Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Orders of the Day — National Health Service Contributions Bill

– in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 6th June 1957.

Alert me about debates like this

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queens Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. —[Mr. Vosper.]

4.45 p.m.

Photo of Mr Jack Browne Mr Jack Browne , Glasgow Craigton

I think it is appropriate that the voice of Scotland should be heard in support of this Bill before it leaves the House. This is a Great Britain Measure, agreed at every step with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There are no Scottish Clauses and there is no special Scottish implication.

Only yesterday the House completed a Scottish Bill of vital importance and interest to the Scottish people alone. I am sure that the House will agree that it was more in Scotland's interests that as Minister concerned directly in both Bills I was right to concentrate my efforts on the purely Scottish Bill and to leave this important Great Britain Measure to the expert guidance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is best fitted to speak for Great Britain as a whole. I have read all the speeches made on both sides of the House, both in Committee of Ways and Means and on all previous stages of the Bill.

The basic issue is simple to state and not so simple to solve. The cost of this great service of which the nation is so proud has been rising steeply from its initial figure, which exceeded the original estimates of the planners upon whose plans the conception of the National Health Service was based. Since then, year by year, an ever-increasing cost has been met by the nation as taxpayers and, to some extent, by increased charges.

Should we call a halt in this steady expansion when there is still so much to be done? If not, who is to meet the increase in this unexpectedly heavy burden now carried by us all—as taxpayers to the extent of 80 per cent., as stamp payers to the extent of 5·8 per cent., and as patients who pay for making use of the service to the extent of 5·5 per cent.?

Of course, the National Health Service must be maintained. The differences of opinion between us are not about whether we should maintain and advance the Service, but how we should do so. I think we have taken the best course in bringing, as the Bill does, our share as taxpayers of this ever-increasing burden down from 80 per cent. to 74 per cent. and our share as stamp payers up from about 6 per cent. to 11½ per cent. and, therefore, more in line with the share of the total cost borne by the stamp payers in the first year of operation of the Service.

To me the reasons for supporting the policy of the Bill are overwhelming. They are, first, that the nation accepted the principle of a flat-rate contribution when the scheme was inaugurated and we are not breaking fresh ground. Secondly, the original division of the burden between taxpayer and contributor has slipped in favour of the contributor. Thirdly, there has been a substantial increase in the wages and earnings of contributors since the contributions were first fixed. Fourthly, we all accept the fact that additional money has to be found and that the alternatives to increasing the stamps could only be either the payment by the taxpayer of more than was considered his fair share, or a greater payment by the patients in the form of increased or new charges, or diminished service. We badly need a better appreciation by the public of the facts about the National Health Service, and that will to some extent be achieved by separating the contributions.

Then there is the disallowance of the health contributions as an expense for Income Tax purposes. It could have been done before and perhaps it should have been done.

In the current year we estimate that we shall be spending £690 million on the National Health Service, of which Scotland's share will be £73 million. Does that huge sum represent a continuation of the trend pointed out by the Guillebaud Committee, the trend that over the years the National Health Service was receiving an ever-diminishing slice of the national cake? Let me give the House the figures. They are compiled on the same general basis as those used by the Guillebaud Committee, but they are United Kingdom figures and not figures for England and Wales which the Guillebaud Committee used. Unlike the Guillebaud Committee they are based on calendar years.

In 1950, the cost to the public funds of the National Health Service current expenditure as a percentage of the gross national product was 3·85 per cent. By 1954, the last year touched on by the Guillebaud Committee, it was down to 3·17 per cent. In 1955 it had risen to 3·25 per cent. and in 1956 it was 3·33 per cent.; so the trend has reversed in the last two years

In spite of that, some hon. Members felt, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, on 20th May: The fact is that, although we have been spending more money, we have had no extension of the Service in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 964.] I am sorry the hon. Member is not present. As the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) knows, that is not true.

The number of hospital beds in Scotland rose from over 61,000 in 1953 to over 63,000 in 1956, an increase of almost 2,000. That compares with an increase of about 4,000 in England and Wales where the figures were over 478,000 in 1953 and over 482,000 in 1956. Again, comparing Scotland favourably with England, the number of new out-patients in Scotland rose from 1·8 million in 1953 to 2·2 million in 1956, an increase of 400,000. That compares with the figure of only 200,000 in England and Wales—6·7 million in 1953 and 6·9 million in 1956.

