HC Deb 19 December 1947 vol 445 cc2079-94

2.0 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I am very glad to have this opportunity of raising this question. I raised it on 2nd December in the form of a Parliamentary Question, but the point which I then pressed I realise now cannot be debated today. On the subject, however, of postwar credits, it became clear from the supplementary questions and answers that the Treasury had not grasped one of the points I was trying to make, and that was in regard to the amount of confusion that exists in the country about the actual position of these postwar credits. I raise the point on behalf of a large number of people from different parts of the country because I have had a considerable correspondence inquiring as to the position of the postwar credits. They are certainly getting the impression from the local taxation officers that they will never be able in any circumstances to draw these credits until they reach the age of 65, or in the case of women 60.

Strangely enough from three different parts of the country I have received letters in almost similar terms stating that the father has died at 62 and his postwar credits have been transferred to the son or daughter. They have made inquiries about the position of those credits, and have been told they cannot draw them until they are 65. This means if they die at 62, 63 or 64 the credits will have to be transferred to their heirs and successors and so on throughout history until one of them survives to 65. I know that that is a completely wrong impression, but it is an impression gained by a large number of people. I hope the Financial Secre- tary will at least make sure that the instructions given to local taxation officers will be sufficiently clear to ensure that these people are able to understand precisely what the position is, because this misunderstanding is giving rise to a great deal of confusion and distress.

There are a large number of people in difficult circumstances from time to time who have big postwar credits standing in their names. I could give many dozens of examples, but I will content myself with one or two. There is one case of a gentleman who has retired from work following a serious operation in 1947, during which time, while he was in hospital, his wife drew nothing more than 18s. a week from the son's wages. The son eventually met with an accident and lost the use of his hands. The wife drew every penny she had in savings to set up a small business. Now the wife has fallen seriously ill, and because of lack of funds has had to close down the business. Another case is that of a gentleman who retired at 59 years of age with no use of his hands following an accident. He now requires special treatment and, having no money to undergo that treatment, he applied to the local taxation officer, and he has come away with the impression that in no circumstances can he draw the postwar credit standing in his name until he or one of his heirs survives beyond 65.

There are other cases of sons coming out of the Army and wanting special educational courses which the parents cannot afford. There are a surprisingly large number of people who have undergone amputations of legs who find the cost of an artificial leg in the region of £30 or £40. The approved society can only give them £7 or £10 towards it, and they do not know where the rest of the money is coming from. They think, "What about the postwar credit I have got of £30 or £40?" They are told they cannot touch that until they are 65, and we can easily imagine the reaction of those people in those circumstances. There are people who have to face large funeral costs and inherit postwar credits. They find that they cannot afford to pay for the funeral and they think they should be able to use the postwar credit for that purpose.

There is one case of a lady whose husband died leaving no assets except his postwar credits, which were for a small sum of £2 or £3. When she asked the position she was told she will have to take out letters of administration to get the money transferred to her, and she then found that the cost of letters of administration were almost as much as the postwar credits and would only leave her a few shillings.

The general position from all the correspondence I have had from persons with low incomes might be summed up as follows: "I am struggling to keep my family on public assistance or a small pension of some kind and just cannot do it. I have postwar credits lying in my name. Why can't I use them?" Apart from these cases there are the special cases of people who are suddenly met with the necessity of a considerable expenditure which they cannot possibly face or cannot meet from any other source. They think they should be entitled to these postwar credits. One of my correspondents sent me a letter which he had from the Inspector of Taxes at Taunton, and I want to read this to the House, because this shows that some Income Tax inspectors try to convey the correct impression to these people. This letter says: I much regret that I have no authority to make payment of postwar credit to you. His Majesty's Government have so far made provision for the payments to be made only to women who have reached the age of 60 years and to men of 65 years. I am not permitted to make an exception to this rule. This inspector says: His Majesty's Government have so far made provision … That is not the general procedure followed in these letters, but even this letter could have been elaborated a little more to make the position clear to those people and tell them that as soon as the financial position permits, it is the intention of the Government that these credits shall be released in a wider scheme.

