Skip to main content

Clause 1—(Charges For Certain Drugs, Medicines And Appliances)

Volume 499: debated on Thursday 24 April 1952

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "provided" to insert:

"at a colliery medical centre or."
I should like first to thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a letter about certain Amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I agree with him when he says in his letter that there may be some misunderstanding, and my Amendment should enable the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the points in question in a very short time. I should like to read from the Minister's letter the passage to which I am referring. He says:
"Taking first colliery medical centres, these are, as I understand it, provided by the Miners' Welfare Commission and are in no sense a part of the Hospital Service provided under the National Health Service Act. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for charges only to patients getting medicines, etc., as hospital out-patients in the National Health Service, and no question could therefore arise of a charge under this Clause at a colliery medical centre."
4.15 p.m.

Will the Minister give an assurance that, if any workman sustains an injury in or about a mine and attends a colliery medical centre but does not attend or is not detained in a hospital, he will be able to receive a truss, an elastic stocking, bandage or knee cap, or any other appliance free of charge? Judging from his letter, I should think that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me that assurance.

We agree with the other portion of the Minister's letter, in which he says that a hospital under Section 79 of the 1946 National Health Service Act includes a convalescent home and a rehabilitation centre. We therefore agree that the Amendments dealing with that are fully covered. If the Minister can give me the assurance for which I ask, I shall not detain the Committee any longer.

This Amendment seeks to remove some doubts from our minds. It is not my intention to deal with colliery medical centres, which have grown up consequent upon the improvement made in connection with what we call first-aid attendance, but there is another factor I wish to put to the Minister. If he is not able to include this in the Bill, I hope he will at least draft the regulations so that men are not made chargeable for drugs. It will be well-known to mining Members that, unfortunately, some men are pinned underground, either by machinery or by falls, of rock, and so on.

In recent years, consequent upon the intensive mechanisation in the mines, there have been cases where a man who has had the misfortune to be caught in machinery has been injected with morphia—which is a very expensive drug which has to be administered by an expert—so that the doctor, who has had to go underground, could amputate a limb before the man could be released. In the event of any man being so trapped underground as to necessitate the administering of morphia before an amputation, will the Minister give us an assurance that, whatever quantity of morphia is administered, the drug will not have to be paid for by the man?

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray) for what he has said. It struck me that as there were several Amendments which we are not discussing now on the same point, and that, so far as I could see, they had nothing to do with the Bill, because the Bill did not touch them in any way, I thought it might save him and his hon. Friends trouble if I gave him the information which I sent to him.

The point which I must emphasise in the first part of my letter was that—as is clear if one carefully reads the first part of this Clause—all that is referred to in the Clause is hospital and specialist services under Part II of the principal Act, that is to say, services which come within the National Health Service and anything that is without that Service is, therefore, not affected in any way by this Bill.

It is quite clear, I understand, that colliery medical centres are altogether outside the Health Service and, therefore, they do not come within the ambit of this Bill. These centres, I understand, are provided by the Miners' Welfare Commission—although it has had, I think, a new name recently or is about to have a new name; the Bill is not yet through so we do not know whether it has a new name or not—but, in the meantime, we all know the body to which I am referring which provides these medical centres and anything that goes on there will not be affected by this Bill.

With regard to trusses and the various other items to which the hon. Gentlemen referred, and which are provided at the centres by the Miners' Welfare Fund, they do not come within the Bill. These centres are not hospitals within the meaning of the Bill. What the Bill does is to charge for appliances at hospitals. These are not hospitals and, therefore, the Bill cannot authorise any charge for them. That, I understand, is the answer to the questions.

I am prepared to look at the matter again and make myself quite certain that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to ask me about this point a quarter-of-an-hour ago and that is the best information I can give him at the moment. I think that what he wants is secured, but I will certainly make myself fully satisfied about it. On the point about morphia being injected, I do not think that there can be any question at all of payment, because the colliery medical centre does not come within the Bill. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment because its insertion would be out of place.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but I wish he could have gone a little further, because trusses and other appliances are not supplied by the Miners' Welfare Commission, and that is why we are anxious about this point. However, since I have the assurance—

I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that they had been. It was on that basis that I was answering. If I misunderstood him, I will look at it again from the point of view he has put.

In drawing up his regulations would the right hon. Gentleman make specific reference to the administration of morphia to men trapped underground?

I think that that is hardly necessary. It is free treatment. I do not think this would be necessary, because that point is amply safeguarded.

Since the Minister has given an assurance that he will again look at this matter and endeavour to meet us on this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move in page 1, line 12, after "hospital," to insert:

"or is a person who is receiving benefit, or is a dependant of a person receiving benefit, under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1951, or any statutory modification thereof."
It will be obvious to the Committee that this is an Amendment of some substance. If we were not following the present arrangement, I should want to take some considerable time to develop my argument. The effect of the Amendment is to provide that the people falling under the National Insurance Acts should be exempted from the charges applicable under this Clause. The reasoning is very plain. There are several special sections of people who ought to receive particular attention.

I am glad to see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is in his place, because I remember that when we were discussing a similar provision in 1949, the right hon. Gentleman went so far—I am summarising what he said, but I shall not misrepresent him—as to say that we had an implied contract to some 12 million people under the National Health Insurance Acts who had previously received all drugs and medicines free. Now we are in the curious position that the situation has become much worse because the same people are now paying much more in actual contributions but will receive much less. I cannot argue to the Committee that there is a contract, but I am arguing that there is an implied contract with a great range of people all of them falling under the National Insurance Acts.