Finally, as an example of how increased expenditure has more than overtaken rising costs, I quote the Great Britain figures for expenditure on hospital buildings, in which Scotland has shared proportionately. Up to 1955–56 the average figure was just over £12 million; in 1956–57 the figure was just over £15½ million; but for 1957–58 the estimate is nearly £21 million. These last figures obviously show a real increase in the amount of work being done.

This Bill enables the nation to carry forward its plans for the expansion and improvement of the National Health Service without adding yet another tax burden to the heaviest taxed people in the world. It is a wise Measure, and I commend it to the House.

4.54 p.m.

Photo of Mr William Griffiths Mr William Griffiths , Manchester Exchange

I was interested in what the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was telling the House about the increased expenditure having in real terms outstripped rising prices. For a long time I have suspected that the Government, and the various Ministers of Health who have been in office since 1951, have been trying desperately to conceal the reality of the situation, which, in my view, is that the effect of their policies has been to produce a real reduction in the Service. I believe that the Bill is simply a means of shifting, within the existing financial ceiling, a proportion of the burden from the taxpayer to the individual in terms of a poll tax. That is something which hon. Members on this side of the House have objected to at all stages.

The Bill does nothing at all to meet the situation in which the services are being reduced. In considering the various arguments to which we have listened during earlier discussions, I read a speech by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in support of the Bill. He said: I do not think that there is a single major resource or amenity connected with it"— that is, with the National Health Service— which is not more plentifully supplied by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues now than at any time since the war. The hon. Gentleman went on: There are now more real resources for the Health Service—for example, more nurses, more beds, more doctors, more health visitors, more district nurses and more midwives."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 1048.] That is the argument we have heard throughout the discussions on the Bill. In Yorkshire—

Photo of Sir Keith Joseph Sir Keith Joseph , Leeds North East

Does the hon. Gentleman deny those facts which he has quoted from my speech?

Photo of Mr William Griffiths Mr William Griffiths , Manchester Exchange

Certainly. The hon. Member will realise that I chose a portion of his speech which is to my advantage, and of course I deny them.

I was about to say, though it may be the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, that it is not so in my case. It is exactly contrary in Yorkshire and the area presided over by the Manchester Regional Hospital Board. That is why I said during earlier discussions, and I say it again now, that it is an impertinence to ask my constituents and the people of Manchester, employers and employed alike, to make a higher contribution—through their National Insurance payments specifically reserved for National Health Service expenditure—for a Service which is, in fact, contracting.

If the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East doubts that it is contracting, I will tell him what is happening in Manchester. Would he be surprised to hear, for example, that at this moment the matrons of two Manchester hospitals have been told to engage no more nurses—though the hospitals are below establishment— because their wages cannot be met? One hospital management committee is currently obliged to consider—unless the Minister can find a remedy by providing the board with more cash—whether wards will have to be closed in a series of hospitals, including a most important cancer hospital. The chest clinic at the T.B. hospital, the casualty department at Wythenshawe hospital—I gladly name the hospital—and a series of wards are closing down.

I give the Minister fair warning that during the Whitsun Recess hon. Members on this side of the House who represent constituencies in various parts of the country—certainly that will include my own constituency—propose to examine this question in more detail. We shall appeal to those of our friends who have been working in hospital administration for the past few years to supply us with information so that we may come back to the House with specific and detailed examples to put before the Minister, and thereby confound the arguments advanced —I am sure in all sincerity—by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and the Minister, week by week and month by month, in an effort to preserve the idea that the services are expanding whereas, in fact, they are diminishing.

Photo of Sir Keith Joseph Sir Keith Joseph , Leeds North East

I do not deny the statistics for Manchester, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not deny my statistics generally, because I can back them up in every detail. They are absolutely true for the whole national scene. I may be wrong in one resource, but I say that all the major resources of the National Health Service are more plentifully supplied now than they were in the past. Does the hon. Gentleman ask us to believe that because Manchester has an absolutely splendid university, and therefore draws more from the taxpayers by way of the University Grants Committee, which we all welcome, its taxpayers and citizens should pay more taxation than a city which does not have a university? Surely, we have a "postalisation" of the social service charges in this country, so that payments, to the extent that they are by contribution, are spread evenly, and each area and service has to contend with the Minister for a fair share of those charges?