There is one other point which should be made clear, in a statement which I hope will be given sufficient publicity—that is, that it is impossible in present financial circumstances to release the whole of the money that would have to be released to meet these postwar credits. I think the figures run into thousands of millions of pounds. When we recollect the enthusiasm and excitement that was caused a few days ago by the Americans deciding to release £100 million of the American credits to this country, and put that in contrast with the thousands of millions of pounds which will be required eventually to pay these postwar credits, one can see something of the enormity of the commitments which the Government have to face at some stage. I do not want to discuss here whether or not it was a sensible thing at the time to establish the system of postwar credits. Certainly, the Government are going to have a serious burden to meet as a result of it.

In view of the restrictions placed upon a discussion on the Adjournment in this House, I am prevented from making any representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to the Financial Secretary in connection with extending the scope of the releases of these credits, but the Government did make a concession some time ago in regard to old age pensioners, which was very much welcomed, though that concession was a discriminatory one made in respect of old people, who might in normal circumstances have little hope of drawing their credits. It left the position that many old age pensioners drew those credits and transferred them immediately to the bank, whereas the fellow next door who was up against it financially found that he could do nothing at all about it.

I would urge upon the Financial Secretary that at least he should see that the position is made perfectly clear to everybody concerned, that it is not a question of waiting until one has reached 65 before there are any credit releases. That is the main point, but I hope he will also give serious consideration to those poor people who, with postwar credits in their name, are from time to time faced with tremendous financial problems, and also that when the time comes for new legislation to be introduced, he will be in a receptive frame of mind.

2.10 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), but on this occasion I want to reinforce from the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield what he has said. I have had instances of the difficulties that arise when aged men die having postwar credits due to them. Indeed, I have a case that has been with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for nearly a month now, and to which I have not yet had a reply. I should like to take this opportunity of putting the case before him. I would refer him to Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1946, to show that there is no need for an alteration of any law on this subject, so that it can be raised on the Adjournment.

The case concerns a daughter whose father, having some postwar credits due to him, died at the age of 71. Her mother then also died, at the age of 77. The daughter is in very straitened circumstances and is very much in need of the credits. It seems to me that under Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1946, where an application has been made by an old man, it should be possible for his daughter to have his credits. If I am right in that, if that is the proper interpretation of the law, then it seems to me that the Treasury should in this case I have mentioned—and in others like it—see that the postwar credits are paid. The credits were due to the father who died, became due to his widow, who also died, and should now be paid to the daughter. The family's name is Robinson. I hope the Financial Secretary will recollect the case, and that he will give an assurance that in this case, and in others like it, where the person to whom postwar credit is owed has died, it is possible for payment to be made, not through any expensive method—through the payment of fees to solicitors or charges of administration—but by Government prescription through Statutory Rules and Orders, for which provision is made in the Act, saying that payment should be made wherever a case of hardship is made out.

I am sure that if the Government were to accede to this request, it would relieve the anxieties and some of the hardships of a large number of dependants of people to whom postwar credits are due, and would remove any cause for the misapprehension which people have that a recipient of a postwar credit must have reached the age of 65. I do hope that today we shall have from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury an undertaking that this case, and others like it, will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Treasury.

2.13 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central)

I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) on raising this matter today. I want to approach the matter in the spirit in which it has already been approached—the spirit of sympathy with the people concerned and of understanding of the difficulty which faces the Treasury. When money is held in trust, and it has been taken by compulsion, there is an understandable irritation on the part of people who fall on evil days and know that they have these invisible assets. I believe the Treasury could render a very useful service at the present time by giving a little more publicity to their future possible course of action in this regard. There are people who, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, have fallen on evil days. Some of them have fallen on evil days since the war. There are people who have been stricken with blindness; there are people who, due to accidents at work, are crippled; there are people who have lost their hearing. There can scarcely be a Member of this House who has not met or heard of a number of such cases. They are all people with postwar credits.

