brewis, John

  Curran, Charles

  Gough, Frederick

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Gower, Raymond

  Brooman-White, R.

  Dance, James

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  d'Avigdor-Goadsmad, Sir Henry

  Green, Alan

  1102

  1103

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Renton, David

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Russell, Ronald

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Seymour, Leslie

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Mclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  Shaw, M.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Shepherd, William

  Hastings, Stephen

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Hay, John

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Maddan, Martin

  Smith, Dudiey (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Speir, Rupert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Marten, Neil

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

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

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hobson, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Holland, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hollingworth, John

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

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hornby, R. P.

  Mills, Stratton

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Teat)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow

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

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Morgan, William

  Temple, John M.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Heave, Airey

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Jackson, John

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  James, David

  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 (Blackleg)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peel, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Percival, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Watts, James

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pitman, I. J.

  Whitelaw, William

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pott, Percivall

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Wise, A. R.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Leavey, J. A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Lindsay, Martin

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Rees, Hugh

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Noble.

  Lengden, Gilbert

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Mr. Haughton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, column 2, to leave out "2s. 10d." and to insert "2s. 3d.".
  This Amendment relates to non-employed men between the ages of 18
  and 65 and proposes to reduce the increase proposed in the Schedule.
  Question put, That "2s. 10d." stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 178.

  Division No. 102.]

  AYES

  [9.26 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Campbell, Gorden (Moray &Nairn)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Allason, James

  Bossom, Clive

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Box, Donald

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Barber, Anthony

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Barter, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Batsford, Brian

  Brewis, John

  Cole, Norman

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Bell, Donald

  Brooman-White, R.

  Cordle, John

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &Fhm)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Costain, A. P.

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Burden, F. A.

  Coulson, J. M.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Bidgood, John C.

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

  Crowder, F. P.

  Bingham, R.M.

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Cunnigham, Knox

  Curran, Charles

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Dance, James

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ramsden, James

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rawlinson, Peter

  du Cann, Edward

  Lambton, Viscount

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Duthie, Sir William

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Rees, Hugh

  Eden, John

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Renton, David

  Emery, Peter

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roots, William

  Fell, Anthony

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lindsay, Martin

  Russell, Ronald

  Fisher, Nigel

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Seymour, Leslie

  Forrest, George

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Sharples, Richard

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Shaw, M.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Shepherd, William

  Gammans, Lady

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Gardner, Edward

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Godber, J. B.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mutely, Rt. Hon. John

  Speir, Rupert

  Goodhew, Victor

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

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Gough, Frederick

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Gower, Raymond

  MacLeod, John (Rose & Cromarty)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Green, Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Maginnis, John E.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Marshall, Douglas

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

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Marten, Neil

  Temple, John M.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hastings, Stephen

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

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hay, John

  Mills, Stratton

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Morgan, William

  Turner, Colin

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Tweedamuir, Lady

  Hiley, Joseph

  Heave, Airey

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

  Noble, Michael

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Hopson, John

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Holland, Philip

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hollingworth, John

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Watts, James

  Hornby, R. P.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Whitelaw, William

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Wise, A. R.

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Peel. John

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Percival, Ian

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Jackson, John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Worsley, Marcus

  James, David

  Pitman, I. J.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pott, Percivall

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Albu, Austen

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Deer, George

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Awbery, Stan

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dempsey, James

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Dodds, Norman

  Beaney, Alan

  Cliffe, Michael

  Driberg, Tom

  Benson, Sir George

  Collick, Percy

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Blackburn, F.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Blyton, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Boardman, H.

  Cronin, John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

  Crosland, Anthony

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  Evans, Albert

  Bowles, Frank

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Finch, Harold

  Boyden, James

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Fitch, Alan

  1106

  1107

  Fletcher, Eric

  Logan, David

  Ross, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Short, Edward

  Forman, J. C.

  MacColl, James

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackie, John

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Snow, Julian

  Ginsburg, David

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Manuel, A. C.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Grey, Charles

  Mason, Roy

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

  Millan, Bruce

  Stones, William

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Milne, Edward J.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Grimond, J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

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

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Monslow, Walter

  Swain, Thomas

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Moody, A. S.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Hannan, William

  Morris, John

  Sylvester, George

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mort, D. L.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Healey, Denis

  Mulley, Frederick

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Neal, Harold

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

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Thorpe, Jeremey

  Hilton, A. V.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Timmons, John

  Holman, Percy

  Oswald, Thomas

  Tomney, Frank

  Holt, Arthur

  Owen, Will

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Houghton, Douglas

  Padley, W. E.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hoy, James H.

  Paget, R. T.

  Warbey, William

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Weitzman, David

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

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

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Peart, Frederick

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilkins, W. A.

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Kelley, Richard

  Randall, Harry

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

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rankin, John

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Redhead. E. C.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  King, Dr. Horace

  Reid, William

  Woof, Robert

  Lawson, George

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Irving and Mr. Ifor Davies.

  It being after half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [6th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour.
  Question put, That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill:
  The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 176.

  Division No. 103.]

  AYES

  [9.40 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Brooman-White, R.

  Dance, James

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Allason, James

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Deedes, W. F.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Burden, F. A.

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Barber, Anthony

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

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M

  Barlow, Sir John

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  du Cann, Edward

  Barter, John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Duthie, Sir William

  Botsford, Brian

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Eden, John

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bell, Ronald

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Farr, John

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Bidgood, John C.

  Cleaver Leonard

  Fisher, Nigel

  Bingham, R. M.

  Cole, Norman

  Forrest George

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Foster, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cordle, John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bossom, Clive

  Corfield, F. V.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Costain, A. P.

  Gammons, Lady

  Box, Donald

  Coulson, J. M.

  Gardner, Edward

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crowder, F. P.

  Godber, J. B.

  Brains, Bernard

  Cunningham, Knox

  Goodhart, Philip

  Brawls, John

  Curran, Charles

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Gough, Frederick

  Gower, Raymond

  Loveys, Waiter H.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Renton, David

  Green, Alan

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McLaren, Martin

  Roots, William

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Russell, Ronald

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

  Seymour, Leslie

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Sharples, Richard

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Shaw, M.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Shepherd, William

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maddan, Martin

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hay, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Maitland, Sir John

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Hendry, Forbes

  Marshall, Douglas

  Speir, Rupert

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Marten, Neil

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Matthews Gordon (Meriden)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

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

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mawby, Ray

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Hobson, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Holland, Philip

  Maydon, Lt.1Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hollingworth, John

  Mills, Stratton

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

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

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Morgan, William

  Temple, John M.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Heave, Airey

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Noble, Michael

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Hutchison. Michael Clark

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Jackson, John

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  James, David

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Turner, Colin

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Tweedemuir, Lady

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  van Strauhenzee, W. R.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peel, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Percival, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Watts, James

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pilkington, Capt. Sir Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pitman, I. J.

  Whitelaw, William

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pott, Percivall

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Price, David (Eastielgh)

  Wise, A. R.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Woreley, Marcus

  Lindsay, Martin

  Ramsden, James

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Rawlinson, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and

  Longden, Gilbert

  Rees, Hugh

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Albu, Austen

  Crosland, Anthony

  Ginsburg, David

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Gourtay, Harry

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Awbery, Stan

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Grey, Charles

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Beaney, Alan

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Benson, Sir George

  Deer, George

  Grimond, J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Blyton, William

  Dempsey, James

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Boardman, H.

  Dodds, Norman

  Hannan, William

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayman, F. H.

  Bowles, Frank

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Healey, Denis

  Boyden, James

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Evans, Albert

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Finch, Harold

  Hilton, A. V.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Fitch, Alan

  Holman, Percy

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Holt, Arthur

  Chapman, Donald

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Cliffe, Michael

  Forman, J. C.

  Hoy, James H.

  Collick, Percy

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  1110

  1111

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Oliver, G. H.

  Swain, Thomas

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Swingler, Stephen

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Owen, Will

  Sylvester, George

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Palley, W. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

  Paget, R. T.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Kelley, Richard

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

  Thornton, Ernest

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Peart, Frederick

  Timmons, John

  King, Dr. Horace

  Pentland, Norman

  Tomney, Frank

  Ledger, Ron

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Probert, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lipton, Marcus

  Proctor, W. T.

  Warbey, William

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Watkins, Tudor

  MacColl, James

  Randall, Harry

  Weitzman, David

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Rankin, John

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Mackie, John

  Redhead, E. C.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Reid, William

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Bragg)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Mason, Roy

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Mellish, R J.

  Ross, William

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Millan, Bruce

  Short, Edward

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

  Milne, Edward J.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Mitchlson, G. R.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Monslow, Walter

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Woof, Robert

  Moody, A. S.

  Snow, Julian

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Morris, John

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Mort, D. L.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Moyle, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mulley, Frederick

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Mr. Cronin and Mr. Lawson.

  Neal, Harold

  Stones, William

  Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, 1957.)
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out, "and be deemed to have had effect".
  It is a very great pity that because we are galloping through the Bill at such a speed we should be unable to discuss a number of these Amendments, both important and not so important.
  The Amendment has been tabled so that we may hear from the Government why the words to which I refer are in the Schedule. The Schedule is an example of legislation by reference at its worst. It refers to no fewer than five Acts by name in paragraph 1 (2), and, of course, quite a number which are included under the title "National Insurance Acts" and are referred to in the principal Act of 1957. Therefore, it is important that we should know exactly what it is the Government mean. Paragraph 1 (1) reads:
  "Each of the Acts mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph shall, to the extent specified in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph be deemed as from the appropriate date to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act;"—
  1112
  that is, the Act of 1957—
  "and that subsection, and any reference in the principal Act to 'the National Insurance Acts',"—
  according to the 1957 Act, that means any of the National Insurance Acts between 1946 and 1956—
  "shall have effect, and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly."
  I do not know why the words:
  "… and be deemed to have had effect …"
  are needed, because the words
  "… be deemed as from the appropriate date …"
  have to be interpreted in the light of paragraph 1 (6), which reads:
  "… 'the appropriate date', in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, means the date of the passing of the principal Act. and, in relation to each of the other Acts mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, means the date of the passing of each such Act respectively."
  One assumes that when one says, as is said in paragraph 1 (1):
  "… be deemed as from the appropriate date …"
  that that reference is, in each case, to the date at which the Act came into operation. That being so, I want to know why we need the words
  "… and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly,"

  1113
  If those words were omitted, paragraph I (1) would simply read:
  "Each of the Acts mentioned …"
  etc.
  "… shall … be deemed as from the appropriate dale to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act; and that subsection, and any reference in the principal Act to 'the National Insurance Act', shall have effect accordingly."
  That would mean that this would go into operation as from the date when the principal Act, and the Acts referred to in that Act, came into operation. That may not sound clear, but it seems to me to be clear.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask my hon. Friend for an explanation? He used the word "etc." That can be a very big word. Will he say whether it is in the original Act, or whether it was his interpolation?
  Mr. Willis: I do not think I used that word. It is not one that I am in the habit of using, but if I did it means all those Acts to which this paragraph refers. I do not know how many it actually refers to, but no fewer than five are mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), and they also include all the Acts put together under the title "National Insurance Acts"—all those passed between 1946 and 1956.
  The only point I make is that if the words
  "… and be deemed to have had effect …"
  were left out, sub-paragraph (6) would still mean that each of the Acts mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) would come into operation as from the date that this Bill itself came into operation. The Acts included within the title, "National Insurance Acts", would operate as from the date laid down in the 1957 Act.
  In view of that, before we commence to discuss this important matter, we should have an explanation from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: Very clear.
  Mr. Willis: I am glad to have had that tribute. I hope that it will be made even more clear after an explanation from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). Having had explanations from both sides of the Committee,
  1114
  we shall be able to get our teeth into the matter.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, and I congratulate him on the clarity with which he has explained a very difficult matter. He addressed himself to the last words of the subsection, which are:
  "… and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly."
  He addressed himself to what those words meant.
  Anyone administering this subsection will first have to arrive at what it actually means and what it is deemed to mean, and I am sure that the Minister will be the first to appreciate the impropriety of legislation by reference, such as this. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the subsection refers to five or six Statutes which are set out, or adumbrated, in subsection (2). It is perfectly clear that anyone trying to arrive at a meaning of a Clause, at either what it actually means or what it is deemed to mean, will need to resort to a law library containing the five or six Statutes. That much is perfectly clear, and I am sure that it is clear to the Minister. I am sure that the Minister would be the first to realise that this is a most objectionable example of legislation by reference.
  What are the objections to legislation by reference? I shall indicate briefly what they are. When a subsection refers to a number of Statutes, in this case, five or six, it involves the person seeking to construe the subsection in having recourse to a law library containing all those Statutes. Alternatively, if he does not have access to such a law library, what is he to do to find out what the subsection means, or what it is deemed to mean?
  He will have to divest himself of his responsibility. He will not go into a law library, but he will take proceedings before the law courts and try to place the responsibility for the construction of the subsection off his shoulders and on to the shoulders of one of the learned judges of the law courts. That will involve proceedings of one kind or another, which will obviously put the parties concerned to considerable

  1115
  expense. It may be that the parties concerned are poor people who not only cannot afford these increased charges but who cannot afford the law costs which are incidental to their attempts to find out what paragraph means, or what it is deemed to mean.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain the procedure to be adopted in the case of an appeal in Scotland?
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I thought that it was obvious to everybody what the procedure would be. I am sure that it must be obvious to the Minister. If not, all that he has to do is to call in the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to ask them what will be the nature of it. Or he can call in the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland or all four Law Officers to determine what form the proceedings should take.
  To put it in its simplest form for the benefit of my hon. Friend who asked this question, it will probably take the form of Chancery proceedings; a construction summons designed to construe the particular paragraph, not according to the views of the litigants in the particular litigation, but according to the views of the learned judge. Counsel on both sides will be briefed, having first been approached by solicitors in the ordinary course of business. If they are properly briefed they will be paid fees, and ultimately, perhaps, after some days spent discussing the pros and cons of this difficult paragraph and after referring to authorities ancient and modern, the learned judge will come to some conclusion and he will then have to consider the question of costs.
  Shall he award costs to the plaintiff in the construction summons—[HON. MEMBERS "Yes."]—or shall he award costs to the other side? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It may be a private person who has had to initiate these proceedings—and costs may be given against him. If he is a poor person and is unable to pay the costs, he may be thrown into bankruptcy. Alternatively, the costs may be given against the local authority. In that case, the local authority may have to raise the rates.
  1116
  [Laughter.] The money must be found from somewhere.
  The courts of justice do not operate for nothing. Not only will the relevant fees on the summons, on the writ, on the defence, and on the various documents have to be paid, but counsels' fees and the fees of solicitors——
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a further point of elucidation——
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Just a moment until I come to a full stop. That is one of the difficulties which will arise under this difficult paragraph. It will arise from the fact that the unfortunate administrators of the paragraph—be they public officials, local authorities, or private individuals—will be confronted with that type of difficulty.
  As I have said, they will have to refer to law books. The case may be decided by the judge of first instance. It is not the type of case in which it would be fair to involve a jury. It is the type of case which, having been decided by the judge of first instance, may go to the court of appeal. It is an extremely difficult matter. These construction summons are very difficult, and, having gone to the court of appeal, and the court of appeal having either affirmed the trial judge or reversed him, and having considered the question of costs, it may then go from the court of appeal to a higher judicial tribunal.
  Ultimately it may come to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, and we all know how difficult a whole series of proceedings such as this would be. In that way great injustice may be done, not only to the private persons involved, but also the local authorities, to the public authorities, to the ratepayers and to a whole series of people and bodies. I ask the Minister to take account of these considerations and realise that not only may he be inflicting an increase in Health charges on unfortunate, poor people who are unable to pay them, but he may be imposing on private citizens, local authorities and public authorities the obligation to pay a great sum of money for a bill, perhaps several bills. of costs in the civil courts.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman now come to a full stop, or only to a semicolon? Has he

  1117
  borne in mind the fact that legal aid may be applied for both in Scotland and in England? As the system of legal aid in Scotland is slightly different from the legal aid scheme in England, can he explain the grievances which would arise in Scotland as against those in England?
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I am afraid that I should he out of order were I to discuss those differences. It would be in order to discuss the differences between the application of this Bill—or of the Act which eventually, unfortunately, it may become—to Scotland and to England, respectively. But my hon. Friend is tempting me to do something which would he out of order in asking me to discuss the legal aid schemes. I do not think they are within the scope of this Amendment.
  Mr. Barber: The Committee will have appreciated that the point raised by this Amendment is fairly narrow, but it has implications of a wider variety than might be appreciated at first sight by those considering the Amendment in all its simplicity.
  I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for explaining his Amendment with such lucidity that now nobody can be in doubt about what he had in mind when he moved it. I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for his classical exposition of the implications of legislation by reference.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that the main operative words of retrospection in this sub-paragraph of the Second Schedule appear in the third and fourth lines, beginning with the words:
  "… as from the appropriate date to have been …"
  From that he will appreciate that there is an element of retrospection, but, lest anybody should be in any doubt about it, I must say that the Schedule does not impose any retrospective liability.
  Having explained the significance of the words in the third and fourth lines, to which no Amendment is proposed, I must point out that the latter part of this sub-paragraph is only a consequential provision, yet it is in the latter part the hon. Gentleman proposes to make an Amendment. As I am sure the hon. And
  1118
  learned Member for Aberdeen, North will agree, an elementary principle of drafting is that consequential provisions must be consistent with the main operative provision on which they are dependent. For those reasons, obviously, it would be most inappropriate to delete these words which are consistent with the earlier words accepted by the hon. Gentleman who proposes that we should delete the later words.
  Mr. Willis: I am not very satisfied with that. What difference would it make if these words were left out? The hon. Gentleman should tell us that. We could then judge whether it is better to leave them in or to take them out. We cannot make a judgment of that character unless we know what difference it would make. I have suggested that to leave them out would not make any difference at all. In view of sub-paragraph (6), "deemed to have had effect" means from "the appropriate date" to have been included in the appropriate Act. Will the hon. Gentleman explain as lucidly as I managed to explain the meaning of my Amendment and what difference it would make if those words were left out?
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Before the Economic Secretary replies, may I call his attention to the fact that he could accept an Amendment leaving in the paragraph the word "accordingly" so that the paragraph would read:
  "shall have effect accordingly",
  leaving out the very difficult words:
  "and be deemed to have had effect".
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We are not discussing an Amendment dealing with the word "accordingly", but an Amendment dealing with the words, "and be deemed to have had effect."
  Mr. Barber: If it is accepted that the earlier words in lines 6 and 7 should be included in this paragraph, for consistency's sake alone it is obviously right that these later words should also be included. I would not say for a moment, without further consideration, that the effect of this sub-paragraph would be modified if these words were deleted, but what I say without any hesitation whatever is that the subparagraph with these words in is properly drafted. If these words were out it would be badly drafted and might

  1119
  conceivably give rise to some doubt. Therefore, I advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Ross: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised this point. I have been looking at the wording of the paragraph and I think that there is far more in this than we have heard from the Economic Secretary. He said that the Amendment was on a very narrow point, but had very wide implications. He took great care not to tell us what they were.
  If the Economic Secretary had known the efforts and simple ingenuous nature of Scottish hon. Members, he would have looked a second time at any Amendment we put down because we like to get a Minister to explain what he knows about a Bill. What we want to know is exactly what are the implications of these words. When we see in a Bill that something which is the result of what we are doing now is "deemed to have had effect", not now but over some years, we want to know what is going on. The hon. Gentleman said that no one was being placed in retrospective liability. Is there being justified, or given statutory right, a liability which hitherto has been exacted with a certain measure of doubtful legality?
  Mr. Barber Mr. Barber indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I want to know why we have this paragraph at all. As I understand, it relates to Section 1 (1) of the principal Act. Section 1 (1) of that Act lays down those who are liable to pay National Health Service contributions. I gather that there have been changes in certain laws since then and, obviously, they have not hitherto been tied in to Section 1 of the principal Act.
  Now, the Government, after the changes that have taken place since 1956, are tying the thing together, and are telling us not only that the effect will be as from now, but as from an "appropriate date and that it will be deemed always to have had that effect. The hon. Gentleman seemed to chide my hon. Friend for not having changed or sought to amend the words "appropriate date".
  Mr. Barber Mr. Barber indicated dissent.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman looks further down the Notice Paper, he will see an Amendment seeking to leave out the reference to the appropriate date altogether, and I had in mind exactly the same point.
  I want the hon. Gentleman to come clean as to what the Government have actually discovered so that they found it convenient to have this Schedule at all. We did not have it in the last Contributions Act of 1958. Evidently, this involves quite a number of Acts that have been passed, including the National Insurance Act, 1957, the certain sections of the No. 2 Act of 1957, the Family Allowances (National Insurance) Act, 1959, the National Insurance Act, 1959, and the National Insurance Act, 1960, all of which have made changes in relation to the definition of persons who are liable in respect of National Health Service contributions.
  As I read it, that has not been tied up with the original National Health Service Contributions Act, so that it may well be that there is a certain measure of legal doubt whether the Government have been right in respect of certain of the National Health Service contributions which they have been levying, and so they are seeking in this Schedule to make absolutely sure that they have been covered. That is why they say that it shall be deemed, as from the "appropriate date", to have been included in those Acts, and, therefore, the effect would be that they would be deemed to have had effect from the time of the passing of those Acts. That is what we understand from sub-paragraph (6) and the definition of the "appropriate date".
  I think that the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that although this is a narrow point, it has wide implications. It is due to the Committee that he should tell us just what those implications are before we can decide whether we should clear up the conscience of the Government by allowing them to have this paragraph as it is drafted.
  Mr. Weitzman: My point is merely a drafting point on the same lines as that raised by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I know that the Economic Secretary is a lawyer, and that, therefore, he will be able to construe this, but I

  1121
  cannot find any meaning to be attached to the words—
  "and be deemed to have had effect."
  If the words were simply"—
  "shall have effect accordingly"
  the meaning would be absolutely clear, but what is the reason for the addition of the words—
  "and be deemed to have had effect"
  I do not know. I see no need for them at all, particularly, as has rightly been pointed out, we have in the third line of the first sub-paragraph of the Schedule the words—
  "be deemed as from the appropriate date."
  What does that mean? Quite frankly, as a lawyer, I would certainly give the opinion that it has no effect at all, and that it means nothing. The Economic Secretary as a lawyer, knows perfectly well that the effect of putting in words in this way is to throw doubt on the whole thing and ensure litigation being raised on the matter.
  Mr. Barber: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has raised a point of some importance in referring to the fact that on occasions by inserting words which in fact are meaningless we can raise doubts if the court has to construe the words in question. He will appreciate, however, that it is equally true to say that doubt can be cast on the construction, implication or application of any part of an Act of Parliament if words are left out which might well, reasonably and consistently with other words, have been put in. This is the point so far as these words are concerned. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked me, in effect, what purpose was served by these words in line 10. The fact is that, without them, the paragraph might create a doubt in the mind of a court where, for all practical purposes, no doubt exists.
  Since I have been asked about it, perhaps I can refer in a little more detail to subsection (1) of Section 1 of the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, where it is stated:
  "As from the appointed day, every person who, either as an insured person or as an employer, pays, or is liable to pay, contributions under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1956 … shall be liable, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, to pay
  1122
  contributions … known … as national health service contributions."
  As the law stands, nobody doubts at all that under that subsection contributors to National Insurance are liable to pay National Health Service contributions, notwithstanding the fact that the rates of National Insurance contributions are no longer those which were fixed in the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1956, which are referred to in that subsection of the National Health Contributions Act, 1957. But the Amendment by the present Bill of that subsection of the 1957 Act which is referred to in the Bill as the principal Act might be held to imply that the rates of the National Insurance contribution as fixed from time to time by the successive National Insurance Acts are also relevant to the question of the liability to pay National Health Service contributions.
  Therefore, if the amendment contained in the Schedule—and I refer not to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but to the amendment made by the Schedule itself—were not retrospective in this sense the Schedule might conceivably raise a doubt as to whether a contributor to National Insurance is at present liable to pay National Health Service contributions at all, since the rates in force are no longer the rates fixed by the Acts, 1946 to 1956.
  I should like to make it absolutely clear, as I did earlier, that by doing this we are, in fact, making clear for the future a position which might be unclear if the Bill became an Act without those words, but I cannot stress too strongly that the Schedule does not impose any liability retrospectively. Perhaps I can put it in this way, so that the Committee may be in no doubt as to the meaning of the words. There are no persons who, at any time since the passing of the 1957 Act, have not been liable to pay National Health Service contribution who are, by virtue of this Schedule, to be deemed to be liable to pay them and who, accordingly, might now be compelled to pay them in arrear. Therefore, there is no retrospective liability, but there might be some misunderstanding in the future if these words were not included.
  There is one further point. When I have been talking about these words and the retrospective element in paragraph

  1123
  1 (1) of the Schedule, I have been referring not only to the words that the hon. Gentleman proposes should be left out, but also to the earlier words in line 6. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North realises that these two sets of words hang together; that the one is, as it were, consequential on the other. If I confine myself for a moment to the words that the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out in the last line of the subparagraph, I will say quite frankly, as I indicated earlier, that if the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment were left out it is very unlikely that the court would put a different construction on this sub-paragraph, but, for the reasons I gave earlier in respect to the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North it would be bad drafting whereas, at the moment, the sub-paragraph is properly drafted.
  Mr. Weitzman: I can understand the Economic Secretary's explanation of the meaning of paragraph 1 (1) of the Second Schedule, but this Amendment deals only with the words
  "and be deemed to have had effect".
  The Economic Secretary says that we should leave these words in the Schedule because the position will be clearer as a result, but the point which is being pressed on him is that, far from making it clearer, the words are unnecessary, mean nothing and only add to the mystery of the matter. They may give rise to litigation, as the Economic Secretary agreed may happen if words in an Act of Parliament mean nothing.
  This matter can be tested simply. He will be the first to agree that if words are unnecessary they should be removed. I hope that he will bear with me while I look at the paragraph and demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that the words are quite unnecessary. The paragraph begins
  "Each of the Acts mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph shall … be deemed as from the appropriate date to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) …"
  We therefore have it clearly laid down that each of those Acts is to be deemed from the appropriate date to be included
  1124
  among the Acts mentioned in that subsection and
  "shall have effect … accordingly".
  The hon. Member will see that I have omitted the words
  "and be deemed to have had effect".
  Without the words, we know what the paragraph means, and the language could not be simpler. The words
  "and be deemed to have had effect"
  are otiose and unnecessary and ought to be removed.
  Mr. Willis: Having listened twice to the Economic Secretary I have come firmly to the conclusion that these words are not necessary and that what I tentatively suggested in the first place is correct. I thought that when the hon. Member had explained the matter we should be able to get our teeth into it. So we can, with this result: in the first place, he said that the words had very wide implications, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) immediately asked what they were, we discovered that there are no wide implications at all.
  Mr. Barber: The wide implications which were adumbrated by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).
  Mr. Willis: That is not true. It is only a get-out.
  Mr. Ross: That is what the Economic Secretary would like us to think.
  Mr. Willis: The Economic Secretary said that the words had wide implications, but we have since learned that they have not. After my hon. Friend asked him what the wide implications were, he "came clean" and we had an acceptance by him that the words could be omitted without altering the meaning of the paragraph. That is why we put down the Amendment—to find out whether the words had any meaning and whether they need be in the Clause.
  It is about time that the House revolted against the practice of Parliamentary draftsmen of cluttering up legislation with all sorts of unnecessary words. We have a number of Amendments down, and had they been accepted they would have reduced the length of the Schedule considerably, as would this Amendment. Why should people whose job it is to interpret Acts of Parliament

  1125
  be compelled to spend unnecessary time and labour in going over Clauses and Schedules to find out what they mean when the Clauses and Schedules would have had no different meaning if half the words had been left out?
  10.30 p.m.
  It is about time that the House of Commons protested against this kind of thing. We try to the best of our ability to do so in the Scottish Standing Committee, but this Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House and we thought that we might apply the same principles to the Schedule and try to reduce its length. The result might have been a more intelligible Schedule. To clutter it up with words such as these only adds confusion to all concerned and adds to the expense involved in consulting lawyers as to the meaning. We should divide on this Amendment as a protest against the clumsy manner in which the Schedule has been drafted and against the use of all sorts of unnecessary words to say something that could have been said quite simply.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I addressed the Chair at length upon the aspect that this

  Division No. 104.]

  AYES

  [10.33 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Curran, Charles

  Hastings, Stephen

  Allason, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Arbuthnot, John

  Dance, James

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hendry, Forbes

  Barber, Anthony

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hicks Beach, Major W.

  Barter, John

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hiley, Joseph

  Batsford, Brian

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

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

  Berkeley, Humphry

  du Cann, Edward

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bidgood, John C.

  Eden, John

  Hobson, John

  Bingham, R. M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Holland, Philip

  Bishop, F. P.

  Emery, Peter

  Hollingworth, John

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Bossom, Clive

  Farr, John

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Bourne-Arton, A,

  Fell, Anthony

  Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Box, Donald

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Forrest, George

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Foster, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Burden, R. A.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Gammans, Lady

  Jackson, John

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Jennings, J. C.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Godber, J. B.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Gough, Frederick

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portemth, W.)

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Kimball, Marcus

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Green, Alan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Cole, Norman

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Lambton, Viscount

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Costain, A. P.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Coulson, J. M.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  is legislation by reference, but another aspect which has not yet been expressed is that it is retrospective legislation, because the words sought to be left out are
  "and be deemed to have had effect"—
  that is to say, deemed in the past to have had an effect which, in the past, they have not had. This is retrospective. It will have an adverse effect upon the people concerned by the construction of the earlier Acts. Therefore, not only is the wording objectionable on the ground that this is legislation by reference, but it is also objectionable on the still more serious ground that it is retrospective legislation.
  Reference has been made to the fact that the Minister is a member of the Bar. He will, no doubt, take these aspects into account, and particularly the second one that this is retrospective legislation.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 225,

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Lindsay, Martin

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Speir, Rupert

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Studhotme, Sir Henry

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Peel, John

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Percival, Ian

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Pitman, I. J.

  Thomas Leslie (Canterbury)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayr)

  Pott, Percivall

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Maddan, Martin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Turner, Colin

  Maginnis, John E.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Ramsden, James

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Marten, Neil

  Rees, Hugh

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Mawby, Ray

  Renton, David

  Watts, James

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Roots, William

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Mills, Stratton

  Russell, Ronald

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Seymour, Leslie

  Wise, A. R.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Morgan, William

  Shaw, M.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Shepherd, William

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Heave, Airey

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Noble, Michael

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Fletcher, Eric

  Loughlin, Charles

  Albu, Austen

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  MacColl, James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Forman, J. C.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mackie, John

  Awbery, Stan

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacMillan, Malcom (Western Isles)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Cmtrthn)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Heaney, Alan

  Ginsburg, David

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

  Benson, Sir George

  Gourlay, Harry

  Manuel, A. C.

  Blackburn, F.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mason, Roy

  Blyton, William

  Grey, Charles

  Mellish, R. J.

  Boardman, H.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Milne, Edward J.

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Grimond, J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Bowles, Frank

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coins Valley)

  Winslow, Walter

  Boyden, James

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Moody, A. B.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hannan, William

  Morris, John

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Moyle, Arthur

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Healey, Denis

  Neal, Harold

  Chapman, Donald

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Cliffs, Michael

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Collick, Percy

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hilton, A. V.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Holman, Percy

  Owen, Will

  Cronin, John

  Holt, Arthur

  Padley, W. E.

  Crosland, Anthony

  Houghton, Douglas

  Paget, R. T.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hoy, James H.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davies. Ifor (Gower)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Peart, Frederick

  Doer, George

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pentland, Norman

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dempsey, dames

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Probert, Arthur

  Dodds, Norman

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Driberg, Tom

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

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Randall, Harry

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Rankin, John

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Redhead, E. C.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Reid, William

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Evans, Albert

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Finch, Harold

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Fitch, Alan

  Logan, David

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  1128

  1129

  Ross, William

  Sylvester, George

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleld)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Smith, Eills (Stoke, S.)

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

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Snow, Julian

  Thornton, Ernest

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Soskioe, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Timmons, John

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

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tomney, Frank

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Ly n

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Stones, William

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Woof, Robert

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Watkins, Tudor

  Yates, Victor (Ladywo d)

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

  Weitzman, David

  Zilliacus, K.

  Swain, Thomas

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Short and Mr. Lawson.

  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
  I move this Amendment because I should like to give the Economic Secretary an opportunity of giving one of his lucid explanations of what this subparagraph means. This covers the point which he said was made in relation to the words "the appropriate date." Perhaps he will tell us why he has decided on these "appropriate dates." Could he spend a little time justifying this proliferation of qualitative words—"each," "such" and "respectively"? As far as we can see, they do not mean a thing and are quite unnecessary.
  We notice that the "appropriate date" is to be a date very considerably in the past in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, for sub-paragraph (6) says:
  "… 'the appropriate date', in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, means the date of the passing of the principal Act,"—
  that is, the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, which was given the Royal Assent on 17th July, 1957—some time before the National Insurance Act. Sub-paragraph (6) goes on:
  "and, in relation to each of the other Acts … each such Act respectively."
  I feel that this means that we are getting retrospective conditions of some kind. I am still not clear about the implications. If we do not get an answer now, we shall seek to get it during debate on the Schedule as a whole.
  Mr. Barber: As the hon. Member will realise, the purpose of sub-paragraph (6) is to explain and define the meaning of the words "appropriate date" referred to in sub-paragraph (1). Without subparagraph (6) there might be some doubt as to what the "appropriate date" was in each case. I assume that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that there would be some doubt.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: Otherwise no appropriate date would be mentioned at all.
  Mr. Barber: No. The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is necessary to specify an appropriate date. The appropriate date is in every case the date of the passing of the Bill, except in the case of the National Insurance Act, 1957.
  1132
  In relation to that Act it means the date of the passing of the principal Act, which is the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957. The reason for that is, of course, that the National Insurance Act, 1957, was, as he will remember, passed before the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957.
  I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first person to agree that it would not have been desirable to have produced the result that the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, was to be deemed to have had effect from the date it was actually passed. That is the reason why that Act has to be treated differently from the other Acts. That accounts for the length of the sub-paragraph and the words "each such" and "respectively" to which he referred. I think that if it had not been for this differentiation between the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, and the other Acts it might have been possible simply to have incorporated the words in sub-paragraph (1) which would have had the desired effect without having to have a separate sub-paragraph.
  As for the effect of this sub-paragraph, the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that in dealing at some length on the previous Amendment with the purpose of sub-paragraph (1) I was dealing with the purpose of that sub-paragraph in the knowledge that the "appropriate date" referred to in that subparagraph was the appropriate date as defined in sub-paragraph (6).
  I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, because I know there are some important Amendments to be moved in the future. Therefore, I should like only to stress that there might well be difficulties of interpretation if these provisions of paragraph 1 were not included, and I should also like to stress, as I did on the previous occasion, that this Schedule, including paragraph 1 (1), does not impose any liability retrospectively. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will not press his point, so that we can get on to the very important Amendments yet to be considered.
  Mr. Ross: We are indebted to the Economic Secretary for the delightful terms in which he has explained so

  1133
  lucidly just exactly what this thing does not mean. Is it not quite fantastic that we have this drafting? We have got something which is innocent of purpose when what is essential to the Government could have been so clearly and simply put. The appropriate date is mentioned in the first sub-paragraph and then we have five more sub-paragraphs to read before we discover what "appropriate date" means. Then we have to get an explanation from the Economic Secretary.
  I doubt very much whether there are many hon. Gentlemen on the other side who really know yet what it means and fewer still who know why it is here at all. The more the hon. Gentleman proclaims the innocence of the purpose, because there is no retrospective liability, he says, the more we have to point out that what we have is retrospective legislation and so he is putting something right somewhere. I have more than a feeling that what has thus been covered up is past blunderings in past legislation. We may be able to extract a little information when we discuss the Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
  However, as the Guillotine is about to fall once again and as we have other important Amendments to discuss, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 4, line 43, to leave out paragraph 2.
  The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It may be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendments in page 4, line 44, leave out from "Act" to "subsection" in line 45, and in page 5, line 5, after "Treasury", insert:
  "and the Secretary of State jointly."
  Mr. Willis: Paragraph (2) of the Schedule is that which transfers the responsibility for making regulations in respect of certain contributions from the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Treasury. Having studied this very closely, we fail to find any satisfactory reason why these powers to make regulations should be transferred. The power is to be found
  1134
  in Section 3 (7) of the principal Act, which says:
  "The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State may jointly make regulations specifying a class of masters or members of the crews of foreign-going ships (as defined by the regulations) and either—

  (a) excepting employers from liability to pay national health service contributions in respect of persons of that class, or

  (b) reducing, to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, the rates of national health service contributions payable by employers in respect of persons of that class; and different provision may be made by regulations under this subsection in respect of different classes of persons."