Photo of Mr William Griffiths Mr William Griffiths , Manchester Exchange

Naturally, I relate my argument to the part of the country which I know best, but I will give the hon. Gentleman this assurance. I will get my colleagues who have the honour to represent other parts of the City of Leeds, part of which the hon. Gentleman also represents, to examine the situation there. If there is an improvement in Leeds, we shall see and, if there is, all we can say is that the Ministry in its allocations to the various regional boards has, in some way, discriminated against the City of Manchester.

In any case, I say that what is now proposed by the Minister of Health does not in any way meet the position. The right hon. Gentleman is simply juggling about within the existing total expenditure. It is my case that this total sum, which we were told on Second Reading by the Minister exceeds that for 1949–50 in real terms by about £51 million, is completely inadequate not only to expand the service, but even to maintain it at its present level. I assure the Minister, despite all the denials of his right hon. and hon. Friends, that we shall return to this subject after the Recess week after week at Question Time to seek to extract from him the facts by giving him a whole catalogue of hospitals in detail in regard to the number of beds, the staff position and expenditure. I am confident that the results of our inquiries will substantiate the case made by my hon. Friends and myself.

In conclusion, I say again that, despite all this juggling about within the total sum of expenditure, the Government will shortly be faced with a position in which they will be seeing all over the country a breakdown of the existing hospital services which will not be maintained at their present level. They will have to come back to the House with better proposals than they are putting before us at the moment. If they believe that a greater proportion of the financial burden of maintaining the Health Service should be transferred to the contributor through insurance contributions, let them come to the House and argue that, but, whatever they do and whatever happens in these next few weeks and months, I am convinced that the present sum earmarked for the service will clearly be proved to us in the near future to be totally inadequate to maintain the Service at its existing level.

5.3 p.m.

Photo of Miss Peggy Herbison Miss Peggy Herbison , Lanarkshire North

I was rather interested in finding at this late stage of the Bill that one of the three Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland made the short opening speech. He said that it seemed much better when we were dealing in Committee with a purely Scottish Bill that he should give his attention to it and leave his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to cope with this Bill right up to the last minute. Surely, that is no reason for a Scottish Minister having taken no part in the Second Reading or Committee stage of the Bill?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State is not the only Scottish Minister responsible for health and housing matters in Scotland. There is also the Secretary of State himself. The Joint Under-Secretary cannot tell us that the Secretary of State was so involved with the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill that he could not give any attention to this Bill, because he knows in very truth that the Secretary of State had little or nothing to do with the Housing Bill from Second Reading to Third Reading. It was on the Committee stage that the excuse was given that he was so busy with this Bill.

Photo of Mr Gordon Touche Mr Gordon Touche , Dorking

I am sure that we cannot discuss the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Photo of Miss Peggy Herbison Miss Peggy Herbison , Lanarkshire North

I was only trying to illustrate a point. The Joint Under-Secretary had tried to excuse the fact that no Scottish Minister had taken part in the debate on this Bill before today, and the reason which he gave for saying that no Scottish Minister had taken part was that the Scottish Ministers were busy with a purely Scottish Housing Bill. I am trying to show—and, with all due respect. I think I am right in dealing with this point—that not all the Scottish Ministers were involved with the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill. This Bill is so important for Scotland, as well as for England and Wales, that I think we should have had a Scottish Minister present during part of the debate on it.

Photo of Mr Jack Browne Mr Jack Browne , Glasgow Craigton

If the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will do me the honour of reading what I said in winding up the Third Reading debate on the Scottish Housing Bill yesterday, she will find that I explained the position of my right hon. Friend quite clearly. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that my right hon. Friend's first duty is to Scotland, and these are very wide and very onerous duties. It would not have been right, in the interests of Scotland, for him to have sat in at various stages of this Bill when it is a purely United Kingdom Measure and when it has been so competently handled by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Photo of Miss Peggy Herbison Miss Peggy Herbison , Lanarkshire North

That answer is most inadequate. On an important Bill last night, the Joint Under-Secretary gave excuses why the Secretary of State had not played his full part in it, and on this Measure today he tries to fob us off with the same excuse. The Scottish Office has two extra Ministers under a Tory Government, and yet we find that the Secretary of State and other Ministers are leaving important work affecting Scotland to be done, not by Scottish Ministers at all, but by Ministers for England and Wales. However, that is all I have to say about it.