Let me point to another example. Under Section 75 of the National Insurance Industrial Injuries Act, 1946, the Minister may make arrangement to secure the provision and maintenance free of charge or at a reduced charge of equipment or appliances for any person otherwise under the Act. I am again summarising the position. In this event, the Act did not operate, but that Clause was written in, and it was written in by agreement. It was not even discussed in Committee. It was written in because the whole Committee at that time recognised that they could not forsake the practice in relation to the provision of appliances to men sustaining industrial injuries.

The practice had been that under the Act many of the employers' insurance schemes provided appliances, but, as many of my trade union colleagues will be able to tell us from their own experience, often a limited insurance meant that appliances were not supplied and the employer would make an ex gratia payment to provide them. There was sometimes an underlying reason for that. The employer had an interest in seeing that an injured man had such an appliance because that, in turn, reduced the compensation because with the appliance he could undertake work and without it he could not.

4.30 p.m.

At this stage, I suggest that history and reasoning is scarcely germane to our conclusions. The point is that if this Clause goes through in its unamended form we shall take a leap back of 40 years. We shall penalise people who, for some 40 years, have had provision made for them, first, by their employers, then under the old workmen's compensation scheme and, later, under the 1946 Act. I suggest that the Committee will not lightly commit itself to such an obvious injustice. The argument can be developed for any person falling under any of the National Health Acts. We plead with the Committee to accept the Amendment to make sure that a highly improper penalty is not imposed upon these people by the Bill.

I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would answer one point, which I raise for elucidation. The sort of speech that he has made is not new. On other occasions these identical points were put by my hon. Friends to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I believe that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) put precisely these points to him. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale was that there was nothing whatever in them. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) accept that we were right then or that his right hon. Friend was correct? He cannot have it both ways.

If the hon. Gentleman had not been so keen to impose a Guillotine Motion on the Committee I might have had time to argue this. I can only say that, at this stage, I am not concerned, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) would not want me to be concerned, with an old part of history or with my reputation. I am trying to save people who will suffer a gross injustice under the Bill.

I support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). Many of the persons who come under the National Insurance Act, particularly those suffering from prolonged sickness and permanent incapacity, depend for their maintenance upon the benefits under the insurance scheme and it will be apprepriated that in view of the increased cost of living the charges will mean a heavier burden for them and will create considerable hardship.

In seeking to justify the charges now sought to be imposed, the Minister of Health, on Second Reading, stated that the charges must be related to what he termed "obvious abuses to be rectified." My hon. Friends have very effectively answered the charges about abuses, and, although abuses may exist here and there, one of the most important things to emerge from the debate was that very little responsibility for abuses lay upon the individual patient. If any doubts still linger in the minds of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary about so-called abuses perhaps some of us in the few minutes we have on this proposal can disabuse them about the position.

I want to refer, in particular, to the industrially disabled. Where can the issue of abuses arise in connection with injured workmen? I want to follow through the procedure from the time the workman is injured until he gets his treatment.

I do not want the Guillotine to fall on my head. I wish to deal with this point, and I cannot give way, for the time is too short.

From the time he is injured the workman comes within the Industrial Injuries Act. He is tied by the provisions of the Act. He has first to report the accident, then he has to have medical attention, then a report has to be made to the Ministry of National Insurance—

On a point of order, Sir Charles. The hon. Member is referring to industrial injuries and disablement. I submit that it does not arise on the Amendment, which refers only to persons, or dependants of persons, receiving benefit under the National Insurance Act. Is not the hon. Gentleman out of order in referring to persons coming under the Industrial Injuries Act?

Yes, Sir Charles, the Industrial Injuries Act is part of the National Insurance Act and these people come within the National Insurance scheme.

To revert to what I was saying, a report is submitted to the Ministry of National Insurance, so there can be no doubt that the man is suffering from a disability due to and arising out of his employment. I am particularly concerned about the position of a man who has been on industrial injury benefit for six months and is suffering a permanent incapacity. He comes up for examination by a medical tribunal with regard to his eligibility for disablement pension.

In such cases many medical assessors have recommended injured men to receive treatment at local hospitals. The tendency of recent legislation has been to try to get workmen back into employment at a reasonably early date and every facility has been given to men to get back to work without charges being imposed upon them. That has been the tendency even with insurance companies in the last 10 to 15 years.

Employers in the mining industry assisted men to get back to work at a reasonably early date. To impose a charge on a workman injured in an accident due to and arising from his employment is a vicious principle to adopt and something which has been alien to the men in the mining industry for many years.

I will cite one or two types of case that arise in the mining industry. Thousands of men are suffering from dermatitis owing to exposure to dust and liquids and the filth and dirt underground. There were 7,763 successful claims in the industry in six months in 1948 from men suffering from this disease. Often when these matters come before the assessment board the men are immediately advised to get certain lotions at the local hospital.

If this Clause remains as it is such injured workmen will have to pay the 1s. charge very frequently to obtain the treatment for an industrial disease arising out of and in the course of their work, something which they have never experienced before. When the miners realise that a charge is to be put upon them in relation to a disability arising out of and in the course of their employment there will be a wave of bitterness in the coalfields.

Many men are suffering from beatknee—many miners working in low seams get inflammation of the knee—and they often attend local hospitals for treatment. If the Clause is not altered they will be charged the prescription fee. Particularly in South Wales, there are also thousands of men suffering from pneumoconiosis. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has seen any of the seriously disabled pneumoconiosis sufferers struggling up the hills of our valleys, panting for breath, to get relief in the form of drug or medicine from the local hospital.

Many cases arise daily in South Wales, and these men are now likely to be charged the prescription fee for the drug or medicine which they get to ease their pain as a result of a disease arising out of and in the course of their work. It is not a question of obvious abuses; it is a question of our indebtedness to the miners who hew the coal upon which our national economy depends.