  I have read that so that the Smoke Room boys who have come into the Chamber in the last half-hour may have some inkling of what they are doing, as it is obvious that many of them do not.
  It is difficult to find any reason why these powers should be transferred to the Treasury. I should have thought that the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State were the best people to judge whether contributions in respect of certain people ought to be reduced. They are able to judge from experience whether there are factors leading to the reduction of the contributions of certain groups of people. They are in a better position to do so than the Treasury is.
  I suppose that once again the answer must be that this is a taxing Bill and that all taxing Bills should be the responsibility of the Treasury. That can be the only reason. We in Scotland are very much opposed to powers being taken from the Secretary of State and vested in the Treasury. I remind the Government that the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, which three or four years ago inquired into the devolution of responsibility for Scottish affairs, recommended that wherever possible power should be transferred from United Kingdom Departments to the Secretary of State. The Government are flying in the face of those recommendations.
  I am sure that some of my hon. Friends want to say something about the Minister of Health, but I am talking about the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are vigorously opposed to the Treasury taking any powers——
  Mr. John Hall: The hon. Gentleman said that before.
  Mr. Willis: I am saying it again so that hon. Gentlemen might know the strength of feeling amongst Scottish hon. Members on this subject. It is not often that we get an opportunity to express our feelings, and when we do it is only right that we should do it in a manner which might convince hon. Gentlemen of our sincerity. This is not a laughing matter.
  Mr. Hall: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Treasury ought to have its powers removed in England as well? If he does, I might support him.
  Mr. Willis: That is the purpose of the Amendment. I am delighted that, after having spoken for only four minutes, I have managed to convert one hon. Gentleman opposite. The Amendment seeks to prevent the Treasury from taking power from the Minister of Health, and if the hon. Gentleman supports the Amendment we shall be delighted. We shall welcome him. We shall give him pride of place in the Division Lobby and let him go to the head of the queue. We would like him to convert his hon. Friends to our point of view.
  Mr. Hall: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to removing all powers from the Treasury. I would be very much in favour of that.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is once again crawling out of this. I am always interested in watching the antics of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They march up the hill and then they march down again. When one suggests that they prove the sincerity of the sentiments which they are expressing, they start crawling away. Show your courage by going into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Hall: The hon. Gentleman is inviting the Chairman to show his courage by going into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Willis: I am inviting the hon. Gentleman to go into the Division Lobby to show his courage.
  Might I summarise the reasons why we want paragraph 2 withdrawn? First, we do not think that these functions could be more adequately fulfilled by the Treasury. Therefore, we do not see any reason why they should be transferred from the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the
  1136
  Treasury. Secondly, we are opposed in principle to the transfer of powers from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Treasury.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will regard the Amendment with favour. I very much doubt that he will. So far he has not looked with favour on anything. We have heard plenty of kind words and expressions of sympathy. We have heard occasional kind words for my hon. Friends for the excellent manner in which they have presented their cases, but we have not had the goods delivered. The hon. Gentleman has not given us a single thing during our discussions on the Bill, and I suggest that this is an opportunity for him to redeem himself and show that he occasionally does more than make pleasant speeches, that he does in fact concede something. I trust that he will give the Amendment favourable consideration.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: I should not like the Committee to think that this is a matter which stirs the feelings only of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. I was glad to see the reaction of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and sorry that he thought it necessary to modify his attitude immediately afterwards. What has depressed and impressed me throughout the proceedings on this Bill is that the Civil War and 300 years of struggle behind us to deal with the taxing powers of the Government and of the Treasury—which the hon. Member for Wycombe still regards as his natural adversary; the fact that the taxpayer is still safeguarded by a period of six years in which to make an appeal; the elaborate machinery and the powers of the courts to see that he is not ill-treated—all that is thrown away in a brusque and rather wanton fashion; and now we are developing a new system of poll tax by stamp.
  We have failed to secure from this Government any concession for the widows, apprentices, students, or any other category of people on whom this burden is to be laid, and now they will not even consider a modification of the abrupt rubber stamping of the Treasury. Perhaps it is not without significance—the Ship Money tax has been discussed in this House of Commons before—this little tentative step giving the Treasury

  1137
  to tax directly the crews of foreign going ships. How much further is it to be extended? This will be taken as a precedent, and we shall be asked not to make frivolous objections and delay debates. We shall be accused of trying to spin out the discussions of Measures which, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, are confined to this poll tax, this stamp tax, this new system which is to be protected by none of the safeguards which have been enjoyed by the taxpayer for centuries after the struggles of this House of Commons to defend. That is what I find depressing.
  I find it depressing that the bright idea of someone can be put into effect and they cannot be bothered to consult the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland. The attitude is that it is only a taxing matter; let the Treasury do it. If we allow this little inroad into our ancient rights regarding taxation, I have no doubt that next year we shall be asked to approve provisions for taxation over a wide field to be introduced by regulation by the Treasury without any consultation in Parliament or the imposition of any of the safeguards which we normally have for the process of taxation. I hope that the Financial Secretary will treat this matter more seriously than the Economic Secretary has treated previous Amendments.
  Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly endeavour to treat this matter seriously, but when I think of the criticisms of the Bill made by hon. Members opposite, I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is so keen that Scotland should be so closely associated with it.
  Mr. Ross: Not Scotland—the Secretary of State.
  Sir E. Boyle: I quite understand that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been present on a number of occasions at the earlier stages of this Bill. He has the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East more often than I do but I have much enjoyed that experience during these debates.
  As I think the Committee will realise, the general purpose of paragraph 2 is to transfer to the Treasury from the Ministry of Health and the Secretary State for Scotland powers to make regulations under Section 3 (7) of the 1957 Act, which
  1138
  gives power to specify classes of masters or crew members of foreign-going ships and to reduce the employer contributions paid on their behalf. I think I can give the Committee information about what this concession involves.
  The reason for the concession which is envisaged in this provision is that employers of masters and crew members of foreign-going ships may be relieved of part of the employer contribution on the grounds that they are obliged to provide and pay for medical treatment for seafarers during periods of incapacity abroad. I think that is generally accepted. In practice, the current employer contribution is 5½d. a week and the employer contribution in respect of this class is 2½d. a week. The point of the paragraph is quite simple. Now that the Treasury is to have general responsibility for the Bill I think it reasonable that power under Section 3 (7) of the 1957 Act should be transferred to the Treasury as well.
  Perhaps it would not be out of order if I were to say a word or two about each of the three Amendments, which clearly are linked. The effect of the first would be to leave with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland as at present the power to make regulations for employers of seagoing mariners. If I were to accept the Amendment the power would remain with the Health Ministers as it is now. I am not going to say that this is a matter of absolutely vital importance. All I say is that I think it would be much tidier that a regulation-making power under a Bill which has become a Treasury responsibility should itself lie with the Treasury. All through these proceedings I have never lost sight of the fact that the Treasury takes full responsibility for this Measure. Treasury Ministers will be responsible on the Floor of the House for its working. Treasury Ministers will reply to correspondence arising out of this Bill. I therefore think it much tidier and more satisfactory that the regulation-making power under a Bill which has become a Treasury responsibility should lie with the same Department.
  The next Amendment would have the effect that, if the power were transferred to the Treasury, it would be transferred in such a way that neither the Treasury nor the Health Ministers could revoke

  1139
  or amend previous regulations under the similar provisions of the 1957 and 1958 Acts. That would not seem at all satisfactory, because this power to revoke or amend is necessary if new reduced rates at any time in future are to be established. Without the words it proposes to leave out, it would not be possible to increase the employer contribution for this group of employers. We should be tying our hands for the future in a very undesirable way if we were to accept that Amendment. I hope that whatever the hon. Member decides to do on other Amendments he will not press that one.
  The next Amendment has the effect of associating the Secretary of State for Scotland with the Treasury. The Minister of Health would no longer have this power to make regulations. I suppose that the purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the Treasury should not dabble by itself alone in matters which may affect Scotland. That means in terms of this limited issue—I want to put to the Committee what we are discussing—that employers of mariners whose place of business is in Scotland should not be subject to direction by the Treasury alone. It rather reminds me, if I may give this reminiscence, of a time when the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was dissatisfied with our Private Bill procedure and carried his opposition to the point of suggesting in a Measure that the students of Ashridge should all be taught courses in the Private Bill procedure of the House of Commons. I suggest that this is taking a rather large hammer to crack a limited and small nut.
  This Amendment also makes sense only on the assumption that there is any special Scottish significance in what is proposed. I do not think that is so. The negotiations for all the employers are carried out by the Merchant Shipping Federation, which is equally responsible for Scottish as for English or Welsh employers. There is absolutely no significance in the change from the Minister of Health to the Treasury, and I should have thought that it followed from Treasury responsibility for the Bill that all functions under the Bill should be reasonably transferred to the Treasury.
  1140
  I agree that the Treasury must mind its behaviour whenever it involves itself with Scottish affairs—as I tried to do on my visit to Scottish national museums last autumn—and I think we all realise in the Treasury the importance of devoting proper attention to Scottish affairs. I do not believe that the Amendment in page 5, line 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is necessary or desirable, because in the negotiations that are carried out by the Merchant Shipping Federation that body is responsible for Scottish as well as for English and Welsh affairs.
  As there is one more rather important Amendment to come, I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman may feel inclined to seek to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Ross: The Financial Secretary was certainly very genial in his approach, but not very helpful. I would suggest that the next time he goes to Scotland he does not confine his visit to Scottish museums and St. Andrew's House, which are more or less the same thing.
  Sir E. Boyle: I did not. I addressed Scottish exporters and was given some extremely good Scotch whisky.
  Mr. Ross: Then the Financial Secretary can now go and tell the Prime Minister that addressing Scottish exporters is fun.
  He told us that in this Clause no significant changes were being made. Why is this being done at all, then? The Financial Secretary proceeded to tell us that it is because it is far tidier as this is now a Treasury responsibility. Is he right about that? What is the Treasury going to do about this Bill once it is in force? Is it still a Treasury responsibility? The legislation and getting it through the House is a Treasury responsibility. The Financial Secretary knows that as well as I do, or if he does not it is high time that he did. But the collection will be for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The Ministry of Pensions will account for it to the Treasury, and the Ministry of Pensions can account to the Ministry of Health on the one hand and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the other in respect of their share of what is forthcoming. So the participation of the

  1141
  Treasury in the actual practicalities of this Bill are practically nil. All the Treasury has done is to lay down policy, and now at long last it has accepted responsibility for the legislation resulting from that policy.
  I do not doubt that there already have been regulations. There must be, since the Financial Secretary gave us rates, and these were drawn up by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health. I would tend to think that rather than discuss this matter with the Treasury they discussed it with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The Financial Secretary made another point about the effect that one of the Amendments would have on these regulations already made. With all respect, I do not agree. Having read the original Act and that particular subsection, full power is given to the Treasury or whoever is responsible for bringing this matter before the House. This is not done by Statutory Instrument. This is one of the more pleasing features of the changes being made. It is the Minister who
  will have to come to the House and put forward these regulations and these changes once they come in. I hope the Financial Secretary will see the tidiness of that.
  I am unconvinced that this change should be made. The Financial Secretary has said that if the first Amendment were accepted the sun would rise, tomorrow. The National Health Service contributions will still be collected. Regulations which have to be made about foreign-going seamen will still be made as satisfactorily as in the past. Why on earth should the Treasury now decide to come and interfere in this Bill? Because the Financial Secretary has given no justification for the change proposed, I advise my hon. Friends to vote for our Amendment to leave out paragraph 2.
  Question put, That the wards proposed to be left out to "including" in line 44, stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 172.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Peel, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Percival, Ian

  Studhoime, Sir Henry

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  McLaren, Martin

  Pitman, I. J.

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

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Pott, Percival)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

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

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Gromarty)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ramsden, James

  Turner, Colin

  Maitland, Sir John

  Rawlinson, Peter

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Marten, Nell

  Rees, Hugh

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Mawby, Ray

  Renton, David

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Ward, Dame Irene

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

  Roots, William

  Watts, James

  Mills, Stratton

  Hoyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Russell, Ronald

  Whitelaw, William

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Morgan, William

  Sharpies, Richard

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Shaw, M.

  Wise, A. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Shepherd, William

  Woirige-Cordon, Patrick

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Simons, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Speir, Rupert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Whitelaw.

  NOES

  Able, Leo

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Albu, Austen

  Galpern, Sir Myer

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

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Roy

  Awbery, Stan

  Gourley, Harry

  Mellish, R. J.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Millan, Bruce

  Beaney, Alan

  Grey, Charles

  Milne. Edward J.

  Benson, Sir George

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. dames (Llanelly)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Moody, A. S.

  Blyton, William

  Grimond, J.

  Morris, John

  Boardman, H.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Moyle, Arthur

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

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hannan, William

  Neal, Harold

  Bowles, Frank

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Boyden, James

  Hayman, F. H.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Healey, Denis

  Oliver, G. H.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Henderson, Rt. H n. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Owen, Will

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Padley, W. E.

  Callaghan, James

  Hilton, A. V.

  Paget, R. T.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Holman, Percy

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Collick, Percy

  Holt, Arthur

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Corbel, Mrs. Freda

  Houghton, Douglas

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

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hoy, James H.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Peart, Frederick

  Crossman, it. H. 8.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Proctor, W. T.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Deer, George

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

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

  Randall, Harry

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Dodds, Norman

  Kelley, Richard

  Reid, William

  Driberg, Tom

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Dr. Horace

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Ledger, Ron

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Lever, Harold (Cheatham)

  Ross, William

  Evans, Albert

  Logan, David

  Short, Edward

  Finch, Harold

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Fitch, Alan

  MacColl, James

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Fletcher, Eric

  McKay, John (Wallowed)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackie, John

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleid)

  Forman, J. C.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  1144

  1145

  Snow, Julian

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

  Williams, D. J. (heath)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Timmons, John

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

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Tomney, Frank

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Stones, William

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Woof, Robert

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

  Watkins, Tudor

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Swain, Thomas

  Weitzman, David

  Zilliacus, K.

  Swinghsr, Stephen

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Sylvester, George

  White, Mrs. Elrene

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Mr. Irving and Mr. Redhead.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Ross: As the result of the Guillotine, we have been denied the right to discuss some very important Amendments. But this is a very important Schedule, and in the light of what little explanation we have already had in respect of it from the Economic Secretary it is only fair that we should give the Financial Secretary an opportunity to give us an adequate explanation why these amendments to the 1957 Act are proposed, for they do not appear on the face of it to be very necessary and, in relation to what we gathered on the first Amendment, really do not mean much at all, and also why they are here in so many words.
  We are dealing with a Schedule which we are told is of little or no importance, which takes up far more than any other part of the Bill, and a Schedule which, in relation to its language, certainly demands the attention of every hon. Member who is concerned about the clarity of the law. There are some strange phrases here, and some new ones. In paragraph 5 there is something which I have never seen in an Act of Parliament before. It states:
  "the words from 'and the payment' onwards are hereby repealed."
  What that means I do not know. An explanation ought to be given to the Committee, but we shall not have an opportunity to have it. However, out of the generosity of heart that is always in evidence on this side of the Committee, I am prepared to give what time remains for the Financial Secretary to explain what the three main purposes of the Schedule are.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am glad that by sensible use of our time in the two days
  1146
  in Committee we have had occasion to discuss, with only one exception, all the Amendments to which hon. Members opposite attached importance.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should be fair about this. We had to withdraw Amendments which we would rather have had discussed. We had to curtail our discussion on many important Amendments.
  Sir E. Boyle: I do not think I shall withdraw what I said, but I will certainly in the last minute or two say something about the Second Schedule, which is brought into effect by Clause 1 (3).
  It is a little complicated at first sight but, I think, quite simple in practice. The first paragraph substitutes an up-to-date definition of liability to pay National Health Service contributions which is exactly the same as liability to pay National Insurance contributions for a definition which has been rendered obsolete by the passage of events. What the paragraph does is to extend the reference which is made in the 1957 Act to the 1946–1956 Insurance Acts to cover the five further National Insurance Acts which have been passed since the National Insurance Act, 1956. That is the first function of the Schedule.
  The second paragraph, which we have discussed at some length, transfers to the Treasury a power to make regulations about employer contribution for foreign-going seamen. I do not think I could add to that in view of the discussion that we have just had——
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [6th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.
  Question put, That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill:—

  Division No. 106.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrle

  Allason, James

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesfd)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Barber, Anthony

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Barter, John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Botsford, Brian

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Peel, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Percival, Ian

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Bidgood, John C.

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

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Bingham, F. M.

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

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hobson, John

  Pott, Percival)

  Bossom, Clive

  Holland, Philip

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Bourne-Arton. A.

  Hollingworth, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Box. Donald

  Hornby, R. P.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Brains, Bernard

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Brewis, John

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Ramadan, James

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Bullus, Wing Commander Erie

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rees, Hugh

  Burden, F. A.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rees-Davies, W. It.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Jackson, John

  Renton, David

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Roots, William

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Russell, Ronald

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Seymour, Leslie

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Sharpies, Richard

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Shaw, M.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, 8.)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Shepherd, William

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Simons, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Kimball, Martins

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cole, Norman

  Kitson, Timothy

  Cooper, A. E.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

  Cordle, John

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Corfield, F. V.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Speir, Rupert

  Costain, A. P.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Coulson, J. M.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Curran, Charles

  Lindsay, Martin

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Dance, James

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  d 'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Deedes, W. F.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  du Cann, Edward

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Eden, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Thornton, Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Tilney, John (W avertree)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

  Turner, Colin

  Farr, John

  McLean, Nell (Inverness)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fell, Anthony

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Finlay, Graeme

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Fisher, Nigel

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Forrest, George

  Madden, Martin

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Foster, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Wall, Patrick

  Freeth, Denzil

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gammons, Lady

  Marten, Neil

  Watts, James

  Gardner, Edward

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Codber, J. B.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Wise, A. R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Stratton

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Cough, Frederick

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Gower, Raymond

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Morgan, William

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Green, Alan

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Worsley, Maraud

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Heave, Airey

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Noble, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and Mr. Noble.

  The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 170.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Hannan, William

  Pentland, Norman

  Albu, Austen

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Probert, Arthur

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Healey, Denis

  Proctor, W. T.

  Awbery, Stan

  Henderson, R t. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Randall, Harry

  Beaney, Alan

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Rankin, John

  Benson, Sir George

  Hilton, A. V.

  Reid, William

  Blackburn, F.

  Holman, Percy

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Blyton, William

  Holt, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Boardman, H.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

  Hoy, James H.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Ross, William

  Bowles, Frank

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Short, Edward

  Boyden, James

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Callaghan, James

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

  Snow, Julian

  Cliffe, Michael

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Collick, Percy

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Kelley, Richard

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Cronin, John

  King, Dr. Ho lace

  Stones, William

  Crosland, Anthony

  Lawson, George

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Swain, Thomas

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Logan, David

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sylvester, George

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  MacColl, James

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Deer, George

  Mackie, John

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  de Freitas Geoffrey

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

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

  Delargy, Hugh

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)

  Thornton, Ernest

  Dempsey, James

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

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Dodds, Norman

  Manuel, A. C.

  Timmons, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Mason, Roy

  Tomney, Frank

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Mellish, R. J.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Edelman, Maurice

  Millan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Milne, Edward J.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Weitzman, David

  Evans, Albert

  Moody, A. S.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Finch, Harold

  Morris, John

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Fitch, Alan

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mulley, Frederick

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, D. J. (heath)

  Forman, J. C.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Ginsburg, David

  Owen, Will

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Padley, W. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Paget, R. T.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Grey, Charles

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Zilllacus, K.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES,

  Grimond, J.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Cronin and Mr. Irvine

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Gienvil (Coins Valley)

  Pearl, Frederick

  Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill to the House, pursuant to Order [6th March].
  Bill reported, without Amendment: to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  RAILWAYS (LEICESTERSHIRE SERVICES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: On 28th February, I received from the British Transport Commission details of a proposal which it had made to withdraw its passenger train services between Rugby (Midland) and Leicester (London Road) and completely close the line through Rugby Wharf to Wigston South.
  Ever since I was elected Member of Parliament for Harborough at the last General Election, time and time again I have met the predominant fear of many of my constituents that sooner or later we would be deprived of rail communications between Leicester and the southern part of the county. That fear has been expressed to me many times, and I have heard it at interviews and in the villages.
  We have five separate railway lines running through the southern part of the county. They are the London and North West from Market Harborough to Rugby; the line which runs through Wigston North Junction to Nuneaton; the Midland line running from Market Harborough to Leicester; the Great Central line running through Rugby to Leicester; and the Midland line also running through Rugby to Leicester, but traversing ground different from that covered by the Great Central line.
  Harborough is in the heart of England and, as one would expect, through the constituency there run many of the main traffic routes, both road and rail, which cover the country. Tonight, I want to deal specifically with two of the lines I have mentioned—the Great Central line, which runs from London, St. Marylebone, through Rugby and Leicester to the North, and the Midland line running from Rugby to Leicester and going to the North and connecting at Rugby with the London, Euston, line.
  I make it quite clear that I am not an advocate of any useless relics on the grounds of sentimentality or for any other reason. I want nothing better than to see the British Transport Commission pay its way, and in that I am sure that I agree with my right hon. Friend the
  1152
  Minister of Transport. I accept that one of the ways in which the Commission can be made to pay its way is by closing unremunerative branch lines which have no hope of being made to pay. But the proposals about Southern Leicestershire are a different kettle of fish. This is not the closure of some unremunerative branch lines, but Southern Leicestershire's wholesale deprivation of rail communications.
  I understand that the proposals which I received from the Commission on 28th February have been already submitted to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It is proposed, amongst other things,
  "to withdraw all passenger services between Rugby (Midland) and Leicester and close down completely the double track line between Rugby and Wigston South."
  This includes the complete closure of four such Midland stations as Ullesthorpe, Leire, Broughton Astley and Countesthorpe.
  The proposals go on to mention alternative facilities for passengers between Rugby and Leicester:
  "Passengers between Rugby and Leicester displaced by the withdrawal of the rail services in question can, however, avail themselves of the alternative rail services between the Great Central line stations at Rugby Central and Leicester Central."
  This is actually stated on the closure report drawn up by the British Transport Commission.
  I think that it was Scott who said:
  "O what a tangled web we weave,
  When first we practice to deceive!"
  Only last Friday, eleven days after the production of its report of 27th February, the British Transport Commission held a meeting in Leicester for management and workers of British Railways and explained to them its proposals to close thirty-four Great Central line stations, including the stations which are mentioned as alternatives to those stations listed for closure in the proposals of 27th February. If the British Transport Commission plans to close these Great Central line stations, why has it given them as alternatives to the stations it has already proposed to close? If it does not propose to close them, why did it hold such a meeting? The effects of closing the Midland line and the Great Central line will be very widespread, particularly in Southern Leicestershire.

  1153
  There are four or five points I should like to mention. My right hon. Friend may or may not be aware of the main roads entering Leicester from the South, namely the A.50, the A.426 and the A.46. He may have had the pleasure of travelling along them, but I advise him to avoid them during the morning, mid-day and evening rush hours.
  What will be the position on those roads in a year or two when people living in the Southern part of Leicestershire have to travel about twenty miles by road before they can get to a station to get on a train to get to work, which is what it will mean if these two railway lines are closed? What will happen to the villagers of Leire who daily travel to Leicester and Rugby to work? What will happen about their daily newspapers which come by train? At the moment there is no alternative bus service to the village. What will happen to the villagers of Ullesthorpe who daily travel to Rugby or Leicester to attend hospital?
  Can my right hon. Friend tell me how to reply to the Headmaster of Lutterworth Grammar School, who has written complaining that over 250 children travel home by train to Whetstone, Ashby Magna and Leicester after the school bus has left, there being no other suitable buses on which to travel? Again, at present the people of Ashby Magna go by train to work and to attend doctors' surgeries in Leicester, Lutterworth and Rugby.
  Does not my right Friend consider that reasonable rail facilities are the entitlement of people living in a civilised country, on much the same lines as they are entitled to a reasonable telephone service, main roads, electricity, water and sewerage systems?
  I wish to refer to the proposals which I mentioned earlier, which I received on 28th February, to close down the four stations I have mentioned on the Midland line between Leicester and Rugby. I have already challenged the suggestion that alternative Central line facilities would be available. I now challenge the accuracy of the figures contained in the proposals of the Commission for Ullesthorpe, Leire, Broughton, Astley and Countesthorpe stations. According to the Commission's statistics, 147 people were in regular daily
  1154
  travel between those four stations and either Leicester or Rugby. Doubling that figure to account for the return journey, we get a figure of 294, and multiplying it by six working days, we have a figure of 1,764, which is the figure on which the Commission based its case to the Transport Users Consultative Committee.
  A census was taken of the traffic at those four stations last week, and it makes interesting reading. I submit that the facts are so at variance with the figures in the Commission's proposals that it calls for a complete withdrawal of the scheme and a reappraisal. The total number of people alighting or joining the trains during last week was not 1,764, but 3,133. The Commission's figures are wrong by approximately 78 per cent. The figures I have given do not include through passenger traffic between Rugby and Leicester in both directions.
  I submit that the proposals of 27th February are based on inaccurate information and that they should be withdrawn. Could not the services on the Midland and Central lines, now operated with steam locomotives, be operated by 2-car diesel units arranged to travel in conjunction with local bus services? Here we are not dealing with the closure of a small branch line but with the threatened closure of two main lines running through the heart of England. An increase in receipts of 416 per cent. was achieved by the new diesel service operating between Leeds and Barnsley in one year, and an increase of 269 per cent. by the service between Birmingham and Lichfield. I have already submitted plans to my right hon. Friend in this connection for the Central line.
  I ask the Minister not to allow southern Leicestershire to be entirely denuded of its train service which would make it impossible for those living in the country to work in the cities.
  11.55 p.m.
  Sir Barnett Janner: I propose to speak for only a few minutes, but I think it right that an hon. Member from this side of the House should say something in support of what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said in his plea to the Minister.

  1155
  We have a very short time in which to discuss a matter of considerable importance, particularly to the residents of the respective areas to which the hon. Member referred and to Leicester itself. The proposals put forward are much too drastic and do not take into consideration the fact that facilities must be afforded to people to get to work and carry on their ordinary avocations such as coming into the city from time to time for shopping and so on. It is not purely a matter of deciding this on economic grounds. That is a mistake which has been made in the proposals.
  The railway system has always been regarded as giving facilities for districts which perhaps do not always pay economically. That is part and parcel of the social service which has been always contemplated as a duty of the railways. Right from the beginning obligations have been placed on them to provide those facilities. Careful consideration of that is required before these proposals are put into effect.
  There was a very stormy meeting of railwaymen in Leicester last Friday. I quote what one representative said:
  "We are not discussing the reorganisation of the Great Central line. We are here to discuss the murder of a railway."
  That comes from a person actually in daily contact with work on the railways. There is very considerable concern about the question of redundancy. A figure of 300 was mentioned at the meeting. At times the meeting was in uproar. The men actually working on the railways say that this is much too drastic a cut in the services and facilities. It is important that it should be realised that this is not a party matter, but one in which hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned.
  11.58 p.m.
  Mr. A. R. Wise: I wish to say a word or two in support of what both hon. Members have said. This is not just an isolated case of closing a railway which is badly needed. It is a fairly late stage in a general symptom which is destroying the lateral communications across the whole of the Midlands and between the Midlands and the North.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to the
  1156
  Central line which was a connection between Rugby and the North. He would find it very difficult to get from Rugby to the North now. One has to change at Nottingham, and the time-table leaves ten minutes between train times. The line which once carried "The Master Cutler" to Marylebone is dead, and if this Midland line goes communications between the Midlands and Derby, which is not an unimportant town—it contains Rolls-Royce works which are intimately connected with Rugby's factories—will die. The only way to get from Rugby to Derby is via Leicester.
  I can see no justification for this closing. It is based on false figures. The check taken last week was not taken at a particular peak period in the history of railway travel. It was an ordinary and, I think, a very effective check. The railway could be made to pay with a properly run service.
  The Transport Commission was rash enough to give the prices of its fares in the letter it sent announcing the intention to close down. Of course, it is not profitable to charge more than the bus service for doing the same job. It has the cheap-day return, and all it has to do is to make that universal on any train at any time. That would not cost the Commission any more in running the trains, but it would attract a large number more passengers. I am certain that a diesel service would increase traffic considerably.
  These villages, even if the central line is left, which apparently it is not going to be, will be cut off from Leicester, their only shopping centre, because they are not on the Central line. There are villages on the Midlands line with no way of getting to Leicester except by the bus service, which is handicapped by the traffic situation at the entrances to Leicester, which make it impossible to put more buses on. I hope that the Minister will take a firm line with the Commission on this. These are two important branch lines.
  12.1 a.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sure that hon. Members and the County of Leicestershire, in particular, will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for bringing this matter before the House. He has presented his case in a

  1157
  moderate, lucid and persuasive way, and his constituents can rest assured that their interests were presented vigorously and courteously. There were one or two points he brought out which impressed me. The first was when he said that the roads were inadequate. I agree, but as we have the biggest road programme the country has ever known that state of affairs will not last for long. It is the biggest cash amount in the history of this country which is being spent, and new roads are being built. Secondly, my hon. Friend wondered what reply to give to the Headmaster of Lutterworth School. The whole of my life I have wanted to give replies to headmasters. There are a number of things I might suggest, but I could not give details in Parliamentary debate.
  The Commission is operating at a very heavy annual loss. It is over £100 million a year, the equivalent of 4d. in the £ on Income Tax, quite apart from the money spent on modernisation, and it is a very serious state of affairs. The country wants the Commission to reduce losses and make progress towards breaking even financially. It must continue to make proposals for stopping services which operate at a loss and which show no prospect of becoming paying propositions even with the use of modern equipment and methods. This is part of the process of adapting the shape and size of the railway system to the needs of the fourth quarter of the 20th century.
  We have to remodel the system, and the public must accept the need for change on the railways, in some cases going over to roads. It must be remembered, as is pointed out in the White Paper, that the taxpayer will have to face the enormous capital reorganisation involved as well as continue to carry a large part of the burden until the railways pay their way again.
  As Minister of Transport it is not my job to go into individual proposals. Parliament did not lay that upon me. It is laid fairly and squarely on the Commission. When the Commission make proposals for the closure of local lines and stations, or the withdrawal of passenger or goods facilities from lines or stations, by agreement with the Central Transport Consultative Committee such proposals are then submitted to the appropriate Transport Users' Con-
  1158
  sultative Committee. These committees were set up by the House. They were set up as the watchdogs, as it were, of the user interests. It is not my job to be the watchdog; it is the job of these committees, which were set up by the House. The House did not lay this responsibility on me.
  Mr. Wise: They are not very good.
  Mr. Marples: But that is no reason for me to do it. If the House wishes me to do it, it must pass legislation saying that it is my job. Everyone in a district where a closure takes place says, "They are not very good". I can understand that, but these committees are appointed after consultation with bodies representing user interests, including local authorities, agriculture, commerce, industry, shipping and labour. The Central Committee, to which the nine area committees for England report, and the Committee for Scotland and the Committee for Wales and Monmouthshire, can make recommendations. The Commission has always given effect to recommendations which these committees have made about withdrawals of services, even if it has meant changing its proposals.
  It is not for the Minister to say that this should happen or that should not happen in individual cases; it is for this procedure to operate. Parliament decided that this procedure should be followed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, in his most reasonable speech, mentioned the old Great Central line and said that the Commission has withdrawn all day express services between Marylebone, Sheffield, Bradford and Manchester and has introduced in their place three semi-express services each way daily between Marylebone and Nottingham. These changes came into effect on 4th January, 1960, after full consideration by and with the approval of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees concerned and the Central Committee.
  In May, 1959, the Commission announced certain other proposals for the line. These were to withdraw local services north of Aylesbury and to close to passenger traffic between that town and Nottingham all stations except Brackley, Woodford, Rugby, Lutterworth, Leicester and Loughborough. As and when the Commission makes any firm proposal to carry out such further

  1159
  changes, it will put it to the Transport Users' Consultative Committees for full consideration—as it should and as this House asks—and at this stage I obviously cannot say what will be the outcome.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who is the sole representative of the Labour Party benches——
  Sir B. Janner: How many hon. Members are on the Conservative benches?
  Mr. Marples: My hon. Friends who represent Leicester constituencies are present. The hon. Member said that the railways should not be regarded on economic grounds alone. With losses amounting to over £100 million a year, clearly they are not being regarded solely on economic grounds. But we cannot regard finance as a matter of meaningless symbols, as one of the most famous Members of his party once said we should regard the country's monetary system. The hon. Member talked about "murder of the railways" because we are stopping some services. With losses of £100 million a year, equal to 4d. on the Income Tax, and with almost twice that figure going to modernisation, he cannot honestly talk about the murder of the railways.
  Sir B. Janner Sir B. Janner rose—
  Mr. Marples: I cannot give way to the hon. Member. I have only two minutes left, and it is not the hon. Member's Adjournment.
  1160
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made one or two interesting suggestions about diesels, which I will send to the British Transport Com mission. I will ask whether the Commission has any points it wishes to make in reply.
  Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend tell me the result of any inquiries made into the case put by the Commission about passengers, which I think I have shown to be inaccurate?
  Mr. Marples: I will send the Commission the report of this debate and ask it to comment carefully on that part of my hon. Friend's speech, in particular.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) made a reasonable speech, very similar to some of the speeches of Mr. W. J. Brown, one of his predecessors, who, although not of my hon. Friend's persuasion, spoke from the same part of the House. He mentioned certain local towns; some I recognised and some I did not. I will see that he receives an answer in due course from the Chairman of the British Transport Commission about the points which he made.
  I am grateful to my two hon. Friends for raising this matter and to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West for his brief intervention, and I hope that the hon. Members are satisfied.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Multiple Sclerosis (Treatment)
  Multiple Sclerosis (Treatment)
  Nurses
  Nurses
HOSPITALS
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Non-Medical Staff (Salaries)
  Non-Medical Staff (Salaries)
  National Clinical Research Centre
  National Clinical Research Centre
  ST. HELENA (BAHRAINI PRISONERS)
  ST. HELENA (BAHRAINI PRISONERS)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  ICELAND (FISHERY LIMITS)
  ICELAND (FISHERY LIMITS)
  UNITED STATES (PEACE CORPS)
  UNITED STATES (PEACE CORPS)
  EAST GERMAN RESIDENTS (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)
  EAST GERMAN RESIDENTS (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)
  DISARMAMENT
  DISARMAMENT
  TURKEY (TRIAL)
  TURKEY (TRIAL)
  CONGO (ARMY RECRUITMENT)
  CONGO (ARMY RECRUITMENT)
  OMAN
  OMAN
EMPLOYMENT
  Scotland
  Scotland
  National Service (Mr. T. E. Rosario)
  National Service (Mr. T. E. Rosario)
  Apprentices, Scotland
  Apprentices, Scotland
  Steel-Making Industry, Lanarkshire
  Steel-Making Industry, Lanarkshire
  Unemployed Boys, Scotland and the Midlands
  Unemployed Boys, Scotland and the Midlands
  Factory, Swansea (Proposed Closure)
  Factory, Swansea (Proposed Closure)
  Dock Workers
  Dock Workers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Ditch Improvement Schemes
  Ditch Improvement Schemes
  Agricultural Workers, Northumberland
  Agricultural Workers, Northumberland
  Bacon Curing Industry
  Bacon Curing Industry
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions (Payment Abroad)
  Retirement Pensions (Payment Abroad)
  Uncashed Benefits
  Uncashed Benefits
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Motor Vehicles (Taxation Revenue)
  Motor Vehicles (Taxation Revenue)
  Economic Adviser to the Government
  Economic Adviser to the Government
  Schedule A
  Schedule A
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Colonial Civil Servants (Probationary Service)
  Colonial Civil Servants (Probationary Service)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Spitting (Local Authority Byelaws)
  Spitting (Local Authority Byelaws)
  National Health Service (Aliens)
  National Health Service (Aliens)
  Juvenile Courts
  Juvenile Courts
  Registered Clubs
  Registered Clubs
SCOTLAND
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Registered Clubs
  Registered Clubs
EDUCATION
  Agricultural Education, Herefordshire
  Agricultural Education, Herefordshire
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Licensing Bill (Clause 6)
  Licensing Bill (Clause 6)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Regent Oil Company
  Regent Oil Company
ROADS
  A.27 Road, Fareham (Traffic Survey)
  A.27 Road, Fareham (Traffic Survey)

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

LEGAL EDUCATION FOR AFRICANS
2.35 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now make a statement as to any further consideration which has been given to the Report of the Committee on Legal Education for Students from Africa.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor informed this House on January 31 that he had commended the recommendations in Chapter I of the Report to certain legal bodies in this country for their consideration, and that my right honourable friends, the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, were consulting with the Governments of the African territories concerned on Chapters II and III of the Report.
The legal bodies in question have the recommendations of the Committee under consideration, and consultations are now taking place in the territories concerned between the Judiciaries, the law officers and the leading members of the local legal profession. I am not yet in a position to make a detailed statement on the extent to which it may be possible to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. However, with regard to the proposed Law Faculty in East Africa, it has been decided that this should be established in Tanganyika, initially under the ægis of Makerere College, the intention being to transfer it to the new University College in Tanganyika after that is established. The Makerere College Authorities are at
604
present in consultation with London University with a view to securing the extension of special relationship with London for the law courses for the initial period.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government will do something to urge the legal professions in this country to take notice of this Report and to make good a deficiency which has long been apparent in their arrangements for students from overseas? Secondly, can the noble Earl give us a date when it is expected that the Law Faculty in Tanganyika will be set up?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I really do not believe it is necessary to urge the authorities here. After all, the Report, which was prepared with great expedition, was made only at the end of January. The matter is extremely important and also extremely complicated, the task being to get the various recommendations right. It needs a great deal of organisation. I do not think that at this moment there is any question of urging the authorities in this country to get on with a job which they are getting on with. I am afraid that I cannot give a date in regard to the setting up of the Faculty. But I think it is clear that we are not just waiting. The very fact that, as I have indicated, we decided to go ahead, without waiting for the new university, under the ægis of Makerere College shows that we are extremely anxious to get on. It takes time to organise a new Law Faculty; but I can tell the noble Lord that already lectureships for this Faculty have been advertised by the Inter-University Council. That is one illustration of the fact that they are trying to get on with its organisation.
2.42 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, arising out of the Report of the Committee on Legal Education for Students from Africa, they can state how many students will be chosen from each territory and, in particular, how many places are contemplated for students from Basutoland.]
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, information is now being obtained from the Governments of the African territories concerned as to the number of students who might be expected to take the post-call course of practical training, which the Committee recommended should be introduced by the Council of Legal Education and the Law Society. The noble Lord will understand that it is not a question of the various territories, including Basutoland, choosing students to practise law. The most they can do to encourage students to take up law as a career is by offering them bursaries and scholarships. It is for the individual to decide whether he would wish to practise law, and it is on the numbers likely to come from the various territories that the information has been asked. When it is received it is hoped that it will prove possible to make arrangements so that the proposed post-call course of practical training will be able to cater for the numbers expected.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend, may I ask him whether he is aware that in Basutoland, from whence I have just returned, a number of leading men feel that it would be of great advantage to the territory to have as many young students over here learning law and, incidentally, learning the British way of life as may be arranged? Can the noble Earl say, if the territory will send the students, whether there will be places for them?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as I have tried to explain, the individual has, as it were, to volunteer and the territory concerned can give encouragement in the way of bursaries. But in the last analysis, it is not the territory which sends people: it is the individual who volunteers. It is first a question of how many want to take law, and then the territory can help by giving scholarships or bursaries. That, I feel sure, is the course which, by and large, will be followed in Basutoland. If the volunteers say, "We want to go", then the territory will do what it can to 'help them in providing the money. On the question of whether there will be sufficient places for them once they come over here, of course that all depends on the numbers involved from all the territories. But, as I said in the first part of my Answer,
606
we are asking for this information so that we can make arrangements to cater for as many people as are likely to come.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether students from Basutoland will be eligible for admission to the Law Faculty in Tanganyika?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question at the moment, but I will make inquiries, and perhaps I may let the noble Lord know.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Hailsham, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Motion standing in the name of the Earl of Bessborough from Tuesday, the 28th instant to Wednesday, the 22nd instant.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I shall certainly not object to this Motion, but may I take this opportunity of raising the question of Business to-day? This is an extraordinary situation into which, apparently, Members of the House have got themselves. I believe there are 30 speakers down for to-day on what are apparently both important issues. I do not see how we are going to get through and give everybody a chance to speak unless part of the Business is adjourned to another day.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords. I think the noble Viscount is certainly right in saying that it is an unexpected position. I certainly did not expect it when I came to my office today. We must just see how we get on. I realise that the noble Viscount has raised an important and valuable point, and I know that my noble friend will he available for consultation a little later.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We shall see.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RIGHT OF PRIVACY BILL [H.L.]
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Right of Privacy Bill. The last occasion on which I had the opportunity of troubling your Lordships with a Private Member's Bill was the Marriage Enabling Bill. All of your Lordships complained that you were unable to understand, on reading my Bill, what it was I sought to do. The Bill took eleven years to reach the Statute Book and by the time it achieved that end it had been so amended that all that was left of my original draft was my name—"Man-croft"—on the back of the Bill and the words "Price 4d.". I hope that this Bill has, among what I hope to persuade your Lordships are its many merits, at least this merit: that it is clear what I seek to do.
Those of your Lordships who have not recently glanced throught the Bill may like to be reminded of my object. I seek
"to give every individual such further protection against invasion of his privacy as may he desirable for the maintenance of human dignity, while protecting the right of the public to be kept informed in all matters in which the public may be concerned."
This Bill, therefore, is merely an extension of our age-old protection against eavesdropping, "Peeping Toms" and "Paul Prys". It is, I suggest, a logical development in a crowded and sophisticated community. Your Lordships may well ask: "Why do we need any further protection? Surely we already have protection in the law of nuisance, the law of trespass and the law of defamation." I hope to prove that that protection is nowadays not enough. I suggest that privacy and human dignity are all too frequently invaded, and that this causes great hardship and suffering—more hardship and suffering than most of us who are in public life are ready to admit; and I believe that to be wrong.
May I remind your Lordships at once of some of the things which have been troubling me, and I believe have been troubling other people as well? There was, first, the Munich air crash, a year or two ago, and the most unhappy situation in the German hospital which
608
attended upon the sick beds of Mr. Matt Busby and his colleagues of the Manchester football team. There was the harrying of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret and Mr. Armstrong-Jones upon their recent holiday in Ireland, in circumstances which caused the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, from the Liberal Benches, only a short while ago, to describe is as "tantamount to persecution." There was the case of the parents of a convicted murderer who were emigrating: their name was given in full in the newspapers, together with the dates of their departure and of their arrival at their destination.
There was the harrying of Sir John Huggins, former Governor of Jamaica, on the occasion of his contemplated remarriage. There was the shocking case of the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, where photographers and newspapermen sought to invade the privacy of the hospital and obtain interviews and photographs of him lying on a bed of sickness. There was the case of Colonel Christopher Hunter, whose daughter committed suicide after an unhappy love affair. At a quarter past one on the morning after the tragedy their front doorbell was rung and a voice said, "It is the police". Colonel and Mrs. Hunter went down, unhappy and confused, in their dressing-gowns, only to be photographed immediately on their front doorstep by a flashlight photographer who at once got into his car and drove away without offering any apology or explanation.
Worst of all was the case of Miss Kriek, a Dutch girl who was murdered in Essex three or four years ago. The whole of this case was put before the country in a letter to The Times newspaper, written by a Mr. Fearon, a friend of the family. Perhaps I might read one or two extracts from his letter, because this is a point with which I am specifically dealing:
"Within five minutes of the murdered girl's family in Holland being told of her death, reporters from well-known British papers had swarmed into their flat, even penetrating into the dead girl's bedroom before being thrown out. One reporter even threatened to make up some news if Mr. Fearon did not give him any; and this the reporter actually did two days later. On arrival at Harwich cameramen tried to photograph the parents viewing their daughter's body, crowded round them, photographing them at all times, flashing bulbs in their faces, despite the attempts of police and immigration authorities to protect them."