Today, we see no reason at all for the provisions in the Bill. We gave our reasons for opposing it on Second Reading, when we tried to amend what was a very bad Bill to make it less bad, but the Government refused to accept those Amendments. The Joint Under-Secretary on at least two occasions today has stressed the cost to the taxpayer of the National Health Service. He told us today at the beginning of his short brief that the cost had been rising steeply year after year, and that it was an ever increasing cost to the taxpayer. Near the end of his speech, he told us that without this Bill we could not have the expansion and improvement of the Service without adding an extra burden to the most heavily-taxed people in the world.

I know that in some nations people would rather have a National Health Service through taxation than the manner in which they get it at the present time. When one considers taxation in a country, one has also to consider at the same time what that taxation covers for individual members in each community. To turn only to the United States of America, how much better placed the majority of people there would be if the Health Service cost were met by taxation rather than by family after family finding, as they do now, that they are ruined if serious illness comes to their homes.

When we are talking about the burden of taxation, we ought to look to see what this taxation provides. I say again to the Joint Under-Secretary that if the main reason for these extra charges—and that was the whole tenor of his speech—was to be able to make cuts in taxation, it is important that we should turn to the Budget. I said on Second Reading that this was a matter for the Budget and not for a special Bill. The people who might have been relieved by cuts in taxation did not get them. This extra burden is placed on the very people who received no relief of taxation at all under the last Budget whereas the Surtax payers, who did not need the relief, received it. One cannot examine the Bill on Third Reading without putting side by side with its provisions those Budget provisions.

The Joint Under-Secretary quoted figures showing what part of the national gross product was going to the National Health Service. He told us that in 1950—this is for the whole of the United Kingdom—it was 3·85 per cent., that by 1954 it was down to 3·17 per cent. and that last year it was 3·33 per cent., still ·5 per cent. below what it was in 1950. An hon. Member opposite whispers to one of his hon. Friends that it is coming up. But it still has not come up to the figure at which it stood in 1950 when no consideration at all was given to raising the contribution.

Another point made by the Minister in his opening speech today was that there had been wage rises. We have had that from the Minister of Health himself. But, again, one must put against those wage rises the increase in the cost of living and the increased contributions that have had to be paid for other purposes, to meet increased benefits, much of them due to the rise in the cost of living and all wholly due to the policy of this Government. By their failure to do anything about inflation the Government have created difficulty after difficulty for the lowest wage earner in the country who is going to be the person most penalised by the Bill.

It is because we feel so strongly on these matters that we are going to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. Neither the Minister of Health nor the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has attempted to argue that the extra contribution is going to be used this year to provide greater benefits. The Joint Under-Secretary gave us some figures. He told us about the increase in the number of new out-patients. He did not tell us about increased facilities for out-patients. I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman was trying to prove by those figures. Was he trying to prove that there were increased facilities, or was it just that more of our people were ill and that therefore these services were used to a greater extent?

When the hon. Gentleman makes a statement of that kind he ought to tell us what he is trying to prove by it. Nothing has been said at any stage of the Bill to the effect that the extra contribution to be paid will provide extra benefits and extra facilities under the National Health Service. It is a mean poll tax placed particularly on the shoulders of those least able to bear it. We know that it has been done simply to better the position of the Surtax payers, and we say quite clearly to the Government that there are many people—some of my own friends are among them—who would far rather be taxed in order to ensure that all our people, particularly those who are less able to care for them- selves, are properly cared for. The Bill is part and parcel of the Tory philosophy, and we object to it most strongly.

5.14 p.m.

Photo of Dr Dickson Mabon Dr Dickson Mabon , Greenock

I may be infringing on some understanding between the two Front Benches, but I want briefly in the few minutes that I propose to speak to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in regard to the handling of the Bill by the Scottish Ministers. Not till well on in the process of the Bill through its various Parliamentary stages did we see hair or hide of any of the Scottish Ministers. Indeed, I commented at one stage that, in some regards, it might be just as wise for us to deal with the Minister of Health.