I would put it to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary that they should weigh very carefully, even at this last moment, the advantages of this so-called financial retrenchment on the one hand, and losing the good will of the nation, at least so far as the miners are concerned, on the other. They should weigh this so-called saving of a few million pounds against the possibility of creating hostility in the trade union movement of this country. I would ask them to consider this parsimonious miserable, niggardly policy and the possibility of losing out-put from the mines as a result of it.

Reference has been made to abdominal belts. Many men in the mining industry suffer from forms of hernia and strain due to their employment underground, and a charge is now to be made for the abdominal belts they need. That will create considerable feeling among the people in the coalfields. I would refer the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has had any consultations with the Minister of National Insurance on this matter, but that Section empowers the Minister of National Insurance to supply appliances to injured workmen out of the Industrial Injuries fund. That has never been exercised because the responsibility has been carried out under the Health Scheme.

I want to know whether, if we fail on this Amendment, we can receive an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of National Insurance that the Government will put into operation the Regulation for which power is given under Section 75, which reads as follows:
"The Minister may make arrangements to secure the provision and maintenance, free of charge or at a reduced charge, of equipment and appliances for any person who, by reason of the loss of a limb or otherwise, is in the need of them as the result of any injury or disease against which he was insured under this Act, and in connection with the provision or maintenance of any equipment or appliances for any person under this Section may pay to that person such expenses incurred by him as the Minister may determine."
Here is a Section which gives the Minister of National Insurance power to assist the industrially disabled. I would point out that the industrial workers of this country, and particularly the miners, have met their obligations. Many of them have sustained accidents while working on a Saturday as they were called upon to do by the nation. They have met their obligations and I want the Minister seriously to consider the position. If the industrial workers are to be called upon to pay this charge for appliances, or to pay the shilling for prescriptions, there will be a feeling of bitterness and resentment among them. Here is a golden opportunity for the Minister to rise to the occasion and to assist these men who deserve from the Government all the help they can get.

4.45 p.m.

The arguments which have been advanced are most interesting and all the more so since we have had them argued in the opposite sense. The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) did give me notice on a previous occasion that he would refer to that. It is very interesting, because we have had the opinion of, not the last Minister of Health in the Labour Government—that transient and embarrassed penitent—but of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He brought up the fundamental change which, he states, he made in the Health Service by moving from a contributory to a largely non-contributory basis and it is from that that all this difficulty stems.

That is certainly true. I will quote in a moment the words of the ex-Minister of Health on the matter. It is on that that the Minister of Health relies in repudiating the very conditions of the contractual obligations to which the right hon. Member for Greenock referred. Let us take the reference, which was on 9th December, 1949. On examining the proposals I had been struck by exactly the same contention which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been putting forward. It seemed to me that tuberculosis patients were being put in a worse position than before. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale repudiated this in the strongest possible terms he said:

"Nor is it true to say, as the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said, that we are putting the National Health Service contributor in a worse position than he has been in since the beginning of the National Health Service Act."
That was when the House was debating this very proposal that the charge should be prescribed by Regulation by the Minister of Health of the day. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale went on:
"That is not true."
It was not true, he said, that the power to impose these charges and the imposing of these charges put a beneficiary in a worse position than he had been in before.
"What is actually happening at the present time is that the National Health Service is giving him a far wider range of services than he had under the National Health Insurance Act; therefore, even if this were imposed, what would be left to the National Health contributor would be a far wider range of service than was ever available before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2261.]
There was a slight interchange between us at the time as to whether this proposal to impose these charges was a popular or an unpopular move with the voters and, particularly—oddly enough—with the local government voters of the country. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale contended that it was a popular move with the voters of the country. He went on:
"It is not correct to say it is only on the side of bottled medicine that some of the abuse has taken place—it is aspirins, bandages, and so forth, costing less than a 1s., which, in a large number of cases, would have been purchased by the patient—… That is where the abuse arises."

Well, I am only quoting some of the arguments which were adduced to the Committee, particularly by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:

"It is no use my hon. Friends telling me that this is not the case, because"—
and this deals particularly with the last point about out-put and so on raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty—
"this proposal has not, in fact, been received with much indignation, as it is generally accepted that there is an awareness of the abuse which had been taking place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2263.]

I leave that to the right hon. Gentleman who made the speech. It was he who referred to the charge he was about to impose by Regulation. I am anxious not to take up the time of the Committee—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member wishes the debate to go on I am perfectly willing to take him on at length. I am quoting the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on the point we were discussing—

The right hon. Member was talking about hospitals.

We were discussing the general question. The right hon. Member for Greenock raised the general question of whether a contributor was being put in a worse position by this than he was in before, and he said that he was. I am quoting the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who said that he is not. And I say, finally, that all these things arise out of the fact that the Committee is not here discussing the actual proposal but the power to make such a proposal.

The proper moment at which to raise points—no doubt very interesting and important—such as that which was raised by the last speaker as to the particular allowances to be made for those injured in the course of industrial warfare, is when the Regulations are laid. The House of Commons will have an opportunity of doing so. We all recognise that there are casualties in industrial warfare which are as deserving of sympathy as the casualties in other fields of struggle and endeavour. The general principle has already been argued. Powerful and cogent arguments were brought forward by the then Minister of Health in the quotations which I have given, to show that the contention which has since been adopted by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health is the right one.

The situation is not really as confused as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has represented it. He is right in saying that what we did was to substitute a non-contractual scheme for a contractual scheme, and a non-contributory scheme for a contributory one. It is also true to say that under the National Health Service Act, as it was conceived and carried out by the Labour Government until last year, the range of benefits given was infinitely wider than was ever provided under the old National Health scheme. There is no doubt about that.

I have said on many occasions that one of the reasons why the Regulations were never made under the 1949 Act was that, in respect of certain of the benefits, they would have put the old insured contributor in a worse condition than he had been since the formation of the National Health Service Act. I have explained that before, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite always go back to the instance where power was taken to frame the Regulations, and never to the precedent subsequent to that, that the Regulations were never framed. If all they are anxious to do is to give me the flattery of imitation they will take these powers and will never make the Regulations.