609
Mr. Fearon went on to say, my Lords, that he had spoken to many people in all walks of life, and every single one had condemned this ghastly behaviour. So, my Lords, do I. Hence my Bill. And I think that many of your Lordships could add to those few cases which I have put before you.
I do not stand before the House to-day as a pioneer. I am not the first person who has tried to tackle this problem. As long ago as 1892 two very distinguished American jurists, Warren and Brandeis, wrote as follows:
"Gossip is no longer the resort of the idle and the vicious, but has become a trade which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery."
Of course we do not gossip. Other people gossip; we do not. We merely pass on the information to those who do. I have often thought that Adam and Eve must have had a very dull time, because they had no one else to talk about. Warren and Brandeis go on:
"The Press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and decency."
Here I differ from Warren and Brandeis. I do not say that the Press is overstepping in every direction. I substitute the words "in some directions"; and I do that because I want to make it perfectly clear that I am levelling no general charge. I wish to acknowledge at once the fact that many newspapermen and many cameramen carry out their difficult task with tact, with skill, and very often with great kindness. My Bill is not concerned with them at all.
I return to America. In 1942 the Missouri Supreme Court said this:
"The basis of the right of privacy is the right to be left alone.
"If the Court decides that the matter is outside the scope of proper public interest and that there is no substantial evidence to show an unreasonable, unwarranted and offensive interest in another's private affairs, then the case is one to be submitted to a jury."
My Lords, in the cases envisaged under my Bill a jury would, I imagine, be almost inevitably asked for. As long as 60 years ago in America it was believed that legislation such as this would result in a flood of litigation. It was estimated that if a Right of Privacy Bill such as mine were to be passed into law it would have to be repealed for creating too much litigation. That particular Act has survived for nearly 60 years. Twenty States in America now have that measure, or
610
something roughly like it, and others are following. I noticed with interest that on the very day I put down my Bill arrangements were made in Washington for a change of plan in the White House, to obviate the difficulty of the President and his family being spied upon by members of the White House staff.
So much for America. Other countries have recognised the need for some such Bill like this. Western Germany passed in 1959 an Act which makes actionable disclosure of information about a person's private affairs without consent. Such disclosure is permissible only if it is justified in the public interest. There is similar legislation in France. And, my Lords, as long as 30 years ago Professor Winfield, a name much respected in English law, was advocating a Bill such as this. My Lords, we lag behind. Hence my Bill.
I know I shall be told that my Bill is an attack upon the freedom of the Press. I would suggest that it is nothing of the sort. I readily admit that it may be an attack on the freedom of some Pressmen—I repeat, some Pressmen—who bully the private citizen. I would remind those who tell me that I am attacking the freedom of the Press of the famous words of John Milton:
"Licence they mean, when they cry liberty".
That, my Lords, is the root of my argument. I would also remind those who tell me that I am attacking the freedom of the Press of the words of the distinguished editor of the Manchester Guardian, Mr. W. P. Crozier, who said
"It is the job of the Press to provide news, but not to poke and pry into things a person can rightfully and decently wish to keep to himself."
My Bill is designed only to give the individual the right to protect himself from unwarranted prying into his personal affairs.
My Lords, was the freedom of the Press imperilled because photographs of Mr. Aneurin Bevan did not find their way into the Press? Would the freedom of the Press have been imperilled if the photograph of Colonel Hunter in his dressing gown had not been taken on his doorstep? And, really, my Lords, I wonder whether the freedom of the Press would have been seriously endangered if we had not been shown photographs of Miss Elizabeth Taylor, now happily on

611
her way to recovery, lying unconscious on a stretcher and being carried into an ambulance. I am told that the public get only the news they want. Sometimes I doubt that. Did they really want photographs of Mr. and Mrs. Kriek viewing their daughter's murdered body? I very much doubt it, and so did Mr. Fearon in the letter he wrote to The Times. Did the people really want to see Colonel and Mrs. Hunter in their dressing gowns on their doorstep? I very much doubt it.
Some short while ago, in the "silly season", some newspapers started a popular opinion poll to discover what people thought was the most important thing in life. Some people said health. some said wealth, and some said happiness. But a remarkable number of people told the members of the public opinion poll who asked them this question that they thought the most important thing in life was minding their own business. I hope the effect of that was borne in upon the proprietors and editors of the papers that had asked that question—proprietors and editors who are often extraordinarily touchy about their own personal privacy; and quite right, too! As I say, I am making no sweeping charges. Many responsible newspapers fully appreciate the situation. They feel actively that privacy should be respected and, by so feeling, I am sure they do not feel that the freedom of their Press is imperilled.
May I, therefore, commend to your Lordships Mr. Francis Williams's hearty condemnation of prying and harrying in an article which he published in the New Statesman in 1957? May I also commend to your Lordships the Observer's protest at the harrying of Sir John Huggins, in which they stated:
"…our real charge is that the conspicuous, hut powerless, who err privately are pilloried for fun."
Pilloried for fun, my Lords! A few weeks ago Mr. A. J. P. Taylor published a more than usually flocculent and illogical article in which he said:
"Are you wrong to enjoy your newspaper?"
Mr. Taylor was, I think, getting at me. He did not say so. I am now getting at him; and I say so readily. Of course, we are not wrong to enjoy our newspapers. Of course we want a little fun in our newspapers. But there is all the difference in the world between merri-
612
ment and mud. Most of us know that difference. My Bill is concerned with those who know it and are not prepared to acknowledge it.
My Lords, where do we draw the line? That, obviously, is the next difficult hurdle I have to surmount. I acknowledge readily that this is a difficult point. But the line between public and private interests can, and I think should, be drawn. I believe that nine times out of ten anybody with a small amount of sense and decency and ordinary respect for the decencies of private life could draw a line very clearly indeed. This is not a new point that I am making at all.
I go back again, if I may, to America, and I read this from the American Law Reports of 1905:
"The fact that recognition of a right of privacy would involve many cases near the borderline between the right of the individual on the one hand and the right of the public on the other, and that numerous cases would present perplexing questions, is not a good ground for denying the existence of any right of privacy, or refusing to give a remedy where it is clearly shown that a legal wrong has been done."
This difficulty, the difficulty of drawing the line, is readily accepted, by and large, by the responsible newspapers. They seem to have found no difficulty in finding out where that line should be drawn. Of course, if you enter public affairs you must be prepared to take a few hard knocks; you must not be too squeamish. I think it was Lord Birkenhead who said that the trouble with Lord Rosebery was that he was always prepared to accept the laurels of the political battle, but he would not go down into the arena and fight for them amid the dust.
One must readily admit that there are some people who over-seek, and deserve, publicity. And, as I have said, those who enter public life must not quarrel if they get it—for instance, actors, broadcasters, sportsmen, writers, politicians, and even London County Councillors. By their "position or conduct" (I am now quoting the words of my Bill) they are entitled to a little less protection than was Colonel Hunter or Mr. and Mrs. Kriek. But, even so, the most public of public figures is entitled to some privacy. There was no more controversial or more public a figure than Mr. Aneurin Bevan, but he was

613
surely entitled to the privacy of his sickbed. I admit that there are people who can perfectly well look after themselves, and can take care of themselves better than others. What worries me, and what I am principally concerned with in my Bill, is the fact that simple people are often made to look silly and unhappy. There is the growing habit of the television camera viewing people who do not realise they are being photographed, and then putting them on the screen to make fun of them. Whether they ask for permission or not, I do not know. I noticed this particularly only the other day, when I saw a film on television of a crowd queuing up to buy the first copies of Lady Chatterley's Lover. In mitigation, I can only say that I derived some comfort when I noticed in the crowd a former commanding officer of mine whom I particularly disliked.
I agree, therefore, that the distinction between public and private persons may be a narrow one Such distinctions are always narrow, but surely the basic question we have to ask ourselves—and this is the question I am asking your Lordships to decide this afternoon—is this: Is this mud that the public ought to know about, or is it mud for mud's sake alone? That is the question I am going to put to your Lordships this afternoon. I call in aid once again the American Law Reports:
"So thoroughly satisfied are we that the law recognises, within proper limits, as a legal right, the right of privacy that we venture to predict that the day will come when the American Bar will marvel that a contrary view was ever entertained by judges of eminence and ability, just as in the present day we stand amazed at Lord Hall who, with perfect composure of manner and complete satisfaction of soul, imposed the death penalty for witchcraft on ignorant and hapless women".
I see the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in his place. I hasten to assure him that this reference is not to him. I have checked this carefully, and it is a misprint for Sir Matthew Hale, who lived some many hundreds of years ago, and who differed from the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in many other respects as well.
VISCOUNT HALL: May I inform the noble Lord that I have never had the pleasure of meeting this gentleman, so I cannot give any description of him.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I felt at the time I read that misprint that it
614
was the very familiar case of the House of Lords always getting the worst of the doubts.
One comment on my Bill has been put forward by an Irish commentator, who suggests that I ought to insert an Amendment to exclude your Lordships' House from the Bill, on the ground that the House of Lords is always "fair game". I am afraid that this is well known, because, whenever we appear in the newspapers, we invariably find our names are followed by a flattering but extremely exaggerated estimate of our income, and usually, for some reason that I have never been able to understand, with the motto from the bottom of our coat of arms. If we have been in trouble with the Police for careless or dangerous driving, our motto always turns out to be something embarrassingly inappropriate, like "Steady and Sure" and if we are in matrimonial trouble it is a guinea to a gooseberry that our motto will turn out to be, "Faithful unto death". I noticed the other day, when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was having some little local difficulty with a rhinoceros in India, that he was fortunate enough not to have his motto put in the newspapers. He would have been less fortunate to have it included if he had shared the motto of the noble Lord, Lord Biddulph, "Let us aim at loftier things".
The next difficulty I have to deal with is the difficulty of definition. I readily admit that difficult points of definition may arise, but I am going to suggest to the House that the fact that they may arise is poor ground for criticism. For instance, the Larceny Act was not thrown out simply because it was found difficult to define the expression "intention to deprive permanently". I have been asked what is meant in my Bill by the expression "consent" being given to a reporter. My Lords, this is a difficult point, but the criminal law already accepts the necessity for defining "consent"; and if a reporter discloses his identity and then asks a question he is entitled to assume that consent is given to publication. My Bill is designed to deal with reporters who do not reveal their identity, or who publish when permission has clearly been refused. That is once again the Kriek case, when a reporter said that if he was not given some information he would make it up; and did.

615
Your Lordships know how difficult it is, if it is subsequently denied, to have the denial received with as much publicity as the original statement. Similarly, as one knows only too well, when one reads something in some papers about which one is oneself informed, far too frequently it is wrong. Therefore it has been suggested to me that definitions such as, "reasonable public interest", or "reasonably necessary", may give trouble. My Lords, of course, they often do. But it is very rarely, I suggest, that a judge sums up in a case such as this without having to ask a jury to define such flatters, and I myself am perfectly content to leave this matter to a jury.
I turn now briefly to the actual clauses of my Bill. My Bill is designed to strike a balance between the essential freedom of the Press and the equally essential rights of the individual. Clause 1 prevents publication without a person's consent of his private affairs in a newspaper, in the cinema, on television or on the radio. I pause for a moment to remind your Lordships that, for the sake of convenience, I have been using the word "Press" to cover all organs of communication: I do not mean any particular emphasis to be given to the word "Press". Clause 1 must be read in conjunction with the second clause, which accepts the freedom of the Press in full measure, and recognises the vital right of the Press to inform the public about matters which the public ought to know. I acknowledge that the field of legitimate news is a wide one. I admit that the public have the right to know about many different persons and many different facets of their lives.
Broadly speaking, my Bill considers three types. There is the obvious public figure—the Cabinet Minister, the Churchman, the Forces' leader and so on. There is then the person who avowedly seeks publicity. Here I am thinking particularly of Mr. George Formby, or someone like Dr. Barbara Moore. Then, thirdly, there is the private individual who, by reason of some event, has publicity thrust upon him—the victim of a rail smash, or a person standing his or her trial, both of whom, whether they like it or not, are properly in the public eye at the moment.
616
But the mere fact that a man is a public figure does not, in my submission, mean that everything he does must of necessity be a matter of public interest. The nature of the facts that can be disclosed must be measured against his fame or notoriety. Therefore, I would particularly ask your Lordships to note paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 2. Paragraph 2 (c) says that it shall be a defence
"that at the time of the publication the plaintiff was the subject of reasonable public interest by reason of some office or position then held by him or by reason of some conduct of the plaintiff, and that the words published related solely to matters which, having regard to such office, position or conduct of the plaintiff, were the subject of reasonable public interest or were fair comment thereon;"
My Lords, they are pretty sweeping words. The second defence is,
"that at the time of the publication the plaintiff was the subject of reasonable public interest by reason of some contemporary event directly involving the plaintiff personally, and

(i) that it was reasonably necessary to disclose the identity of the plaintiff, and

(ii) that the words published related solely to matters which having regard to the event and the position of the plaintiff were the subject of reasonable public interest, or were fair comment thereon."

Clause 2 therefore gives the Press and other organs of communication enormous protection, and rightly so. Everything which is of reasonable public interest must be measured against the individual's conduct or position at the time of publication. The third clause deals with the badgering reporter or the importunate cameraman. That is again the case of Miss Kriek or Colonel Hunter. It is intended to protect the individual against the unhappier practices, fortunately not very common, of the man in search of news at all costs.
Now to sum up my points. I submit to your Lordships that the law lags behind enlightened public opinion and that there is a definite demand for this Bill, though I readily realise not an uncontested demand. I suggest that the present law does not prevent conduct which is generally regarded in a civilised community as indecent or offensive. The Press Council does its best, but on one or two occasions I am afraid it has looked liked trying to clean the Augean stables with a feather duster. I am not attacking the freedom of the Press; I am attacking the freedom of some Pressmen to play with mud for mud's sake.

617
Of course, there are difficulties of definition and distinction; but those difficulties are already met, and met satisfactorily, by a large number of responsible newspapers in this country. They have no difficulty in overcoming these distinctions; they act in accordance with the terms of my Bill. These difficulties have been overcome in other countries, countries with much the same social outlook as ours. May I remind your Lordships of the words of Mr. Justice Ashworth, when summing up in the Ortez-Patino case? This is what he said:
"Those who had in their hands the enormous weapon of publicity and propaganda contained in a newspaper, had also a measure of responsibility to those about whom they chose to write."
I contend that my Bill is needed, because some organs of communication fail to accept that responsibility. I suggest that there is a gap in our law because the existing laws of libel, trespass and nuisance are inadequate to put right what I am submitting to the House is a serious social wrong. That is the gap I am seeking to fill and I ask your Lordships to help in filling it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRANhad given Notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to delete all words after "Bill" and insert "be read this day six months." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put down an Amendment to this Bill simply in order to give notice that I intend to divide the House at the end of the debate. This purpose having been served, I do not propose to move my Amendment. In speaking today—and I shall find it very difficult indeed to do so after the truly brilliant speech of the noble Lord—I must, first of all, declare my interests—we are all very conscious of our interests these days. I am an employee of Associated News papers and a director of the Daily Sketch and the Daily Graphic Limited. But of course, in your Lordships' House I represent no one but myself.
I am sure we all have great sympathy for the high principles of this Bill. We love our privacy; it is one of our dearest possessions, and we deeply resent any intrusion on it. And let us not imagine
618
that such intrusion does not take place; it does. I can speak only with some minor authority about the Press, but I have noticed that this intrusion has been recently brought in on television, too, particularly in a programme called "Candid Camera", which the noble Lord, I think, had in mind. I therefore would personally welcome any legislation which would give us an effective defence against attacks upon our private lives. But is this Bill the right instrument against such attacks? Would it not muzzle free speech? Would it not stop journalism as we know it to-day? Let us look closely at what it proposes to do.
The Bill lays down that a person shall have a right of action—presumably legal, not physical action—against any other person who publishes, without his consent, any words or pictures relating to his personal affairs or conduct. There are four qualifying clauses to that. The first two are unexceptionable, but the third and fourth, in my submission, would lead to immediate and enduring difficulty. Put in simple terms, they say that if you are of reasonable public interest, because you are an important man or woman, or because you have done something good or bad, or because you are "in the news", then it is permissible to photograph you or to write about you—hut only about what concerns your job or position, or about the good thing or bad thing you have done, or about your reason for being in the news; nothing else. "Of reasonable public importance", my Lords. What does that mean? Am I of reasonable public importance? And if I am, what about a doctor, or a tram-driver, or a prostitute? Are we going to have a list of reasonably interesting persons? If so, I should like to know who will be on it. I should like, still more, to know who will not be on it.
Then, what does "public interest" mean in this context? I imagine not what is usually meant by the phrase "public interest". I presume it means "of interest to the public". My Lords, who are the public? Is it the whole population? Is it the majority of the population? Is it 10 per cent.? What constitutes a quorum? And is not the public divided up into many sections, each with its own particular interest?

619
Some like football; some like cricket; some like all-in wrestling; some prefer knitting. Some are interested in ladies' fashions, others, including myself, are not. Therefore, would it be permissible to photograph the frocks and hats of ladies at Ascot Race Meetings? Would that be a matter of public interest?
I can see no satisfactory answers to these questions. What I can see—whatever the noble Lord may say—is the prospect of endless litigation. I can see learned counsel arguing for hours and hours, and days and days, about who are the public, or about the relative importance or unimportance of their clients. Mr. "X", for the plaintiff, w ill say, "My client is a humble fellow of no account". "Not at all", Mr. "Y" for the defence will retort, "he is a man of the highest importance". The arguments will be endless; the situation will be farcical. It will be a lawyers' banquet. Then, again, so far as I can see, it would be permissible, under the terms of the Bill, to mention only the person or persons immediately concerned, not the relations or friends. Now you may say that that is a very good thing; but, as I see it, it would mean that if, for instance, a man were awarded the George Cross, you could not say that he had a wife and 15 children. You could not say that he had a brother who owned a pub.
I doubt whether we could even report that the Prime Minister's grandfather had been a crofter, let alone photograph the croft. Worse still, I doubt whether we could quote from the noble Lord's brilliant after-dinner speeches unless we could prove that it was reasonably necessary to disclose his identity. Think what we should lose! More seriously, I doubt whether it would even be possible to print a photograph of a country wedding in a local newspaper unless the consent of the bridegroom, the bride, the bridesmaids and the pages had been obtained in advance. We should be hindered in printing many simple things which many people want to see and hear.
Last of all, I come to this question of consent, which I will deal with very briefly. Under the Bill, you may not do this, that, or the other without the consent of the person concerned. What sort of consent is it to be—written or oral?
620
If written, then I can only say that newspapers work at enormous speed, and if you have to wait for signed agreements in every case, then you will have Monday's news on Thursday. If it is a question of oral permission, what is to prevent some unscrupulous person from saying, "Yes", first of all, and then subsequently suing on the ground that he had said "No"? My Lords, I defy anyone to draft a Bill which will bring about the excellent purposes of the noble Lord without infringing the freedom of the Press. And this is not just a catchword, but is with us, I believe, a dearly loved word.
Are things really as bad as the noble Lord has made out? Perhaps I may quote from a report of the Press Council on the subject of intrusion. It says:
"The small number of complaints to the Press Council compared with the number of journalists in the country and the number of what are called human interest stories in the Press has a marked significance."
That was in 1958. Since then, I am glad to say, there has been a steady diminution in the numbers of complaints to the Council about intrusion into privacy. Of the last 70 complaints, only two concerned intrusion. Further, I think that, if your Lordships are fair, you will agree that there has recently been a marked improvement in the general tone of the Press, at any rate as regards evil and hurtful things, which we all mind so much, and to which I called your Lordships' attention in our previous debate on the Press. I would not go so far as to flatter your Lordships by saying that this improvement dates and derives from the day of our debate, but I like to think that perhaps we have helped.
In particular, this improvement applies to the gossip columns, where the greatest damage was formerly caused. To-day they are almost all harmless—dull, if you like, but harmless. And that is all to the good. If your Lordships do not believe me, may I quote from a letter of Mr. John Osborne who, I believe, is known as an "Angry Young Man" and who wrote an angry young letter to the New Statesman last week. He said, among other less friendly things, in his rather picturesque English:
"For some time the sick prattle of many a column, with its network of hired confidence men, its tin-off pimps and tittle-tattling call-girls and boys, has been severely cleaned up, even going back to the dull desperation of toadying aristocrats"—

621
that is you, my Lords—
"and millionaires."
A lot of adjectives, a lot of words, but what, I think, Mr. Osborne means is that things are better. I agree with him.
I think myself that things are going to be better still. I think that what Mr. Arthur Christiansen, a former editor of the Daily Express, said is true:
"The foot in the door technique is no longer tolerated in Fleet Street."
I think that the reading public—and never forget that it is the readers who in tile last resort dictate the tone of the Press—have been sickened by some of the former extravagances of the popular Press. They have had enough, and they are forcing the newspapers to think again. But it is no use trying to hasten this process by legislation. You simply cannot do it, and if you try it you will only bring about worse evils than those which already exist.
I like the intentions of the noble Lord's Bill and heartily applaud them, but l will leave your Lordships with this final thought. If I were a dictator—and, of course, the noble Lord must not think that I am thinking of him in this context—seeking to control the Press of my country but with a Parliament to which I still had to pay lip-service, this is exactly the kind of Bill I would introduce, as a first step.
3.25 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading and that it may be considered in Committee. I dare say that no Bill has ever been introduced into your Lordships' House which is not capable of improvement and it may be that, with the assistance of your Lordships, this Bill can be improved.
It has always seemed to me to be a blot on our jurisprudence that there is no remedy for a person whose privacy is invaded in the way that gossip writers and unscrupulous reporters too often do. My noble friend Lord Mancroft, in moving the Second Reading, gave your Lordships instances of their shocking character, and it is idle to pretend, as the noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships says, that there is not a real danger that this sort of thing will go on. He took up a good deal of time in saying, and I have heard it in
622
other quarters, that this Bill will be unworkable. I do not see why it should be unworkable.
In libel actions at the present time judges have to rule over and over again what is a matter of public interest, because where the defence in an action for libel is fair comment, it must be fair comment upon a matter of public interest and the judge has to rule whether the comment is or is not on a matter of public interest. One thing that the draftsmen of this Bill have been at pains to do is to introduce, where it can be introduced, the word "reasonable", and the reason why hat has been put in is that once it has to be shown that it is of reasonable public interest or that the comment is reasonable in the circumstances, it is left to the jury, if there is one, to decide what is reasonable.
I may also point out that a certain amount of common sense may be expected to be introduced into this matter. Most people have common sense, even judges—though often it is said that they have not. If a judge is trying a case without a jury, he will have to decide. But it seems to be forgotten that in many branches of the law—for example, in actions arising both out of contract and in tort the commonest question a jury or a judge may have to decide is what is reasonable. Of course we know the jokes that have been made about this. It is said that there is no such thing as a reasonable man, still less a reasonable woman! But the courts have never found any difficulty in deciding what is reasonable, though sometimes one court may have decided one thing to be reasonable and a higher court may have taken a different view: or vice versa.
But this Bill is intended, as I think your Lordships will see, to prevent offensive invasion of privacy. It does not create any offence. There is no penalty provided. It only gives a person, who considers that his privacy has been offensively invaded, the right of action. He can decide for himself, or she can decide for herself, whether or not to bring an action. It does not oblige anybody to bring an action. It does not enable anybody to prosecute a news paper. It only gives a person a right of action if he considers that his privacy has been improperly invaded.
Again, I think that we can assume that a certain amount of common sense

623
will be brought into the matter. I saw it said in The Times that this Bill would prevent one from saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared his own breakfast or that the Prime Minister had gone to shoot grouse in Scotland. Who would ever think that anybody holding these offices—or anybody else—would consider that that would be offensive and take any action? Then the noble Earl, Lord Arran, suggested that it would prevent the newspapers from commenting on a lady's costume at Ascot. I think that it would be much more likely that a lady would want to bring an action because her costume had not been commented upon. I think that she certainly would not bring any action because it had been.
I cannot see at present how it can be said that this Bill cannot work. It should be left to the common sense of a jury to decide whether or not there has been unreasonable comment upon a person's affairs. It is true that the Bill starts oil by saying that a person has a right of action, if his privacy had been invaded, but the defences that are then set out, which will enable a newspaper to escape, will be whether or not the comment in all circumstances was reasonable. I think that the person who is the subject of comment has done something which has brought him into the public eye and therefore it is a matter of public interest. If it is a matter of public interest, it is right that a comment should be made upon it, but only in respect of that which is of public interest.
Suppose that some person in a considerable position of life had got into some trouble at school, or at university, which might have been a serious matter at the time, and twenty or thirty years had gone by and his life ever since had been all that that of a man in public life should he. Would it be right to drag up this unfortunate incident which may have happened years ago? It is for that reason that the Bill provides in Clause 2 (d) (ii):
"that the words published related solely to matters which having regard to the event and the position of the plaintiff were the subject of reasonable public interest, or were fair comment thereon".
It would not be fair comment or reasonable to drag up things about people after many years.
624
As I have said, I am not going to weary your Lordships by repeating many of the instances which we all know and have seen in the newspapers in recent years, which really outrage decency and decent conduct. My noble friend Lord Mancroft has given your Lordships quite enough instances. No one wants to stop the Press from commenting on matters which are of reasonable public interest, and the best place to decide what is reasonable is in a court of law. If this Bill should become law, I have no doubt that the Rule Committee will consider whether an action under the Bill may not be added to those in which either party has the right to demand a jury. At present there is a right to demand a jury in an action for libel or an action for slander; but it may be considered whether, if an action of this sort could be brought, it would be right to give a person the right to demand a jury. But anybody can always apply for a jury, and I confidently feel that if an action of this sort were brought, and either the plaintiff or the defendant wanted a jury, then one would be granted.
I am not so sure that the newspapers would always want to have a jury, because juries are apt, as instances have shown lately, to come down very heavily in the way of damages, and probably much more heavily than a judge would. I remember a case which I tried not long ago, when I was still in office, in which I did my best to keep the damages to what I thought would be a reasonable amount; but the jury came back and awarded very heavy damages in favour of two Members of Parliament and another person who, as I thought, had been scandalously defamed in the newspapers. This sort of case would not be one in which one would expect heavy damages, but it would be a brake upon unwarranted and offensive invasion of privacy.
As I say, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading it can be carefully considered in Committee. But this claim for definitions about what is reasonable and so forth presents some difficulty. It is impossible to give a definition of what is reasonable; it must be left to the common sense of the tribunal which has to try the case. I submit that this is a Bill to which your Lordships ought to give a Second Reading.
3.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it would not be possible for me to feel anything but sympathy with the object of my noble friend Lord Mancroft in introducing this Bill, which he did, if he will allow an old friend to say so, in a most moving and brilliant speech. We have all seen examples in the Press where reports have been published of the private affairs of unfortunate people which have appeared to us to be in the worst possible taste, and if it were feasible to ensure by legislation that the Press never erred in matters of taste I should be the first to promote that legislation. But, my Lords, I do not believe that this can be done. With the greatest regret and diffidence I disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard as to the workability of the Bill. So, while appreciating the force of the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill, I am hound to advise your Lordships against giving it a Second Reading.
It is not so many years ago that we had the Report of what is known as the Porter Committee on the Law of Defamation. That was a very powerful Committee, and on it were represented all shades of experience and opinion: riot only were there Judges, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett and Mr. Justice Slade, but barristers, solicitors and representatives of the Press and other interests. That Committee dealt with this very issue that is raised by this Bill. I was very impressed by what they said on this point, and I should like your Lordships to have the benefit of it. Paragraph 24 of their Report says:
"The complaint which is summarised in the expression 'Invasion of Privacy' consists in the alleged practice upon the part of representatives of certain organs of the Press, of which evidence was tendered to us, of intruding upon those who have suffered bereavement, or cross questioning those who are related to or otherwise incidentally connected with persons who have committed crimes Or attained notoriety, and of publishing in sensational form details the private lives and affairs of such persons."
They went on to say:
"In so far as the complaint relates to the publication of details of the private lives and affairs of persons who have no desire for such publicity, the matter so published, however offensive it may be to good taste, is not nor-
626
mally defamatory. If it is, and it is also untrue, it is actionable under the existing law."
I have quoted that only to show—and I think my noble friend would be the first to agree—that they had fully in mind the same problem as he is now putting before the House. Their conclusion is this:
"We think that there are great difficulties in formulating an extended definition of criminal or civil libel which, while effective to restrain improper invasion of privacy, would not interfere with the due reporting of matters which are of public interest. It appears to us, however, that the difficulties which confront this Committee should not form an obstacle to action by the Press itself or prevent it from dealing with the problem as one of external discipline.…"
That was the consideration given to this question, as I say, by a strong Committee a few years ago, and they said, as we should all agree, that the offence is primarily one against good taste.
I believe that there is some difficulty in creating a new legal right which would restrain the improper invasion of privacy without at the same time interfering with proper reporting of matters which ought to be reported. I am sure my noble friend Lord Mancroft will not mind if I say that I do not think he has overcome these difficulties in the Bill. I hope he will forgive me if I point out to the House where I think the Bill falls down. I hope I am not over-simplifying too much when I say that the principle of the Bill is to make all newspaper comment on anyone's personal affairs or conduct actionable unless the newspaper can show that the publication was on a privileged occasion or was related to a matter of reasonable public interest.
That is the essence of the Bill, and is the effect of Clause 1 and paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 2. The first difficulty is that one really cannot define what are, "personal affairs or conduct." All conduct is personal to some extent. I am acting personally when I address your Lordships, but at the same time my action is of a public character. That seems to be a real difficulty which would confront the courts at the outset of any action based on the Bill: what are personal affairs or conduct? Secondly, I see great difficulty in defining what is a matter of "reasonable public interest."
I am well aware, of course, as Lord Goddard has just reminded us, that in actions for defamation, whenever the defence of fair comment is raised, the courts

627
have to consider whether a comment is on a matter of public interest. But it is notoriously difficult to say whether any particular topic is a matter of public interest, and I note that the learned editor of Halsbury's Laws of England starts his passage on this subject in this way. I selected this particular book not only because it has the imprimatur of my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds, but because one of the consulting panel was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, himself. What they say is quite clear:
"It is not possible to give a precise definition of a matter of public interest."
They take as an example—I quote it only to show that it is a point of real difficulty:
"The contents of a newspaper are a subject of public interest but not its circulation."
That shows the difficulty that the courts have had. The books give us many examples of cases which have fallen on one side or other of the line. I, for one, should feel no real confidence in saying, for example, that the matrimonial affairs of a film star, or the financial misfortunes of a clergyman are or are not matters of public interest. I should find it even more difficult to say whether any such interest is reasonable. After all, opinion differs enormously between different sections of the community, and from individual to individual, as to what is an interesting subject. I think it is putting too great a burden on our courts and going beyond our objective of certainty in the law to legislate in this way.
That is one aspect. If your Lordships desire to put restraint on the Press then surely it must be an effective restraint. Yet the defence provided in paragraph (d) of Clause 2 would give a defence—and this is unarguable—where the Press has been guilty of the very type of conduct which is usually the, subject of criticism: intrusion into the private grief of somebody connected with some contemporary public event. The fact is that, rightly or wrongly, many members of the public are interested in the private sorrows of those involved in all sorts of public events, whether tragic, sordid or merely exciting. How is the court to say, and what test would your Lordships apply in deciding, whether that interest is or is not reasonable?
I draw attention to the point which my noble friend Lord Mancroft had in mind,
628
which has been reinforced by my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard. It is sometimes said to-day that our present laws of libel give unique scope to an undesirable type of action. I am bound to say that, just as we heard from Lord Goddard, it has sometimes appeared to me that the awards of damages in the last five or ten years have seemed somewhat disproportionate to the harm that has been suffered. But I am bound to point out that, if this Bill becomes law, it seems to me that the opportunities for actions of this type will become much more numerous. I think it is clear—and I understand my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard to agree: he says "usually", I would say "always"—that there would be a demand for trial by jury, and the effect of that would inevitably be to make it difficult to achieve what my noble and learned friend wanted: that the damages should be reasonable, and could be controlled in the way in which he would wish.
In references to this matter in the newspapers (and if my memory is right the noble Lord, Lord Rea, once referred to it, I think in supporting a Question of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham) I have seen allusions to the Universal Declaration of the United Nations and the European Convention on Human Rights. In view of that reference, I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I say just one word about it. It is true that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
"No one shall be subjected"—
I ask your Lordships to note the words—
"to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attack upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interferences or attacks."
Then the European Convention on Human Rights, which I myself had the honour to pilot through the Council of Europe, said:
"(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
"(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, for the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others."