The intervention by the Joint Under-Secretary during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North urges me to make this point quite straight to him. I strongly object to the idea that the National Health Service in Scotland merely tags along behind the National Health Service in England and that it is desirable for the English and Welsh Minister, some time or other, to handle the affairs of the Scottish Health Service. If it were true that the principles and the administration of the Service are the same throughout the United Kingdom, as one would assume from the comments of the hon. Gentleman, then one wonders why there was ever a separate Act of Parliament in respect of the Service for Scotland.

As we know, the principles in both countries are appreciably different, and the practice can be substantially different. We in Scotland are very proud of the fact that we have variations compared with the English practice in different fields. Though they may sometimes not be in advance of the English practice in social administration in certain respects, they are certainly very much in advance of it in other respects. It is certainly true that in health matters we in Scotland, with our proud medical traditions, could and should be well ahead of England in Health Service practice.

I certainly think that in a Bill of this sort we should have heard something before today from the Secretary of State or the Joint Under-Secretary regarding the administration of the Bill in relation to Scotland. I do not think that we can accept the doctrine that the Joint Under-Secretary can simply shuffle on to the Minister of Health the responsibilities of Scotland in regard to the Bill or in regard to the administration of the Service in Scotland as a whole. We have seen that happen in recent negotiations with the British Medical Association, although. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I know that is quite outside the scope of the Bill. There, too, we have seen Scottish affairs handled in the same way as they are being handled under the Bill. My comments are not strictures born of party prejudice; they are engendered by a great deal of concern in this House about the Scottish Health Service.

I do not like the Bill. I think that it is all wrong. Although hon. Members opposite may disagree with the views expressed on this side of the House, I think they ought to understand why we disagree with them. They ought to give us the credit of realising that many on this side of the House object to the contributory element being expanded. We object also to it being made a principle of the method by which this social service is financed.

I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will credit us with believing these things and will understand why we stated our previous objections to the Bill so clearly. To say, as the Minister has, that the present Tory Government by behaving in conformity with the past Labour Government are thereby discharging their social obligations is to my mind a false argument and one which cannot stand the test of time.

5.20 p.m.

Photo of Mr Dennis Vosper Mr Dennis Vosper , Runcorn

It will be remembered that on 20th May this House attempted to give the Bill its Third Reading without a debate. Without wishing to give offence to those who have contributed to the debate today, I am not sure that the House did not show wisdom on that occasion. The arguments around this Bill have been discussed on several occasions, and they concern two very limited points—the establishment for the first time of a separate National Health Service contribution and the making of an increase in the value of the contribution.

It seems to me, listening to the speeches today, that whereas hon. Members on both sides of the House maintain their belief in the National Health Service, and wish to see its expansion, hon. Members opposite are not prepared to back their belief in the requisite expenditure with the provision of the necessary income. That seems to me to be the great difference between the two sides of the House.

This is an attempt to provide the National Health Service with a stability of income which I would have thought hon. Members opposite who have held office would have welcomed. It is possibly for that reason that the speeches today have been directed not so much to the method of financing proposed in the Bill as to the volume of expenditure on the Health Service. Time and time again we have been told that the Government are not advancing the cause of the National Health Service. That just is not true. As I told the House on Second Reading, during the last five years, even when allowance is made for changes in the Consumer Price Index, there has been an increase in the amount devoted to the Health Service of £65 million in real terms.

Today, the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) suggested that from the point of view of staff employed by the National Health Service there had been a worsening of the position. But, as has been said on more than one occasion, that is just not true. So far as I know, in every category in the National Health Service there has been an increase in recent years. The hon. Gentleman cited the case of Manchester. I am glad that he is to look into this and ascertain the facts for himself. I happen to be spending two days in Manchester next week examining exactly the same problem, and I shall be ready for the hon. Gentleman when we return after the Recess.

Can the hon. Gentleman deny that there has been an expansion in the staff of all the Manchester hospitals during this period? He has suggested that the hospital management committee may eventually decide to restrict staff recruitment. That is entirely different from saying that there has been no increase.

Photo of Mr William Griffiths Mr William Griffiths , Manchester Exchange

I did not say that the total number of people employed in the Health Service was less. What I said was that the services were being reduced and that one hospital management committee alone is having now to consider the closing, in a number of hospitals in one part of the city, out-patients' departments, chest clinics and the inside wards of the ear hospital. Therefore, I argued that this was a reduction in the service which Manchester had enjoyed under all Governments since 1948. I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going to Manchester to look into this. I hope that his visits will at least result in the restoration of the Service to the level enjoyed under the Labour Government.