I return this to right hon. Gentlemen opposite: whatever may have been said about the abuses of the chemist's shops—and I am not prepared myself to say that there are not even now, and will not be for a very long time, abuses in the chemist's shop—the question is whether this is the most effective way of dealing with them. They can be dealt with in other ways. It does not seem to me that the most effective way is to punish the helpless patient. Quite often the general practitioner is responsible.

It was never in my mind that we should apply this principle to the hospitals. We are dealing here with drugs and appliances provided under the Hospital specialist service. We have already asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question about this, and we have not had a reply. She is under an obligation to tell us whether there is any evidence of abuse by the specialist service in the hospitals. It seems to me disastrous to compel industrially injured persons, or any other persons who have to go to the hospitals for drugs or appliances, to pay for them. That does set the clock back. Indeed, it has no other object except a purely punitive one.

We cannot reduce abuses in this way, unless the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to tell the Committee that the Ministry of Health have information that, in the hospital service itself, the specialist abuses the service by giving unnecessary appliances and medicine. If she says that, will she provide the Committee with instances where it has occurred? Furthermore, has she reported those cases to the Central Health Services Advisory Council for advice, so that they may advise the Minister how to deal with these abuses, if such have occurred? If one or two instances can be shown to have happened, it is the clumsiest possible remedy to punish all those who have to use the specialist service, in order to deal with a few specialists and stop an abuse—if there are such cases.

I am very anxious not to talk too much about this matter, and I would not have spoken if I had not been challenged. One of the reasons why I did not proceed with those Regulations was because of my experience, which is not very limited in this matter. Long before I became Minister of Health we used to have local schemes to supplement National Health Insurance. In my native town of Tredegar we had one of the pioneer schemes in Great Britain. It was one which employed Dr. Cronin, although he afterwards abused it; I do not mean professionally, but in literature.

We had those schemes—why? Because the range of benefits provided under National Health Insurance was too limited. All over the country miners and other workers devised local supplementary schemes. When the National Health Service came into operation most of those schemes were wound up because the range of benefits under the Health Ser- vice was much wider and had assimilated all those local schemes. If we are now to play fast and loose with the National Health Service, these men may have to consider whether they ought not themselves to resurrect some of those schemes to assist people who will have to make these payments to the hospitals. Once more we shall be getting back to the situation in which the industrial workers will have to pay twice, once through the taxation system, and, of course, through the 10d. contribution which still remains, and they will have to provide these supplementary schemes themselves.

Although the Minister may not feel it possible at the moment to accept the Amendment—I hope he does—when he comes to frame the Regulations he is under no obligation to include these people at all. He can leave them all out. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is not correct in saying that the time to raise these points is when the Regulations come before the House. We shall not be able to do anything but accept or reject the Regulations. I am not quarrelling with that position, but I am pointing out that that is not the time to raise these points because we shall not be able to amend the Regulations. If hon. Members opposite are enthusiastic about precedents which I have set they can follow my precedent and let the Regulations fall.

In 36 minutes the Guillotine will fall on this Clause. I wonder whether I might plead with the Parliamentary Secretary that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if she could now reply and say whether she can accept the Amendment. We can move on in that case. If she does not accept it, we can make good use of the time that remains.

5.0 p.m.

I shall not detain the Committee for more than two minutes, but I am sure it is the feeling of every hon. Member here that, working, as we are, under the Guillotine, we should now, at this stage, take note of real Committee points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The point I want to bring to the notice of the Committee is to suggest an alternative to what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had to say about the difficulties with which we are undoubtedly presented now, and have been presented in previous Measures.

We should allow, in the benefits which are to be paid under the Industrial Injuries Act or under the National Insurance Act, those benefits which will take charge of the additional costs which we all recognise are coming. That would have the advantage of our being sure that those benefits will go to those most in need because they are drawing benefits from those schemes. That is an alternative to everyone benefiting, and it can be done by adjusting the benefits under the general National Insurance Act.

This Amendment is centred around those people who are covered by the National Insurance Acts, and, we heard yesterday both from the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and also from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), a reference to the old Insurance Act and the assertion that these new charges would be breaking an obligation. I suggest that even though the former Government may not have implemented the Act which they passed on the 1s. prescription charge, it does not in any way invalidate what we believe is an equally sound argument today, namely, the one quoted by my right hon. Friend when he insisted, we believe quite rightly, that the new noncontributory arrangement could not honestly and fairly be compared with the old contributory one.

In the first place the old benefits were for the insuree alone and not for his family. The new benefits cover his family. They are much wider, and only 10d. of the 9s. 5d. paid by an adult male and his employer in the weekly insurance contribution goes towards the National Health Service. So it is in no sense an insurance, and only a very small contribution is paid towards the Service. There is a further point against the suggestion in this Amendment: that those who draw benefits depend on having fulfilled certain contribution conditions, and if they do not qualify and, therefore, do not get their benefit, they would be far worse off, or, if they are people not covered by insurance, they would be far worse off than those whom this Amendment seeks to exempt.

There was the third point raised about industrial injuries. I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend has been in full consultation with the Minister of National Insurance on this point. The question arises whether the powers of Section 75 of the National Insurance Industrial Injuries Act should be used to meet wholly or in part any charges that are made under these provisions. This was presumably considered by the previous Government in connection with the charges for teeth and spectacles, and that Government evidently decided not to use the powers so provided. We have held that there has never been any differentiation in the matter of treatment or appliances between the industrially injured and other sick industrial workers, whether a man was injured either in the course of his employment or outside, or whether he was under the old Workmen's Compensation Act.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, Section 75 of the Industrial Injuries Act was put in to meet a possible gap before the National Health Service Act came into operation, but, in fact, that did not arise and it was not necessary to implement those provisions. However, it was not put in, as we believe from the records of the drafting of those provisions, as a matter of principle to provide that better facilities should be available to the industrially injured than to those injured in other circumstances.