629
I think the noble Lord will realise that the framers of the Universal Declaration were aiming mainly at physical interference, such as the activities of secret police and other officers of a public authority. That is clearly brought out by the version in the European Convention which is expressly directed at "interference by a public authority with the exercise of" the right of privacy. That Convention, of course, was dealing with another aspect which is very much in our minds after the totalitarian periods of power before and during the war, and not really dealing with the point we are on to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was anxious to point out, in fairness, that he was dealing with broadcasting and television as well as with the Press. I believe that the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority would sympathise with attempts to eradicate breaches of good taste. I should like to make it clear that already the duties laid down in Section 3 (1) (a) of the Television Act are to ensure that
"nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste…or contains any offensive representation of or reference to a living person."
Thai is what the Act lays down for the I.T.A. Most of your Lordships would agree—I certainly readily do—that the British Broadcasting Corporation has always shown itself anxious to co-operate in maintaining standards of good taste, apart from the sanction of Article 17 of its Charter. I made inquiries on this point and I am told that the Bill would have a very limiting effect on programmes presented by both of the Authorities. I need not go into the examples, which are present in your Lordships' minds.
I hope your Lordships will at any rate show me this sympathy. There is no more difficult task for anyone than to have to say that a Bill which every one of your Lordships would favour, in so far as its objects are concerned, is, in my view, one which would be unworkable, and one which moreover, would be loose legislation of a kind that fails to give guidance to the courts and leaves them with issues which are of the utmost difficulty to solve. I am aware that what I have said must cause disappointment, but I do say to your Lordships that it is better to put up with actions in thoroughly bad taste rather than to
630
create legal remedies which either would be ineffective or would be contrary to the real interests of a legislative assembly. They are matters of taste and opinion. They are so much matters of taste that they are not really—and I think my noble friend Lord Mancroft would agree—matters that one could put to a committee on law reform. This is a question of whether the actual machinery and proposals made are appropriate and in accordance with our view. I have no doubt that there is a real problem here. It may be that we shall have to begin to approach it on a less ambitious level. But, although I recognise the problem, I deeply regret to have to say that I do not think that my noble friend has solved it, and I think it would be disastrous if a Bill in the form which I have attempted to describe went out from your Lordships' House as being the considered opinion of that body.
3.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise first of all to explain that in pressing a view of this Bill I am speaking entirely on my own behalf and not necessarily on behalf of any of my colleagues. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on having introduced this Bill, which is a matter of great public interest, and on having introduced it in the charming, delightful and capable manner in which he has done so. He has rendered a public service in drawing our attention to an evil which undoubtedly exists and which, whether we support the Second Reading or not, everyone agrees is an evil.
We have had four speeches with con-dieting views, and it is going to be exceedingly difficult for Members of your Lordships' House, in view of the eminence of the opinions expressed—that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, and the contrary view expressed by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—to form a judgment. I personally agree with almost every word of the criticism of the Bill offered by the noble and learned Viscount. Indeed, he has forestalled, not for the first time, practically everything I was going to say by way of criticism.
I say "practically everything" because there are one or two other things I would have said: one, for instance, as

631
to the lead which is given in the Bill by way of damages. A person who brought an action under this Bill would have little hope, in my view, of getting damages because, there is a clear lead given in Clause 4, that "In awaiting" (and the noble and learned Viscount will recognise that as a printer's error):
"In awarding damages in an action…regard shall be had to the conduct of the parties and to any mental distress or humiliation caused to the plaintiff by reason of the publication of the words."
Many persons would not necessarily suffer mental distress or humiliation, but they might well have a strong objection to their private lives being disclosed without any particular reason and without any particular interest. It seems to me that Clause 4 of this Bill is a pretty clear indication that in those circumstances the damages would be nominal, if anything at all. So, apart from the criticisms which the noble and learned Viscount has offered to this Bill, I would say there are several others to which he has not referred.
Having said that, however, I ask myself, has the noble and learned Viscount really destroyed this Bill? Are his reasons conclusive for not giving the Bill a Second Reading? I would say at once that if this were the Bill which we were asked to approve on Third Reading before it went to another place I would unhesitatingly vote against it, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Viscount. But I have by no means given up hope of being able to find Amendments, reasonable Amendments—and the word "reasonable" is used so often that the noble Lord will not mind my using it once more—which might make the Bill work; I do not know.
The noble and learned Viscount says it is impossible—by implication, at any rate. At the moment I am inclined to think that there are certain respects in which it could be made workable. For instance, Clause 1 is certainly vague at the moment, so vague that I imagine that nobody would want to chance his luck in taking proceedings in the light of its vagueness. He might just as well put his money on a number in a casino as bring an action. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, does not give much encouragement when he tells us that some judges take one view of
632
what is reasonable and some take another, and the decisions of those who take one view are liable to be reversed by the Court of Appeal. So I certainly think that, as the Bill stands, it does not constitute much of a remedy for any person who feels himself aggrieved. But I think that Clause 1 is capable of closer definition; and so are the remaining Clauses. For those reasons, I would myself advise the House to give the Bill its Second Reading.
This is an evil. I believe there is a maxim in English law that there is no evil without a remedy, or at any rate there ought not to be. I do not think it would be satisfactory to this House to accept the position which everyone who has spoken so far does accept, that here is an evil which we have either to put up with or try to remedy, and that there is no way of remedying this evil by law. I would further say that if, when we are asked to approve the Third Reading, we find that the Bill is no better than it is to-day, then certainly I should myself vote against the Third Reading and recommend every other Member who is interested to do the same.
Having said that, I wonder to what extent this evil is really as great as has been made out. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, went back some years in order to find half a dozen examples of it. He not only looked round this country; he actually went abroad to find one. I do not know whether he could have produced many more. But all the examples that he has given us are well known; everyone who would try to argue in favour of doing something would know about these particular cases. But are there many more? Do we not perhaps run the risk of exaggerating the evil of interference with privacy? There are many people who have no particular objection to this publicity. I agree that those people would have no remedy under this Bill, but in dealing with the question whether it is a great evil or a very small one, I think we should take into account that there are many people who have no objection at all to the details of their private lives being reported in the Press, even though they are not particularly important. A good many people would rather be adversely reported upon than be totally ignored. That may even apply to noble Lords in this House, who in many cases hate being

633
ignored and would rather have unfavourable comment on their speeches than no comment at all.
The gossip column in the Press has become an institution. I observe that practically every newspaper in the country has a gossip column in one form or another, although it is not always called a gossip column. Even highly reputable papers, highly self-righteous papers, like the Observer, have a gossip column, and people are very glad to get into it. I would agree with the noble Earl, Lord Arran: I do not find many of the gossip columns particularly interesting. Perhaps I do not find them particularly interesting because, like most other people, I enjoy a bit of gossip, and if in fact there were more details about the private lives of people one would find it more interesting. It is not so interesting as it might be because they do not give sufficient details about the private lives of sufficiently interesting people. Most of the people they talk about are people that I, at any rate, have never heard of.
I say all this to indicate that perhaps the evil is not as great as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would lead us to believe; and that there is something in the point that, where they do occur, these are matters of taste which could, and ought to, be dealt with by the Press themselves. Is not one of the troubles that they are not dealt with sufficiently by the Press Council? Of course, the trouble is that the Press Council is itself constituted of Pressmen, and you are asking the Press in certain instances to be judged by the particular people who themselves ought to be in the dock. If there were outside people on the Press Council who could take an objective view, and if one could be assured that these breaches of good taste (because that is all they are) would be taken up seriously and dealt with, then there would be far less case for this Bill. Let us remember that if papers go beyond bad taste, if they make imputations against peoples' characters, or even, in my view—I speak subject to correction —if they go so far as to humiliate a person, he will have a cause of action for libel. There is a case for libel where a person is, held um to hatred, ridicule or contempt, and it may well be that in some of the cases that the noble Lord has in mind in Clause 4 of the Bill an
634
action for libel would be the appropriate remedy.
I think I have said enough to indicate that I have grave doubts as to the workability of the Bill, but I should like to give it a fair chance. I would recommend, therefore, that it be allowed a Committee stage. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will agree to this. Then if, at the end of the day, it is found that the Bill cannot be made sufficiently workable, we all have our remedy on Third Reading, and I should be the first to say that we ought to vote against the Third Reading.
4.8 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, a very old friend of mine, an old Scots lawyer, now long gone to his rest, leading a case before the Court of Session, laid out his client's wrongs in a particularly clear way, and, when the Court asked him what ought to be done, said in the very words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin:
"My Lords, I have shown you that my client has suffered a wrong. It is for your Lordships to find me the remedy."
Their Lordships put their heads together and did a bit of thinking, and they found a remedy for his client. I hope that your Lordships will take that view on this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Arran pointed out to your Lordships that of recent years the Press has improved greatly. I hope and believe that that is true. It reminds me of the boy who, when the master appeared with the cane behind his back, pointed out that he was going to be good in the future. I hope that the noble Earl's clients will behave better in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said that he thinks the wrong is not perhaps as great as we think.
I do not think that everybody writes to the Press Council. I will forbear to mention any cases that have affected my own family. I will go right back in time far my particular reference. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is in his place, because this is a case that may be known to him. I think it is perfectly fair to bring forward a case of this kind; it is almost historic now. The late Lady Jersey died in 1944 at the age of 96. She was giving a dinner party at her house in Montagu Square when she was called urgently to the telephone.

635
The person on the telephone told her that her grandson had had an accident in Royston with his motor car and been killed, and asked what was her reaction. Being a woman of great character and courage, she made no answer but returned to her dinner party and finished the evening. It was known to her that her grandson had been at Cambridge, and that he was motoring back that night and always came through Royston. But until the end of the dinner party she did not know whether or not he had got back safely.
Now I take it that that was a freelance journalist and I imagine it is freelance journalists at whom this Bill principally strikes. But that case shocked me so much that I went to a friend of mine in this House who was connected with the Press and pointed out what a horrible thing it was to have done. His reply to me was curious. He brought two arguments. He told me of the short time there was between the winning of the Derby and the time at which papers containing that news were on sale at Charing Cross. He also said, "You have no idea how interested members of the public are in the emotions of a person in that position on the death of her grandson." I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Arran whether that is the kind of public interest that ought to be served. I half thought the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said it ought. At least it almost seemed to me that he said so.
I have mentioned that case and have said that I think it is mainly freelances who are concerned, because I want to take the opportunity of saying that I am deeply grateful, and shall always be deeply grateful, to the Press for the tact. consideration and good taste they showed at the time of the Broughty Ferry lifeboat disaster. The behaviour of the Press on that occasion was quite exceptional and I shall always hold them in respect in connection with it. This morning there was a leading article in The Times newspaper on this subject. and the first part of that article appeared to me to favour the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft; but it then went on to say that your Lordships ought to reject it principally on the following
636
grounds—and I am going to quote them because I think they are of interest:
"…the amount of distress caused by this kind of ' human interest ' reporting is easily exaggerated. Certainly there is some, and it can be acute."
Those lines remind me of a man who has run over another man in his motor car trying to persuade the victim that he is not as badly hurt as he thinks he is. The article goes on:
"But there is often mixed with it a pleasurable glow of self-importance. The itch for personal publicity, even of a not very flattering kind, is a common failing."
The argument there is that there is a large number of people in this world who are thoroughly vulgar-minded, and that people who are not, and who have delicacy of mind and character, are to be sacrificed to give pleasure to those who are thoroughly vulgar-minded. If the passage means anything else, I have failed properly to understand it. There are plenty of delicate-minded people in the world and in all walks of life. The widows of our lifeboat men at Broughty Ferry are an example. I cannot imagine anything that would have given them more pain than "human-interest" reporting on the occasion of that disaster. Another relative of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has put it better than anyone else. Writing to his brother Hercules, from the Peninsula, on the occasion when the College of Arms gentlemen wanted him to have honorific supporters in his arms, he said:
"Under our happy rules of government and society a gentleman is expected to conduct himself with the exertion belonging to principle, whatever his calling may be; and perhaps one of a man's first personal attentions should be, by proper restraint, neither to show himself off nor allow other people from folly or sinister motives to do so."
I do not think that that gentleman always wrote very good grammar, but nobody could put that better than he has done. And one of my points to-day is that those people exist in all walks of life and all grades of society, and I do not think they should be sacrificed to the itch of other people for news.
One of the greatest difficulties about the whole matter is that, so far as I can see, there is no remedy unless, perhaps, that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, in his Bill. I will give your Lordships an example. There is a newspaper that I believe would call itself a leading newspaper of the country; and a great

637
many people would agree with that. Certainly it is a very important daily and one that is justly respected. A noble Lord drew my attention one day to an article in this paper about a group of people whom I have known well during the whole of my life, the women who follow the herring round the coast and prepare them for canning or curing. These are girls or older women, arid the girls are nearly always accompanied by aunts or mothers. They go round the coast into very rough places and they are persons of the highest rectitude. They are extremely well conducted and, what is more, they know how to defend themselves—a fact which, I believe, once rather shocked my noble and learned friend. Lord Simonds, when he was Lord Chancellor.
This newspaper article made them out to be drabs of the worst, most horrible kind. It was written without any great knowledge of these women. Many of the details were wrong, as would have been clear to anybody who knew about them. But the article labelled these people in a most horrible way. I wrote a letter to the newspaper. I had that very carefully "vetted" by a friend to ensure that I had said nothing improper, and in due course I got a letter from the editor to say that the article was certainly "near the knuckle" but that it did not exceed the licene given to an old and valued contributor of twenty-five years, and so my letter would not be published. If that comes from a newspaper which I believe everyone would acknowledge is one of the leading papers in Britain, it shows that very often there is great difficulty in getting matters of that kind remedied. If this Bill has a Second Reading and can be amended to suit the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and find a place on the Statute Book, it may do something to remedy an evil which I believe is far greater than most people actually realise.
4.19 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, if the law of England gives no remedy for an infringement of privacy then it becomes a duty at once to implement some Bill to put it right. Furthermore, if this Bill itself is not workable for the purpose then let us, in Committee, make it workable; because this problem has been with the courts for well over 100 years and our lawyers, 100 years ago and more, indicated a remedy, particularly in
638
regard to the intrusion on the privacy of Royalty.
When King George III was ill it was said by Lord Eldon that if his physician had made notes in a diary of the King's illness, and what he had seen and heard, and had kept those notes and threatened afterwards to publish them, then the courts would have stopped him. Then later, there was the case when Prince Albert and Queen Victoria made a number of etchings, 63 in number, of their private lives, concerning their friends, their family, and children and dogs. A publisher managed to get hold of them and made a catalogue describing all these etchings, and threatened to publish them and to put a facsimile of Prince Albert's and Queen Victoria's signatures upon them. Thereupon Prince Albert brought an action to restrain the publisher. In that action it was held by the judges that the publisher ought to be restrained, and the Vice-Chancellor laid down a principle to protect privacy in these words. He said it was:
"an unbecoming and unseemly intrusion, offensive to that inbred sense of propriety natural to every man; a sordid spying into the privacy of domestic life, into the home of a family entitled to the most marked respect in this country."
The decision was confirmed by the Lord Chancellor, who said that privacy was the right invaded. So, in 1848, the courts of this country were ready to give a remedy for the infringement of privacy.
In 1890, two lawyers in America (the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has mentioned them) wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review built on this very case of Prince Albert's, in which they said that this was just a single instance of the general right of privacy; and on that basis the courts of the United States, applying also Common Law, have founded a complete doctrine of the right of privacy. Just a little while ago a photographer surreptitiously took a photograph of a husband and wife in a loving embrace as the husband was leaving, and a periodical published it without consent. The Court of the United States gave a remedy in damages, and enunciated the principles of the right of privacy in a way which would surely do justice to anybody at Common Law. They said:
"the unwarranted…Publicising of one's private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion

639
into one's private activities, in such a manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities …".
That is the law as evolved in the United States from our Common Law. Why cannot we have something similar? I am not in despair. The Judges may well do it. There is nothing in any decision of this House, judicially, which prevents it, in that whenever any grievous cases come up we find that the lawyers produce a remedy.
Your Lordships may remember the case of Mr. Tolley, the amateur golfer. Fry's, the chocolate makers, used an advertisement showing Mr. Tolley putting off on a drive, with a caddy with a packet of Fry's chocolate sticking out of his pocket. Mr. Tolley brought an action for defamation. He got £1,000 damages because it was said that, by putting in the advertisement in that way, without his consent, it gave the impression that he was lending his name for money, which was defamatory and might injure his amateur status. A remedy was given by this House, which reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and said that Mr. Tolley had a remedy in damages. I ask myself this question: supposing it had not been an amateur golfer but a professional golfer whose name and photograph was taken in that way, would he not have been given a remedy? Would not our courts, even to-day, give him a remedy? It is doubtful. There was defamation in the case I have referred to.
Then I would take a case which came before the court only last year. It was a case in which a bridegroom and his bride married and a photograph was taken of the wedding group and—mark you!— the photograph was ordered by the bridegroom but was paid for by the bride's father. Two years later the bride's father was murdered. Newspapers got hold of the photographer, got him to supply them with the photograph, and put it into the newspapers with a full description of all the parties to it—the bride and bridegroom and so forth. The bride was having a baby at the time. As it happened, the bridegroom sued the photographer for infringement of copyright and was awarded £1,000 damages. If the copyright had not been the bridegroom's but that of the father, who paid for the photograph, there would not be any remedy in copyright. But would not our
640
courts give a remedy in infringement of a right of privacy? If they would not, then they ought to. If the law is that there is a limitation to defamation, or if we have to have a case within defamation or within copyright infringement, then the sooner it is remedied the better.
This right of privacy, my Lords, is only one aspect of fundamental human rights which we have enunciated and put our name to, not only in the European Convention of Human Rights but in our very Constitution which we have framed, and also in that which we have helped frame for Nigeria and that which we are now helping to frame for Sierra Leone. We have the words:
"Every person has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Have we not any such right in England when it is being enunciated for us in countries overseas? Let us consider the question (it does not come into this Bill) of telephone-tapping, opening correspondence and so forth. Have we not a right to prevent infringement of privacy in that connection? All I would say is that if the law does not give the right of privacy, the sooner this Bill gives it the better.
I would not suggest that this Bill is unworkable or that, if it is, it cannot be remedied. It may be that the word "offensive" ought to be in, because it is the offensive intrusion into privacy which is the real wrong. It may have to be extended beyond the scope of newspapers which are for news. It may have to be extended—and should be—to weekly periodicals, and, if need be, to Punch, though I would not suggest that that periodical ever offends. That is not a newspaper within this sense. But these are small Committee matters. If the Bill is not workable, let it be made workable. But the real point worthy of consideration is this: if the law of England does not give a remedy for infringement of privacy, the sooner this kind of Bill does it the better.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? I have come here with a completely open mind, but is there not a great ambiguity in the use of the word "privacy" or the words "private life"? By "private life" one may mean life lived within one's home; and to invade that would offend most of us. But if

641
one goes to a race meeting or into a restaurant, is one still living a "private life"? It seems to me that the words can be used in two senses which may easily be confused.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, the Bill refers to the word "personal" and not "private". It is true that it is difficult to have the words "personal" and "private life". But I do not despair of that being worked out by the courts as a matter of interpretation. To get the point by way of definition is certainly difficult.
4.28 p.m.
LORD FREYBERG: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. As your Lordships are aware, this Bill is designed to give protection to private individuals from any unjustifiable publicity, and the aim of many of those of us who support the Second Reading is to give every individual such further protection against the invasion of his privacy as may be desirable for the maintenance of human dignity. At the same time, it is essential that the public should be informed in all matters in which they may be reasonably concerned.
While the Bill in its present form is designed to deal with publication in newspapers, periodicals, cinematograph or television exhibitions or sound broadcasts which can be said to invade personal privacy in an unjustifiable manner and to the detriment of personal dignity, I should like to move that the Bill should also include similar publications in pamphlet or book form. I myself am in a peculiar position. At the moment, as I understand, a book called Frevberg—General has been written and is being prepared for issue to the public, without anybody having consulted me or any of my friends. As soon as I knew, about a fortnight ago, I instructed my lawyer to write to the alleged printers, and we got back a most extraordinary letter. They did not deny that they had produced a book, but they said that I had the whole thing wrong because it was not the sort of book I thought it was. The letter said that in fact the writer was a man who has the greatest affection and esteem for me. But the fact remains that I have not been approached on the subject of the
642
book in any way, either as to the writing or as to the publication.
Some people might regard it as flattering that their activities should be considered interesting enough to give a book of this character an appeal sufficient to make publication worth while. I hope, however, that there is still another body of opinion in this country which will regard such an unsought invasion of personal privacy as a breach of elementary courtesy and good manners. I understand that, under the laws relating to publication as they now stand, there is no protection for the subject of such a book unless the matter published can be proved to be either inaccurate or libellous. I therefore hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading; and, if you do, I propose to move an Amendment on Committee stage that will make it illegal to continue the invasion of personal privacy in pamphlet or book form.
4.33 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, for I have only two points to make. I want to say first of all that I welcome the Bill which has been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft. I do not believe that if this Bill, perhaps in some amended form, becomes law, it is at all likely to lead to a great flood of litigation. I say that for two reasons. We have been told this afternoon that the Press is getting better. I think that if this Bill were on the Statute Book, the Press would be a great deal better, and there would be much less reason for people to complain or to take action. In the second place, I do not believe that anyone would bring an action, courting the additional publicity that that action would involve, unless he had been very seriously hurt and damaged by a really offensive publication.
The noble Lord has given us a number of striking examples of what I might call bad behaviour on the part of the Press, but (and here I must declare an interest) though he has included in his Bill cinematograph exhibition, he has not given us any indication of a cinematograph exhibition ever having been an offender in this respect. The industry has been in existence some 60 years. I have been associated with it for nearly 50 years of that time, and I do not

643
believe that a cinematograph exhibition has ever been an offender in the sense of the offences that have been spoken of this afternoon. If the noble Lord could show me any examples, then I should be quite willing that he should continue to include these words in the Bill. But, strangely enough, although cinematograph exhibition is included, other fields of entertainment which might be included are not—for example, music halls and night clubs. I am told by those who frequent them that what might be called the "patter artistes" in these establishments are often guilty of the most malicious personal comment on people in public or semi-public life. If the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft is unaware of that situation, perhaps I might invite him to do a little research—and I hope he would not find such research entirely repugnant.
The final point that I want to make is that I wish there were some way in which we could extend the protection against an invasion of personal privacy to the protection of the privacy of organisations. I have here a cutting from The Times of March 3, the first line of which refers to its being a report of a private meeting. When does a private meeting cease to be a private meeting? When there has been some leakage and the Press report it—a most dangerous tendency in modern life, because almost always the leakage comes from one side or the other of the contestants at the meeting, with the result that the report is partisan. I hope that, if the noble Lord finds it possible, he will consider the inclusion of the right of privacy of organisations as well as of individuals.
4.37 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Mancroft in his Bill. I am not so much concerned with the writings of gossip columnists, although these can sometimes lead to embarrassment and unhappiness to the people concerned. Newspaper speculation as to whether "A" is going to marry "B" while they are still in fact, and not in "quotes", good friends, might well be the deciding factor against such a union ever taking place. Nobody who is worried by publicity given to a small matter in his private life would want to expose himself to the greater publicity of a law-suit under this Bill.
644
I should like to say here that on one point I am in disagreement with both my noble friend Lord Mancroft and my noble friend Lord Arran, and that is over a television programme called "Candid Camera", which has been mentioned in this debate. I must confess that I find this programme extremely amusing. We are told—and I see no reason to disbelieve the producers—that everybody who appears on it has his permission asked first, and also that many of the people concerned laugh the loudest on seeing themselves on it. I should have thought that a programme of this kind is not something of which we should disapprove, but that it rather demonstrates what we like to think is our habit—of being able to laugh at ourselves.
My greater concern is over the invasion of privacy on occasions of serious illness, accident or death. It may be a legitimate matter of public concern when a well-known man or woman is dangerously ill, but I do not think it can possibly be necessary to publish a photograph of the patient being carried into hospital on a stretcher. It may be in the public interest to publish a picture of a very bad road accident, because such a picture may make people drive more carefully, if only for one day. On the other hand, there can be no justification for publishing a picture of a bad crash on a race track which results in the death of the driver. Some pictures, I remember, have even shown the driver being thrown from the vehicle to his death. When the public are saddened by the sudden death of one of their idols, they may well want to read an obituary, and even details of his or her last illness. But there can be no justification for reporters pestering the widow with telephone calls or interviews a few hours after the death, so that her views can be published in the next morning's paper. There is surely a point that must be possible to define, when the private sorrow of individuals should come before the need to inform the public; also a distinction can surely be drawn between news that is published to attract the legitimate sympathy of the public and that which caters for the morbid curiosity of a few sensation-seeking readers.
There are two points I should like to ask my noble friend and your Lordships to consider. Does the Bill, as it now

645
stands, give the right of action to the next-of-kin when the individual concerned is dead? Photographs of people who are lying on a bed of sickness have been mentioned. If the person concerned in fact dies and his next-of-kin does not have a right of action under this Bill, I am afraid that this Bill will not do anything against taking photographs of this kind. Let us take a hypothetical case of a journalist who goes into a hospital or private room and takes a photograph of a man lying on his deathbed, or thought to be lying on his deathbed. If the next-of-kin have in fact no right of action under this Bill, you are going to get the situation where, if the man dies, the newspaper will be able to publish the picture with impunity, whereas if he gets better, they will not be able to publish the picture. That seems to me to be the wrong way round.
The other point I should like to put is on Clause 3. Would it be possible to amend this clause so as to cover cases where the individual concerned is on premises owned or occupied by him and the photographer is not? It seems to me just as bad for a photographer to take a photograph of somebody who is desperately ill by artificial means, such as using a ladder to look over a wall, or looking through a window, or by using a telephoto lens, which enables one to take pictures from a very long distance, as to trespass on private property. This Bill may need some amendment, but surely we are all agreed that the principle is right. What is or is not of reasonable public interest may well, as some of your Lordships have found, be very difficult to define. It may be difficult for a jury to decide, even after listening to the careful summing-up of a learned judge; but should this admittedly difficult decision then be left to a sub-editor to decide?
If this Bill is passed into law, I am afraid it may not be a totally effective deterrent. It is said that some newspapers look upon fines for libel which they sometimes incur as occupational risks well justified by the publicity obtained. The same, unfortunately, may be true with fines under this Bill. But that does not alter the fact that those who suffer from persecution by the Press, where persecution does take place, should have protection, if possible, and, if not,
646
a right of action. I beg to support the noble Lord's Bill.
4.45 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, a good democracy is a very difficult thing to work, and our democracy depends on two factors, among others: it depends on the rights and freedoms of the individual, and on the rights and freedoms of the Press. This Bill comes at the point where these two may conflict, and therefore it is right that it should be subjected to close scrutiny. I felt great sympathy for my noble friend Lord Silkin when he was speaking of the Bill and giving his views about it. The job of the Press is a very difficult one. It has to hold up a mirror to life, to the doings not just of great people and good people, but also of wicked people and bad people. It has to show the small folk as well as the big. It has to show their joys, their laughter, their sorrows and their tears, if it is to do its job properly. None of that is easy, and it may sometimes inevitably cause distress to some people.
The offensive situations arise, I think, in two sets of circumstances. The first is the need for all of us, whether we lead public lives or not, to have our off-duty times. We must be allowed to have our quiet off-duty periods, when we have not got to put on a show, if we are to live at all and to do our public service. Secondly, we must be free from intrusion at time of private grief, and I think that applies to everybody. They are fundamental rights for ordinary human beings to enjoy. The newspapers, in the telling of their human stories, have to tread warily, but they can do it without causing distress and misery. I think it was about two years ago that Mr. Cecil King, the Chairman of the Daily Mirror, gave instructions to his reporting staff that they were not to obtrude into personal grief, and that they were not to offend in the kind of way against which this Bill provides action. Since then, I believe one journalist on the staff of the Daily Mirror has transgressed in that way and was instantly dismissed without any question of appeal. The Daily Mirror nevertheless produces an exceedingly lively human journal, and if that can be done under provisions which are identical, or as near as makes no difference identical, with those achieved by

647
this Bill, surely we should not worry about its interfering seriously with the freedom of the Press to picture ordinary life.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, thought the offenders were the free-lance journalists. I do not think that is so. We know who the offenders are. There is one newspaper group which has a strange habit. Instead of sending one reporter or two reporters to investigate a matter, it sends six or eight, so that these people are competing one with another for the story, for what is called the "by-line"; that is to say, the attribution of authorship of the article which appears. It is this intense competition among people working for the same person which is responsible for almost all these offensive cases of intrusion. It is well known in Fleet Street—I do not think there is any secret about it—and certainly it should be dealt with quite satisfactorily if this Bill is passed.
There is one risk which the Bill carries with it, and that is the creation of a new kind of "ambulance chaser". I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack had that in mind. Your Lordships are familiar with "ambulance chasers", as are all of us who have worked in hospital casualty departments. They are the thugs of unscrupulous lawyers who collect details of casualties as they are brought into the hospital in order to persuade the person concerned to bring an action for damages as a result of the accident. The kind of "ambulance chasing" which might arise under this Bill, unless we are very careful, is that these unscrupulous people would look through every newspaper each day to see whether there was a possible intrusion into privacy, and then would go to that person and say: "Look here, there is a chance that you might be able to get quite a lot of money by bringing an action against the newspaper for intrusion of privacy". That is the risk. I think that is the only risk, but I am sure we must look at the Bill very carefully to see whether we can cope with it. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, can comment on this when he comes to reply.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is not that champerty or something like it?
LORD TAYLOR: I really do not know. But it may happen. It will probably be immoral or illegal, but I think it is a risk. Reference has been made to Professor Winfield and his desire that a new tort should be created—namely, invasion of privacy—and perhaps that is what we are starting to do to-day. I very much hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, knowing that, by so doing, your Lordships will be remedying some unpleasant evils and making the unpleasant part of the Press a little less unpleasant.
4.51 p.m.
LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, several noble Lords have considered that this Bill is a serious intrusion into the liberty of the Press. I can only say that any member of the Press who considers that his publications would be liable to action under this Bill is tacitly admitting that he publishes exactly the kind of thing that we are trying to prevent. In these days, when individual liberty is gradually being eroded away, liberty over one's property, one's actions, even one's very person, I think that this Bill is very necessary.
However, before I go any further, being conscious of the fact that not only the eyes but also the ears of the Press are upon me, I should like to say that the task of the reporter is not an easy one. If he wants to earn his living, he has to find news of some sort—of the sort that is going to please his sub-editor, so that often it is more the sub-editor than the reporter who is to blame. What is more, when the reporter has handed in a version of the news that he has obtained it may be altered by the sub-editor and may appear in a totally different form, sometimes in even a damaging form. As things are at the moment, a person has no protection whatsoever.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that complaints to the Press Council have been very much reduced. I do not doubt that he is right, because he is speaking from authority. But I wonder whether that is not largely because people realise that it is of little use if they do complain. It is very hard to prevent the Press publishing what they wish to, and if one makes complaint and the newspaper is of a less scrupulous

649
nature, which is the only department of the Press affected by this Bill, perhaps they will publish something even worse about one. I am all in favour of a free Press, as naturally we all are; but, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, there is all the difference between liberty and licence. There is no such thing as complete freedom: all there is is freedom under the law. I am thankful that that is the case, because if we had such a thing as complete freedom, I should be afraid of some heavy article being dropped on my head from the gallery and I should have no legal redress.
A good deal has been said about the question of reasonable public interest. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has said that the Press caters for many different sections of the public; and of course he is right. What is interesting to one section is not interesting to another. But it is the papers who cater for what one might call interest in "mud" that we want to control by this Bill. Papers who publish perfectly innocent social interest or personal information will not suffer prosecution; and if they do, they will be perfectly able to defend themselves. But it is highly unlikely that they will ever get so far as that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, said, what lady would object to being photographed at Ascot? And there are many other similar examples of which one can think.
I think that it might be necessary to define a little more clearly the word "consent" in Clause 1. On occasion I have been rung up by the Press and asked various questions. Does the fact that I answer those questions constitute my consent? Because sometimes when an article has appeared in the paper it appears in a very different form, not exactly insulting, but in rather bad taste. I think that that is the kind of thing against which one has to be protected; but it will be difficult, because one cannot ask for a proof of what is going to be published before one gives consent. I must leave that difficulty to be overcome by those more experienced in this than I am.
Coming to the question of what is reasonable public interest, I am perfectly willing to accept the higher authority of my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard about that and leave the question to the judge. Surely "reasonable"
650
must mean "reasonable within the bounds of good taste;" and no judge would call anything outside those bounds reasonable. Many remarkable cases have been quoted of reporters who have either forced their way physically into houses or telephoned and obtained information which was unwillingly given. I think that these are the cases that we should be able to restrain. For instance, would it be reasonable public interest for all the sordid details of the divorce of a young couple, of whom nobody has ever heard, who are not public figures, a young couple who live in some obscure part of London to be published, together with pictures and quotations from their remarks? Is that reasonable public interest? I sincerely hope that if that were raised in court the judge would say that it was not. Therefore, although possibly the Bill may need some amendment in Committee, I sincerely support the Second Reading.
5.0 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, having been abroad for the past fortnight I am rather nervous about addressing your Lordships on this subject, because I have had limited access to what has been happening in your Lordships' House only through the popular newspapers as opposed to my usual perusal of Hansard, and I do not quite know how I stand about declaring an interest. I gather than one or two words have been said on this subject in your Lordships' House, and before I go further I hasten to declare that I am connected with a group of provincial newspapers—no national or London newspapers—and anything that I say will be probably slightly coloured by that fact. I am at one with everyone who says that where reporters do intrude on the privacy of people in grief or sorrow this should not be allowed. I am also at one with those who think that much of what is published to-day ought not to be published. But I am afraid I disagree with virtually every other speaker as to the practicability of this Bill, and I personally cannot see how it could be made to work.
I should like first to draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of Clause 1, which refers to the publishing of
"any words relating to his personal affairs or conduct."

651
Let us suppose that during my schooldays I had gone to Ascot, and that a reporter had taken a photograph of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the sake of his carnation, and that Lord Mancroft had given his permission for the photograph to be published in the newspapers the next day. If I happened to be the next person queueing up to have a word with my bookmaker and appeared in the background of the photograph, and if my housemaster had seen this photograph, with the result that I suffered severely as a result of going to Ascot, then under the Bill, so far as I can make out, I should have a perfect right to sue the newspaper and get what I trust would be substantial damages, because Clause 4 refers to "mental distress or humiliation". I feel that there would have been a great deal of this—and possibly of physical, too! But I do not think we can hold the newspapers responsible for something like that.
I feel also that in some cases it may make intrusion into privacy more difficult to stop. It gives the intruders a defence if the victim is in the public eye, and it is framed so loosely that it will rouse not only the opposition of people against whom it is aimed, but also the opposition of the great bulk of the Press (as I think it has done already), of radio and, presumably, television interests, who have no wish to encroach upon anyone's privacy but will see their quite legitimate business menaced. The Bill makes it possible for anybody not in the public eye to bring an action for the publication of any personal statement, whether there is damage or not—and I think that is important—whether the statement is harmless or not, and whether it is useful and interesting or not. This is flinging the door wide open for completely frivolous and vexatious actions. I do not say that the people concerned would get large damages—probably they would not—but they could still bring, and win, a case under the Bill.
I should like to give one or two other examples of why I think the Bill would not work. Local newspapers consist largely of reporting local events, and that is what sells them. Some of the main local events reported are weddings. In the photographs of the weddings you have a very nice group, and in the background you probably have other people standing around. Not only those in the wedding
652
group are named in local newspapers, but they also say that so-and-so and so-and-so were there. It would be physically impossible for the local newspaper reporter to get the consent of all the people named.
To give another example, on a rather higher plane, there are certain magazines devoted entirely to reporting who was at a certain dance, and particularly charity dances; they give a column of names, with extreme dullness and great boredom; and after the name, quite often, they give, inaccurately, what the people do. I cannot see that that does any great harm to anyone, but for that to be legal under this Bill the reporter would have to go round and get the consent of all the people whom he proposed to mention. I do not think that would be practical.
LORD SOM̃ERS: May I interrupt the noble Duke? Does he not agree that in that case the only action that could be taken would be by those whose names were not reported, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, suggested?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that might well be true. Nevertheless, the people whose names were reported would have power under the Bill to take action, and I think there is a definite danger that they might. For instance, if same noble and learned Lord told his wife that he was going to a conference, and then it was reported that he was seen walking on the beach at Brighton, or something like that—
LORD GODDARD: Not on the beach!
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Perhaps not on the beach—but if it was reported that he was seen at Brighton, his wife might put a false construction on the report and the noble and learned Lord might easily suffer for it and get some damages from the newspaper. I do not think in that case you could really blame the newspaper for reporting that fact.
Newspapers, on the whole—in fact, almost entirely, with the exception of local newspapers—report the activities of people in the public eye, and therefore they have the defence under Clause 2. But local newspapers suffer more severely, in that the people about whom they report are not so much in the public eye and, therefore, they might not be covered by Clause 2. I suppose that the winner of the whist drive, or even the winner

653
of the booby prize at Little Twissleton is in the public eye, so far as Little Twissleton is concerned, and therefore perhaps there would be a defence if it were reported that the booby prize was won by "Mrs. Snooks". But I think there would he a danger if the newspaper circulated outside Little Twissleton, because "Mrs. Snooks" might then say that she was no longer in the public eye and the fact that she won the booby prize did her damage in that it showed that she was not a very skilful whist player.
With Clause 3 I am in complete agreement: I think it is scandalous when reporters try to get information by force or threats, or try to get information from employees or from members of the family. I should be quite happy if the Bill were not given a Second Reading, and if the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, could then introduce a much shorter Bill—which would only cost him 4d., as the previous one did, instead of 6d., as this one does—containing only Clause 3, slightly re-worded. I think that the risks of giving this Bill a Second Reading are too great to take, and I would ask your Lordships to reject it. At the same time, I should like to make it quite clear that I am in complete sympathy with what I think to be the objects of the Bill, and if, as I say, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, could think of a Bill which consisted only of Clause 3 slightly re-worded, I should be delighted to support it and would hope that it would go through both Houses as quickly as possible.
5.10 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, by agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I intervene very briefly at this stage in order to lend support to the Bill. May I say at the outset that this is not due to the fact that I do not think that in many respects we have a very good Press, nor is it based on any general quarrel with our Press. May I also say that I agree with the noble Duke who has just spoken, to this extent? I believe that if this Bill receives a Second Reading it will, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also pointed out, require some Amendment in the interests of the legitimate activities of the Press, with which none of us wishes to interfere.
654
The reasons why I support the Bill are briefly these. I have always thought, from the first moment that I studied law, that the law of England should provide for some protection of privacy. I noticed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out that this House as a judicial assembly has never decided that that right to privacy does not exist. Well, I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Denning luck when the matter comes before this House as a judicial assembly. I would much rather have a Statute on which my hopes could more certainly he based. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the case of Tolley v. Fry. Counsel in that case happened to be in my chambers at the time during my early days at the Bar. I can only say that all of us believed that, in order to succeed in that case, the plaintiff had to succeed in libel. I do not think it crossed the mind of any of the counsel engaged in that case that he might have succeeded on the ground of a Common Law right to privacy. Nevertheless, I listened with the greatest interest and enchantment to what the noble and learned Lord said.
My noble friend Lord Arran remarked as a reason against this Bill—or one of the reasons he adduced against it—that, after all, the readers dictate the tone of a newspaper. I do not know whether that is always true, but I am willing for the moment to assume that it is. But assume that the tone dictated to the newspaper by its readers implies the sort of conduct that every speaker in this debate detests. Then, notwithstanding that these things may represent the wishes of the readers, I would still provide the victim with a right of action at law. A good deal has been said about taste—that there is some intrusion against good taste. Does it not go further than that? Do we not all know that it sometimes amounts to persecution? What about people in the public eye? Perhaps, because they are engaged to be married, they cannot even have a peaceful week-end with friends in the country, because the Press can use helicopters, can mount ladders on adjoining property, can use a telephoto lens, and can do all these things in such a way as to deprive the injured party of any peace whatsoever during that weekend.