If the Financial Secretary will issue a general statement that in the near future he hopes to look at these cases, it will be of great help to hon. Members, and will indeed give comfort of mind, if not a more satisfactory remedy, to the people who are in distress. I entirely agree about what has been said from both sides of the House about the passing on of money when the person to whom it is due dies. I have received an example from my own constituency of a person who died leaving a fair amount in postwar credit, but whose heir, or the person who is to administer the estate, unfortunately has to carry all the responsibilities and debts of the deceased without being able to get at his assets. It seems to me absolutely unfair. It is unjust. I hope that the Financial Secretary, when he replies, will hold out a promise that these anomalies which are being revealed in the administration of his work will be wiped away. There can be no excuse, having seen the anomalies, for not removing them.

2.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

I think hon. Members on all sides of the House must be grateful to the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) for raising this matter. We are in one little difficulty, that whereas when the postwar credit system was introduced we had as wide a discussion as possible, since then we have had Finance Acts laying down the age at which releases can be made. It is, therefore, a little difficult to discuss the matter now without breaking the rule governing Adjournment Debates, that we must not get on to matters involving legislation. I believe, however, it is possible under Statutory Rules and Orders for some action to be taken in the matter, and it is that point I wish to bring to the Financial Secretary today.

When the postwar credit system was introduced, it so happened that I was one of the Members of the House who were somewhat sceptical about what would be likely to happen after the war. I remember asking whether we should have the credits set off against Income Tax arrears: I said I thought that in many cases we could never succeed in touching the cash. That was repudiated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at that time, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank). We were assured that none of these nefarious practices would happen. But they are happening now under the present Administration. Already officers who have claims made upon them of debts arising out of their war service are being told that they can be set off against postwar credits. That is already beginning to arise in the Departmental Claims Branch, which I believe is situated in the constituency of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). That is by the way.

What the hon. Member for Attercliffe wants, I gather, is more flexible administration—that it should be not so much a matter of age as that these credits should be released on grounds of hardship. It is surprising how often we get back to this subject in Parliamentary discussion, for what we are really getting at once again is a test of need in these matters. If Lord Nuffield passes the allotted span he can draw his postwar credit, whereas a man of 55 years of age suffering from some grave disability—not incurred originally, perhaps, through hostilities—is unable to draw his postwar credit.

I am a great believer in getting back to first principles. The whole conception of postwar credits was that they were a nest egg for use in the very period through which we are now passing, the period of postwar reconstruction, but a nest egg is not much good if you cannot take advantage of it when you are most hardly pressed financially. The right hon. Gentleman will be in the same difficulty as we are in discussing legislation, but it would be in Order for him to say that he will examine the machinery which is open to him, that is Statutory Rules and Orders. That is a system which we have often been criticising, but it is a system which we might take advantage of this afternoon. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the unanimous opinion which has been expressed on both sides of the House that this matter should be re-examined. In view of the season which is now approaching, this would be a very suitable occasion for the Treasury to take a more charitable view of these cases of hardship among our constituents which are brought to the attention of the Department by their representatives in this House.

2.21 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington (Lewisham, West)

I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) for having raised this interesting and important question. I am certain, from the correspondence I have received, that there is a good deal of confusion in the mind of the public in regard to the principles which operate in the payment of these credits. I am sure that this Debate and the reply from the Financial Secretary will help a large number of us to understand a little more clearly what are the conditions of payment, and what are the possibilities of payment, in the difficult cases which have been mentioned from all sides this afternoon. I have had a good deal of correspondence, like other hon. Members, on this subject. Many people are assuming that no one at any time will be paid their postwar credits until the age of 65 in the case of men, and 70 in the case of women. Constituents of mine have been writing to me asking why they should have to wait 10 or 20 years before being able to enjoy their own savings.