We recognise that those who suffer industrial injury already draw higher benefits by virtue of their industrial injury insurance. They draw higher benefits than the ordinary sick or disabled who may be suffering the same disability, the same hardship, the same pain, but have not been in that position by virtue of their industrial employment. They draw their ordinary sickness benefit but not the higher industrial injury benefit.

Therefore, to make a dispensation in regard to those who are drawing higher benefits to the detriment of those who are drawing lesser benefits is not wholly justified in our view. We believe that throughout these regulations—and, indeed, the regulations imposed for charges last year by the previous Government—the principle of hardship and the right of need as the means by which a concession should be made, which is decided by the National Assistance Board, should continue to operate under this Clause. For those reasons we do not feel we can accept the Amendment.

I am much obliged for the statement made by the hon. Lady, but she has failed to make it clear to the Committee that those unfortunate men who draw benefits under the Personal Injuries Act are paying extra contributions over and above other people. It is as well that this should be made known, because the hon. Lady is misleading the Committee, I hope unintentionally.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 1, line 17, at end, add:

"except in cases where it can be shown that the replacement or repair is due to a fault in the appliance."

This is so obvious an Amendment that I know it will be accepted, and I will not trouble to move it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Minister has told us repeatedly that the object of these charges is to save money, so that more can be spent on the National Health Service. I suggest that between now and the Report stage he should consider economising in the Service and having more money to spend as a result. I suggest also that where appliances are prescribed while the patient is in hospital there shall be no charge paid. I believe the right hon. Gentleman would save money in that way, because patients would be able to leave hospital much more quickly than would otherwise be possible.

Medicine is not an exact science. No doctor can say that a patient was not fit to go to work yesterday or is fit to go today, or is not fit to go today but will most certainly be fit to go tomorrow. A lot depends on the condition of the patient, where he is going, and on the patient himself, and whether he really wants to go or not. If a heavy charge is to come upon the patient should he leave hospital tomorrow or a little later, but not if he remains there, he will tend to keep his place in hospital longer than otherwise would be the case.

Let me, briefly, give an example. These things happen every day in hospital. Imagine that a person has a severe injury to his foot and needs a surgical boot. Until the foot has healed, the boot cannot be ordered. But if the patient is to be told that by staying a little longer in hospital he would save £3, he would be very much inclined to stay a little longer if he can persuade his surgeon to allow him to remain.

The same thing applies to other appliances. After a severe illness, people sometimes lose all their hair. The Parliamentary Secretary will be very well aware of how a woman in that position would feel and how reluctant she would be to leave hospital until a wig was provided. But if, in addition to leaving hospital without a wig, there is to be added the cost of £2 10s. or something like that, such a person would be induced to try to persuade whoever is responsible for her care in hospital to keep her a little longer.

I put these suggestions very briefly—we are short of time—to the Parliamentary Secretary as a means by which, without being in any way hard on a patient, money can be saved for the provision of extra facilities in the Service.

A good deal of the discussion which has taken place on four days on this first Clause has been concerned with special types of hardship which might arise by virtue of the charges which it enables to be imposed. As each separate category is contemplated, whether it be the tuberculous, the diabetic or those we have just been considering, whose power of earning is temporarily or permanently at an end by reason of sickness or disablement, a very strong case appears to be able to be made out why they should be exempted from the charge.

Nevertheless, I believe that my right hon. Friend has taken the right course, and, indeed, the only practicable course, in setting his face against any type of special exemption. We can never draw a boundary line on one side of which there will be hardship, and on the other side of which there will be no hardship, by endeavouring to define the type of case. It is only by ascertaining where hardship in practice, arises in the individual circumstances of the person upon whom the charge is imposed, that the impact of these charges can, where necessary be alleviated.

There is a means test involved, as I shall show the hon. Lady in a moment.

5.15 p.m.

I shall be discussing that in a moment.

For example, to consider the chronically sick patient who often requires medicine from an out-patient department, at regular intervals, it may well be that the regular necessity of paying the prescription charge would involve hardship. But it involves hardship not because of the chronic nature of the sickness, but because of the circumstances of the individual patient. Therefore, I believe that my right hon. Friend has been right in using the machinery which was already provided for this purpose.

When, in the first day in Committee on the Bill, I pointed out that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had themselves commended the National Assistance Board for this very purpose, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), sought to draw a distinction between the use of the Assistance Board where a single payment or a largish payment had to be made—as for spectacles and teeth—and the use of the Assistance Board to alleviate hardship arising out of payments for prescriptions.

That brings me to a very interesting and important point, on which I should like to secure the help of the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Health. We are all familiar ad nauseam with the statement that the charges for prescriptions under Part IV of the principal Act were introduced in 1949 either with no intention that they should ever be implemented, or else that it was subsequently found impracticable to implement them. That is the standard position of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is this. Why, when he came to the House, 18 months after the Lords Amendment of 1949, with the Bill which is now the 1951 Bill, did he then take powers to enable the Assistance Board to make payments in respect of charges for prescriptions? He did that, not in the first flush of his enthusiasm for the Amendment which had been sent down from another place at the end of 1949, but after 18 months' investigation of the administrative possibilities.

The right hon. Gentleman then still believed both that it was administratively practicable—otherwise he was wasting the time of the House and overloading the Statute Book with nonsensical provisions—and that the Assistance Board was the appropriate means of dealing with hardship arising out of the necessity of payments for prescriptions.

Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and those who supported him—those who voted Section 4 into the 1951 Act—can give another explanation of what that provision is doing, they agree with my right hon. Friend that the Assistance Board is the right way, and the only right way, of dealing with any hardship which may result under the Clause.

We have had a very detailed analysis by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who considers himself an expert on this subject, of how to tackle hardship. He has told us that the Government believe that they must do this in a practical way; that the only thing to do is to look at hardship as it arises and to deal with it.

But during our long debates on the Clause, we have had from this side of the Committee case after case brought before the Minister of Health of where hardship is arising. We have had no answer whatever. We have had the very practical point of the patient on the waiting list, who cannot get into a hospital and who, because of that, has to pay for any drugs, medicines or appliances that he might need while waiting, through no fault of his own. What answer have we had on that practical point of hardship?

The Guillotine is the practical answer to our practical cases of hardship.

We have had the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), a very practical case of hardship, in which he has pointed out that if a patient vacates hospital in order to leave a bed for someone else he has to pay for an appliance he would get free if he were able to remain in hospital. Are these not practical points? Can the Minister say that he is a practical man in dealing with this question of hardship? So complicated is the problem of sickness and health and of human need, that we cannot draw a line in a devious way like this. The simple answer is that we should not have the Clause at all, because it is a complete indictment of the whole attempt to deal with the problem.

I wish to raise a very practical point on hardship and ask for a specific assurance from the Minister of Health. He made a statement on Second Reading, and I want to tell him that, although he may not be aware of the fact, that statement is untrue; I hope he will give an assurance that he will look into the matter. I hope he will also look into the points about hardship which have been raised by hon. Members on this side of the Committee who know where the shoe really pinches.

I want to raise the question of persons receiving National Assistance. It has always been argued by hon. Members opposite that when they did their cheeseparing on the social services they would never allow the burden to fall on the most severe cases. Therefore, in the Second Reading debate we had the Minister giving us the following very specific assurance:
"There will be no charge for hospital appliances in the case of children under 16 or in full-time attendance at school or to persons in receipt of National Assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 850.]
If the right hon. Member had not been in such a hurry with the Guillotine, this is a point of interpretation which some of us on this side of the Committee would like to have clarified by specific Amendments to the Clause. I was prepared, when the right hon. Gentleman gave the assurance, to accept that it was expressing his intention, but the trouble with all the debates on this Bill has been that hon. and right hon. Members opposite really do not know anything about the Health Service or how it works, or the financial arrangements of less well to do members of the community. They are arguing in ignorance, and the right hon. Gentleman is arguing in ignorance, just as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—whom I understand always refuses to debate the question in his constituency with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop)—is in ignorance.

The position unless the right hon. Gentleman issues new Regulations or a substantial administrative instruction to the National Assistance Board, is that it is not true that persons on National Assistance automatically will get appliances free. It is true that in the Bill machinery is provided whereby they can get their prescriptions reimbursed and a person on National Assistance, having got a receipt from the chemist, can take it to the post office to get his bob back, but it is not true that persons on National Assistance automatically will get a surgical corset, an elastic stocking, or a wig free.

Under the Determination of Need Regulations a certain amount of capital may be ignored when assessing hardship, and a widow may have £100 in the bank as her last resource, the last safeguard of her independence, a sense of reliance and of decency, perhaps a wee nest egg to use if her children need something. But, if she has £100 in the bank, she will have to pay out of that capital for the appliance. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he intends to take to honour this specific assurance he gave the House on Second Reading. It is a great blot on this country if, in a period when relaxations are being given in regard to Income Tax and financial relaxations here and there to people who are not down to their last £100, these inroads should be made into the savings of widows and others on National Assistance.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that to happen and will see that it does not happen. I hope that if the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary replies she will be able specifically to redeem the honour of her right hon. Friend in this matter and let us have a guarantee that, at any rate on this question, hon. Members opposite will do something to retract their reputations on this question of hardship, because their reputations are already so tarnished that they cannot stand this further blot.

I wish to call attention to Clause 6 (2), which deals with hardship questions and National Assistance—

The hon. Member should not take time to make another speech.

I am sorry that I mis-timed the peroration of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), and she will not expect me to deal with the relative ignorance of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I wish to ask for an answer from the right hon. Gentleman—

On a point of order. Is the hon. Member speaking in order to protect the Parliamentary Secretary?

The hon. Lady has asked a specific question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and I wish to put a question. It makes a nice change, as it leaves the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in the clear. As far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, the real villain of the piece is not the Minister of Health but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because all this arises from the decision—and I agree firmly with it—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and so of Her Majesty's Government that so much money, and so much money only this year, can be given to the hospitals. It is a small point in relation to hospitals in this Clause, but a much bigger point in relation to other things to which we are coming, and the total is something like £20 million. If that money is not found, the hospital service and the tuberculosis service and everything else in the National Health Service will go short. It is that dilemma to which hon. Members opposite have not addressed themselves, and it is that dilemma in respect of which sometime on this Clause and on all the other Clauses we must demand that they give an answer.

5.30 p.m.

I will take only two minutes—I know it is very vexatious. The hon. Members for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), have once more deployed their philosophical approach to the social services. What they say is that if any public funds are available, if the public authority is to intervene between a citizen and the vicissitudes of life or the circumstances of the market, the individual should establish his claim to that assistance. That is their position.

There is something to be said for that as a philosophy. I profoundly disagree, but there is a great deal to be said for the argument, that if public action is required to assist an individual the individual should establish his claim to that assistance. Society has created the National Assistance Board in this country in order to investigate the position of the individual. It is an attractive proposition. It ought to be applied all round if it is to be applied at all.