655
Do we really wish that conduct of that sort should be without remedy in English law? I believe it is the universal wish of this House that such a remedy should be provided. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, says "No". I had forgotten or overlooked for the moment that he does not wish to give a remedy. I think he will find that a great many people do desire to give such a remedy. For those reasons, I shall certainly vote in the Division that this Bill shall receive a Second Reading. That does not mean that I have wholly overlooked some of the difficulties pointed out by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and others. I am sure that there are objections of substance which will have to be met but, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, there will be another opportunity of voting on this Bill if in the Committee stage we are unable to improve it.
May I mention one other matter raised by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack? He dealt with the point of the mention of the right to privacy in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the European Document, and pointed out that the protection of privacy—I am giving a general description—conferred by those two documents was clearly directed against the tyrannical action of Governments. I agree with him in everything except his conclusion. Would it not be very strange indeed if we thought it necessary and proper to provide in any Universal Declaration of Human Rights against the tyrannical action of Governments but left the victim entirely without remedy if the injuring party was not the State but a newspaper? It seems to me a most odd conclusion. I should have thought that if there were a case for this Universal Declaration of Human Rights to protect the injured party against the action of Governments, a fortiori there should be a right of action against a private individual or a newspaper that invaded such rights.
I am sorry to have delayed the House so long, but I have given the reasons why, without having any general quarrel with the Press, I think we ought to provide, although it is very late in the day, that the law of England shall give some right of privacy, and I think for that reason this Bill should be supported.
5.18 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think it is quite clear that this Bill is about to receive its Second Reading, and I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, not only on the skill with which he introduced it, but on his success in picking another winner so far as the Second Reading hurdle is concerned.
I do not think there is any need to recapitulate all the arguments, but I think we should recognise straight away that those of your Lordships who say that this is not a great evil must realise that Governments are always reluctant to deal with minor evils, especially when it brings embarrassment in its train. I think this is a typical Private Member's Bill which, in whichever House it starts, should probably start from the Back Benches; and I hope that after it has had its Second Reading the Lord Chancellor and the Government may change their tune a little and will seek possibly to make such improvements as may be necessary.
This Bill, of course, arises out of the failure of the Press Council to do its job. I do not propose to develop that theme any further, but certainly many of us had hopes that some restriction on the intrusion of privacy and breaches of taste would be brought about by a more effective Press Council.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I must interrupt at this stage. The noble Lord is not being accurate. I have already pointed out that of the last 70 complaints to the Council only two have been on the matter of intrusion.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl has made his speech, and I am going to deal with some of the points he made. He made one of the most unsatisfactory criticisms of this Bill that could be made. He set up a number of thoroughly unlikely propositions of the kind of cases that might come before the courts. The noble Earl dealt with what I can only regard as a ridiculous suggestion that cases might arise because people's dresses have been described at Ascot. The noble Earl also mentioned the possibility that, in referring to a George Cross winner, it would be too dangerous to mention his family. It would be perfectly in order. Nobody seriously considers for one moment that

657
such an act might give rise to an action in the court, unless there was an intrusion of an improper kind and an attempt to find out details of a personal nature.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Under the terms of the Bill it would be perfectly legitimate to bring such an action.
LORD SHACKLETON: All I say is that the noble Earl should study the Bill again. He cannot seriously believe, in the face of the advice he has already been given, that anybody is going to bring an action which is going to bring no benefit in its train. What is the possibility of damages arising out of a report of that kind? I do urge the noble Earl to look again at the Bill and to listen to the opinions given by noble Lords who are more learned in the law than I am on this point.
He went on to say that if he wished to take a step towards a dictatorship this would be one of the first measures he would take. I am thankful to say that the noble Earl is not made of the stuff of dictators; he is the last person to wish to introduce a dictatorship, and for that reason he is unsuited to judge the steps which a dictator would take. This Bill gives no right to the Government whatsoever; it gives merely a right of action in a civil court, and a judge or jury will decide whether the grounds are reasonable or not. Therefore, I am not, and I am sure your Lordships will not be concerned over this particular argument.
I should like to say something about this question of personal publicity. It has been frequently said and implied that everybody likes personal publicity. I do not, and I think there are many people, including many in public life, who regard personal publicity as distasteful and frequently in bad taste. I do not think, therefore, we ought to accept the view that people who are so frequently reported in this sort of way are secretly gleeful about it. My own experience of personal publicity is that it generally enhances the fury of your enemies and arouses the jealousy of your friends, and I think many of us would be very glad to be without it. But clearly there are matters which are of public interest, and those are the matters which are properly dealt with in the Press.
658
I am glad that this Bill covers the subject of broadcasting. There are a number of programmes on which permission is obtained, some of which, despite what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, do, in my opinion, offend against certain canons of good taste and come very near to invasion of privacy. There is the programme, "This is Your Life". Certainly permission is obtained, and many people like it. But we know the case of Mr. Blanchflower who refused to allow it to go on. He spoiled his gesture a little later by appearing on commercial television the following week. There is an even more objectionable programme, and that is "Candid Camera". This has been referred to, and I must say that it is one of the most offensive types of programme one could see. I urge any of your Lordships who may not have seen it to see whether you can stand the sight of simple people being made fools of for the delight of those people who might begin to develop the very sadistic type of humour about which we have had so many criticisms with regard to America.
When the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack spoke about television and broadcasting seeking to maintain good standards, I noticed that he said that the B.B.C. did maintain them, but I think he did not say anything about the commercial television people maintaining them. But if he does think they are maintaining them, then I can only say that his standards and mine are different. I found some difficulty in understanding the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount—I am sorry if I misinterpret him. He referred to the Porter Committee. I do not think that reference threw any light at all upon this particular discussion. They indicated that there were difficulties in the matter. We know that there are difficulties in the matter. He referred also to the Declaration of Human Rights. Here again, I think we all have a very clear view as to what we regard as human dignity. We also have a clear view that things are done by the Press and others of this particular kind which we regard as an invasion of human dignity. This is not an attack on tile Press, and I hope that the Press and those who are interested in the welfare

659
of the Press will realise that it is not an attack on them.
The only possible charge that I think can be brought against this Bill is as to whether, in fact, it will achieve all it sets out to do. It cannot be denied, and I do not think it has been denied, that there is a need for something of this kind, provided that it can be found. We have the support of two very distinguished noble and learned Lords, both with deep experience in this field, and both saying that it is desirable; and, furthermore, saying that it is perfectly possible, as all of us know, to decide what is and what is not reasonable in a particular issue. It is very difficult when you are confronted, as some noble Lords have attempted to confront us to-day, with a hypothetical issue, but once you have a case in front of you, once the matter has been argued out, then surely it is possible to arrive at a decision, and damages will be related to the damage done and the harm done. I hope that this Bill will receive its Second Reading, and that we shall take it through its Committee stage and that it will ultimately form part of the law of our land.
5.28 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, we have another important debate ahead of us, and I will not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I should like only to thank those noble Lords who have been kind enough to come and support me to-day in this debate. I think at the moment I am leading 12 to 3. There

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Conesford, L.

Hughes, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jessel, L.

Airedale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Latham, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Crathorne, L.

Lindgren, L.

Allerton, L.

Croft, L.

Listowel, E.

Amulree, L.

Crook, L.

Lothian, M.

Amwell, L.

Denham, L.

Lucan, E.

Archibald, L.

Denning, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Attlee, E.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Dynevor, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Birdwood, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Meston, L.

Bossom, L.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Boston, L.

Freyberg, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goddard, L.

Newall, L.

Buchan, E.

Goschen, V.

Rea, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Grantchester, L.

Saltoun, L.

Burden, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hatherton, L.

Silkin, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Somers, L.

Colwyn, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Spens, L

Colyton, L.

Howe, E.

Stonham, L.

the matter cannot rest, because although the majority of your Lordships are clearly in favour of the general principles of my Bill the Government have advised your Lordships that it is not a workable measure. I bow with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who treated my speech with the utmost kindness and consideration. I bow with equal respect to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Denning, who treated my speech with the greatest kindness and consideration but were in favour of it. That encourages me to ask your Lordships whether the Second Reading of this Bill should not be granted and the chance given to you to amend it—I should be the last person in the world to claim that my draftsmanship is anything like perfect—to see whether we cannot do a little more to improve the law of our land in a way which I think at the moment your Lordships clearly wish it to be improved.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I understand that I am in duty bound to inform your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has voted in the wrong Lobby. He asks me to inform your Lordships and to ask that the necessary adjustment may be made.
Ordered (pursuant to Standing Order 48), that the Division Lists be amended accordingly.
Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 21.

Strang, L.

Taylor, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Teviot, L.

Williams, L.

Summerskill, B.

Teynham, L.

Wise, L.

Swinton, E.

Torrington, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Hawke, L.

Mills, L.

Atholl, D. [Teller.]

Home, E.

Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Perth, E.

Chesham, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Craigton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hastings, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE NATIONALISED TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS
5.42 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to call attention to Cmnd. 1248, The reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to the proposals for the reorganisation of the nationalised transport undertakings I should like to deal in the first place with the British Railways. I cannot myself claim to be an expert on railways, although during the General Strike many years ago I used to drive the Marylebone to Manchester express every day with a booking clerk as a fireman—and a jolly fine fireman he was. I must say that I rather lament the passing of the steam locomotive. I remember asking one of the drivers of the big new diesel engines the other day what he thought of his new car, and his reply was, "It doesn't breathe." I think I fully understand what he meant, and I must say that I sympathise with him.
My Lords, in this very complex matter of railway reorganisation, may I suggest that we must consider not what sort of railway system we want in the immediate future, but what we shall want in ten or, perhaps, fifteen years' time. The railways are going to have increasing competition, not only from road services but also from other forms of transport, and from improved air services. Before long we shall have, I suppose, the vertical-lift aircraft, and other forms of new transport, possibly based on the air-cushioning system. I foresee, in the not too distant future, a streamlined rail-
662
way system, with perhaps one or two main lines running to the North and South, and one to the East and West, with most of the branch lines closed down except for high-density feeder traffic into the large cities. The closing of branch lines must, of course, mean the provision of other services, and it may even be necessary to subsidise buses and bus companies to provide the uneconomic services. At this point, perhaps, I should declare that I am a director of a bus company.
I entirely support the Minister of Transport in his re-examination of the whole of the proposed electrification of the main-line system, and his view that we should pause a little before undertaking to carry out the whole of the work. Do we yet know what is the most efficient system to employ, the diesel or electrification, for our main-line systems? Shall we get value for money if we carry out electrification of all the main lines? It is true that the electrical industry had been led by the Transport Commission to believe that a number of contracts were coming to them, and that postponements were affecting their interests. On the other hand, I would say the matter was so important that we must consider what is best for the country; as a whole, in matters of finance and value for money.
I would say straight away that I welcome the proposals for the reorganisation of the railways, which are outlined in the White Paper. I think we are now getting down to basic facts, and looking at the whole matter in a realistic way. But as regards the financial provisions are we correct in assuming that the capital assets of the railways, which it is proposed to write down, are only £1,600 million? I think it is true to say that the Chairman of the Transport Commission indicated in the White Paper in 1956 that the replacement costs of the

663
Transport Commission's assets as a whole were in the nature of £4,000 million, and if we allow £1,000 million for road transport, docks and other ancillaries, the assets of British Railways would be very much nearer £3,000 million than the £1,600 million. Perhaps the Minister who is going to reply for Her Majesty's Government will be able to say something about these financial matters.
Also, we must not forget that, despite the financial reliefs which are to be given to the railways, very large sums will have to be provided from the Exchequer to meet current deficits over the next few years; in fact not less than £103 million will have to be found this year. But I cannot help feeling that Her Majesty's Government still appear to be over-optimistic in thinking that the railways will be able to pay their way, in five years' time. I feel sure that unless the railways are streamlined, unless all uneconomic services are suspended and abolished, there will be no hope at all. Even poor old Bradshaw is feeling the pinch at the present time! There is no doubt that certain essential railway services will have to be subsidised as necessary, and I hope, for the benefit of the taxpayer, that these subsidies will be indicated in the accounts of each particular region.
I was delighted to see that the Minister of Transport is proposing to convert certain railway tracks into roads. I believe that some six miles of a disused line are to be used as part of a route for the new Durham motorway, and I hope that this may be the beginning of many more conversions to roads in suitable cases.
In the new structure set out in the White Paper we are to have a Nationalised Transport Advisory Council. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government this evening would expand a little on the purposes of this new Council, and say how it will be related to the Minister and, of course, to the various Boards. It seems a little strange to me that this advisory body should have as its Chairman the Minister himself. Surely the Council should be in a position to advise the Minister independently, especially, among other matters, on the question of the relative
664
interests of road and rail. The real question, I think, is this: is this the right kind of body to do this? No doubt the Minister will be able to give us a little information on this point.
Under the White Paper, the Transport Commission, of course, will cease to exist, and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating its Chairman, Sir Brian Robertson, on the great work he has carried out under immense difficulties. No one has worked harder to produce good results, and I cannot help feeling that a good deal of blame is attached to the Party opposite, who with the 1947 Act, brought the Transport Commission into existence and gave it a task which it was quite impossible for it to carry out. How could it possibly succeed without the "C" licence holders in it, and even, possibly, the private car owners? Any Government which tried to bring all these elements under control would, I think, be in for a very sorry time; and, of course, it would be quite impracticable in a free society like ours. In a Communist State, no doubt it would be practicable to produce an integrated service, about which we have heard so much in the past from the Party opposite. Surely, my Lords, it is much better to do away with the Transport Commission, as set out in the White Paper, and to produce an organisation which is more applicable to the present-day requirements of transport as a whole, and on a more workable scale.
There is one section of our transport system to which I should like to refer for a few minutes—that is, coastal shipping. I wonder if it is generally realised by your Lordships that between 1957 and 1960 coastal shipping has depreciated by more than 20,000 tons deadweight; or, putting it another way, that one coastal vessel has been either sold abroad or scrapped every nine days. Coastal shipping does not complain about fair competition, but the railways are to an increasing extent reducing rates without sufficient regard to their costs.
The right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport in another place made it clear that the problem of coastal shipping, where that conflicted with the railways, was unresolved and still under consideration. I trust that the policy of Her Majesty's Government for coastal shipping will be decided before there is

665
any legislation giving greater commercial freedom to the railways. That is a policy which can have very great effect on our smaller shipyards for which there is very little work now or in the foreseeable future. Only two or three coastal vessels are building in yards at the present time, and it is estimated that a further loss of almost one-third of the present fleet may be expected if there is no improvement in the competitive position of the coastal trade. I need hardly add that the smaller coastal vessels have proved of the greatest use, both in peace and in war and other times of emergency.
I should again like to remind Her Majesty's Government of the necessity for ensuring that new transport legislation makes adequate provision for securing fair— and I repeat "fair"—trading conditions for coastal shipping. Every section of British transport must stand or fall by its efficiency and service. It is no good bolstering up one at the expense of another; and the competition must be fair and reasonable. In this connection, may I suggest to the Minister of Transport the removal of what I would say is the one-sided privilege which now extends to the railways. As your Lordships are aware, this privilege permits the railways to object to applications by road transport operators for licences, without any similar right being extended to passenger road transport operators. This privilege is certainly not a fair one, and I maintain that if more freedom is to be given to the railways it should apply equally to all passenger road transport undertakings, and I trust that this will be dealt with in the forthcoming legislation. I beg to move for Papers.
5.53 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I do not know whether or not the speech I am to make will be a controversial one. We have to see how we go and how the spirit moves me. But in a fairly recent speech in your Lordships' House I urged that perhaps we were going along a little too politely with each other, and that there should not be prejudice against criticism, and even attacks upon one another and upon Ministers in another place.
I said that it would not be a bad thing if your Lordships had a small "dust-up" now and again. I must say that my appeal has been responded to in the last week, even if some of the speeches were
666
not exactly in the true interests of the British Commonwealth: but there certainly was a proper "dust-up", especially between the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble and learned Viscount Lord Hailsham. In fact, your Lordships' House is "on the map". We were dominating the front pages of the newspapers last week—which shows how good a thing it is to have a "dust-up" now and again; and we shall be on the front pages again to-morrow. I prophesy banner headlines: "Peers attack the Press"—because even though one attacks only some newspapers, one is attacking the lot, even in the opinion of The Times. So the status and public standing of this House has somewhat improved. But I must not pursue that theme, or I shall be out of order.
The noble Lord who moved this Motion criticised the policy of Her Majesty's Labour Government. Fundamentally, I believe it was right to lay down a policy of co-ordination of transport with friendly co-operation and some rivalry between different elements of transport. But that does not mean that I, or, I hope, any of my noble friends, necessarily take the view that if a Labour Government did something it could never be subject to reconsideration in its administrative set-up and organisation. I have always taken the view that we must learn by experience; that if one finds some imperfection in the administrative structure or organisation we should have the courage to say that it is proved not to be good and that it will be modified in this way or that. But that does not mean that I agree with what the present Government are doing—namely, failing to give transport, and particularly the railway, hardly five minutes' peace. They are constantly interfering, which they have a great right to do; constantly (as I would put it in my Cockney language) "messing about", and constantly changing even their own minds in a way which does not follow the sense of what I have said: that we must be ready constructively to reconsider. Rather the Government are doing it almost for the sake of doing it; and they are stimulating artificial and unnecessary competition between the different elements of transport.
The noble Lord who moved the Motion was somewhat illogical here, having regard to the geographical place

667
in which he sits, and the general nature of the speech he made. The Government's case, or much of it, for cutting off the road transport elements from the British Transport Commission was that competition must be stimulated; and the whole doctrine of the Conservative Party about transport, and about television and some other things, has been to stimulate competition where, in my judgment, destructive competition was not likely to do any public good. But that Party having been protagonists in favour of competition, the noble Lord comes along this afternoon and, as I understand him, deprecates the competition between British Railways and coastwise shipping. Well, that is not very logical. One cannot easily pick and choose in this doctrine. If one believes in competition one must support it all round.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, what I was endeavouring to make clear was that coastal shipping was prepared to accept fair competition with British Railways; but that is quite another matter.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What is not fair? Would the noble Lord like to tell us? If he does not, then I cannot very well deal with his point.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, my point is that if the railways cut their rates without regard to their costs, it is not fair competition.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, that is the whole philosophy and doctrine of the Conservative Party. The noble Lord is talking like a doctrinaire Socialist. The whole philosophy of the Conservative Party is not only to stimulate but to insist upon competition, cut-throat or otherwise. It is all very well for the noble Lord to come along when the competition does not suit him, and say, "We do not want competition here, because it may hurt private interests, but we do want it somewhere else, where it will hurt a public concern." I do not say the noble Lord said that; but that lies behind what he said, and it is a very had thing.
I thought it was held that British Railways should be more free, that the doctrine of free competition applied to them as well as to privately owned transport systems. But now, apparently, it is
668
the case that the publicly owned British Railways are not to be allowed to engage in free competition while everybody else is—which is a new illustration of the complete anti-social bias of members of the Conservative Party; and the noble Lord opposite looks too nice a man to have that kind of idea at the back of his head.
We welcome, so far as they go, the financial proposals in the White Paper, but I agree with the noble Lord who moved the Motion that Her Majesty's Government are too optimistic as to the finances working out to parity in five years' time. I do not think that will happen, though I wish it would. It does not please me, as a Socialist, to see public industries not paying their way. I think it is better for everybody, for the taxpayer, and for the self-respect of the people in the industry that they should pay their way. I would much prefer it to be so. But the Government have done their best to see that the railways did not pay their way. They have cut off a profitable road commercial transport element; they are now cutting off from British Railways some other profitable elements. The Minister of Transport, who is a great enemy of the railways—especially of publicly owned services like the railways—has stimulated road commercial competition to the greatest practicable extent. Now they are going further in the same direction in the proposals in this White Paper. So, at any rate part of the financial troubles of British Railways have been encouraged, and even invented, by Her Majesty's Government.
However, some financial rationalisation is now promised in the White Paper, and I think that, in the circumstances, it is inevitable and right. But I do not think it is enough. I proposed quite tentatively in my earlier speech that there was a case for the whole of the cost of modernisation being met by the Government as a public policy, to put the railways right after years and years of neglect. I suggested that grants might be made in respect of the permanent way, somewhat on the lines of the road grants to the highway authorities; and that consideration should be given to paying compensation in respect of lines which, at the request of the Government, were not abandoned. But I do not think (I wish I could say otherwise) that the

669
financial proposals in the White Paper are going to meet the bill. If that is so, it means that in five years' time the Government will have to come along again and poor British Railways will get more criticism in various quarters to the effect that they cannot pay their way, despite the assistance that has been given. I should have thought that the Government would do better to make a clean job of it right away.
In relation to modernisation there is a point that I think ought to be considered, though I am not final or dogmatic about it. I am inclined to think that, as an economic matter, electrification is better than the use of the diesel engine on suitable heavily-used main lines. But as things are, diesels are being used on these main lines. I have had a word with my noble friend Lord Lindgren and he says he thinks that probably the explanation is that electrification takes a considerable time to achieve, that the steam locomotives are wearing out meantime and something has to be done, and that, for the time being, diesels are a better proposal. But it is a point worth keeping in mind: that in the end, apparently, electrification is a better economic proposition than diesel.
This reorganisation is another disturbance of British Railways and the British transport system. It is presumed that it has some relation to the Stedeford Report. We do not know how much relationship it has—I wish we did. I think the public have a right to know; and it would be fairer to Sir Ivan Stedeford himself, who is a very able and good public-spirited man, I think, if the Report had been published. And here may I quote, at some little length, I am afraid, part of a speech made by Mr. Aubrey Jones on January 30? It must be remembered that Mr. Aubrey Jones is a former Minister of a Conservative Government: he was Minister of Supply. He said this—and I do not know that I could say it better—about the Stedeford Report [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 633, col. 643]:
"The statement of 10th March announcing the establishment of the Committee"—
that is to say, the Stedeford Committee—
"contained a very strong hint as to the findings which it should reach. However independent-minded the members of the Commit-
670
tee might have been, it is very difficult to believe that that hint did not keep on entangling their discussions.
"Next, the Committee was invited to do its job in a hurry in order to catch the legislative Session. It did the job in six months, an interval of time which could not possibly have allowed much opportunity to do all the cross-examination necessary in an analysis of this kind. After all this, the legislative Session was missed.
"Finally, when the Government put forward their proposals in the House we are not allowed to know what the Committee recommended. The world is allowed to infer that what is proposed arises directly from the Committee's Report. I do not know, but it is at least a fair possibility that the Government have run away from some of the Committee's recommendations and that some, if not all, of the members of the Committee think that some of the decisions are downright erroneous."
My Lords, that arises from the situation whereby the Government publicly appoint a Committee as an act of public administration and refuse to publish the Committee's Report. It is bound to lead to suspicions and apprehensions in various quarters.
So now we get the proposal in the White Paper that the British Transport Commission is to be split up. It is a Further step in the process of disintegration of the nation's transport services which the Conservative Government have followed from the time they came into power in 1951—deliberate disintegration; deliberate incentives to increase competition, a deliberate policy of taking away from the Transport Commission and the railways elements of transport or concerns associated with transport which were profitable. So the railways are now to be isolated. Yet it was this Government, or their predecessor, which abolished the Railway Executive, because under the Labour Government's Act there was the British Transport Commission, but there were tinder it, with a considerable degree of autonomy, the Railway Executive, the Hotels and Catering Executive, the London Transport Executive, the Inland Waterways Executive, and so on. But they scrapped the Railway Executive; and now they have in a way, later on, reduced the Railway Commission to a situation whereby they are an isolated railway executive.
There are to be three new Boards. There is to be more hiving off of the profitable, as I have said, and there is to be a Holding Company, but with a

671
series of transport undertakings and other undertakings under its supervision. There are to be railway regions. I do not object to administrative decentralisation in principle so long as it keeps in national hands those things that ought to be national in character. But the regions are supposed to be autonomous, or substantially autonomous. Nevertheless, their decisions are subject to reference to the Railway Board and then to the Minister of Transport.
This elevation of the Minister of Transport, which is not happening for the first time in the life of the present Minister of Transport, raises the point whether Questions in Parliament about all the activities of the transport undertakings can be put to the Minister of Transport; whether the doctrine that the public corporations are responsible for day-to-day matters and within that sphere cannot be questioned, though they can be questioned about a lot of other things, is now to be the case. The point probably has not occurred to the Minister of Transport, but I should think that some noble Lord will try it on, and I should certainly think that some smart Member of the House of Commons will try it on to find out whether, when the Minister is chairman of this national transport body, he can be questioned about anything within the field of publicly-owned transport. It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. I do not suppose he wants this to happen, and I do not blame him. But I suggest to honourable gentlemen in another place, who are not exactly slow in this kind of thing, that they might try it by putting down a Question and, if it is refused, raising a Point of Order with the Speaker. But I will come back to that in a minute—rather, I will deal with it now.
There is on page 14 of the White Paper a plan of the new structure, which puts the Minister of Transport right at the top. He is the supreme commander, so to speak. Under him, next, is the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, which presumably can advise on anything concerned with transport, and of which the Minister is the chairman. I think he is in a vulnerable position vis-à-vis the gentlemen who like to put Questions in another place, and some noble Lords who might put them here. Below the Nationalised Transport Advisory
672
Council is the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board, the British Transport Docks Board, the Inland Waterways Authority and the Holding Company. Under the British Railways Board there are the Regional Railway Boards.
However, despite the doctrine that you should decentralise and should not allow many functions to be discharged by one body, under the Holding Company, which at any rate has an oversight of them all, although it is adjured not to interfere very much with them, we get this remarkable variety of bodies: British Road Services, the Tilling (Buses) Group, Scottish Omnibuses Group, Hotels, Road Freight Shipping Services, Thomas Cook and Son Limited and then, in case anything was forgotten, Other Holdings. They are all separate bodies under the Holding Company. This is a funny set-up, and the Minister of Transport has put himself on the map as the supreme power over all these bodies.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps he will allow me to make, diffidently, one suggestion about what he has been saying. Of course, he is quite right to raise the accountability to Parliament of the Minister under the new proposals, but I think I am right in saying that we ought not to go into what would or would not be in order in another place. The noble Lord was, I think, expatiating on what honourable Members of another place could or could not do, and I think that perhaps we ought to be careful to speak only of what we can do in this House.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, but, in these matters, the other place is more important, because Points of Order can be more effective. But I did not say what could be done in another place: I was merely giving a tip to Members in the other place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was quite honestly suggesting, in all humility, that since the noble Lord, as we are all so delighted to see, is in this House with us, honourable gentlemen in another place are jealous of their privileges, and they would perhaps not appreciate tips coming from this quarter.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am glad to know that the noble Viscount is in a polite mood today; it is nice to notice it. But I assure the noble Viscount that Members of another place will not be offended by me—they like me too much. In fact, they will be obliged because I have drawn their attention to this point, because it will give them a chance to have a bit of fun. However, I take the noble Viscount's point, that we ought not to raise the point in this House—because whom do we raise it with? We are the most wonderful legislative body in the world in the sense that we have no presiding officer. We take care of ourselves; and if we are in danger of getting into trouble, the Leader of the House intervenes, as he has done just now, in a very nice way. We have no Speaker to have a "dust up" with. Our officers do their work very well, but they do not rule. Consequently, this is not the place to try it out. But I have finished with the subject and I do not wish to annoy the noble Viscount any more.
I should like to ask how much action has been, or will be, taken in anticipation of legislation; that is to say, action which is strictly unlawful now, but which is being taken or may be taken in anticipation of the legislation which will follow. My Lords, this, of course, is another Tory triumph—the liquidation of the British Transport Commission, which they have been seeking all the way along and trying to hurt as much as they could, especially British Railways. But this coming and going, this constant pinpricking, this constant interference without any consecutive thought and philosophy behind it, is not something to take lightly. It has a serious effect on the morale of the people who are working in the transport system, and particularly the railways. It has a had effect on the morale of the management; it has a had effect on the morale of the men. I like people who are working in the public service to work well and to work hard. I have always urged them to work harder, if anything, than those in private industry, although those in private industry should, of course, do their best. But they are constantly being pushed around, and their task is deliberately being made more difficult. I believe that these proposals, added to the pre-
674
vious pin-pricks, will be bad for British transport and bad for the morale of management and men, particularly in British Railways.
6.16 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lards, I find it difficult to believe that anyone speaking for the first time in your Lordships' House has done so without trepidation. If I am correct in that assumption, I can assure your Lordships that I am not breaking any precedent now. I have three reasons for having that trepidation. In the first place, quite a number of your Lordships have acquired the skill of Parliamentary debate in another place. That is an opportunity which has been denied to me, although I tried on two occasions; but I must have chosen the wrong jumping-off ground, because I never arrived. Secondly, most of your Lordships have had the consolation of speaking to an audience the majority of whom were your fellow countrymen. I do not have that consolation, either. I am not without Scottish friends in the House, but I gather that the tradition of this Chamber deprives me of the opportunity of referring to them as my noble friends because they sit in the wrong place.
LORD BOOTHBY: Not this one.
LORD HUGHES: The Rector of St. Andrew's University must always be an exception to any rule. Thirdly, I gather that, by tradition, a maiden speech should not be controversial. I do not think I have chosen the best subject on which to make a non-controversial speech from these Benches. I have said that I thought there were three disadvantages, but, because one noble Lord who was to have spoken immediately before me is not here, I now find added to my difficulties a fourth—that of speaking immediately after my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth. He has spoken of being a Cockney, and I believe it is among the Cockneys that probably the phrase most often occurs, "After the Lord Mayor's Show comes the dust-cart". I hope that is not the comparison which will be most obvious now.
In pursuance of what I believe I ought to do—that is, to be non-controversial—I would not seek to pursue my noble friend along the lines upon which he has chosen to speak to your Lordships, but would rather refer to those aspects of

675
these reorganisation proposals which apply to Scotland, or the effects that they may have on Scotland. I do not think it is inappropriate that I should do so, because that aspect was raised in another place, and, having read the Report of the debate on that occasion, I do not believe that the questions which were posed about Scottish problems were dealt with by the Minister when he replied to the debate. It is to be hoped that the opportunity will be taken by the Minister replying for Her Majesty's Government in this debate to remedy the deficiencies of his colleague in that other place. With the Minister's statement of the Government's aim—that they wish to provide efficient services to industry and the public—I can find nothing to quarrel. When we come down to the matter and see that the heart of the problem is in the railways, and that they are a great national enterprise and a vital basic industry, I cannot find any cause for quarrelling with that either. My difficulty is in being satisfied that what the Government propose will be of help so far as my country is concerned.
Paragraph 7 says:
"The practical test for the railways, as for other transport, is how far the users are prepared to pay economic prices for the services provided".
If that test is going to be applied over a large area of Scotland, the people there will undoubtedly be without railway services of any kind. In many parts of our country we do not have the opportunity of supplementing the abandoned railways with bus services, because many of the bus services have already been abandoned as they cannot be operated by private enterprise under existing conditions. There was a reference in another place to co-ordination, and it is true that it was stated that suitable arrangements will be established for co-ordinating the day-to-day activities of individual undertakings, including co-ordination of road and rail services. I do not see how that can be done in Scotland, unless there is some measure for co-ordination of both public and privately owned transport.
I have been a member of the Scottish Transport Council since its inception, and when transport was reorganised, or dealt with, in 1953 a point was made
676
by the then Minister of Transport about the importance in Scottish affairs of that Council. I should like to quote from what was said then. He said:
"It is our intention, of course, to see that there are appointed to that body people who would not for a moment consider serving it if it did not get effective powers of a coordinating character".
Although I have been a member of that Council for seven years or more, I have never discovered that we had any powers of any sort whatsoever. Quite early on, in fact, we discovered that our distinguished Chairman, now Lord Kilbrandon, produced for us a most excellent report of what he thought ought to be the pattern of transport in Scotland, but he advised us that he did not think there was much chance of getting the Government to accept it because it cut completely across Government policy. He believed—and the majority of us accepted his opinion—that a much greater measure of co-ordination between public and private transport was necessary. The only change that has taken place in the years which have elapsed since then is that quite a number of privately-owned bus undertakings in the North and in the Islands have stopped running. It would be wrong for me to anticipate the report of the inquiry into Highland transport which is presently being made, but I am sure that members of the Government know what is the trend, and I do not think they will be surprised at what will eventually come from that body,
In these circumstances, my Lords, I find it difficult to believe that transport in Scotland has much benefit to expect from the proposals which will in due course be put before this House arising from this Command Paper. I hope, for the sake of Scotland, that I am wrong, in that assumption, and if the opportunity is afforded me in due course to help make the Government's proposals better for Scotland, then I shall continue to make the night journey to Scotland for that purpose.
6.25 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it is my duty, and certainly my pleasure, to congratulate the noble Lord upon his brief, witty, pithy and relevant speech. I wish that this privilege were going to be discharged by a Member of this House with longer membership than I, but it gives

677
me special pleasure, as it is not long ago that the noble Lord and I went through the ordeal of being introduced to your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has confined himself to those special problems of Scottish transport with which he has been so long associated, and I am sure that the people of Scotland will be grateful to him for having taken this opportunity of putting forward their special problems, and that the Government will have listened to him in this House, just as I hope they will listen to the Advisory Committee of which the noble Lord has so long been a member.
I apologise for addressing your Lordships again so soon, but for three-and-a-quarter years I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and matters of railway finance came closely within my purview at that time. I was there when the financing of the much-criticised modernisation scheme was undertaken. I do not in any way regret what was then done; but I feel that I should make some suggestions about and criticisms of the White Paper which has been published by the Government. I welcome two of the main features of the White Paper. I am glad that the financial problem is at last being faced. The Micawber-like expedients in which we have all indulged for so long are now at an end, and I am sure it is a good thing that the country and the Government are facing courageously the financial difficulties of the British Transport Commission. In the second place, I welcome the fact that the railways are to be administered by a Railway Board. I think that for so great and important an undertaking, it is desirable that there should be a Board upon which rests responsibility for its administration. It should not be the part-time occupation of the British Transport Commission, with such very much wider responsibilities to discharge at the same time.
At this point I should like to sound a word of warning. It appears to me difficult to make sure that this whole-time Railway Board will not unduly centralise and concentrate power in their own hands at the expense of the regional boards. Provision should be made explicitly in the Bill to ensure that decentralisation, which has secured a great measure of agreement in the country as a whole and in which I think
678
members of the Opposition on many occasions have participated, should not be ended. We recognise that it was one of the main recommendations of the Select Committee that British Railways, however much the day-to-day administration may be devolved on to the regions, must remain a single entity and run as such.
I do not find a great deal to criticise in the White Paper, but I feel that there is a great deal which has been omitted. I can see no sign at present that Her Majesty's Government have a transport policy as a whole. It may be that that is still to come. It may be a necessary step, to deal with the administration of British Railways before we get a transport policy, but I am hound to say that, so far, I cannot feel that this Government is applying to transport the philosophy of the book written by the present Prime Minister, called The Middle Way, which has so largely become accepted in industry as a whole. That is neither the centralised planning of the Socialist nor the old-fashioned cut-throat competition of the Liberal, but rather an arrangement by which policy as a whole is laid down by the Government and, without further interference, is left to be administered by those who have special qualifications for it.
Co-ordination, under the Act of 1947, was the responsibility of the British Transport Commission. Under the Act of 1953 the position was left very vague and, under the White Paper of 1961 it appears to me that the responsibility for this co-ordination rests with the Minister. I feel a great doubt and anxiety about that. It was the conception of the Act of 1947, on which the Conservative Opposition in Parliament did all it could to encourage the Socialist Ministers of the day to stand firm, that the British Transport Commission should be made independent of political pressure. And I am bound to say that I can foresee important decisions being taken by the Minister as a result of the movement of political opinion in another place.
I had a good deal of experience of that. The closing of stations and lines was a matter that was left to the British Transport Commission and they had to obtain the consent of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. On almost every occasion when some line,

679
however unremunerative, was closed, I, as Parliamentary Secretary, had to answer an Adjournment debate upon the subject. It was an immense help to me to be able to say that it was not the responsibility of my right honourable friend; it was a decision that had been taken by the British Transport Commission, with the approval of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. Therefore, while I desire to see the Transport Users' Consultative Committees done away with, for a reason that I will give a little later, I feel it is desirable that the Minister should be protected in some way from political pressure.
As a result of recommendations of the Select Committee, it is proposed that the Minister should be the authority to decide upon social needs. Of course, that is exactly the kind of thing which attracts the interest of constituents and results in Members of another place rising and claiming that, however un-remunerative some transport service may be, it is essential for the welfare of a particular part of their constituency that the same number of trains should continue to run and the same number of stations should be open.
It is a trifle ironical that it should be the Tory Party which, in this White Paper, is showing signs of introducing the old-fashioned nationalisation that at one time used to be fashionable on the Back Benches of the Socialist Party; and I am afraid that, unless we are very careful with this White Paper, the Minister of Transport is going to be in very much the same position as the Postmaster General. My right honourable friend the present Minister of Transport was an extremely successful Postmaster General. He has, as an individual, many of those qualities of initiative, imagination and enterprise which, first of all, made him successful in business and then in the Post Office. But I am not a bit convinced that it is desirable that the Minister of Transport should have all these powers, for, however well they may be discharged by my right honourable friend, it does not follow that all succeeding Ministers of Transport will combine those special qualities which command our admiration.
680
I fear that this White Paper is not likely to provide the necessary kind of co-ordination at the centre. The Minister of Transport is responsible for building roads and I cannot believe that he is likely to give the necessary consideration to co-ordinating them with the railways. As a matter of fact, that was made very plain by the Select Committee, in paragraph 335 of their Report, in which they said:
"There was no national planning of how the competition should develop; it was for the railways to assess their own future prospects (although the Ministry would then, in a non-technical way, consider whether the assessments seemed to be valid, before consenting to plans for investment based on them)."
I cannot think that that is going to prove entirely successful for the future.
Certainly, when M.1 was authorised (I was at the Ministry then) there was no careful consideration of priorities. If there had been, I can hardly believe that M.1, running parallel with and close to the Midland Railway, would have been the first motorway to be built. I should like to ask my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary this: what is the present position with regard to licences issued to coaches under the Act of 1930? Has the building of M.1 resulted in licences being granted to coaches which, in the earlier days when I was at the Ministry, would have been refused on the ground that it was uneconomic competition?
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that he was not quite fair to the Conservative Party when he said that they had never accepted the need for co-ordination. His Act of 1930 was accepted by a Conservative Government and continued to be applied. In the 1933 Act 1933 principles were applied to goods haulage which were somewhat similar to those which had been applied by him, when Minister of Transport, in the Act of 1930. So, when I am pleading to-day for a certain measure of co-ordination in transport policy, I am not speaking as a pink Socialist but only asking for a coordination of general policy, a coordination which a Conservative Government has followed in the past.
If there is going to be an insufficiency of co-ordination at the centre, I am even more sure that, unless something further is done, there will be an insufficiency of co-ordination in the regions. Under the