Photo of Mr Dennis Vosper Mr Dennis Vosper , Runcorn

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, because he gave the House the impression that there had been a deterioration in the service in Manchester, and I do not believe that to be the case. There is merely a proposal under consideration to restrict recruiting in the future. I shall be glad to debate this matter with the hon. Gentleman on a future occasion. All the evidence at my disposal is that the statistics, be it of patients treated or of staff employed, show that there has been a steady increase in the service provided.

I could understand the logic of the argument of the Opposition if they were opposed to any contribution on the part of the insured person, but they do not take that view. Indeed, the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), during the Second Reading debate, asked her right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) whether he would agree to the abolition of the original contribution. So far, we have had no opinion expressed as to whether that should be done. It seems completely Illogical to be in agreement with the principle of a contribution, but not to allow that contribution to play its part in the expansion of the National Health Service.

I would have found it much more difficult to resist the argument of the Opposition had they pressed for the abolition of the original contribution which they themselves introduced.

It has been suggested that this increase in the contribution will allow for no further increase in the National Health Service. My estimates and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland do, in fact, allow for a further increase during the current year—an increase both in hospital building and in the maintenance of all branches of the Service. This contribution will play its part in allowing that expansion to take place.

I was a little surprised to hear hon. Members opposite complain of the attitude of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Throughout the preparation and discussion of the Bill I have always had the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I sat here for two or three hours in Committee listening to complaints that there had been no intervention by the Scottish representative. Today, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has put before the House the argument in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill, and I am grateful to have his support.

The Government maintain that this modest Bill—and that is all it is—will allow the development of the National Health Service to continue, and I am sure that the conclusion that my hon. Friends must draw is that the Opposition are not prepared to back their fine words about their belief in the Health Service with deeds. For that reason, I hope the House will now give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 191.