The general reason for non-payment of postwar credits is certainly appreciated by all hon. Members. It is agreed that it would be very stupid economically to release large slices of purchasing power until there are far more consumer goods on the home market. To pay now would merely add considerably to the inflationary pressure, and it would force up prices. At least that would be the effect unless price control was extended to many fields not now covered. That is understood in this House. But if there is one failure in connection with Government Departments, it is on the public relations side. I should have thought that it would have been possible to state from time to time in the Press the reasons why it would be undesirable to make general payments of postwar credits. If people understood the reasons, they would be a little better able to bear the hardship and put up with the inconvenience of non-payment of postwar credits. That would deal with general principles now we have the cases of acute hardship.

I assume that the Treasury know full well about these difficult cases, but it is the duty of back benchers constantly to bring them to the notice of the Government so that they are not overlooked, or it is thought that Members are satisfied to let the matter drop. Several widowed ladies have written to me on the subject. They feel that they are entitled to the savings of their husbands to meet the extra commitments which result from the death of their husbands. There is one case—a constituent of mine—of a widowed lady of 57 years of age, who has little to live on except the few savings of her husband. At that age she cannot go out to work, having left industry over 30 years ago. If she could obtain part payment of the fairly substantial savings of her husband, it would make a great difference. I have another case of a man of 58 whose health suddenly deteriorated. He was engaged in business on his own account, and therefore, he was not covered by adequate insurance. Owing to the fairly prosperous nature of his business, he accumulated a fairly substantial amount of postwar credit savings.

If something could be done to meet these types of cases, it would give relief to these very deserving people. It should not add to our general inflationary difficulties, because the number of cases cannot be very large. I am sure that if payment were made in these cases, it would not upset our plans in regard to our economic affairs. It would be out of Order for me to suggest how these matters can be overcome, but as a member of two great Departments of State during the war, I learned that there were few regulations which could not be intelligently interpreted—I will not say "got round." We know that the benign exterior of the Financial Secretary is matched with a benign heart. We know how deeply he feels about these questions. With the goodwill of the Treasury officials, I am certain that some way can be found to meet these difficult cases.

2.28 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

The Financial Secretary will remember that I raised this question in March, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that an opportunity would be given at a later date for discussing this matter. That later date was on the Finance Bill, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) and myself put down an Amendment. That Amendment was not called, but we discussed the matter on Clause II standing part of the Bill. The general impression was that notice was going to be taken of the views we expressed. It is quite obvious that, some action should be taken to meet these cases of hardship. A case has been brought to my notice of a man who died at the age of 64. His estate consisted only of his postwar credits, and these fell to his daughter who was not in very good financial circumstances. Notwithstanding the costs of the funeral, this woman has to wait until she attains the age of 60 years before she can draw these postwar credits. I think I am right in saying that if a man dies at the age of 64, his beneficiaries are not entitled to draw the postwar credit until the age of 60, if a woman, and 65, if a man. It is unfair for the State to keep this money for 20 or 30 years, and the very least the State should do is to pay interest on the credits outstanding. I hope that, in view of what has been said, the Financial Secretary will have some good news to tell us which we can take back to those constituents of ours who are suffering under this disability.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Guy (Poplar, South)

I intervene for two minutes to support the plea of hon. Members who have made out this case for the revision of postwar credits. I wish to stress the fact that I represent a constituency where workers in two particular industries—namely, the ship repair workers and dock workers—worked at the fullest pitch throughout the war. They were of the ages of 55 to 60 and they have now reached 62, 63 or 64; many of them have now fallen by the wayside or are ill. I would like to see the return of their postwar credits because I feel it would be very pleasing to them on this occasion. If my right hon. Friend can convey to the Minister a message in order to get him to understand the position, the Government may come to some arrangement whereby these postwar credits can be returned in special cases. This is a season of peace on earth and goodwill towards all men. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will take these facts into consideration and see what can possibly be done.