681
Act of 1953 the boards that were set up were called Area Transport Boards. They were given that name in order that they should be able to assist in coordinating all forms of transport in the areas. I noticed that they are to be replaced by regional railway boards. These clearly would not have the powers which the previous boards had (although I confess that those powers were never effectively used) of co-ordinating road and rail in the regions. That is going to become of far greater importance in the comparatively near future than it is now.
Paragraph 7 of this White Paper draws attention to the need to reduce the network of British Railways until they can be economic. That will inevitably result in the closing down of large numbers of stations in rural areas, and I hope that when the railway lines making large losses are closed down they will be replaced by bus services. It may be that many of these bus services will also make losses, but they would make much smaller losses than those that are being made by British Railways. If this great change is going to take place, it is surely essential that there should be co-ordination of this policy of the replacement of the costly railways by the more flexible and cheaper bus services, and that that should be done in the regions. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of making a change in the title and powers of these regional railway boards, in order that they may be effective for the purpose which I am sure the Government have in mind.
These decisions for co-ordination must be taken at a fairly low level: they must be taken by the people who are dealing with the day-to-day problems in the regions. It is most important that there should not he a financial inducement operating against co-ordination. The bus services, under the plan or, the last page of this White Paper, are to be owned by the Holding Company. The whole policy of that Holding Company, it seems to me, must he to try to maximise their profits, and that may not be in the interests of transport as a whole: it may, indeed, induce them to indulge in cut-throat and uneconomic competition with the railways. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give further thought to
682
these matters. It is unfortunate that we are obliged to discuss these matters before the publication of the Jack Report. There will be great need to look carefully at the whole problem of rural transportation.
In conclusion, therefore, I would say there is much in this White Paper that is good. It is probably a necessary step forward in dealing with the problems which face us, and especially those which face the railways of this country. But I think a good deal more thought requires to be given before a Bill is drafted. As I have pointed out, it has not been the policy of the Conservative Party in the past to encourage cut-throat competition between different forms of transport; and this appears to me to be a time when it is most necessary that we should consider carefully, when the railways are being reorganised, how we are to ensure that some more modern, flexible and effective system of transport will be provided to take the place of what is being closed down.
6.43 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those offered by Lord Molson to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on his admirable and interesting maiden speech. He comes from the delightful city of Perth, from which my family also come, and I have lived a good deal of my life in Perthshire, a county I know very well and love dearly. It was a breath of fresh air to hear the noble Lord's well made and cogent remarks, and I congratulate him on a very worthy speech.
I propose to say a few words about the railways in Scotland, but first I should like to say something on the paragraph in the White Paper dealing with fares and charges. A great deal of anxiety is felt at the present time by season ticket holders, from whom a large part of the receipts of the railways is derived. While, on the one hand, the Minister of Transport is trying to discourage people from taking cars to the centre of London and there parking them, on the other hand season ticket holders are being milked more and more freely; and London is the discriminating point. It is open to argument that in relation to the cost of other commodities the cost of transport is still fairly cheap. The inquiry that is being conducted into the question of fares in the

683
London Region is trying to bear out that point, but not, I think, very convincingly. The corresponding service which is being given to the season ticket holders is really not good enough: the punctuality of trains still leaves a good deal to be desired, and the availability of carriages is still inadequate.
I cannot see that one is going to attract more passengers, more season ticket holders and holders of long-term tickets, unless something is done about improving services. Trains are being cut out—and nobody is more conscious than I am of the necessity of cutting out uneconomic trains. I live in an area on the Southern Region which is electrified, and it is incredible on Sunday afternoons to see trains going through somewhere like Epsom with only three passengers. But the following morning on the half-past eight train there are probably something like 3,000 passengers. That may be an exaggeration—
LORD STONHAM: That is what it feels like.
LORD AUCKLAND: —but in comparative terms there is some logic here. I feel that the Government should look into the problem of season tickets. Excursion trains for football matches, and trains for rambling parties are all run at cut-price fares; and frequently one reads of heavy damage being done to carriages by holders of excursion tickets going to see Everton, or their favourite football team, play. I know that this will he an unpopular thing to say, but rather than try to extract more and more from the season ticket holder, who has to travel to his place of work by train, unless he is prepared to face a long and tedious car journey and the risk of being "told off" for parking in Central London, he should receive the benefits, if necessary at the expense of excursion trains. It seems to me that the economics of our transport system in this respect need a good deal of looking into.
I should like now to say a word or two about modernisation. At present, as I understand it, the railways cannot budget for their modernisation programme more than twelve months in advance, whereas the Electricity Authority can budget for something like seven
684
years. Of course, there are difficulties in any transport system, financially and in every other way. But it is rather discouraging to the railways if they are to be given no better lead than this. Already there have been tremendous improvements, particularly on the Kings Cross to Cambridge line. The trains are much more punctual; and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, knows that line well.
I should like to put forward one specific suggestion. The new town of Stevenage, which is to have in due course, I believe, a population of some 65.000, is at present served by one tiny, ill-lit station. I know it well. I believe that there are plans for building a station in the new town. I have not given the Parliamentary Secretary notice of this matter, so naturally I cannot expect an answer to-day. But I know that the people living in that area would like some indication as to how long it will be before something is done about building a new station there.
Scotland has been touched on very adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there could not be an extension of the London-Perth car ferry service, which I am sure must be a profitable part of the London-Scotland railway service. I have used it several times and found it both convenient and efficient. It would seem to me that, particularly in the Cairngorm winter sports scheme, there is a case for running this service for a longer part of the year than it is now, and also for an extension of the service, possibly to Inverness. At present, as I understand it, one can go only from York to Inverness, and I am quite certain that if an arrangement were made, particularly for tourists, for facilities for a through car-sleeper service from London, Kings Cross or Euston, to Inverness, railway receipts would go up. Of course, the operating costs must obviously be borne in mind, but I feel that a profit could be shown here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, in many areas North of Inverness road transport is extremely difficult, particularly at this time of year. Here again, there is a great deal of anxiety about the Government's proposal for the Inverness-Wick railway. People up there are very

685
anxious as to the future of these stations. I am a great believer in the closing of an uneconomic service, provided that there is suitable alternative transport. In the south of England that can usually be organised; but in Scotland, for obvious reasons—climatic conditions and other things—that cannot often be organised. We are trying to open up and popularise the Highlands, but some of the public transport services leave a great deal to be desired. Another important car ferry service is the Surbiton-Okehampton service, which was very popular last summer. I would ask the noble Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary, whether there could be an extension of this service, with trains running two days a week instead of one.
The White Paper has merit, in so far as it is proposing at least some solution towards the problem of running the railways successfully. I believe that the policy of making the railways a separate entity is a good one, because with docks, inland waterways. British Road Services and the railways, the British Transport Commission has become a very cumbersome organisation. I believe that more decentralisation is a good thing. In prewar days one could see how much cleaner many of the engines were in the areas where they had inter-regional competition. In saying that, I am not trying for one moment to denigrate the work of the railwaymen of to-day: I believe that they do a very good job. In many cases their pay, even with the recent increases, is appallingly low. I believe that many signalmen in places like Crewe and Banbury are underpaid in comparison with many unskilled labourers in other jobs. Many of these railwaymen—I have spoken to some of them—are in favour of more regional competition.
In the Daily Telegraph last week there was a letter from an ex-railwayman, and with your Lordships' permission I will read a short extract from it. It says:
"The appalling tragedy of 'nationalisation' and its consequential elimination of all effective administration, management and operation utterly discouraged thousands of railway officers and staff, who had, despite their experience since 1931, endeavoured to maintain efficient service in work which had. in many instances, been the primary interest of their existence—particularly perhaps on the G.W.R."
That is a letter from a railwayman. I certainly have not sufficient experience of the railways to comment on it one way
686
or the other. But there is still, I am sure, a feeling of frustration. Part of it, I think, is towards the Government, who I must say have been rather dilatory in their plans. There have been inquiries after inquiries into various aspects of the railways. I think the Stedeford inquiry has come out with something positive, and I hope that its recommendations will be put into practice as soon as possible so that at least the future of the railways—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, so rightly said, it is the future of the railways about which we must think—can be seen with some degree of certainty.
7.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this debate has obviously suffered to some extent through having to follow on another rather lengthy debate. But it has been notable for two of the speeches which have been made, the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hughes, which I thought had everything that a maiden speech, or any other speech, should have—brevity, wit and good sense. I am particularly pleased to hear these Scottish accents on this side, because in recent months, owing to the illness of some of my noble friends from Scotland, I, having nothing of the accent and nothing of the local knowledge, have had to don almost everything Scottish, except the kilt. Therefore it is a great pleasure to have my noble friend Lord Hughes here. Equally, it was a very considerable pleasure to us on these Benches to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. Only last week we had from him a very remarkable maiden speech, and, if I may say so, with respect, although in a different context, the one that he delivered just now was equally outstanding. He spoke, of course, from deep knowledge of the subject, as we are all aware, but also with the constructive detachment which I personally long for but never achieve.
I know that we on this side of your Lordships' House echo the noble Lord's plea for co-ordination and, regrettably, share his misgivings as to whether the present proposals are likely to satisfy us in that respect. We support his plea that a great deal more thought should be given to the various matters, particularly the matters raised by the noble Lord, before a Bill is drafted. It was

687
some encouragement to learn from him that it has never been Conservative policy in the past to encourage cutthroat competition in transport, and I hope that it will not be so in future; otherwise, we shall not have public transport, either publicly or privately owned; we shall have to go by motor car or moped, because there will be virtually nothing else.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, underlined what I think is the difficulty of all of us in this debate: namely, that despite the White Paper, and despite—or perhaps because of—Ministerial statements, the Government's intentions with regard to the railways in most, or at least many, important matters are still far from clear. Unhappily this uncertainty is extremely confusing to the railway staff and very bad for their morale, which has never been lower. I believe that if things are not to get even more desperate in that respect it is imperative that these uncertainties, which were also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to whom we are grateful for introducing this subject, should be cleared up as quickly as possible.
With everyone else who has spoken so far, I have no quarrel with the financial proposals, which will go a long way towards removing one of the primary causes of hopelessness and discontent, and will help to put the railways on a stable basis. The proposals are, in fact, no more than justice. Because most of the losses which have been written off—and doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, will disagree—have arisen primarily from Tory policy; from the Government's interference with the Transport Commission's freedom to operate as a commercial concern. I do not think indeed it would lie with noble Lords opposite, and I am glad that they have not yet done so, to complain of railway losses for which, in my view, their policy is responsible. Indeed, the railways were earning a surplus in 1951 and 1952, and also in 1953. It is only since the 1953 Act that we have had the catastrophes which we all deplore.
But although the financial proposals are very satisfactory a number of questions arise out of them. For example, will the railways, as paragraph 36 of the White Paper appears to imply, really be able to pay their way within five
688
years? I think that only a super-optimist would say "Yes" to that. At present they have a working deficit of some £60 million, and to "break even" five years hence they have to increase their earnings sufficiently not only to wipe off that working deficit but also to cover the estimated £60 to £70 million interest charges, a total of £120 million in increased earnings. When one considers that over the last three or four years total gross receipts—not earnings, but gross receipts—have not averaged much over £450 million, the size of the task becomes apparent. It means increased earnings of at least 25 per cent. in five years' time.
There again, there is really nothing in the White Paper about the Government's policy in respect of uneconomic services. As only one example the position of Scotland was clearly brought out by my noble friend Lord Hughes. Who is to decide this matter? The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said that the Minister would have to decide social questions, but is it going to be the case, as we read in some of the newspapers, for example, that rural services are going to be cut by 20 per cent. and replaced by bus services? If so, will the bus services be economic? Those are very serious and important questions. I am thinking at the moment of the effect on the Railways Board's finances and their prospects of making a profit, because apparently, according to the White Paper, the Railways Board must still bear the losses of uneconomic lines which are retained for social reasons. The Government, of course, promise in the White Paper to consider the question, and meanwhile any such losses will be recovered from the contributions from public funds. But they will still be included in the Board's accounts: they will still be shown in the red and we shall not know—at least we do not know now—the extent of the losses on these uneconomic services. The only fair way to deal with the Railways Board in regard to this will be to ascertain the losses on uneconomic services and for the Treasury to pay these losses by means of separate direct subsidy. That, at least, is my view.
Again, we still do not know from the White Paper the proposed size and shape of the railway system. It was only last October that Mr. Marples set up his Committee to study this particular problem, and no one knows what conclusions

689
have been reached. There is no evidence whatever to encourage the belief that there will be such a major improvement in the railways over the next five years as to give them a chance of earning an extra £120 million. The British Transport Commission, I know, in its Reappraisal of July, 1959, a most overoptimistic reappraisal, did anticipate that by 1963 their earning power would have increased by anything from £45 million to £93 million. But that was based on a number of provisos which have not been fulfilled. They estimated a 15 per cent. increase in passenger traffic as compared with 1957. Instead, there has been a decline. They estimated a return to 1957 freight earnings, but instead there has been a decline. It is true that there was an improvement last year, but there is still a long way to go to reach the 1957 level. There have been wage increases since the Guillebaud Report, as well as disappointments and frustrations over the mechanisation plan.
Truly my Lords, the new Railways Board have an enormous task to justify the White Paper's optimism. I think their one hope is that they will be given real freedom to compete with road transport, especially for freight, and also that they will be able to compete on fair terms. Even if they are free to charge what rates they like, and to run such services as they deem to be economic, the competition will not be fair until they are allowed to get their equipment up to date. I do not think it is ever sufficiently acknowledged that commercial road transport has at its disposal completely modern equipment, and that the welcome road programme is ensuring that their road track is steadily improved, free of charge.
That brings us to the second major query arising from the White Paper—namely, will the modernisation programme be allowed to proceed speedily and without interruption, and will Government interference really be less under the new regime than it is at present, or was, under the old régime. I do not think the signs are encouraging. We know that wherever modernisation has been completed there has been an increase, sometimes a spectacular increase, in traffic and receipts and unquestionably the best, almost the only, hope of achieving viability within five years
690
would be to speed up, not to slow down, the modernisation programme. But what do we find? On January 30, in another place, the Minister of Transport, announcing the long delayed decision to complete the electrification of the London-Crewe-Manchester line, said:
"This does not mean that other main-line electrification schemes will necessarily be approved."
So the uncertainty about the scope and pace of modernisation is just as great as it was before the White Paper.
In the same speech, Mr. Marples said:
"The Government think that these proposals provide a firm and clear hope for the future of the nationalised transport industries."
How can that possibly be true, unless at the same time there is a firm and clear decision to modernise the railways as swiftly as possible? The Minister may tell us tonight that that is the Government's intention, but how can we really accept that in the face of the Government's obvious lack of enthusiasm? What encouragement is there for believing that the Railway Board will get its programme approved and then be allowed to get on with the job without interference?
Mr. Marples, the Minister of Transport, has not only taken over the tasks to which the noble Lord referred, but he has taken upon himself the task of reviewing any capital scheme costing more than £250,000. It is extraordinary, astounding, that the Minister should have to review a scheme of, say, £300,000 in the context of what the modernisation of the railways is going to cost. Who is really going to make the necessary decisions? Perhaps the Minister will tell us that when he comes to reply.
The White Paper, in paragraph 14, says that the British Railways Board will be responsible for
"the determination of the future size and shape of the Railway system."
Yet the Minister has made it clear that he, with his special study group, is going to do precisely that, and not the British Railways Board. What is the truth? In my view, the new arrangements in the White Paper are going to make it an even more difficult and long-winded process to obtain sanction and a starting date for essential developments. When are we going to start? Major legislation is necessary. The White Paper makes that clear, and we agree. It cannot be

691
on the Statute Book for about another two years. That is two years out of the five years in which the railways are supposed to become viable.
What is going to happen meanwhile, during this most crucial period in the modernisation programme? I submit that the Government must decide to act now. They cannot wait in this vital matter for the new Act. We are faced with the situation where our railways are still declining, while the number of road vehicles is increasing faster than we can improve our roads to cope with them. The development of the road system is an important and urgent, but a separate, problem. It must go ahead without impairment; but, equally, this need must not obscure the necessity for developing the rail sytem to the highest level of efficiency as quickly as possible. For that, modernisation is vital, and when it is accomplished and the railways can compete on fair terms it will ease our road problems. If the Government are honestly determined to rebuild and not destroy the railways, they will allow nothing to stand in the way of the speedy development of railway modernisation.
Even this may not be enough. We were promised co-ordination. The only co-ordination in the White Paper that I can see is the co-ordination of the ancillary departments, which are going to be hived off; but they are already coordinated at present within the British Transport Commission. They are going to be broken up and then co-ordinated together again. There is no particle of co-ordination suggested to cure the deep-seated cause of our transport problems—the great unbalance in the flows of long-distance freight traffic between rail and road. We have already poured hundreds of millions of pounds into rail and road without getting a proper return. No matter how much more money is poured in, and however efficient the railways become, they will never pay their way until they can carry an adequate tonnage of freight.
As my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth said, the Government has pinned its faith on competition. But transport history, here and abroad, shows that it is not enough. The railways will pay and our roads will be better used when we have the kind of co-ordination which will lift millions of tons of freight from our
692
over-used roads to our under-used rails and enable the roads to cope more adequately with their traditional traffic and the ever-expanding private motoring. I am certain that that is the only cure. I am equally certain that it will not come from this White Paper. And I am equally certain that it will not come without a change of Government.
7.16 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Teynham for putting down this Motion this evening to give us an opportunity of discussing this most important White Paper on the reorganisation of nationalised transport. I am only sorry that we have rather a poor attendance in the House due to our first debate taking rather longer than we anticipated. I should like, first of all, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on his maiden speech. I am sure we all enjoyed it very much and hope to hear him again.
Paragraph 2 of the Government White Paper states:
"The Government's aim is that the nationalised transport undertakings shall be soundly based both in organisation and finance."
I should like to say that I support very nearly all that which is contained in the White Paper, but there are just a few things that I am a little worried about. If I may speak first of all on the organisation, I should like to know who, ultimately, is going to decide the size and shape of British Railways, because undoubtedly we shall need to have a smaller British Railways. I think we shall have to cut out a large number of uneconomic lines. My noble friend the Minister set up a Working Party, and there is also the Jack Committee which is inquiring into the question of rural services, bus and rail services, and uneconomic services. I am only sorry that we do not have their Report in front of us to-night. I understand that it is going to be published in the very near future.
I think that ultimately Parliament will have to decide, because if such a large number of uneconomic services are going to be kept going they will require a subsidy. I think Parliament ought to decide what subsidy they are going to give,

693
otherwise, of course, we shall never be able to try, as we all wish to do, to make the railways break even. A certain number of these uneconomic services will, I am afraid, if they are to he kept going, require to be subsidised.
There is only one other point I wish to make in regard to organisation and the new structure. Like my noble friend Lord Teynham and, I think, my noble friend Lord Molson, who made a most interesting and instructive speech, I am a little dubious about the wisdom of the Minister in putting himself in the position of chairman of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, because if the Council disagree an appeal goes to the Minister himself. I think that it is wrong to make an appeal to oneself. He is, of course, responsible to Parliament for that. I should have liked to see an independent chairman taking the chair over representatives of these nationalised organisations which are going to have seats on this Advisory Council: the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board, the British Transport Docks Board, the Inland Waterways Authority and the Holding Company.
The second point I wish to raise is on finance. I am extremely worried about this, and I think that Her Majesty's Government have been very courageous in attacking this problem and suggesting writing off the very large sum of £400 million which has been lost, in order to give the railways a better chance in the future. But, of course, the story goes further than that. It is a very depressing story when one studies the accounts of the British Transport Commission, as I have tried to do over the last week-end. Of course, I can only study the accounts of 1959, because the 1960 accounts are not yet out. If your Lordships would turn to page 44 of the Annual Report and Accounts, you would see that a sum of £25,492,578 was provided for depreciation, but last year the railways had an operating loss of £41 million. So they did not earn their depreciation, and if we take depreciation of £25 million from the £41 million operating loss, we still have a loss of £16 million.
Something like £100 million of new money from the taxpayers is each year being put into the modernisation programme. If they cannot earn even their depreciation, let alone their interest, and
694
they have an operating loss, which last year was some £40 million and this year is a great deal more—in addition to which the working loss will be increased because of the recent wage awards—then, of course, the assets of the new money being put in will waste away, and we shall have to write off another very large sum of money. So I think the Minister is perfectly right in saying that we must have good financial control and he must know what is going on. Therefore I welcome the setting up of the Railways Board and giving the railways the capital assets which belong to them, and also the setting up of the Regional Boards and giving them an operating account, an important thing that they have never had before.
I do not know whether it is going to be possible when this is announced, but I was hoping that, when they are given an operating account, and we shall know how they are faring in the various areas, they may be given also a capital structure, so that we may know, for instance, what return we are going to get, or are likely to get, on this very large sum of money which is going to be put into the London Midland region and which I think is something over £130 million. At present we are unable to find that out; we know only the total losses, because they do not have regional accountancy in any form. I think the Minister is perfectly right, and it is a very great step forward that the men who are going to sit on these Regional Boards should know their operating accounts; and, if possible, they should be given a capital structure from the Railways Board. But, in any event, they will probably know, roughly, from their operating accounts what new capital has been put in and what sort of return they are getting.
I was reading an interesting article the other day about the French railways. The electrification there, according to the density of the lines, has shown anything from 13 per cent. up to 17½ per cent. return on the money. I should think that at any rate 15 per cent. to 17 per cent. is wanted to make it a profitable undertaking. But I think we must not go ahead too fast. I quite agree that we must try—and I believe that the Minister is endeavouring to do this—to give the railways, like the roads, a forward plan for their capital requirements

695
for the next three years. He is trying to do that. But, in view of the very large losses that the railways are now incurring, we must be careful that this very large sum of money which has been authorised on the London Midland region is going to earn its proper return, because, as I have told your Lordships, I think it is very disturbing to see from the accounts that they are not even meeting their depreciation. If they do not make that in future years we shall have to write off another large sum of money. So I very much welcome this debate, which has given us an opportunity of discussing these important matters before the final legislation is framed, because I have no doubt that it will be a major Bill with which we shall be presented in the autumn. I thank my noble friend Lord Teynham for raising this important matter.
7.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I also should like to thank my noble friend Lord Teynham for bringing up this subject: because it is a matter of extreme national importance, and I think the great majority of the public are very perturbed by the railway accounts. There have been £400 million accumulated losses over the last few years against the B.T.C. since it came into operation. That is a great deal of money. Even £400,000 is a great deal of money, and if a company like I.C.I. lost £400 million I think the shareholders would be extremely upset.
Before I proceed I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on his very charming maiden speech. He need not think that there are no people with Scottish blood in the House, however, because, although I am not a Scottish Peer, my mother and my grandmother were Scottish. So he can feel quite at home. The noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, and one or two others in the House who took part in this debate are also Scottish, so he need not worry about being Scottish; in fact he ought to be proud of it.
Now, my Lords, I was rather surprised by what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth said. I understood the noble Lord to say that it was quite fair for the nationalised industries, which are
696
being heavily subsidised out of taxation procured from private industries which are paying their way, to cut their costs to under-cut various private industries. I am, of course, referring to coastal shipping.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It would take a little time, and time is precious, for me to repeat what I did say; but I did not say what the noble Lord says: I said something else.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said it was quite in order for British Railways to under-cut coastal shipping.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No; what I said was that one cannot have the argument both ways. If the Government are the apostles of free competition, then supporters of the Government must not get red in the face and indignant when there is a hit of competition the other way round, with competition for private enterprise from public enterprise.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: But by "free competition" one does not mean that when the taxpayer is handing hundreds of millions of pounds to an industry that industry can under-cut private industry. I do not call that free competition.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me for intervening, do we not put hundreds of millions of pounds into roads and road construction as a subsidy to road transport, which is in competition with the railways? Road transport is more heavily subsidised by the taxpayers and ratepayers than railways are.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, road transport is used by millions of private car owners; it is not used only by commercial vehicles. I do not see that the two things can be compared: but I must continue. I personally am all in favour of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. Something had to be done, and they are proposing to do it. The railways have been operating at an annual loss of £60 million a year. My noble friend Lord Wolverton said that the figure was £40 million but I believe

697
the actual loss is £60 million. That cannot go on. I quite agree that a great deal of the railways' trouble in the past has been through the competition of road transport. If, however, we consider the amount of taxes that commercial vehicles pay (though I have not worked it out), I suppose they probably pay for one-quarter or one-third of their road usage; but I have no figures to bear that out.
The great thing about this decentralisation is that, under the Railways Board, we are to have all these Regional Boards (the former Great Western, L.N.E.R., L.M.S., and so on), each of which is to have its own accounts. I am almost sure that the British Transport Commission have not been doing their costing very well. I have often wondered whether, when they have ordered 500 diesel engines or multiple diesel units, they have ever really worked out how much oil they are to use, how many passengers they have to carry and how much profit they are to get. By having these Regional Boards, there will be far closer scrutiny of the accounts. And I am all for that, because the public, the taxpayers, do want value for their money; and they are entitled to have it.
Take, for example, the introduction of diesels and electrification. Looking at one particular aspect, I understand that there are about 5,000 multiple diesel trains, and it is true that they have increased railway receipts. I understand that the Leeds-Barnsley diesel service has increased the percentage receipts on that line by 460, but I should have thought it would have been more economical to have ordinary diesel locomotives, since those could have been used not only for passengers, during the rush-hour, but for other traffic when all the passengers had gone to bed. These multiple diesel trains, on the other hand, are standing idle all night. That is only one reason why I believe that the British Transport Commission have not always been very good in their costing.
I can quite understand that the traction industry and the electrical industry should be worried that the Government should have gone fast and slow on allocations, and should now have slowed up. I understand that the allocation for 1960 has been cut by 12½ per cent. I believe. though, that the Government are quite
698
right. They have given the "Go-ahead" on the London-Crewe electrification plan. No doubt the industry feel they should do the same for the London-Doncaster service, but surely the Government are quite right to see first how the London-Crewe electrification works out. It is possible, I suppose, that it may he found that it would have been more economical to use diesels. I do not think that is likely, but it might be so; and I feel that the Government ought not just to give carte blanche for £X to be spent over four or five years. I believe that they are quite right to keep the closest scrutiny on the expenditure, because, after all, the history of the last few years has not been very happy.
There is no doubt that there have been benefits through modernisation, from the point of view of operating costs and the amount of train services., but I wonder whether the comfort of passengers also has been taken into consideration. I have brought up before the question of the Kent Coast Line, on which the trains are far from comfortable and the vibration is very great. There are other inconveniences also. Passengers cannot turn the heating on or off, and in this very mild weather we have had great discomfort as a result. That is a fault of the design. If something can be done about the vibration on the new electric trains, I hope that it will be done, because that can be very unpleasant.
My Lords, there is another point. If only the railways could wrest the heavy freight from the roads, how different would the position be! Every day one passes these huge coal lorries and car transporters. The answer, probably—it obviously must be—is to have fast freight trains; but it is not possible TO have fast freight trains without the right brakes. Other countries have these brakes: why cannot we have them? The average goods train goes at about 20 miles an hour, I think; which is quite absurd.
Another point I should like to make is as to these lines that are to be electrified. Was it really economic to put diesels on them? There is now a mixture If steam and diesel trains. Obviously, that is uneconomic, because it means having the steam motive-power depôt and the diesel depôt; and it means chopping and changing. I should have thought that it would have saved a great

699
deal of money if the lines which are to be electrified had remained on steam until electrification was completed. I hope, too, that the Railways Board are not going to scrap all these steam engines that they do not require, because there may come a time when they will be needed. It is possible, I suppose, that we could have a hold-up in oil, or something like that; and if we found ourselves without any steam engines at all there could be a very great reduction in the train services. My Lords, the time is very late, and, to end, I will conclude by saying that I approve of this Government scheme. It is bold, it is imaginative, and I can only hope that it has every success.
7.43 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard will not mind if I follow him only to the extent of saying that I do not agree with what he has had to say with regard to the continuation of the London—Doncaster—Leeds electrification scheme. This evening I propose to endeavour to make only a few points with regard solely to the railways. As I see it, one of the most important functions of the British Railways Board will be the determination of file future size and shape of the railway system, apart from having to assume the responsibility of running the railways as an effective national system. In view of these two considerations, it seems to me that considerable attention should be given to the question of the composition of the Railways Board.
I should like to see, as chairman, a highly qualified, technical man of considerable standing and experience, and with extensive knowledge of the operational side of the railways. I would opt for someone of the calibre of Louis Armand in France, who did so much for the French Railways during their modernisation programme after the Second World War. To the task he was able to bring at least three essential qualities: a highly-qualified technical brain, a dynamic personality and a capacity for hard work. As I see it, during that post-war period in France the emphasis with regard to their railways was on achieving greater operational efficiency. It is interesting to
700
note that, in 1959, there were 28 passenger services running at average speeds in excess of 68 miles an hour, ten services running at an average speed in excess of 74½ miles per hour, and two services running at an average speed in excess of 77½ miles per hour.
With regard to one of these services, the Sud Express, which runs between Paris and the Spanish frontier, I remember a taxi-driver telling me as I boarded his taxi at Austerlitz that he could adjust his watch as the train pulled into the station. With regard to this question of good timekeeping, I was also struck by the fact that, when I travelled in the cab of one of their main-line trains, the driver's constant attention was on the question of perfect timekeeping; and I think it is true to say that, at the present time, 97 per cent. of the French expresses arrive on schedule.
I think it is only when our railways are operationally efficient, and when they are provided with an appropriate fares structure, that we can expect to see any improvement in their finances. The Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries devoted a fair amount of time to this question, and I should therefore like to quote, very briefly, some extracts from paragraphs 375, 377, 378 and 379. They read as follows:
"In real terms, both passenger fares and freight charges are on the average substantially lower than they were in 1938.
For the fact is…that passengers in general and commuters in particular have not been paying the full cost of their travel. In earlier post-war days they were subsidised by freight; more recently, by the taxpayer.
Freight charges are now believed to be competitive;…But, both in freight charges and in passenger fares, flexibility in charging can only be effective after costing and financial accounting have established the true facts about the traffic in question."
The important relationship between the service provided and the charges was mentioned in an editorial of the Daily Telegraph which appeared on July 10, 1959, and I should like to quote a brief extract from that editorial:
"There is one thing, and one thing only, however, which will help it"—
that is, the Commission—
"with the travelling public: that is the conviction, which is certainly not widespread at the moment, that the railways are determined to be competitive both in the standard of service offered and in the level of charges imposed. Price increases are bound to cause

701
some resentment, but elsewhere in the economy there is plenty of evidence that the public is prepared to pay a good price—once it is used to it—for a good service."
My Lords, in view of, as I see it, the importance of the operational side of the railways, it seems to me that one or two part-time members for the Railways Board is insufficient. As I see it, these part-time members should include representatives from such technical organisations as the Association of Consulting Engineers and of such Institutions as the Civil Engineers, Railway Signals Engineers, Locomotive Engineers, and so forth, so that these technical organisations can give qualified advice on matters of a definite operational aspect. No doubt the Regional Railway Board representatives will advise on the actual operation of the railways, but I feel that these technical organisations can play a big part, especially at the present time when the whole question of reorganisation is affecting the railway system of this country so much.
With regard to priorities appertaining to modernisation, I should like to see, first, that part of the plan implemented which is purely on the operational side; that is, track re-laying, overhead equipment, signalling, tele-communications, automatic train control, civil engineering 'work, new locomotives and new rolling stock. Such work as station rebuilding, remodelling or renovating which is not directly concerned with the operational side of the railways should, I think, take a lesser priority. In view of the present financial situation of our railways, I feel the primary need with regard to passenger traffic is to give, as soon as practicable—that is, at the optimum rate at which the railways and the supplying industries can provide the facilities—fast and reliable service, good time-keeping, clean and modern carriages, and a rapid diminution (I think this is an important point) of mixed forms of traction. Because mixed forms of traction make for less attractive train schedules, delay with regard to increased receipts, and also a duplication of servicing and maintenance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the Minister announced in another place the continuation of the London-Midland electrification scheme. But he also went on to say, as was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the continuation of that scheme did not
702
necessarily mean that approval would be given for the King's Cross, Doncaster, Leeds and York schemes. The Parliamentary Secretary also went on to say, with regard to the London-Midland scheme, that there would now be a two-year delay which would be partly due to the reconstruction of Euston Station. That was said, in spite of the fact that where there has been an introduction of electrical services, or of diesel services, there has in every case been an increase in traffic and receipts. I think your Lordships might be interested to know that the London-Midland electrification scheme represents under 50 per cent. of the electrification scheme provided for under the original. modernisation plan.
I think it can be truthfully said that electrification pays when the traffic warrants it. According to M. Pierre Weil—the figures were quoted by my noble friend, Lord Wolverton, but M. Pierre Weil is Chief Press Officer of the French Railways—the yearly return on the investment on their electrified main lines is in the region of 12 to 17 per cent. With regard to traffic density—and that has an important bearing on dieselisation and electrification—the British Transport Commission assess the break-even point for electrification at 4 million trailing ton miles per annum: in other words, over 4 million trailing ton miles per annum for electrification; under 4 million trailing ton miles per annum for dieselisation. Surely the British Transport Commission and the Minister of Transport must have the traffic density figures for the Kings Cross, Doncaster and Leeds services. Therefore it seems to me that if the traffic warrants it, as in the case of the London-Midland electrification scheme, steps should be taken to put this scheme in hand fairly shortly.
It may interest your Lordships to know that there is up to two years' planning work with regard to overhead equipment before actual physical work can be undertaken in that field. With regard to electrical rolling stock, there is a time-lag of nine to twelve months from the time the order is received and the moment when work can begin on the shop floor. This brings me to the pressing need for a long-term plan for capital equipment. It is now three months ago (minus three days) that the Government

703
received the Commission's proposals for the next four years. Naturally, with a view to obtaining value for money, the Minister asked for further information from the British Transport Commission. Is that further information now available, and when will the Minister make his intentions known? I hone his intentions will be made clear in the form of a White Paper, so that the Railway Board, the general public and the supplying industries will know what to expect. In other words, I hope that there will be a firm indication of the rate and extent of the modernisation plan.
I think a clear indication should be given, too, as to the capital expenditure programme for the next four years, not on a year-to-year basis, as has been mentioned before, but so that the industry, the general public and the Railway Board will know what they can count on during this four-year period. A succession of policy changes can only be detrimental to an industry committed in the past to considerable research and development by the British Transport Commission. Understandably, the Minister wishes to undertake a complete reorganisation of the railways' accounting and costing system.
A Bill which is to be laid before Parliament during next Session will lay the foundations for a new railway system of the right size and shape. But the putting into effect of such a measure will take several years, and if, during that time, the major orders for capital equipment are held up, the results may well be disastrous for the industries concerned. I should think it is fairly certain that there will be increased redundancy and even closure of some firms. That may even happen next year. A stable home market is recognisably essential for a flourishing export trade, for that is the only way to maintain an effective showroom for export sales. Empty shop floors are no incentive to overseas buyers. During the necessary period of reorganisation, which is sketchily outlined in the White Paper before us today, surely it is essential that the railway supplying industries should not come to a standstill—at least, if I am putting it too high, they should not be in the position in which they are at the moment, of finding themselves between the British Transport Commission, the
704
British Railway Regions and the Ministry of Transport, with the whole question of further orders shifting from one body to the other and slowing up very considerably further orders to the supplying industries.
I would urge my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his turn to urge his right honourable friend the Minister to announce at the earliest possible moment the Government's four-year plan, if he wishes to see the plant, the skill and the key personnel of the various industries concerned properly absorbed. To end, I would stress the importance of this matter and ask my noble friend to give the House this evening some indication when this "Go ahead" signal will be given on a four-year basis.
8.2 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, first of all, perhaps I should declare an interest, for, until a month ago, I was a working railwayman and I am still a voluntary officer of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, which is the trade union catering, for the clerical, technical, professional, supervisory and administrative staffs of the British Transport Commission. My approach to this discussion will be that of a worker in the industry. May I make it clear that though, as workers in the industry, we rightly are concerned about as high standards of salaries and working conditions as it is possible for us to achieve, we are also concerned with efficiency within the industry and with giving the travelling public and industry generally the best possible service? May I assure your Lordships that it is not much fun and not much satisfaction to work in an industry which is always in the red and when you are always under public criticism? We would rather be paying our way and giving satisfaction.
Though it has been our objective to secure the highest possible standards of salary, of efficiency and of good service, we have failed in all these objectives, but through no fault of our own as workers in the industry. In regard to salaries, for generations railway workers and transport workers generally have subsidised the travelling public and industry by their low rates of pay and their bad working conditions, as has been admitted by one of the noble Lords opposite. The only attraction to railway