Division No. 141.]AYES[5.25 p. m
Agnew, Sir PeterBarlow, Sir JohnBlack, C. W.
Altken, W. T.Barter, JohnBody, R. F.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Baxter, Sir BeverlevBossom, Sir Alfred
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Beamish, Maj. TuftonBowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Arbuthnot, JohnBennett, F. M. (Torquay)Boyle, Sir Edward
Armstrong, C. W.Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Braine, B. R.
Ashton, H.Bidgood, J. C.Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Baldwin, A. E.Biggs-Davison, J. A.Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Balniel, LordBirch, Rt. Hon. NigelBrooman-White, R. C.
Barber, AnthonyBishop, F. P.Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Bryan, P.Holt, A. F.Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Hope, Lord JohnNicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Butcher, Sir HerbertHornby, R. P.Oakshott, H. D.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Horobin, Sir IanO'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Campbell, Sir DavidHorsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame FlorenceOrr, Capt. L. P. S.
Cary, Sir RobertHoward, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)Osborne, C.
Chichester-Clark, R.Howard, John (Test)Page, R. G.
Cole, NormanHudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Conant, Maj. Sir RogerHughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.Partridge, E.
Cooke, RobertHulbert, Sir NormanPeyton, J. W. W.
Cooper, A. E.Hutchison. A. M. C. (Edinburgh, S.)Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)Pike, Miss Mervyn
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)Pitman, I. J.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir HarryPitt, Miss E. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Iremonger, T. L.Pott, H. P.
Cunningham, KnoxIrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)Powell, J. Enoch
Currie, G. B. H.Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Price, David (Eastleigh)
Davidson, ViscountessJennings, J. C. (Burton)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir HenryJennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Digby, Simon WingfieldJohnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)Profumo, J. D.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Johnson, Eric (Blackley)Redmayne, M.
Drayson, G. B.Joseph, Sir KeithRenton, D. L. M.
du Cann, E. D. L.Kaberry, D.Ridsdale, J. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)Keegan, D.Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Duthle, W. S.Kerby, Capt. H. B.Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Kerr, H. W.Sharples, R. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)Kershaw, J. A.Shepherd, William
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)Kimball, M.Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. EvelynKirk, P. M.Smithers, Peter (Winchescer)
Errington, Sir EricLancaster, Col. C. G.Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Farey-Jones, F. W.Langford-Holt, J. A.Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Finlay, GraemeLeather, E. H. C.Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, C.Leavey, J. A.Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Fort, R.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Freeth, DenzilLindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)Studholme, Sir Henry
Gammans, LadyLlewellyn, D. T.Summers, Sir Spencer
Garner-Evans, E. H.Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Gibson-Watt, D.Longden, GilbertTaylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Godber, J. B.Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.Temple, John M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col, Sir AlanLucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Goodhart, PhilipLucas-Tooth, Sir HughThompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Gough, C. F. H.McAdden, S. J.Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Gower, H. R.Macdonald, Sir PeterTiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Grant, W. (Woodside)McLaughlin, Mrs. P.Vane, W. M. F.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Gresham Cooke, R.Maclay, Rt. Hon. JohnVickers, Miss Joan
Grimond, J.Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)McLean, Neil (Inverness)Wade, D. W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Harris, Reader (Heston)Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Wall, Major Patrick
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)Maddan, MartinWard, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfd)Markham, Major Sir FrankWaterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)Marlowe, A. A. H.Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Hay, JohnMarples, Rt. Hon. A. E.Webbe, Sir H.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.Marshall, DouglasWhitelaw, W. S. I.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)Mathew, R.Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir JamesMawby, R. L.Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hesketh, R. F.Medlicott, Sir FrankWood, Hon. R.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.Molson, Rt. Hon. HughWoollam, John Victor
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)Moore, Sir ThomasYates, William (The Wrekin)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)Nabarro, G. D. N.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)Neave, AireyMr. Wills and Mr. Hughes-Young
Holland-Martin, C. J.Nicholls, Harmar
NOES
Ainsley, J. W.Boardman, H.Chetwynd, G. R.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)Clunie, J.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Bowles, F. G.Coldrick, W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Braddock, Mrs. ElizabethCollins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)
Awbery, S. S.Brockway, A. F.Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Baird, J.Broughton, Dr. A. D. DCove, W. G.
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)Brown, Thomas (Ince)Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Benson, G.Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)Cullen, Mrs. A.
Beswick, FrankButler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Blackburn, F.Carmichael, J.Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Blenkinsop, A.Castle, Mrs. B. A.Davies, Harold (Leek)
Blyton, W. R.Champion, A. J.Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Deer, G.MacDermot, NiallRoyle, C.
Dodds, N. N.McGhee, H. G.Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Dye, S.McGovern, J.Short, E. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)McInnes, J.Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Skeffington, A. M.
Fernyhough, E.Mahon, SimonSlater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Fienburgh, W.Mainwaring, W. H.Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.Mann, Mrs. JeanSnow, J. W.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.Sorensen, R. W.
Gibson, C. W.Mellish, R. J.Sparks, J. A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Messer, Sir F.Steele, T.
Greenwood, AnthonyMikardo, IanStonehouse, John
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.Monslow, W.Stones, W. (Consett)
Grey, C. F.Moody, A. S.Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Hamilton, W. W.Mort, D. L.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Hannan, W.Moss, R.Swingler, S. T.
Hastings, S.Moyle, A.Sylvester, G. O.
Hayman, F. H.Oliver, G. H.Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)Oram, A. E.Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Herbison, Miss M.Orbach, M.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.Oswald, T.Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)Padley, W. E.Thornton, E.
Holmes, HoracePaget, R. T.Tomney, F.
Houghton, DouglasPaling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)Usborne, H. C.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)Palmer, A. M. F.Viant, S. P.
Hubbard, T. F.Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)Watkins, T. E.
Weitzman, D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)Pargiter, G. A.Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Parkin, B. T.West, D. G.
Hunter, A. E.Paton, JohnWheeldon, W. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)Pearson, A.White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)Peart, T. F.White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.Plummer, Sir LeslieWilkins, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)Popplewell, E.Willey, Frederick
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)Prentice, R. E.Williams, David (Neath)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)Probert, A. R.Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)Proctor, W. T.Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Kenyon, C.Pryde, D. J.Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Randall, H. E.Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.Rankin, JohnWilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Lawson, G. M.Redhead, E. C.Woof, R. E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)Reeves, J.Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)Red, WilliamZilliacus, K.
Lewis, ArthurRhodes, H.
Lindgren, G. S.Robens, Rt. Hon. A.TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lipton, MarcusRoberts, Albert (Normanton)Mr. J. Taylor and
Mabon, Dr. J. DicksonRoberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)Mr. G. H. R. Rogers
MacColl, J. E.Ross, William
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.