There is the question of £52 million for the farmers; there is the fertiliser subsidy. There is a lot to be said for the view that a farmer should go to the Assistance Board and establish his claim before the public authority intervenes on his behalf. I understand that to be the position taken up by the hon. Members opposite. As I say, it is an attractive proposition.

For example, compensation is not given to a shareholder, it is given to a citizen. It is an attractive proposition that before compensation should be given, before a person who has shares in the gas or coal industry should be able to obtain compensation money from the State, he should go to the Assistance Board and establish his title to it. It is a very attractive proposition. We should pursue it further.

I am afraid not now. I have only two minutes. I am perfectly prepared to take the matter up at any other time. We on these benches have never considered that compensation for expropriated property is any other than a political expedient. There is no natural right to it. Therefore, let an entitlement be claimed.

It is a most revolutionary principle and doctrine. I am not always loath to accept revolutionary principles. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Members will pursue the matter further. It is a most popular cause to have taken up. I am prepared to help them to apply it all round and see how much more Lord Woolton will be able to collect from their friends when the application is really made.

It is a delight to reply to the specific points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). She challenged my right hon. Friend about how he proposes to fulfil the pledge he gave in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, when he said that children under 16 years and people in receipt of National Assistance contributions or pensions in respect of war injuries should not be charged for appliances.

In the case of those receiving National Assistance, if they have a National Assistance

Division No. 97.]


[5.37 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.Boothby, R. J. G.Cooper-Key, E. M.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Bossom, A. C.Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Alpert, C. J. M.Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.Cranborne, Viscount
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)Boyle, Sir EdwardCrookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.Braine, B. R.Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Arbuthnot, JohnBraithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)Crouch, R. F.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)Braithwaite, Lt..-Cdr G. (Bristol, N. W.)Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)Cuthbert, W. N.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)Brooman-White, R. C.Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Baker, P. A. D.Browne, Jack (Govan)Davidson, Viscountess
Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.Deedes, W. F.
Baldwin, A. E.Bullard, D. G.Digby, S. Wingfield
Banks, Col. C.Bullock, Cant M.Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Barber, A. P. L.Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Barlow, Sir JohnHerden, F. F. A.Donner, P. W.
Baxter, A. B.Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Doughty, C. J. A.
Beach, Maj. HicksCarr, Robert (Mitcham)Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Beamish, Maj. TuftonCarson, Hon. E.Drayson, G. B.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)Cary, Sir RobertDrewe, C.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Channon, H.Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Duthie, W. S.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Bennett, William (Woodside)Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Cole, NormanElliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Birch, NigelColegate, W. A.Erroll, F. J.
Bishop, F. P.Conant, Maj. R. J. E.Fell, A.
Black, C. W.Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertFinlay, Graeme

book they will produce it at the hospital and will receive their appliances without further charge. In respect of those people who so make a needs claim, but are not in receipt of National Assistance benefit, the same procedure will operate as now operates for dentures. If the claim is accepted, a cheque is received from the Board to pay the charges. There will be no charge at all for appliances to children.

How will the identity of the person showing a book be determined? Identity cards are now abolished.

The hon. Member is no doubt aware that no hospital deals with a patient without having records of that patient, his treatment, name, age and address, which will tally with the records entered in the National Assistance book. In addition, there are penalties for any fraudulent misuse of the books. The records maintained in the hospitals are, we feel—

It being Twenty-four Minutes to Six o'Clock ( the House having resolved itself into the Committee at six minutes past Four o'Clock), The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [12 th April], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 285.

Fisher, NigelLeather, E. H. C.Remnant, Hon. P.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Renton, D. L. M.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.Lindsay, MartinRobertson, Sir David
Fort, R.Linstead, H. N.Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)Robson-Brown, W.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David MaxwellLloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)Roper, Sir Harold
Gage, C. H.Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)Longden, Gilbert (Harts, S. W.)Russell, R. S.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)Low, A. R. W.Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Gammans, L. D.Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Garner-Evans, E. H.Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj G. LloydLucas-Tooth, Sir HughSavory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Glyn, Sir RalphMcAdden, S. J.Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Godber, J. B.McCallum, Major D.Scott, R. Donald
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.
Gough, C. F. H.Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)Shepherd, William
Gower, H. R.Mackeson, Brig. H. R.Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Graham, Sir FergusMcKibbin, A. J.Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gridley, Sir ArnoldMcKie, J. H. (Galloway)Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Harden, J. R. E.Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Snadden, W. McN.
Hare, Hon. J. H.Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)Soames, Capt. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)Spearman, A. C. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)Speir, R. M.
Harrison, Col. Harwood (Eye)Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Harvey Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)Markham, Major S. F.Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)Marlowe, A. A. H.Stanley, Capt. Han. Richard
Harvie-Watt, Sir GeorgeMarples, A. E.Stevens, G. P.
Hay, JohnMarshall, Douglas (Bodmin)Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Heald, Sir LionelMaude, AngusStoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Heath, EdwardMaudling, R.Storey, S.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Higgs, J. M. C.Medlicott, Brig. F.Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Mellor, Sir JohnStudholme, H. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)Molson, A. H. E.Sutcliffe, H.
Hinchingbrooke, ViscountMonckton, Rt. Hon. Sir WalterTaylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Hirst, GeoffreyMoore, Lt.-Col. Sir ThomasTaylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.Morrison, John (Salisbury)Teeling, W.
Hollis, M. C.Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)Nabarro, G. D. N.Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hope, Lord JohnNicholls, HarmerThompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hopkinson, HenryNicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. FlorenceNield, Basil (Chester)Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.Tilney, John
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)Nugent, G. R. H.Turner, H. F. L.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)Nutting, AnthonyTurton, R. H.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)Oakshott, H. D.Tweedemuir, Lady
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.Odey, G. W.Vane, W. M. F.
Hurd, A. R.O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylehone)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)Orr, Capt. L. P. S.Walker-Smith, D. C.
Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.Osborne, C.Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)Partridge, E.Watkinson, H. A.
Jennings, R.Peake, Rt. Hon. O.Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)Perkins, W. R. D.Wellwood, W.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)Peto, Brig. C. H. M.White, Baker (Canterbury)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)Peyton, J. W. W.Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.Pickthorn, K. W. M.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Kaberry, D.Pilkington, Capt. R. A.Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Keeling, Sir EdwardPitman, I. J.Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)Powell, J. EnochWills, G.
Lambert, Hon. G.Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lambton, ViscountPrior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.Wood, Hon. R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.Profumo, J. D.York, C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.Raikes, H. V.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.Rayner, Brig. R.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Redmayne, E.Mr. Butcher and Mr. Vosper.