705
employment before the war was its security. We got starvation wages, but they were regular.
We fell short of the standard of efficiency within the industry because we lacked the tools to do the job. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, my noble friend Lord Dalton, got into trouble by saying that after the Transport Act, 1947, we took over a bag of useless assets from the old railway companies. That was a colourful phrase, but it was perfectly true. One cannot blame the old railway companies entirely. Tribute has never been paid to those technical officers who had to "make do and mend" during the prewar years on the budgets made available to them by the old companies.
I want to give just a brief history, because, after listening to some noble Lords this afternoon one would think that trouble has arisen in the railways only since the establishment of the British Transport Commission under the Transport Act, 1947.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, if it was true, as the noble Lord said, that the nation received a bag of useless assets at the end of the war, the railways would never have stood up to the wonderful work they did in the four years of the war. Surely they must have been in good condition in 1939, though they could not replace their assets during the war because our whole effort was concentrated on the war. I think it is unfair for the noble Lord to say this.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Lord is a long way out. In the inter-war years, particularly between 1930 and 1939, the engineering sides of the railways were having their budgets cut. Many civil and district engineers had to cut out re-laying because money was not available, and had to take the risk of possible accidents, which meant that they themselves would have to take the responsibility at any inquiry which might follow, because they had authorised deferment of maintenance. In 1939, when the war started, there were millions of pounds' worth of deferred maintenance, and we were able to keep the railways running during the war years only because the railwaymen and technical officers worked with great skill and efficiency and "made do" and mended.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Before he leaves the point, I want to ask him for clarity, which I may need when I come to reply. Is he saying that the six years of tremendous war effort did not have any appreciable effect on the railways? So far he has been implying that the "rotten bag of assets" was due to pre-war events, and rather discounted what happened to the railways during the war.
LORD LINDGREN: Noble Lords get very touchy about private enterprise. Nobody has come to the rescue of the British Transport Commission, but as soon as one suggests that the private enterprise railways companies were not as good as they might have been, speakers come up in hundreds to defend them. What I have said is that because of the improvident condition of railway receipts in the inter-war years, we had to make do and mend, with the old basis of maintenance. It was a case of deferring maintenance year after year. Part of my job was the programming of the re-laying works which were recommended by the permanent way inspector. Re-laying that he thought ought to he done in 1934 had been knocked out in successive years by the district engineer because of the short budget available, and when the war started in 1939 it still had not been done. Every technical officer in the old railway companies did the best he could and never took unnecessary risks, but the assets—mechanical, signalling and permanent way—were all in a very bad condition because of deferred maintenance in 1939, let alone what they were like when the war finished.
But because noble Lords opposite are so tender to private enterprise, let me give your Lordships a little of the history. I entered the railway service as a boy in 1914, and the railway service has been in the doldrums ever since—although not, I think, because I joined the service. In the 1914–18 war the railways did not measure up to national responsibility. There were 111 different railway companies. Our transport was interfered with and was not as efficient as it ought to be because of that multiplicity of control. What did the Tory Government do immediately after the 1914–18 war

707
finished? We then had the Railways Act, 1921, which gave us the four mainline companies, the London, Midland and Scottish, the London North Eastern, the Great Western and the Southern.
But even amalgamating the 111 railway companies into four did not solve the problem of the railways. One still had the problems of deficiencies in the railway system developing year by year, because of the development of road transport and road transport competition. That is why we had the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, which established for the first time the licensing authorities, to which the noble Lord who opened the debate referred, and gave the railway companies the right to object to the granting of A and B licences. The Act also made provision for C licences. We had the "Square deal for the railways" campaign; we even had the Government coming to the aid of the railways on the financial side by guaranteeing their interest if they raised the money in the open market.
This problem with which we are dealing is not something that has arisen because of the existence of the British Transport Commission. It is a fundamental problem which has arisen because road transport takes off the cream of the traffic paying higher rates, leaving the railways with the most difficult and, generally, lower-rate traffic.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Would the noble Lord tell me, if railway maintenance was so bad before the war, how it was that the railways had so few accidents compared with those under nationalisation?
LORD LINDGREN: The railway accident rates since nationalisation have been no greater than before. Railwaymen do not have accidents on purpose. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, in his defence of private enterprise, is prepared to bring in the question of the skill and the human element which comes into railway operations. May I say this to the noble Viscount? Prewar and post-war railway operating could have been much safer if the capital had been available to put in the automatic signalling. The invention has been there, and the possibility of doing it; and the desire of railway signal engi-
708
neers has also been there to do it. But it was not done pre-war because of the lack of capital; it was not done during the war because we did not have the opportunity; it was not done after the war, again because of lack of capital; and since nationalisation it has not been done, although it has been developed to a much greater extent.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: But it had not been invented pre-war, had it?
LORD LINDGREN: Of course it had. It was in operation on the Great Western pre-war.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I am sorry.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Viscount, in his speech, did not show a great deal of knowledge of railway operation. If he thinks that he is a better technical engineer than railway operators who have spent their lives in the business, then I think he should have second thoughts. We see transport as a whole, and its function is to move goods and persons from place to place, in safety and, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, with regularity. In doing that, it should use the vehicle that is most suited to the traffic being carried and to the undertaker. Every traffic expert who has ever expressed an opinion on the organisation of transport has always come down on the side of the integration of transport. Ignore politics; forget nationalisation or private enterprise. Every traffic expert who has expressed any opinion has always come down on the side of integration of transport. The first and only attempt at integration was the Transport Act, 1947. From my point of view, that did not go far enough, because it failed to deal with the problem of the C licence, and unless you are prepared to tackle the C licence, then you cannot tackle the transport problem, so far as this country is concerned.
This afternoon and this evening noble Lords opposite have been blaming the British Transport Commission. The problems of the day are not the fault of the British Transport Commission. We had the Transport Act, 1947, which came into operation on July 1, 1948. In three short years, with all the difficulties of bringing

709
in thousands of small road haulage operators, and all the other problems arising from the setting up of the organisation of the British Transport Commission and its various activities, it was making a profit. When the Conservative Government came into power the British Transport Commission showed, in 1952, a profit of £8 million. Of course, in 1959 there was a loss of £70 million. That was the result of tell years of Tory rule, and, in fact, of the Transport Act, 1953. That Act broke dawn the road and rail integration under the 1947 Act. It dismembered the B.R.S. and decentralised the railways.
The 1953 Transport Act was not a Transport Act in the real sense of the word it was playing politics. It was a pay-off to the road hauliers of this country for contributions they had made to Tory Party funds. It was politics, not transport. The effect of ten years of Tory rule, as I said, was to turn a profit of £8 million, as it was in 1952, before the 1953 Act, into a loss of £70 million in 1959. It is not the British Transport Commission who have created the loss; it is the Tory Government and their playing politics with transport rather than dealing with transport as a service to industry and the people of this country.
Since 1953 we have had decentralisation of railways; we have been reorganised, disorganised, reappraised and further reappraised. We have not been left alone for five minutes without Government interference. If only your Lordships knew of the waste of money, of time and effort of highly skilled, highly paid railway officials, with their technical and clerical staffs behind them, who have been preparing plan after plan and reorganising plan after plan, at the behest and at the whim of successive Ministers of Transport, you would be shocked at the cost. Parts of the loss have been due to this political interference that we have had to suffer from successive Ministers of Transport. I may be a little prejudiced and biased—I am prepared to admit my bias as a worker in the industry. But the railway officers are highly qualified and highly skilled; they are men of integrity, and they are dedicated to their job—and that is a good list of qualifications. But they are not supermen. They cannot do two jobs at once. Nor can the staff, of which I was one, who were supporting them from behind.
710
Whilst we were preparing report after report for Ministers of Transport, we were not doing the real job for which we were paid: maintaining and operating the railways. In fact, if we had been able to get on with our job of securing traffic and maintaining and operating the railways, instead of preparing all these statistics and plans for the Minister of Transport for political purposes, then, despite the 1953 Act, the British Transport Commission would have been in a better position to-day.
Under this White Paper we are to have a further upheaval. We are to be reorganised and disorganised again. We are in for a period of uncertainty which is going to last for at least three years, if not longer. You cannot get good service if the morale of officers and men is had. The morale of railway officers and railway employees to-day is at its lowest ebb, not because of something in the British Transport Commission, but because of continued political interference with the job they have to do. Let us face it. The reason for the White Paper is not the shortcomings of the British Transport Commission; it is the failure of the Government, the' failure arising from their 1953 Transport Act, from their subsequent blunders and the pressure and interference by Tory Back Bench Members of Parliament.
I am speaking for longer than I intended to, but I think this ought to be said, because not only should your Lordships know it, but as we in this House are getting a greater degree of publicity, perhaps even the country may know. This White Paper does not arise from the Stedeford Committee. It arises from a wage claim in 1957–58. As railway workers we went right through the whole of the negotiating machinery. It took us eighteen months to take the claim through, and when we had finished the tribunal said: "The claim is justified; a case for it has been made out. But we cannot make an award, because there is no money in the kitty." So we had to go to see the Prime Minister. See the political interference! The Chairman of the British Transport Commission could not negotiate with us. We had to get permission from the Prime Minister to give the Chairman of the British Transport Commission elbow room to negotiate on wages, which he did. As a result of those negotiations,

711
we got a 3 per cent. settlement. Noble Lords may laugh, but if you are a worker in the industry and dependent upon it, you do not laugh. We are concerned with doing the job of serving our country; we are not concerned with playing politics and upsetting the industry which makes the flow of goods and people from place to place possible.
As a result of that 3 per cent. settlement. or together with it, we secured an independent inquiry into the structure of railway wages and salaries. That inquiry was finally carried out under the chairmanship of Professor Guillebaud. Its findings became known as the Guillebaud Report. When his Report was issued, of course, it showed what those of us in the trade union movement had claimed for years and years: that the rates of pay and the salaries of railway employees were very much below those of their colleagues in commercial undertakings and industry generally. Because of public opinion, the Government had to find the money in order to implement the Guillebaud Report. In order to appease the Tory Back Benchers, who did not like the Government making an outright subsidy to the railways, they had to have the Stedeford Committee.
I want to protest, as I believe one noble Lord opposite did, against the non-publication of the Stedeford Committee's Report. I was one of those who gave evidence twice before the Committee, and I admit that we were courteously received and could say what we liked. I am not making any complaint about the Stedeford Committee, but I think it is monstrous that their Report has not been published. The Minister has had a copy; the British Transport Commission have a copy—they have a perfect right to it. The Government are providing the money, and the B.T.C. have been responsible for administration. But we as railway workers have put our lives into the industry: it is our future, too. Are we not to know what the criticisms are, and on what they are based; the recommendations, and why? Yet we are denied that. May I remind your Lordships that, from the point of view of Parliamentary responsibility, we have a White Paper which is supposed to be based upon the Stedeford Committee Report. But do we know that it is? We
712
do not know what those recommendations are. We do not know which recommendations the Government have accepted and which they have rejected.
As trade unionists we are very critical of the White Paper, and we are critical of it because it does not deal with the problem of transport. If I may say so, I was delighted to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who has gone some way towards accepting the responsibility for the integration of transport. But this does not deal with the basic problem of transport in any shape or form. Road transport is not mentioned; the question of the A, B and C licences is not mentioned. Under the new proposals, of course, the British Transport Commission is to go.
Apart from the question of its coordinating function within the various undertakings over which it has control, the Commission had another very vital function to those of us who are trade unionists. Under the umbrella of the British Transport Commission we have been able to secure a measure of coordination between the salaries and wages paid in the various undertakings for which the Commission has been responsible. We have had independent negotiation machinery for each of the undertakings—railways, docks, inland water ways, London Transport and B.R.S. But when we have come to a sticky patch, as one always does in negotiations, we have always had the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the British Transport Commission to whom we could appeal and who, in his own way, could make arrangements for the parties to be brought together and for agreement to be reached. So far as the employees are concerned that co-ordinating factor has gone, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said in his speech, the co-ordinating function is to be undertaken by the Minister of Transport as the Chairman of the Transport Advisory Committee. Is he going to act as the court of appeal when there are problems of wages and salaries within the various undertakings still under the umbrella of transport? I hope not, for his sake; because he is going to have a very busy time if he is.
We have no objection, as trade unionists, to the setting up of the Railways Board. As has been mentioned by many other noble Lords, it is a reversion

713
to the 1947 Act and the Railway Executive. But, quite honestly, if we are to have the Railways Board, there is no reason whatever for the Regional Boards. They are redundant: they are an extra link in the chain of communication and administration which is unnecessary. There has been talk about a regional accountancy. But that is a lot of poppycock. The traffic in this country, the goods and services which have to be moved, is not dependent upon whether there is this region or that region. It originates in Dundee and comes down to Penzance. Are we going to have the whole of the Railway Clearing House set up, as we had in the days of the 1931 railway companies? We refused it when we had the four main-line companies. It is impossible to get regional accountancy on any true basis because traffic does not originate or terminate within the same region. Most of it is through-traffic or coming into one region or the other.
On the question of finance, there had to be capital reconstruction, but this is not a realistic capital reconstruction. The Railways Board is left with £400 million of its own, £280 million from the railway "Super" funds in the savings bank, and to accept the responsibility for future investment under the Modernisation Plan. That means that to service the capital it is left with it must provide £60 million to £70 million a year. In 1959, the gross receipts of railways were only £457 million and on the operating costs alone there was a deficiency in that year of £42 million. In 1960 the figure was £60 million; and in 1961 most probably it will be £100 million. Let us face it; a 13 per cent. increase in receipts is needed even to meet the working deficiency. In order to service the capital as well, an increase of 25 to 27 per cent. on receipts, an increase on receipts of £120 million, would be needed. As a workman in the railway industry I am optimistic: given the tools I think that we can do a good job. But it is just foolishness to expect that with depleted railway systems the Railways Board can be viable in a matter of five years.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to the fact that it was undesirable that the Minister of Transport should be the person to determine the social value of a branch line. Thai is perfectly true; and he cannot
714
do it. The Government speak with two voices—and I am quoting this illustration in no spirit of personal criticism. There is a closure of the Colne Valley line. That line runs through the Home Secretary's constituency. Mr. R. A. Butler, as a Member of Parliament under pressure from his constituents, puts in an objection to the closure of the line. He goes before the Transport Users' Consultative Council. Mr. Butler does not appear, but his agent does, and on behalf of Mr. Butler puts up the case for the retention of the Colne Valley line. What does the Chairman of the Transport Users' Consultative Council say? With a little wisecrack he turns to the agent and says, "Is Mr. Butler as a member of the Government prepared to authorise a subsidy if I recommend the branch line should be kept open?" It is an impossible position for a Minister of the Crown to be placed in, that he should have to make these decisions.
My Lords, I must just add one word, in spite of the time I have taken, about modernisation, because except for the question of finance the White Paper does not mention modernisation. The Government itself, by its action, has cost the British Transport Commission hundreds of thousands of pounds.
A NOBLE LORD: Millions.
LORD LINDGREN: No I stretch a long bow, but I do not go to that extent. It has cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds by its stops and starts, reappraisal after re-appraisal. We have had an upsetting of the programme to such an extent that it has not got value for the money it has spent, and money that has been spent has been lying idle. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said, if you are going to have a modernisation plan you must have a programme. There has to be a period of time over which it can be done. There has to be the getting together of the technical staff, the survey, the programming of work, ordering of materials, obtaining of equipment.
What has happened because of the Government's stops and starts? At the office which I have left we have had hundreds of highly paid technical people standing idle, not through their own fault but because the work they are engaged on has been stopped overnight,

715
as a result of Government action. Those people are civil engineers, young fellows, vital fellows, good teams. They are not prepared to stand about. As soon as the job stops, off they go, the best of them. One or two—perhaps those you would like to go—have stayed. Now as soon as we get the word "Go" we have once again to collect the technical team and start the whole programme again. As trade unionists we have met the Minister of Transport. At our last meeting he told us, as apparently the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale has also heard, that he was prepared to sanction a four-year programme; but so far as the Eastern Region is concerned, we have not yet had the word "Go". I think we ought to have the opportunity of having a programme, of knowing what we are going to do and of being allowed to get on with the job.
My Lords, I apologise for speaking for so long, but it is impossible to work for nearly 50 years in an industry without having some affection for it and wanting to see that it is a success. We, as workers in the industry, will support the Government in anything it will do to develop transport. But we are a little sick and tired of playing politics with our living. So I say: for goodness' sake, create a policy and let those appointed to administer it get on with the job! As trade unionists and workers in the industry we will give them our full support to make it efficient.
8.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I, too, am one of those noble Lords who are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this problem of the nationalised transport undertakings. It is unfortunate that this debate was preceded by another one and we had to start so late, because this problem is one of enormous difficulty and of great importance. Before I move on, I think we must all agree that the noble Lord who has just sat down speaks with enormous sincerity and knowledge, having given a great many years of his life to the railways. We agree with him that the men on the railways are, and always have been, a magnificent lot of men and they are capable and efficient. At the moment he says their morale is low, and I would agree with him; but as to the
716
causes why it is low I do not altogether agree with him. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but I thought he said that the making of the regional boards was bad for the morale of the workers.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Then I am wrong; I must have misunderstood him. I personally do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, on this point. I have gone into this matter and talked to a great many railwaymen, and I can only say that those I have talked to are all for the regional system. This regional system has been a hobby horse of mine, because I have lived for many years on what I describe as a family railway, and all the people I have met on that railway, on that region, are in favour of an organisation of that degree.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord this: it is quite true, so far as the Great Western and Southern regions are concerned; they have always been units and they are inclined to accept it. But you do not get the same feeling in the North Eastern and L.M.S. They are all much together, interchanging on the lines.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I thank the noble Lord. I think the regional system leads to greater competition and therefore to greater efficiency.
Most of the points which I wanted to make have, at this time of night, already been made. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, touched on one of them. Coming to modernisation, I am not going to speak on electrification because that has already been dealt with at length, or dieselisation, except to say that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that it is better to have diesel units pulling ordinary trains rather than diesel multiple units. The essence of a diesel multiple unit is that it is rather like the underground or the local Southern electric, where the acceleration is good; but that would not be so if you had a diesel unit pulling that train.
I want to talk on a matter on which he touched. I consider the most important aspect of modernisation to be this question of automatic brakes on freight trains. If you have high density

717
traffic the whole thing is completely wasted—all modernisation is wasted if you have goods trains which, because they cannot stop, are not allowed to go at more than 15 to 20 miles per hour. That must seem obvious to everyone. I understand that a great deal of money has already been spent on this question of putting vacuum brakes on to goods trucks. But if a number of them have been actually converted, they are not in use. Further, I understand that it is impossible to put these vacuum brakes on to some types of truck because it is impossible to tip them. But surely we must get on with that, because it bolds up the Whole of the traffic and, incidentally, it takes a long time for the goods to get from one point to another. I understand that the average pace of a goods train throughout the Kingdom is still not much more than between 3 and 5 miles per hour.
The other point, which was touched on by Lord Lindgren and one other noble Lord, was the question of automatic signalling. As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, knows only too well, it has been operating on the Great Western section for some forty years. I believe that in the past it was not taken up by other railways because of jealousy. Surely, nowadays we must get on with it straightaway. I should like to know how far it is being done, because with the density of traffic nowadays to places like Lewisham (which we all remember) to the South, in the Manchester area, and all over the country where there is high density traffic, it is hardly fair to ask drivers to carry on in foggy weather. It is not impossible to provide this system. It has been done. We have had it for forty years on one section of the railways. Surely we can have it over the whole system.
I am not going to detain your Lordships any longer. I approve of this White Paper. I believe that the Government have "started the ball rolling"; in fact, they have given it a pretty good shove. They have written off the enormous money losses in order to give it a free run. Now it is up to everyone—it is up to the Boards of the various concerns; it is up to the railwaymen, and to the public as well—to give it a fair trial and to make the railways in particular, and the transport which was once the pride of Britain, a good service again.
8.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, paragraph 5 of the White Paper says, and I think quite rightly, that the heart of the problem is the railways. That is the reason why I felt I might speak for a few moments, even at this late hour, because for the last twenty years, I suppose, I have been a part-time railway man. The first ten were spent connected with one of the more amusing of the South American railways, and the last ten with the locomotive manufacturing industry. For that reason, I have to declare an interest and shall not be able, for example, to follow up all the things that my noble friend Lord Merrivale said.
I think we are all bound to give a general welcome to this White Paper because it is a serious attempt to deal with the situation which now exists in the transport industry. Never mind what are the causes of it and why it exists, but it certainly does. I would welcome this White Paper not as something to be taken in isolation, but as a step in the evolution of British Railways to meet modern conditions, which they certainly have to do; and from the financial point of view—I shall have a little more to say about that in a moment—this White Paper comes none too soon.
I do not know whether all noble Lords, except the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, realise the great length of time which it takes to carry through the physical and the organisational changes which are called for in the post-war modernisation programme of the railways. It takes an immense time and an immense and largely unrewarding effort. That is why I was so glad to hear one noble Lord earlier this evening sing the praises of Sir Brian Robertson, because few people know, except those close to the industry, what an immense task he has had to perform, what an immense responsibility he has had to shoulder, and what little thanks he has had for it at any time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said—I agree with a lot of what he said, but by no means all, as noble Lords opposite can imagine—this problem has been in existence since before the First World War. There is no doubt about that. It would be wrong to pretend that

719
the old private enterprise companies were very forward-looking or were wonderful financiers, or possibly made the effort that they should have made to shake themselves free from the shackles of legislation which was quite unsuitable for the age in which they lived. Then, as other noble Lords have said, came the War, which left the railways "out on their feet". After the war, came nationalisation. I am not going to argue tonight whether nationalisation was right or wrong: but I am going to say that it was impossible for the managements of the railways to carry through the organisational changes consequent upon nationalisation and, at the same time, attend to the technical problems of modernising the railways after the war, because at that time it was not merely a question of putting the railways back as they had been in 1939—that, in fact, would have been utterly wrong, although at one moment it looked as if the managements of British Railways were trying to do that when they designed the whole of their range of steam locomotives, some of which have never left the drawing board from that day to this: and that at a moment when everybody else was turning his mind to diesel and electric traction.
To my mind, whether nationalisation was right or wrong, from other points of view it most certainly had the effect of delaying the modernisation of the railways, if only because the unfortunate people who were running the railways could not attend to nationalisation and modernisation at the same time. Therefore, at a point, if you like, ten years ago, the modernisation of the railways and the mechanisation of its processes off the rails—goods yards, stations, accounting and so forth—was at a very low degree. As a result—and this is something on which I do not think anybody has spoken so far—because modernisation and mechanisation had proceeded such a little way, there were places in the railway industry for a larger proportion of low forms of industrial life than in any other industries that I know of in this country. Hence, with these low forms of industrial life in an industry I do not see how the morale of the industry can prosper. I can also understand the great difficulties which the managements were faced with in trying to get
720
a proper wages structure applying equally to the high-grade footplate men, the signalmen and so forth, and to the Teddy-boys whom you and I can see on the platforms of any main-line station. My Lords, that sort of thing is no good. So now the bill has to be paid. There is the bill, and we have to pay the bill at the right price. But we have to pay it.
To come back to paragraph 4 of the White Paper, it says that "Sweeping changes will be needed." Of course they will. Paragraph 4 is all very well, and sweeping changes may well be necessary but, if they are, for goodness' sake! this time let us go all the way and see that whoever is going to make those changes really makes a job of it, once and for all. I doubt very much whether anybody who is not close to the railway industry knows just how much there is yet to do. I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said in his speech that, once a decision had been taken on what was to be done, professional railwaymen should be left alone—or words to that effect: I think I have quoted him rightly.
It will be necessary to spend money on modernisation. And though we all moan and wail about the enormous losses the railways are supposed to have made, I very much doubt if anybody at the present time knows whether the railways in this country can be run without a subsidy. We should know a great deal more if we knew what the Stedeford Committee had said about that. I wonder whether any railway line, except the most heavily trafficked, is capable of running without a subsidy, and whether all this talk about the wickedness of the railways losing so much money takes sufficient account of the fact that the roads are entirely subsidised and the motor user, apart from his licence, pays very little for them.
At all events, as many noble Lords have said, we shall not get the matter right until we go through with the modernisation programme, complete it, and eliminate redundant labour and redundant operations, thus leaving the railway industry with a labour force of a much higher average skill than they have now, doing worthwhile jobs and being paid worthwhile proper wages.

721
That, to my mind, would eliminate a great many of the complaints which have been before the public about railway wages for a long time.
To come back for a moment to this question of profitability, I feel myself that it is a great pity that the Government so far have not followed out a number of recommendations which were made by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in another place, which I think was largely chaired by my right honourable friend, the Member for Blackpool, North. In paragraphs 421 and 422 they talk a great deal about this question of profitability. They say, I think rightly, that if the need, social or strategic (though I do not think they use the word) means keeping certain lines of railway in operation—and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may think of some of the railways in the North of Scotland—these should be frankly and openly subsidised and the railways should not have that can tied to their tail, for reasons which I am going to try to explain, if noble Lords will bear with me for a moment.
I think we are still in a state of some doubt about how to handle passenger traffic, because this Report on the country buses—which I think we are to expect in a day or two—has not yet appeared. Yet that subject is tied up most closely with it. If I may he allowed one criticism of British Railways, though I certainly do not want to make that my tone tonight, I think that the integration of railway services with bus services has had nothing more than lip service. A great number of stations have been closed recently in my county of Shropshire, in my view perfectly rightly, but the people who used those stations have to be carried there. And, supposing I went into the inquiry office at a main-line station, and asked for the bus service which was to replace the train service which had gone, I can just imagine—and so can the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren—the abuse and scorn which would be poured out on me. Now, my Lords, that is one of the things that must be put right. It is all part of that problem, and its solution would provide a good deal of the answer to the problem of profitability.
All this work has got to be done by professionals. I am not going to argue about diesel, steam and electric traction
722
tonight, though I would say, with great respect, that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was entirely right in what he said in his speech about the relationship of diesel and electric. Diesel can move about anywhere on any line, and therefore they can come in, temporarily if you like, to take over from steam which is now being replaced, and run a service until that line is electrified.
On that same subject I think that a great deal of hot air has been talked on the doubt about whether this or that line will pay if it is electrified. My Lords, surely the answer is well known. Even if statistics are not available from the Manchester—Sheffield line, they are certainly available from the Continent, where heavily trafficked railway systems in France and Italy, I think in Western Germany, and certainly in Sweden and Spain, have been running for some time. Why, then, is there this smoke screen of doubt about whether or not a line will pay? Frankly, my Lords, I do not believe it.
But all this technical work, which can be done only by the railways—it cannot be done by politicians, civil servants or anybody else—must be done against the background of this set-up. I should like to say (if I am not detaining noble Lords too long) that in certain places the set-up leaves me in some doubt. If I can put it shortly, there are three ways in which the Government can control a nationalised undertaking. The first is the very simple way: to have the Government Department and the management the same, as we have with the Post Office. The Post Office people can argue very nicely with themselves and one hears nothing about it.
The second way is the sort of relationship the electricity industry has had with the Ministry since nationalisation; and no one has known better than the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, how to "make that tick". The third way is the way that we seem to be having with the railways; that is to say, with the management of the undertaking to some extent duplicated by the Department. That may he necessary for certain special circumstances, and for a certain limited time, but for a great many reasons it is most certainly undesirable as a long-term piece of organisation. That I feel quite strongly

723
about. I wish now that that view had been recommended by the Stedeford Committee; that would fortify my views on it a good deal. But as it is, with the proposed Advisory Council and so on, it may be all right when there are great and good men in office, assisted by great and good men in the Department. It is, nevertheless, fraught with a good many dangers, because, to put it bluntly, by this system any Minister can deal himself a hand of jokers.
Nor am I particularly keen on the Advisory Boards; but then, my Lords, I am never keen on advisory boards or consumer councils. If you are going to collect eminent businessmen or tycoons, or whatever you like to call them, to serve an undertaking or an industry, I cannot help thinking that it is better to use them in the way they are accustomed to be used in industry, as members of boards of directors, and give them not only the responsibility but the power. There again I think we may find that some of the proposals may need a new look.
Then we come to the cutting up of the existing Transport Commission, and here the picture begins to be less in focus. We do not know, from the White Paper, a great deal about the degree of centralisation and decentralisation that is to be expected. It has always seemed to me that "centralisation" and "decentralisation" are not two creeds to be held, one by the Right and one by the Left, any more than in the old days, when some of us were boys, Free Trade and Protection were two different religions to be followed slavishly. Both are expedients to be adopted, in this case, or that.
It strikes me that one can make quite a good case for decentralisation in regard to certain operations—civil engineering, and commercial operations; but when we come to design, research, development and similar things, one would have to go a long way in industry to find anybody who would recommend any such practice. I believe also (I think the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, mentioned this point) that decentralisation of accounting would have its dangers, and very great ones. By that I do not mean that the local accountant in a region should not be responsible for keeping his own
724
accounts. I mean that the whole system should be on one design, making the best use of business machines and treated in such a way that the results of the regions of the railways as a whole can be consolidated and compared. But if we go back to the technical decentralisation we shall revert to what one might call the "jungle fighting" which took place over continuous braking and automatic train control, because the survivors of the old days in the regions are like members of very good regiments; they do not always realise who is the real enemy and sometimes mistake the regiment next door for the enemy, when in fact they are not. I have made one or two criticisms, but I hope I have made them, as I meant to do, within the framework of the White Paper itself.
Before I sit down I want to say one thing, arising from my connection with the locomotive manufacturing industry, which I do not think will be controversial. That is that, whatever criticism one may offer to the railway managements—and a good deal has been offered at different times, here and elsewhere—one of the things that have happened in recent years is that British Railways have taken in the international railway world a place which I do not think they occupied a few years ago, because there was a time when one could quite fairly have described the British railwayman as an introvert compared with his Continental counterpart.
Two or three years ago the railway manufacturing industry in this country was severely threatened by a French organisation called Sofrerail, sponsored by the French nationalised railways, S.N.C.F., with suitable banking and manufacturing support. That organisation set out, and goes out, to offer railway advice to countries with supposed need of it, with, no doubt, the result that Continental equipment is bought on that advice. To my mind, it was an urgent matter for the railway manufacturing industry in this country that something of the same kind should be set up. That has now been done through the United Kingdom Railway Advisory Service (U.K.R.A.S., for short) and before I sit down I should like to pay a tribute to those high officers of British Railways and people in the Board of Trade who have given their support

725
and preached the gospel to other people and thereby have shown that the railway industry—whether part is nationalised and part is not does not matter—is one industry, and that we have a part to play opposite other railways in the world.
9.5 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should like at the onset to express my warm felicitations to my noble friend Lord Hughes for his most impressive maiden speech. It was a penetrating and informed speech dealing with transport in Scotland, and he was speaking from an abundant and continuing experience. I am sure that we should all hope that in like matters and otherwise we shall frequently have the benefit of his contribution to our debates.
The Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, refers to:
"the reorganisation of the nationalised transport undertakings."
I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me when I say I felt that in his speech he dealt rather more with detailed management and matters of detailed policy, such as the competitive relations between the railways and coastal shipping and with road passenger transport, than with the subject matter of his Motion. What we are discussing this evening is really the consequences of the monumental injury done to our economy by the Tory Government when they dismantled the integrated system of transport in 1953.
The Times, on December 21, 1960, took occasion to remind us of the statements made by the Opposition, as they then were, to the proposals of the original Transport Bill; and I think it is worth while reading this statement of The Times leader for that day:
"Fourteen years ago, when Parliament debated the Transport Bill which nationalised the railways and much other transport besides. Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, and Mr. Barnes saw in the Bill a plan to 'weld the, transport needs of the country into an efficient and economic whole' and 'the largest and most extensive socialisation measure ever presented to a free democratic Parliament.' Mr. Anthony Eden"—
as he then was, now Sir Anthony Eden—
"and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe"—
now the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack—
726
"saw in it a national disaster' … they thought little of the co-ordination' and 'integration' which were on every Labour speaker's lips, and Mr. Oliver Poole evoked the loudest cheers when he said that 'he could only look forward to the day when they would reverse some if not all of its provisions'. The Conservatives have looked forward to some effect. What their 1953 Act began, their 1962 Act, if it follows the organisation plan now outlined, will complete. The last remnants of co-ordination between different forms of transport will then be liquidated"—
and how satisfied the Tories will be!—
"And the tone of the White Paper suggests that, if it had been practicable to liquidate co-ordination between railway regions themselves, Ministers would not have been averse from it."
Even now they are still unsatisfied in their desire to dismantle the integrated system of transport which was ushered into this country by the Act of 1947. But what disastrous effects and results this policy has had! This White Paper is the evidence and record of the disaster which this policy has brought upon the transport system of this country. In truth, the wreckers of national transport have destroyed worse than they knew. Having dismantled an integrated transport system designed to serve the public interest, they find that they cannot put the pieces together again—pieces that they have mis-shaped out of all utility. And so the Government are in a continuing mess. There have been four Ministers of Transport and one overlord for a brief spell, and things have proceeded from mess to muddle and then from muddle to mess.
In 1953, as former speakers have mentioned, the Government sold off to private enterprise the profitable road transport and dealt a mortal blow at integration and the profitable operation of the transport system of this country. All the Executive Committees were abolished except the London Transport Executive, and Area Boards were created. In the result, according to the White Paper, there is a deficit of £500 million in the Commission's accounts. That, my Lords, is a measure of the price which is being paid by the nation for this obtuse, doctrinaire wrecking of the national transport service and system. And now the Government are in a fix. This exercise of pulling down proved too successful, and something had to be done about it. The Ministry did not know what to do. They have tried everything, one way and

727
another, especially when new Ministers were appointed to the office.
So the Government went outside to a number of "wise men" in industry, and asked them how to get the Government out of the mess. The proceedings were to be private: the public were not to know the extent of the mess. More than that, the recommendations or the Report of the "wise men" are still withheld from publication. The public, my Lords, who are the owners of the public transport system of this country, must not know what is wrong, or what the "wise men" advise; whether the Government have adopted their advice, or whether this pitiful scheme of so-called reorganisation is based on the advice of the "wise men" wholly, or partially or at all. I cannot think that the so-called reorganisation envisaged in the White Paper is based on the advice of able, competent and informed business men.
In the light of this scheme of reorganisation, I can understand the Government's keeping things dark. What is the scheme, if it can be so called? What does it set out to do? To abolish the Commission, the one unifying element in securing co-ordination and integration. That is to be abolished. Disintegration is to follow, as my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth said in his speech. And who, if you please, is to take its place?—the Minister. In paragraph 9 of the White Paper, it is stated:
"The activities of the British Transport Commission as at present constituted are so large and so diverse that it is virtually impossible to run them effectively as a single undertaking."
That may or may not be so, although there is no evidence that any one of the units of the Transport Commission's properties and activities suffered. But, if that be the case, how does it come about that the Minister will have the time and capacity to do what that paragraph states the British Transport Commission could not do? In any case, the British Transport Commission was free from political interference; the Minister, of course, will not be. He will settle policy. True, he will be advised, as we are told, by the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, which, as Lord Teynham and other speakers have said, will not enjoy any real independence because the Minister will be the chairman.
728
It strikes me, when one looks at the chart of organisation, that the idea of a Nationalised Transport Advisory Council was an afterthought and was put in after the arrangements had otherwise been settled. In any case, it will have no functions except to say "Yea" to the Chairman—namely, the Minister. We are told that the Minister will settle the problem of the future size and shape of the railway system; but, as one noble Lord has stated, he has already appointed a study group. It was appointed in October to do precisely that—to settle the future size and shape of the railway system. I refer noble Lords to the OFFICIAL REPORT of October 26, 1960, column 2365. But this duty is also given to the Railways Board. The end of paragraph 14 of the White Paper says:
" … the British Railways Board will be responsible for such matters as national staff and wage negotiations, overall control over finance and investment, policies for safety, training and research, and the determination of the future size and shape of the railway system."
So there are to be two bodies dealing with that one question. But that is not enough for these people who can really reorganise, for, in paragraph 7 of the White Paper, it says this:
"The practical test for the railways, as for other transport, is how far the users are prepared to pay economic prices for the services provided. Broadly, this will in the end settle the size and pattern of the railway system".
So it is going to settle itself, on the basis of economic prices for the services provided. Right through the White Paper this muddled thought, and equally muddled expression, prevails.
Now that, as a master-stroke, the Commission has been supplanted by the Minister and the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, which has no executive functions, one is entitled to inquire: Who initiates new developments? Which organisation is going to be the dynamic organisation, moving towards modernisation and development? It is now proposed to re-create as Boards the Executives which were abolished in 1953. The old Railway Executive now becomes the new Railways Board. Area Boards become Regional Boards. What profundity! What fundamental wisdom! The Minister of Transport, if he is responsible for this White Paper and this scheme, must be a genius. Before 1953 the Railway Executive, as part of the

729
Commission, was co-ordinating with the other activities of the Commission—the associated activities. It was always a part of the integrated structure. Under this precious scheme, the Railway Executive, as one of the Boards, is separate. It is isolated from other forms of transport. The position of British Railways is, in fact, worse off, so far as relationships and co-ordination with other transport facilities are concerned, whether publicly owned or privately owned, than were the railways in 1930.
In its leader of 30 January, The Times said this:
"Decentralisation is being carried too far. In many respects, there will be less integration than there was in the 1930s".
It went on to say:
"Of this plan two broad criticisms can be made. The first is that it may isolate the railways too much from other transport operations. The second is that the decentralisation proposed is unreal and even within the terms of the White Paper natural forces will tend as the years go by to bring about centralisation once again".
I wonder, my Lords, at what cost that slow process of repairing the disastrous mistakes and injuries to the nation's interests by the Tory Government will be carried out.
Then we are told that the Regional Boards are to be autonomous. But how can they be autonomous when the Area Boards are limited to an expenditure of £100,000 on any single proposal? The Commission itself is limited to an expenditure of £250,000. The Treasury have first to give consent. How can it be said that Area Boards are autonomous when they are limited in their expenditure to £100,000, and when the Commission, dealing with traffic receipts amounting to nearly £500 million a year, are limited to an expenditure of £250,000? Will the Under-Secretary say whether the Minister is to be under this limitation which the Select Committe stated, on the evidence given to it by the Commission, was the case?
On January 30 this year the Minister made great play that the British Railways Board would have the assets transferred to them, and of course the capital debt. What does that mean? It does not mean anything at all, because British Railways must conform to the policy which is to be settled by the Minister, not by an independent Commission. This is the
730
precious reorganisation scheme as regards structure. My Lords, it is a pretty sorry attempt to meet a condition for which the Government are wholly responsible. In these respects, where the proposals are of value, they are a return in fact, if not in appearance, to the structure of the Act of 1947. And where they are not, they are of little or no utility.
I come now to the finance of the proposals, into which, at this late hour, I do not propose to go in any detail. I join with other noble Lords who have expressed doubt as to whether the railways can within five years increase their net receipts by something in the region of £125 million. After all, a good deal of unjustified criticism is levelled at nationalised transport, and especially the railways, because of their deficit on operations. Practically every industrial country with a railway system finds that it is not paying. Eighteen months ago there was a deputation of chairmen of many of the railways in the United States to Washington asking for a subsidy because of the deficits being accumulated by their respective railways. The French Government are taking steps to co-ordinate road, rail and water transport and to fix freights on a basis which will make the most economic use of all transport. They propose to raise road freights in some cases where road transport is taking business away from the railways. When we come to West Germany we find that the number of vehicles to ply for hire or reward outside a 50-kilometre radius has been limited to the number in operation in 1958. Long-distance road and rail charges are fixed by statute to prevent harmful competition; and for some bulk traffic the charges are deliberately fixed to favour the railways.
It was stated by the Select Committee, and repeated by the Minister, that fares and charges in this country on the railways are, in real terms, lower than they were in 1938. If that be the case, it means that the railways have been giving a continuing subsidy to industry as regards freight charges. I think those circumstances should be borne in mind and remembered when the railway systems come under the criticism they do, most of it uninformed. So much for the so-called reorganisation. In my submission, my Lords, it will not achieve the putting of the railways on to a sound