2.32 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

I believe that there has been some doubt as to whether the subject introduced by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Hynd) is in Order. I would like to compliment him and other hon. Members on the way they have apparently got around the rule over and over again, in order to get over the point which has obviously been worrying Members. I am very well aware of their case. Each week I receive a large number of letters on the subject. The hon. Member for Attercliffe gave no real evidence, if I may say so, to support his contention that people do not generally understand that, because at the moment under the law only a woman who has reached the age of 60 or a man who has reached the age of 65 can get their credits——

Mr. J. Hynd

The only reason I did not give evidence was the time factor, but I have in my hand many letters.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

From the one letter he did quote, it is evident that the inspector made the matter quite plain by use of the words "so far." That payment can, at present, only be made to old people is, of course, the rule. Indeed, it is the law. It is not fixed by Statutory Rule and Order, it is fixed by Act of Par- liament. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no authority whatever to pay postwar credits to any woman under the age of 60, or to any man under the age of 65. That does not mean to say—and I think that the Chancellor and I have explained this on various occasions when discussing the Finance Bill—that people will have to wait until that age. It is our hope, and I trust more than a hope, that in due time we shall work down the age scale until everybody has had his postwar credits paid to him, not because he has reached the age of 65 but because he has reached the age laid down at that particular time.

Mr. P. Roberts

If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Section 26 of the Finance Act of 1946 he will see it says: Written application made in such a form as the Commissioners may require. That means it is not laid down in the Act. Under Subsection (5) the Treasury may make regulations to carry this regulation into effect and may say that the application should be in writing by a man who is due to it over the age of 65, and that would be sufficient to entitle him to receive the credits whether he dies or lives.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

That is exactly what happens. Regulations have been made and rules laid down as to the form in which the application should be made. The Treasury is acting on these words. It is definitely laid down that the form in which the application is to be made is a printed form which can be obtained from the Post Office. May I, at this juncture, deal with the case of Miss Robinson, which was raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts)? I take it that the case did come to me, and not to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, whom he mentioned. If so, I can assure him that if the father or the mother, both of whom I gather are now dead, made application, their postwar credit will be paid to the daughter, whatever her age may be. But if they did not actually physically apply for it and if Miss Robinson is not at the moment 60 years old, she will not receive it until her turn comes round. The application must have been made and, if has not been made, it falls into the estate and cannot be drawn at the moment. We cannot go beyond that at this juncture.

What is the reason for all this? There are—as I think the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) said—something like £800 million due to those entitled to postwar credits. That is a pretty considerable sum and I may say in passing to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, the fact that we were all delighted when the last £100 million of the dollar loan was liberated is not really relative to this particular matter. There we are dealing with a dollar shortage. Here we are dealing with something entirely different.

Mr. J. Hynd

I was merely quoting that figure to show the enormity of the Government's commitments because of the hundreds of million pounds involved.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Eight hundred million pounds is a large sum and there are three reasons why it cannot all be liberated at once. First, it would lead to the sort of inflationary pressure to which we have referred. Secondly, the Inland Revenue Department have not sufficient staff at this moment to deal with the volume of work that would occur in distributing such an amount at once to the millions who are entitled to it. Therefore the question of the method of repayment arose during 1946. A good deal of pressure was brought to bear on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who was then Chancellor of the Ex-chequer, and the following reasonable argument was raised: "If all the money cannot be liberated, cannot we do something for those who are not likely to live to enjoy this money, if payment is not made until some years to come?" It was on these grounds alone and not on grounds of hardship that it seemed right to repay credits to old people. Therefore, the then Chancellor said "All right. We will pay old age pensioners, women of over 60 and men of over 65. Let them have it now."