Acland, Sir RichardBacon, Miss AliceBevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Adams, RichardBaird, J.Bing, G. H. C.
Albu, A. H.Balfour, A.Blackburn, F.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.Blenkinsop, A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Bartley, P.Blyton, W. R.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.Boardman, H.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)Bence, C. R.Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.Bann, WedgwoodBowden, H. W.
Awbery, S. S.Benson, G.Bowen, E. R.
Ayles, W. H.Beswick, F.Bowles, F. G.

Braddock, Mrs. ElizabethHobson, C. R.Porter, G.
Brockway, A. F.Holman, P.Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Holt, A. F.Proctor, W. T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Houghton, DouglasPryde, D. J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)Hoy, J. H.Rankin, John
Eurke, W. A.Hubbard, T. F.Reeves, J.
Burton, Miss F. E.Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)Reid, William (Camlachie)
Callaghan, L. J.Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Rhodes, H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Champion, A. J.Hynd, H. (Accrington)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Chapman, W. D.Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvorishire)
Chetwynd, G. R.Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Clunie, J.Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)Ross, William
Cocks, F. S.Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Coldrick, W.Janner, B.Shackleton, E. A. A.
Collick, P. H.Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Cook, T. F.Jager, George (Goole)Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Corbel, Mrs. FredaJeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)Short, E. W.
Cove, W. G.Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)Shurmer, P. L. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Johnson, James (Rugby)Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Crosland, C. A. R.Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Crossman, R. H. S.Jones, David (Hartlepool)Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Cullen, Mrs. A.Jones, Jack (Rotherham)Slater, J.
Daines, P.Keenan, W.Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Kenyon, C.Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Snow, J. W.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)King, Dr. H. M.Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)Kinley, J.Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)Lee, Frederick (Newton)Sparks, J. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)Steele, T.
Davies, Stpehen (Merthyr)Lever, Harold (Cheetham)Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
de Freitas, GeoffreyLever, Leslie (Ardwick)Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Deer, G.Lewis, ArthurStrachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Delargy, H. J.Lindgren, G. S.Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Dodds, N. N.Lipton, Lt,-Col. M.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Donnelly, D. L.Logan, D. G.Swingler, S. T.
Driberg, T. E. N.MacColl, J. E.Sylvester, G. O.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)McGhee, H. G.Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.McGovern, J.Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Edelman, M.McInnes, J.Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)McKay, John (Wallsend)Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)McLeavy, F.Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Mainwaring, W. H.Thurtle, Ernest
Ewart, R.Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)Timmons, J.
Fernyhough, E.Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Field, W. J.Mann, Mrs. JeanTomney, F.
Fienburgh, W.Manuel, A. C.Turner-Samuels, M.
Finch, H. J.Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)Mayhew, C. P.Usborne, H. C.
Follick, M.Mellish, R. J.Viant, S. P.
Foot, M. M.Messer, F.Wallace, H. W.
Forman, J. C.Mikardo, IanWatkins, T. E.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Mitchison, G. R.Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Freeman, John (Watford)Monslow, W.Weitzman, D.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)Moody, A. S.Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. LloydMorgan, Dr. H. B. W.Wells, William (Walsall)
Gibson, C. W.Morley, R.West, D. G.
Glanville, JamesMorris, Percy (Swansea, W.)Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)Mart, D. L.White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)Moyle, A.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.Malley, F. W.Wigg, George
Grey, C. F.Murray, J. D.Wilcook, Group Captain C. A. B.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)Nally, W.Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Neal, Harold (Bolsover)Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)O'Brien, T.Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Grimond, J.Oldfield, W. H.Williams, David (Neath)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)Oliver, G. H.Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Orbach, M.Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)Oswald, T.Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)
Hamilton, W. W.Padley, W. E.Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hannan, W.Paget, R. T.Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Hardy, E. A.Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Hargreaves, A.Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)Pannell, CharlesWoodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hastings, S.Pargiter, G. A.Wyatt, W. L.
Hayman, F. H.Parker, J.Yates, V. F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)Paton, J.Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Pearl, T. F.
Herbison, Miss M.Plummer, Sir LeslieTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hewitson, Capt. M.Popplewell, E.Mr. Pearson and Mr. Royle.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

5.45 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Deputy-Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I cannot accept that Motion under the Guillotine. I am operating now under a Resolution of the House, and I cannot deal with such a Motion. We must now proceed to Clause 2.

I accept that position and, having accepted that, I want to add that we have scandalous grievances of which the people are not yet aware. What redress have we now to ventilate those grievances in this Committee?

I would remind the hon. Member that I am bound by the orders of the House, and it is my duty to carry them out.

I was getting some legal advice, but on all these matters we do not need legal advice now. My point is that under the National Health Insurance Acts our people are paying millions of pounds into the Exchequer for the purpose of these services, and if we part with this Clause without—

The Clause is now passed. We are finished with it. The hon. Member may have other times and opportunities for commenting on it, but he cannot comment on it here and now.

Let me make it quite clear that I respect the occupant of the Chair and that there is nothing personal in this, but we have got to consider the position of millions who have paid millions of pounds—

Would it be possible to display the actual guillotine here by having it flown over from Paris?