731
basis. It is tinkering with the job. It transfers to the Minister the running of transport in this country. It plunges straight into the cockpit of politics and ministerial autocracy. The Minister will settle policy with the assistance of the National Advisory Council. In short, the National Advisory Council will "rubber stamp" the Minister's decisions.
I should now like to say a few words about the Victoria line. The Victoria line project was approved in 1949, eleven years ago. Powers were obtained from Parliament in 1955, six years ago. The powers for compulsory acquisition of land expire in December of this year. Renewed powers are being sought in the current Commission Bill. Experimental tunnelling is proceeding. In February, 1959—that is, ten years after—the Minister asked the London Travel Committee to report upon the value of the tube. They were asked to consider whether the £55 million which the Victoria line would cost would pay a better dividend were it spent on off-street parking or on some other project. In their Report, which they presented to the Minister in July, 1959, the Committee described it
"as essential to meet present and expected future demands for travel on the underground system."
They found it
"the most effective means of relieving the severe peak hour congestion on many of the present underground services."
They concluded that
"the construction of the line should be started as quickly as possible."
That was in February, 1959. On March 2, 1960, the Minister of Transport said that he was unable to make any statement. He was pressed again on March 23, and said:
"The scheme must be considered in the general context of the British Transport Commission's position."
The Minister was asked again, on November 25, 1960, when he expected to make a statement about the Victoria line, and he said that he could make no definite forecast. On March 1 of this year he gave a similar answer. Why the Minister cannot make up his mind with regard to this, I find it difficult to understand. Here is a project which would reduce bus traffic on the roads by about 2,000 bus trips a day—and a bus trip is
732
the double journey. It would cost £55 million, including the rolling stock. Had it been done in 1949, it would have cost £38 million. Its benefit to transport can be put in another way: namely, it is estimated that the line would have the transport potentiality of five new six-line motorways through the heart of London and out to the North-East. The cost of these new motorways would be vastly larger than the cost of the Tube. The cost of rehousing the displaced persons from the properties which would have to be demolished and of resiting the industries which would have to be moved would be vastly larger in total than the cost of the Tube, including rolling stock.
I have suggested that this project should be regarded as an underground road and should rank for grant on the basis of a Class 1 road—namely, 75 per cent. If that were done, we should find that the project would not only be of benefit to road congestion but would also be able to pay its way on the reduced capital expenditure arising from the gift of the grant.
Finally, may I refer to the pipelines, a new element of transport which is emerging in this country, as it has emerged and been adopted in other countries? It will have profound effects on our freight transport and on our social and economic life. It could be fairly stated to be revolutionary in its potential effects. We can see the situation in which pipelines might supplant railways in the way that the railways supplanted the canals. This would involve not only a loss of traffic for the railways but also a diminution of earning power of the railways, and the value of their assets would be rendered obsolescent or redundant in that measure.
On March 6, the Minister of Fuel and Power made a statement in another place and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for information on some points in that statement. I understand that some rough indication has been given to the noble Lord of the information on which I should like some clarification. What is the orderly development to which the Minister referred? Is it orderly by reference to what criteria—national planning, public interest or private interest? Who will be the planners and what will be the plan? Will it be a national one, or will it be a plan which is determined piece

733
by piece, until, of course, there is no plan? Are we going to repeat the mistakes of the past?
In his statement the Minister refers only to objections; provision is to be made for objectors to be heard. But supposing there are no objections, is there to be no inquiry? And is there to be orderly development but no control? What will be the incentives and terms upon which private ownership will be permitted? Or is private ownership to be combined, as would seem to be the case, with public control? If there is no compulsory purchase, what kind of control will exist in any case? Are the lines (and I regard this as being very important) to be the monopolies of the owners? Are they for the use of the owners only or are they to be of common use and become common carriers?
We may well be on the threshold of a great development in transport. Pipelines are not limited to the conveyance of liquids but can also be used for the transport of solids. If we are to have an integrated system of pipelines, it should also be integrated with our transport system. It should be regarded from the start as a part of national transport. It should be publicly owned and publicly operated. It is to be profoundly hoped that the Government will not dither with doctrinaire considerations and repeat the mess and muddle and tragedy of the replacement of the canals by the railways in the nineteenth century.
I hope that the noble Lord may be able to clarify the points I have indicated to him. This White Paper, which ought really to be a white sheet, is an attempt to cover up the results of this dismantling of the national transport system of the country and to piece together one or two pieces of the structure which they dismantled and destroyed. We hope that the time is not far distant when the winds of change, which are blowing in this country as well as elsewhere, may lead to the situation in which there will be in office a Government who will once again restore a proper system of socially owned, socially operated transport for the benefit of the people of this country.
9.41 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as has been said by other noble Lords, I am sure the House should be grateful to
734
my noble friend Lord Teynham for starting off this debate, which is coming towards its end; but because of the important nature of the subject we have been discussing and the many things that have been said in various ways, I am sorry to say that it is not coming quite so near to an end as your Lordships might perhaps think. I appreciate very much the way that my noble friend has welcomed the Government's proposals, by and large, as I do the way that other noble Lords behind me have done, too. I am glad that he raised and dealt with, I think quite effectively, the question of integration, to which I will come in a moment, because, while I greatly appreciate such a measure of approval as some noble Lords opposite were able to give, it seems to me that there is no doubt that what difference they find between us is based on a political concept rather than the more practical and realistic approach that we have been endeavouring to make. Quite frankly, the tone of speeches from noble Lords opposite has been political, with the notable exception of that of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whose admirable, well thought-out and interesting maiden speech we all enjoyed; and I hope that we shall hear him often in the future.
I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. I thought for a while that, with his great knowledge and expertise, both of which are extremely welcome in transport debates in this House (and I hope he will always take part in them, as no doubt he will, as well as others), he was going to speak purely, if I may so put it, as a railway-man. But I am afraid his political inclinations rather got the better of him in respect of a number of things that he said. To the extent of being highly political, this debate is very like the one in December; and in some ways it has gone so very like it that I almost began to think that one or two noble Lords, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, had rather forgotten what had been said in that debate. However, the noble Lord did not adduce any evidence to support any of his criticisms on any basis other than a political one. I think the

735
political approach of noble Lords opposite, which, in my view, is out-moded by events in the meantime, just will not do.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what the Government have been doing ever since they have been in office?
LORD LINDGREN: Politics.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It has been politics, dogmatism and a doctrinaire policy. Now they are getting to the culminating point. Why should the noble Lord be so superior about politics? Anybody would think that he was innocent.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be a little patient I will continue with my speech and, even if it puzzles him at the moment, he will find out exactly what I mean. That is precisely what I am saying: that noble Lords opposite are quite unable to approach this matter from any viewpoint but that of politics.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the noble Lord say that accepting money for political purposes from the Road Hauliers' Association is not a political purpose? The Tory Party accepted monies from the Road Haulage Association as a contribution to their political funds, as a result of which they gave them back road haulage.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am no expert on these things, and I will not deal with it myself, but I am not sure that the noble Lord is in order in saying that kind of thing. It sounds to me as if he is getting up and alleging bribery and corruption. That is what I understood him to say, and I think he should stand up again and repeat it clearly.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I do say that. And if it wants to be disproved, the Tory Party can do it by publishing their accounts. They are the only political Party who do not publish their accounts.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Except the Communist Party.
LORD CHESHAM: I feel quite shocked.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: You are sunk without trace.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if it were not for the noble Lord's not having been in this House very long. I would practically go so far as to say that I think that is probably the most disgraceful thing I have yet heard in your Lordships' House.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What about last week?
LORD CHESHAM: There is absolutely no foundation or evidence for what the noble Lord says. It is not a question of publishing accounts, or anything like that. The noble Lord has made a charge, which he says he can substantiate, of bribery and corruption by the Government. There let the matter stand, because I have a lot to talk about which is rather more relevant.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the noble Lord refer to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Mr. Hay, which referred to the close co-operation between the Government and the Road Hauliers' Association?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord considers that some form of bribery. I thought that the relationship between the various forms of transport and the Government was supposed to be a close one. I thought that was what noble Lords opposite rather liked. Otherwise, I do not know why we hear so much about integration, a subject about which I am going to talk now. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred to the pronouncement of transport experts of various kinds, and I have no doubt that he would regard the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, as a considerable expert in the matter. Unfortunately, the noble Lord was unable to be in his place, but he wrote a letter, which was published not long ago in Modern Transport, which I know has aroused a good deal of interest. He points out that integration envisages a large measure of common ownership of the various forms of transport. In fact it requires the placing in the hands of a central authority with a high degree of centralised control a very large part of our transport facilities. But how much might this common ownership or central

737
authority be? It does not seem that the Transport Act, 1947, could have provided enough.
More than one noble Lord opposite has complained bitterly that noble Lords on this side of the House blame the British Transport Commission for everything. That is not correct. Let us get it perfectly clear. We do not blame the B.T.C. for everything; we blame the Party of the noble Lords opposite for creating the B.T.C. in the circumstances in which they did. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, himself said that the Act did not include the C-licence vehicles; nor did it extend to private cars or any other means of private passenger transport. But it is just that private transport, including the C-licence vehicles, which offers the most effective and massive competition, particularly to the railways. Did those who advocated integration really believe that it could be secured without some material curb on these other forms of transport, without a lot of private cars being heavily controlled and the C-licence vehicles being nationalised as well? If they believe that, did they think that it was practical or realistic to expect that any such curb would be desirable or acceptable to public opinion?
The answer to that question must be, No. The fact is, that experience has shown that, given the scope of the Transport Act, 1947, it did not prove practicable to extend the control of the B.T.C. even as far as that Act envisaged. The fact is that the Commission did not have, nor have they ever had, control over sufficient part of the transport facilities of this country to effect integration, even if it were to be practicable or the right course to pursue—which we do not for a moment believe. Nor do we believe that it is sensible to expect that a central authority—whether it be the B.T.C. or anyone else—with monolithic control over the major part of our means of transport is best placed, or is able to decide how trade and industry and individuals should send their goods or travel and what, in the very many different and complicated and practical circumstances of day-to-day operation of trade and industry is the method best suited to individual needs. We do not believe it, my Lords.
I thought at first that the word "integration" was being avoided from the Benches opposite, but it came in
738
in the end. I do not believe that, as long as Lord Hurcomb is something like right about its meaning, the wind of change will blow many Governmental changes into the transport world for a good many years to come. But we think integration is wrong; we think it is irrelevant to the practical problems, and against the background of a reasonable freedom of choice for transport users we seek co-ordination, which is a very different thing, and for which my noble friend Lord Molson asked. As I have explained to your Lordships on more than one occasion, each form of transport should be in a position to attract the traffics most suited to it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, agreed with me, at least to a limited extent, that that was so.
The Government, in its control of public sector investment, should foster the development of all forms of transport by road, rail, sea, air and, very likely, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, by pipeline. They should foster it in the way which is most effective and most in the interests of the user and the national economy. It means, in short, bringing together, in an efficient and flexible relationship with each other, the different forms of transport, and not seeking to weld them altogether in one vast, great, rigid framework, which is unsuited to practical circumstances and the problems of the day.
LORD LATHAM: And to lose £500 million in the process.
LORD CHESHAM: That betrays a certain financial irresponsibility to which I shall return, but I will do that in due course, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made the remark that coordination which carries no clearly realised degree of common ownership is unlikely to be effective in practical application. The fallacy of that approach is the assumption that co-ordination can be achieved in practice only by direction from the top, under a huge and unwieldy structure of control which owns all the different forms of transport concerned. I do not think that is true, because co-ordination is achieved in two main ways. It is achieved through investment control, and through the co-ordination of operation. I must just touch on those. I agree that co-ordination of major policy and development

739
through investment control needs to be exercised centrally. This is a function in which the Minister will certainly be better placed than the B.T.C. has been, because it is his function to oversee a wider field going beyond the nationalised transport sector and, in particular, including roads. He has a broader view and a greater knowledge of the main factors to be taken into account. What is more, he is responsible to Parliament for the allocation of investment in this public transport sector.
The White Paper, in paragraph 28, says:
"… the Minister's main charge will be for overall co-ordination and for securing the general efficiency of the undertakings …"
While it is true that the broad co-ordination of investment and development must be from the top, the opportunities of operational co-ordination occur in day-to-day working and management. This is properly the responsibility and the result of efficient management. It does not require direction from the top in the same way as co-ordination through investment.
I should think that the most important example is the working arrangements between British Railways and London Transport, and not least important because they have been in existence over a large number of years, over a wide field of common concern. They were in operation long before the B.T.C. was established. I have no doubt, and the White Paper has no doubt either, that they will continue in that form. Effective co-ordination in operational matters can surely best be secured and developed by direct contact between the management concerned in the ordinary course. The nationalised transport undertakings are, after all, living in a competitive world which they do not dominate. Co-ordination between them has to take due account of whatever effect that may have on their competitive strength, and I am sure that their respective managements are best placed to make this judgment. I hope my noble friend Lord Bridgeman will not find anything in what I have said which contravenes his views on the matter.
There is one further aspect which has been referred to by a number of speakers, and that is that the Minister, in
740
exercising his co-ordinating functions, will have available the advice and help of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, before my noble friend goes on to that subject, may I ask him whether he would go a little further into what he has just been referring to? Under the Act of 1953, there were Area Transport Boards who were supposed to co-ordinate the different forms of transport in the regions. Under the proposals of the White Paper, their name will be changed into Regional Railway Boards. Having regard to the likelihood of the railway system being somewhat reduced, I should like to ask whether it will be a function of the Regional Railway Boards, or of some other kind of authority, to arrange for the substitution of some other kind of transport when any contraction takes place in the railway system.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I thought I had been fairly specific on what our view of co-ordination is. I do not know quite how much further my noble friend really expects me to go. I have traced the possibilities and desirability of co-ordination—at least I was just going to finish doing so—from my right honourable friend down to the Regional Boards, and I do not know what more I can offer at the moment.
LORD LINDGREN: We are, in fact, having closure of branch lines. There are supposed to be substituted bus services to take the traffic that originated in those areas. Who is to supervise that matter? Who is to arrange it, and where is the co-ordinating point?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will wait a little until I get a little further on in my speech. I have a great many things to say, and a number of these things will probably become more clear.
On the subject of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, it is just as well to bear in mind exactly what that title is, because there seems to have been some misapprehension about that. The Council will not only have the full knowledge and experience of the nationalised transport undertakings, but will also have, through its outside membership, a wider knowledge and experience of affairs generally. Perhaps I

741
may refer your Lordship to paragraph 30 of the White Paper, which explains what it is intended, or suggested, shall be the make-up of the Board. My noble friend, Lord Teynham inquired whether it was right that the Minister should be the Chairman of this Board; and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was doubtful about it. It seemed to be thought in some way that the fact that the Minister was Chairman of this Advisory Council somehow put him in a sort of pre-eminent position, so far as taking decisions and running the whole of the nationalised transport undertaking was concerned. But this will be an Advisory Council set up to advise the Minister.
It may be said that if there is a divergence of views on the Council it will mean that the Minister has to appeal to himself. But that is not so. He has to take the final decision anyway, arid if he has first-hand knowledge of what the Council has been talking about, I should have thought that will be a rather than a hindrance, in reaching his decision.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. It is a most curious set-up that there is an Advisory Council to advise the Minister, and the Minister is in the chair taking part in all the discussions of the Council. I can understand an Advisory Council in which there is no Minister and on which independent outsiders send their advice to the Minister. Then he is uncommitted; he is free. But if he is sitting in he is bound to say something; and knowing this Minister, I think that he will say a lot. Is this not an instrument of the Minister's will rather than an Advisory Council?
LORD CHESHAM: I do not see how it becomes an instrument if its function is advisory to the Minister.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, is not advice an instrument of mind?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, but not a very practical instrument. It does not convert the Council into having some executive function, which is what I am trying to explain.
I must come on to the White Paper proposals, because it seems to me that there has been so much curious misapprehension. I thought that some of
742
the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Lindgren, even allowing for a political slant, were rather curious, though not half so much so as the extraordinary misunderstandings and misconceptions which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Latham.
Starting from the point that the main defects which experience has shown exist in the structure of the British Transport Commission's organisation stem largely from those features of the 1947 Act which the Commission's organisation still bears, paragraph 9 of the White Paper says:
"The activities of the British Transport Commission as at present constituted are so large and so diverse that it is virtually impossible to run them effectively as a single undertaking."
British Railways, in particular, representing about three-quarters of the Commission's organisation, and responsible for the problems and the difficulties which overshadow the Commission's activities as a whole, have no authority with the single-minded task of running them.
LORD LATHAM: They did have before 1953; the Railway Executive ran the railways.
LORD CHESHAM: The House of Commons Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries picked up the point and they said:
"It cannot have helped to achieve efficiency in the higher direction of British Railways that there should have been no one authority whose only duty in the field of transport was to ensure an efficient system of railways".
LORD LATHAM: And now that authority is to be the Minister.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry to be going so slowly, but it is not entirely my fault.
LORD LINDGREN: What we should really like to know is this. After three years of operation, the British Transport Commission, under its structure of the 1947 Act, was making £8 million a year. Now, as a result of ten years of Toryism, it is making a loss of £70 million, and that is all due to the 1953 Act. The noble Lord is not answering that point.
LORD CHESHAM: For the second time, may I say that, if I am allowed to make my own speech in my own way, I shall come to that. Come to it I will.

743
Noble Lords are constantly interrupting me; I hope they will go on; I will willingly give way; I like to be courteous to the House. I am prepared to stay till one or two in the morning.
LORD LINDGREN: I am used to night work.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, some people are; it will surprise the noble Lord to know that we can do it. I am quite prepared, if that is what he wants. The proposals in the White Paper recognise the things I have been talking about, the lack of a single-minded authority and so on. They provide, in the Government's view, the right framework in which the co-ordination from the top can best be administered without what one might call blurring the responsibility or intervening in the ordinary processes of management and operation; and the working co-operation to be achieved in these processes. The White Paper proposals are also designed to overcome the main difficulties of the present organisation that I have just mentioned.
In separating the various major activities of the Commission, they recognise that there are two main kinds of activity. There are those which, by their very nature and the problems to which they give rise, need to be conducted by a statutory authority with the necessary statutory powers and duties. These are, of course, British Railways, London Transport, British Transport Docks, and Waterways. Each of these very large activities ought to have their separate statutory authority strictly designed for their particular needs and purposes, and equipped with the necessary powers and duties for their efficient conduct.
The other activities—the noble Lord listed them before—buses, road haulage, shipping services, Thomas Cook, hotels and so on, are, in fact, commercial undertakings. They do not require to be conducted by a statutory authority but in the Government's view, can best be operated, as commercial undertakings dependent upon their own commercial strength. They are therefore to be run as separate commercial companies under the Companies Act and grouped under the holding company. The holding company will not actively intervene in their management and operation but will, by advice and encouragement, ensure that
744
the right standards of operation and financial judgment are applied. I am sure it is in this way that these undertakings are likely to make the most effective use of, and get the best return from, the considerable public assets they will have in their charge.
The White Paper proposals therefore amount, in all, to the replacement of the present organisation by an entirely new structure, specially designed to provide those charged with the responsibility for conducting the various activities with the best opportunities to give of their own best. Each management will have a clearly defined task in a set field, and the authority as well as a clearly defined responsibility to carry it out. That is what is most important of all for the railways. They are so big, their problems are so severe and pressing, that it is essential that there should be a strong authority with the single-minded task of running them and bringing them on to a sound basis of operation. It is essential that they should be run as a national system—that is not in question. The railways are a single entity, and must be effectively conducted as one.
The setting up of a strong Board to tackle their problems will also provide the means and opportunities for an adequate devolution of authority to those who are charged with day-to-day operations. While the Railways Board must, of course, keep in its own hands those functions of prime importance to the railways as a whole, including of course, as I think has been mentioned, the national wage negotiations and the general responsibility of its position as employer of its staff, the British Railways Board will not seek or wish to do everything at the centre. If it is to be free to deal with the major problems that it will have, it will certainly need to be relieved of a good deal of the press of everyday operational affairs. Therefore, the Regional Boards are an important feature of the new organisation. It will be their job to translate into terms of regional operation the national policies of the British Railways Board. By their representation on that Board the Regional Boards will be able to bring to the formulation of the national policies the energy and experience which they will get from being in day-to-day and close contact with railway operations.

745
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said he found many of the proposals in the White Paper very vague. I am not particularly surprised, because the White Paper does not set out to be a blueprint in exact detail. The proposals are a broad outline of the new organisation and do not seek to cover all the details. In fact, a number of doors have been deliberately left open on the practical arrangements that have to be made. Some of those are matters of management and operation which do not require legislative provision and which will be primarily for the new Boards to work out. On the other hand, others will require consultation with the interested bodies and people. The Government propose to provide, in the course of preparing the Bill, opportunities for full consultation with the people mainly concerned.
The Commission are, of course, already in close and continuous consultation with the Department. They have publicly announced that they will fully co-operate with the Government in giving effect to the White Paper proposals, and this they are doing. As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, told us, the Minister has already started consultations with the trade unions. He tells us that they had what was, I believe, quite a long meeting the other day; and I understand that the Minister undertook to consider various points put to him, and the trade unions agreed to let the Minister have their views on certain other matters. No doubt there will be a number of other meetings to follow. The Minister attended a meeting of the National Production Advisory Council on Industry in February last and spoke to them. He asked them for their views, particularly about the size and composition of the Boards. After all, on that Council are represented all the main industrial interests.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I have not done so before. I am most grateful for what he has said. But my difficulty (and I think it is one of the difficulties which confronts the people in the industry) is to know whether action will be taken in relation to the White Paper arising out of those consultations—things are being left deliberately vague—or have we to wait until after the Bill is on the Statute Book?
LORD CHESHAM: May I just get that point right? Will action be taken in the sense of something physical happening, or looking ahead to decisions and plans? Which does the noble Lord mean?
LORD STONHAM: Of course, something can happen only after decisions have been taken. The noble Lord has said that the White Paper is vague—in other words, decisions have not been taken. What is going to happen, for example, about the Modernisation Plan between now and the time the White Paper is converted into an Act on the Statute Book?
LORD CHESHAM: As it happens, I was about to come on to that point. In the process of drafting the Bill it is the Government's intention to have extensive consultations with the people who should be brought into consultation and, as my noble friend Lord Merrivale advised us, certainly fresh consultations will be particularly necessary and likely to be helpful in regard to the composition of the Board. As preparations for the Bill proceed, the position of each new Board will be worked out with those most closely concerned. As the White Paper says, regard will be had to the special contribution which can be made by those with trade union experience.
My Lords, I should like now to turn for a moment to finance. I think it is true to say that the financial proposals in the White Paper have been generally welcomed and have had a largish measure of support in your Lordships' House today, not least from those who have had other points to make. Of course the financial provisions are an essential part of the proposals for reorganisation, and certainly the full benefits of one cannot be realised without the other. But they seem to me clearly set out in the White Paper and they are well understood, I think. Therefore, I do not think I need go into them at all except to make one or two points.
The first point is that figure of £1,600 million attributable to the railways. My noble friend Lord Teynham was rather worried about that figure, which he thought was wrong. But I know of no reason to query it. I think he should realise that that figure refers to the

747
capital liabilities and not to the value of the assets. It is not supposed to do that, and I think it is probably a perfectly fair figure to take for that purpose. Of that sum, only the £400 million, which is left "on the railways' plate", so to speak, can be accounted sound. That sum, my Lords, has all been invested since 1955, mainly in modernisation. A good deal of it, therefore, has perhaps not yet fully fructified, but it is reasonable to assume that that capital is capable of earning its keep. If you do not assume that—if you think otherwise—it throws a strong doubt on the process of modernisation as a whole, and I think it is perfectly reasonable that the railways should be expected to carry that burden.
The second point which I want to make about the £1,200 million, of which the railways are going to be relieved, is that this cannot disappear into thin air. It will fall squarely on the taxpayer, and the Treasury will take over responsibility for the existing British Transport stock. I am not sure, when you have considered those figures and the other figures of investment yet to come, plus any deficit grants, that you would be entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, about the roads enjoying preference over the railways. I do not think, however, we need argue that point out now, because I want to come on to the fact that the whole object of these measures is to give the railways a fresh start from a hopeful position. While they will certainly be faced with a formidable task to achieve solvency, they have at least the practical hope, and I trust the resolution, to attain it.
My Lords, we know that the task is formidable, and we know that the drastic reduction in their immediate capital debt will not of itself be enough to enable the railways to carry on. More still will be required from the Exchequer to meet the deficits likely to occur over the next two, three, four or five years, or whatever the period may be.
There seems to be a feeling that perhaps the Government are being a little over-optimistic in this matter. Well, we shall have to see; but we will try our best to make it work. It is certainly no use writing off past deficits if you allow others to pile up straight away.
748
I do not want to argue with anybody about whether my right honourable friend is or is not anti-railway, but I should not think it easy to accuse anybody who has taken the kind of action I have been talking about, and which we have been discussing, of being anti-railway. But he certainly is also protaxpayer, and he fully realises the burden which the taxpayer will have to take over. That is why it is so important to overcome the present difficulties in the structure of the nationalised transport undertakings, and to put them in the best position to make the best use of the very considerable public assets in their charge, so as to give real value for money.
If the railways are to have a fair chance of achieving their targets, they must be given as free a hand as practicable to conduct their commercial operations on a commercial basis. Why the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, felt so strongly that the Government had busily prevented that for a long time I could not understand; but perhaps we shall not mind that, either, because only in the London Passenger Transport Area will it be necessary to have a statutory control; otherwise, as paragraph 57 in the White Paper says, the railways will be free to fix their own prices. But it will be no good giving them freedom to fix their own prices, unless they exercise that freedom—or so it seems to me. Railway fares in general have lagged behind both railway costs and the general movement of prices.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord will allow me, to intervene, I said that surely he knows that the railways have not been free to fix prices and freight rates—indeed, the Government have deliberately thought fit to prevent them from raising their freight rates. They have not been free and that has contributed to their losses.
LORD CHESHAM: Perhaps I expressed myself badly. What I meant to say was that I thought it was rather odd that it came from him. Perhaps if he were criticising such an activity, it would probably be the pot calling the kettle black.
LORD STONHAM: I never introduce politics into these things.
LORD CHESHAM: That is what I meant. I am sorry—perhaps I should not have taken the point up at all. It is no good the railways having freedom to fix their own charges unless they exercise that freedom. And it seems to me that they will need to have a pretty purposeful kind of fares policy to ensure that they can reap the reward for the commercial freedom they get, and see that it makes its due contribution towards improving railway revenues and towards solvency. At the same time, I think the public should get a better deal out of it all round.
This brings up, as has been mentioned, the question of coastal shipping. The statutory restrictions which have been imposed on the railways in the interests of coastal shipping are, of course, a limitation in the way that I have been discussing. I am quite aware of the problems, as I think my noble friend knows, and we are now considering them most seriously, as I think is also generally known. The General Council of British Shipping have submitted a memorandum giving the views of the various shipping interests, and consultations are taking place with them.
My Lords, I have said that the proposals in the White Paper are not the whole picture. They cover those matters on which legislation will be mainly required. They are, indeed, no more than the first essential steps in the long haul to get the nationalised transport undertakings, particularly the railways, on to a sound basis.
Now I am going to turn to modernisation. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, complained first—though not very strongly—that there was very little about modernisation in the White Paper. I do not think that is particularly unreasonable, because the White Paper, after all, is entitled Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings. I do not see why lie should expect to find a great deal about modernisation, in view of what the White Paper set out to do.
But, my Lords, what I think was a little more serious were the complaints made about interference by the Government and "messing about". The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, told us that the railways were in a very bad state in 1939. He admitted, rather reluctantly, if I may say so, that the war must also have had
750
an effect on them. But, my Lords, there was a time, as he also said, when the B.T.C., as a whole, made a profit—not a vast one, but a profit. I ask: How in the world could the Party of the noble Lords opposite, had they been in power, have carried on the operation unless they had done the same kind of thing—provided vast sums of money for modernisation? The noble Lord tells us that, for one reason or another about which we need not argue (we could, but we need not), they were unable to improve the railways much in the first years after the war. How can it be claimed that if certain things had not been done the position today would have been very different? The noble Lord may claim that, but it is difficult to argue these matters on a hypothetical basis. It might be that. British Road Services, if they were reconstituted, might have operated at a profit of £10 million; but that would not have gone very far against the £100 million a year deficit with which we are now faced. Perhaps I am in some way wrong about this.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the difference has gone to the road hauliers, who picked up the traffic previously carried by British Railways. That was the intention of the 1953 Act and that is where that has gone.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am very surprised to hear that, and I should think that the road hauliers would be shattered. But never mind: I must get on with the modernisation aspect, because I know that wants talking about. What exactly has happened in regard to that? In 1960, it became clear that the financial forecasts associated with the modernisation proposals were unlikely to be realised. That resulted from the re-appraisal. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, rather complained that the reappraisal was some covert kind of action on the part of the Government, but it was the British Transport Commission who carried out the re-appraisal and it had nothing to do with the Government.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, did the Government ask for it to be done?
LORD CHESHAM: It may well be that they did. I cannot remember; but I do not see that it makes the slightest difference.
LORD LATHAM: It qualifies the noble Lord's statement.
LORD CHESHAM: The re-appraisal was by the British Transport Commission, and surely it was the organisation looking at themselves. I do not think that that was any queer kind of action on the part of the Government. Indeed, in view of what was seen, if it did result from Government action, then I should have thought it was a jolly good result.
LORD LATHAM: But it was done at the request of the Government. Is that it?
LORD CHESHAM: I do not see that it makes any difference, whether it was or not.
LORD LATHAM: But that is not an answer to a plain question.
LORD CHESHAM: I thought I had already said I could not remember off-hand whether the re-appraisal was made at the request of the Government. But I have said I do not see that that made any difference, because it was a question of the organisation looking at themselves.
LORD LATHAM: We must be content with that inadequacy.
LORD CHESHAM: I could answer that, but I will not, for the hour is too late. What the Government then did—and here I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, was a little less than just, at any rate in the words he used—was to institute, in agreement with the Commission, a scrutiny of all investment projects costing over a quarter of a million pounds. The noble Lord rather implied that the Commission were limited to that amount. They were limited to spending more than that without reference, but there was no reason for it not to be spent with consent, and I do not think that that can fairly be described as a limitation. In any case, and by any standards, a quarter of a million pounds on an individual scheme is quite a lot of anybody's money.
There was also agreement on the rate of investment while modernisation was being looked at again. But even with that pause the allocation to the railways for 1961 was fixed at £140 million, as noble Lords know; and that is 8 per cent. of the total investment in the whole of the public sector. Perhaps that should
752
not really be described as a halt to modernisation. The measures taken were no more than any prudent banker would take with his client—and were benign also, because the position in regard to the rate of investment did not stop work from going ahead under the procedure for scrutinising major projects. Work went ahead on 70 such projects costing £140 million which were already well advanced or whose justification was self-evident, or where essential replacement was involved. Little or no delay could have been caused to any such projects. Other projects were re-examined individually and work on them has proceeded where there were existing contracts. Indeed, I believe I am perfectly right in saying that no contracts have been cancelled.
Your Lordships already know about the London-Midland electrification scheme, the total cost of which is £175 million—which is rather more than was thought by my noble friend, Lord Wolverton. I believe I have spoken of the next part, from Crewe to London, for which the figure, I think, is £130 million. My noble friend, Lord Merrivale, made a point which I did not think was entirely fair. He spoke of taking two years longer, implying that sometimes there were delays when in fact, as he rather suggested, it was a question of extra work being brought into the original scheme.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I think it was mentioned by the noble Lord, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that the plan for this electrification scheme was delayed by two years. One of the reasons was it was decided to rebuild Euston Station; and that was what I said.
LORD CHESHAM: It is merely a question of words, and I am afraid we are rather falling over them tonight. I should have thought "extended" would have been the right word. It has been said, too, that because my right honourable friend has not so far been able to fix the investment allocation for the railways for the period beyond January, 1961, they will be hampered in placing orders for rolling stock and locomotives. In fact, expenditure during 1961 on programmes for freight stock amounted to over £14 million, and for passenger stock, over £17 million, has been agreed.

753
The situation with regard to locomotives is a little different. The Commission's 1961 programme costing £46 million was already in hand before the pause occurred, and orders for nearly £24 million worth of locomotives have been placed for 1962. The Ministry have co-operated with the Commission in examining proposals for batches of locomotives before the full programme is available and in agreeing to the ordering of materials in advance. It is always open to the Commission to put proposals to my right honourable friend for expenditure in advance of the settlement of investment allocations for a particular year, and that they do.
My noble friend Lord Auckland made some mild criticisms, as did my noble friend Lord Merrivale, about forward planning and budgeting. My right honourable friend is anxious to make investment allocations to the Commission for a period longer than one year. His aim has been for the Commission to produce a firm programme, properly phased, indicating priorities of expenditure in relation to modernisation plans as a whole and in relation to any changes that may take place in social and industrial patterns that would affect the matter. It is for this very purpose that the Commission produced a set of proposals relating to the proposed expenditure on the railway modernisation over the next four years. Those proposals were received on, I believe, December 19, and are under discussion with the Commission. The task is a considerable one, and involves a good deal of money. It will necessarily take some time to complete. I quite appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale that the earlier some decision can be announced the better, but at the present moment it is not possible for me to say when something may be announced.
My Lords, to sum up, modernisation must, and will, go on; but it must be worth it. These are the means by which the Government will seek to discharge their obligations both to the railways and to the taxpayer, to ensure that the large, though still limited, funds available for investment in modernisation are channelled into the right parts of the railway system, so that we can work towards a modernised system of the right size and shape.
754
I have been going on for a very long time, I am afraid, but I must come to the "64,000 dollar question", as it is nowadays called, and that is, the size and shape of the railways for the future. We know that the present size and shape is unsuited to modern circumstances. The railways were laid out in the last century, in a very different set of circumstances from those obtaining to-day. The system has to become more compact, and there has to be a purposeful process to achieve it. It must be done to give railwaymen the best chances of efficient and profitable operation, and to enable effort and modernisation to be centred on those operations which the railways can do best. But the real point is this: that the size and the shape of the railways for the future cannot be settled as a blueprint in complete detail at any given moment of time. We are not starting with a clean slate—it would be very much easier if we were. We have to face the fact that the present railway system is an existing and extensive organisation with a long history and is built into our economic and social set-up.
Whilst the process of making the railways more compact must be purposeful, it must also be evolutionary: and, by one means or another, we must pick out what to modernise and what not; what to keep and what not to keep. Rationalisation is very much bound up with this question, and, in the process of rationalising them and making them more compact, modernisation will obviously have to be guided in those directions which will give the best value for money. It must be applied to those operations of the system which have the greatest contribution to make to the future rôle of the railways and their struggle for viability.
The question I have been talking about, the determination of the size and shape of the railway system of the future, cannot be on the basis of a once-and-for-all decision, but must be on the basis of an evolutionary process in which the Minister, through his investment control; the Railways Board, in their effort to modernise the railways, both in layout and shape, as well as in techniques and equipment, and in their struggle for economic viability; and the transport user, in what he is prepared to pay for the railway services and the use he makes of them, will all have a part to play.

755
My Lords, I have been speaking for a very long time, and I am aware that there are a number of points that noble Lords have raised to which I have not yet referred—the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and his pipelines, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his Scottish points. But I really think that many of the points are matters which will be for consideration when the reorganisation comes into being, or by the B.T.C. in the meantime—and some, indeed, emphasised the need for reorganisation. As it is rather late, I should like, if I may, to consider a number of these points, and to write to noble Lords about them, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Latham.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I appreciate the point he has made. He has been speaking for a long time, and it must be wearying; but I wonder if he can answer me now, and, if not, write, on the point whether administrative, executive action is being taken in anticipation of legislative power coming later on.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not quite sure how to answer that properly. Would the noble Lord say the first part again?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes. The first part, which I think the noble Lord wants, is: how far is administrative, executive action being taken in advance of legislative authority, if at all?
LORD CHESHAM: With regard to reorganisation of the structure?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: With regard to the White Paper.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes. So far as I am aware, it is not being taken. I have been explaining that there would have to be consultations, and so on, as the legislation is prepared, and these consultations will enable the detail to become clearer. As far as I am aware these have now started, and the process will no doubt become more obvious as the discussions continue.
My Lords, I should like to finish by assuring your Lordships that what has been said to-day on all sides of the House will be studied with the greatest attention. The views that your Lordships have
756
expressed will be most useful and most welcome in the many and difficult and complicated considerations that lie ahead. I want to give your Lordships this final assurance: that the fact that they are many and difficult and complicated will in no way deflect Her Majesty's Government from their determination to achieve a successful outcome from the proposed reorganisation—a determination of which, I think I may judge, your Lordships largely approve.
10.47 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that we have had a full and interesting debate on this very complex subject of transport. I think the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has covered most of the points very well indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has chided the Government with "messing about" with transport. I would say it is a very good thing to take a second look when you are going to have a very big reorganisation. He also said that the Conservative Party have destroyed integration. As I maintained in my speech, we have never had integration. You cannot have integration except in a Communist State. I think we had a very valuable speech from the noble Lord. I will not detain the House any longer, but I hope we shall hear from him again.
I was also much interested in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, with his working knowledge of the railway industry; but I cannot follow him in his statement that the railway system was in a very poor state before the war. If it had been, it would never have lasted the war out. I must also differ, I am afraid, from the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his statement that road users pay little for the roads. I would say that, on the contrary, they pay a great deal. They pay a very large sum every year in road taxes and road licences, and they also pay a heavy fuel tax. Incidentally, the railways, with their diesel oil, pay no tax at all on their fuel. My Lords, I do not want to keep the House any longer this evening. I think we have had a very good debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.