He began by giving them postwar credits for three years. In the last Finance Bill, the final years were added. Old age pensioners are now in the process of receiving the whole of the credits due to them. It may be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year, or in future years, to consider whether he can move down the age scale and perhaps pay people between 55 and 60 or even between 50 and 60—I do not know. It seems to me that it would be best to work down the scale so that the staff are not overloaded and so that we can keep down the inflationary pressure. The Inland Revenue will then be able to cope with it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

May I ask this question, which is very important? Are we to understand that the Government are firmly wedded to the criterion of age in this matter and that matters of hardship or personal circumstances are not entering into consideration?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I was coming to that. I began by saying that most of the speeches have considered this problem on hardship grounds. The hon. Member for Attercliffe said that there was great misunderstanding on the part of people as to whether they had to wait till the age of 60 or 65 to get their postwar credits. He went on to deal almost exclusively with cases of hardship. The question of hardship was put over and over again during the Debates on the Finance Bill. It was then said by me and by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer that the difficulty of paying postwar credit on hardship grounds was to decide what is hardship. How hard has hardship to be, before one can decide that it is hard enough to give a particular person his or her postwar credit? Who is to decide? If it is left—as it would have to be, so it seems to me—to an official to decide, what official is to make the decision? How would we deal with the thousands of cases that would immediately come forward? Should we, in all cases, pay postwar credit because some one had died and the money was wanted to meet the funeral expenses? Should we pay it if a man or wife fell ill and had to go into hospital and incur certain expenses? Should we pay it if the wife of a man was expecting another child and there was financial stringency?

On what grounds should we judge hardship? That is the difficulty which the Treasury is up against in this matter. We realise, none better, how people feel about this. They know that they have the money due to them, but they do not know when they will receive it. They say, "If I had that money, now I could open a shop or pay a doctors bill, or do this, or do that." We realise how they feel, but we cannot legislate for feelings. Most of us are hard up at some time or another. Most of us want to draw money which we feel is ours, and we make efforts to get hold of it. When we come to distribute money set aside during the war as a nest egg for more normal times, we have to lay down rules and regulations which can be easily applied and do not create more anomalies than we are trying to cure.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton (Brixton)

What objection is there to realising upon postwar credits in the case of a person who has to rely upon public assistance? There we have the machinery set up which measures the need.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Why should we pick out those people and no one else?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

My right hon. Friend asked for a test of hardship.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

If we gave way to the pressure exerted and met cases on grounds of hardship in addition to age, the anomalies we should create, and the dissatisfaction caused, would, I think, be very great. Many people would have a natural feeling that they had been badly used. When we are dealing with public money or are distributing from the public purse money withheld at some earlier time, we must do it on a system that is simple and reasonable, and which all people will accept as being fair in the circumstances.

Mr. Baldwin

The right hon. Gentleman shook his head when I suggested that a beneficiary had to wait until she or he became 60 or 65 before being entitled to draw postwar credit. I mentioned the case where a holder of postwar credit dies at 64 and his daughter has to wait 30 years before she can draw the money.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

The point made is if a man of 64 dies, his daughter who is 30 should be allowed to draw his postwar credit purely on the grounds that he was only one year off being able to draw it himself. The whole point of paying postwar credit to people of 65 or 60 was on the grounds of age. Therefore, it is the beneficiary we should look at when we come to decide what should or should not be paid out at this juncture. There is no reason why a woman of 30 should receive a postwar credit, which would have come to her father had he lived, be- cause of the accident that her father happened to die. There is no reason why one person of 30 should get it and not another. There might be a reason for a person of 30 getting it on the grounds of hardship, if a test for hardship could be found; but no ground exists for giving it to such a person merely because the father or mother had died and would have got a postwar credit if he or she had lived a year longer.

I hope that the House will realise the difficulty of my right hon. Friend in this matter. Next April, we shall probably be able to discuss this matter again. As the law stands, postwar credit is paid to a woman of over 60 and to a man of over 65. It is our view, and I think it is a reasonable one, that we should judge this by no other test, and issue no regulations which would permit these credits to be paid on hardship grounds. This would lead us into very great difficulties; and, instead of finding that the House was satisfied, we should find hon. Members in all quarters would be coming to us with case after case in which, in their view, great hardship had occurred.

Mr. Baldwin

The right hon. Gentleman is not the Father Christmas we hoped he was going to be.