§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—
§ [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
§ [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise certain increases in the case of pensions to which the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944 to 1947, apply, and of certain other pensions (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
§ 9.49 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)I invite the Financial Secretary to consider whether it is necessary for the Resolution to be so rigidly drafted. We have listened to a long and very interesting debate on the Bill in general, and many suggestions have been made as to ways in which the Bill might be improved. But we now find that the Resolution precludes the Government and hon. Members who may serve on the Committee from pursuing a great many points which have been raised in our debate. The form of the Resolution tells us at the outset that before they had heard any arguments the Government had made up their mind that they would not concede some of the most important points which they knew must be raised in the debate.
The points I have particularly in mind, and which, if the Money Resolution goes through in its present form, we shall be precluded from discussing at any stage of the Bill are, first of all, the point of the date. I do not wish to labour that, because it was pretty well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and it was referred to by the right hon. Lady in the speech which she has just made. Her contention was that the late Government could have dealt with this problem whenever they wished but, as has been pointed out, this is a problem which was created by the Budget of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was quite impossible for the late Government to deal with a problem created by the Chancellor in the Government which succeeded them.
2155 But, more important than the date, is the fact that it will be impossible to consider either the question of the means test or the rule that the increase shall not exceed one-third of the pension if the Resolution goes through in this form. The combination of these two is particularly significant, because between them they make a kind of Morton's Fork. On the one hand, we say that anybody who has a fairly large income shall be precluded from getting as much benefit from this Bill as he might because he has that fairly large income; and, on the other hand, we say that anyone who has an exceptionally small pension shall be precluded by the one-third rule from getting as much benefit as he might because he has an exceptionally small pension.
I do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of having those two provisions in the Bill, but it seems to me that we ought not at this stage to make it impossible for the desirability or undesirability of these provisions to be discussed at any future stage of our deliberations on this Bill. That is why I am suggesting that the Financial Secretary should reconsider the wording of this Resolution. It is not only that the principle of the means test is nailed down in the Bill by the Money Resolution, but the exact figures of the total income are also prescribed in this Resolution.
Further, the figures not only of the pensioner without dependants but the pensioner with dependants are prescribed, and the relation between the amount of benefit to be given to one kind of pensioner and another is also something which it will be impossible to discuss at any later stage of the Bill should the Money Resolution in its present form be approved.
Similarly, by putting the one-third rule in the Money Resolution not only are we prevented at any future stage from discussing whether it is desirable to have a limit of that kind passed, but also it will not even be possible to discuss whether the proportion ought to be something more than one-third. I seriously suggest to the Financial Secretary that the Money Resolution as drawn at the present moment neglects the very serious and well-informed arguments which were put before the House this 2156 afternoon, and quite unduly restricts future discussions on this Measure.
It would serve the purpose which this House and this Committee has to serve, namely, careful and thoughtful discussion of a Bill with the hope of amending it, if the hon. Gentleman at this stage would agree to set aside the Money Resolution in its present form and at some convenient date present one that is drafted somewhat less rigidly and which will make it possible to take account of the arguments which have been advanced, enabling us to get on with our job, which ought to be amending the Bill.
§ Mr. HoughtonThis is where the battle on the Bill begins.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithThis is the ultimatum.
§ Mr. HoughtonThe Financial Secretary is trying to put the whole House in a strait jacket on this Bill. If the Financial Resolution remains as drafted, a good deal of what has been said in a serious and thoughtful debate will have been a waste of time. I hope that the Financial Secretary will have something accommodating to say on the Resolution. As I read it, the Table in the Second Schedule of the Bill is open to amendment in Committee, but the ceiling and the means test are not. The effective date of the Bill is not open to amendment in Committee, nor is the one-third rule, though, as I read it, the amount of the pension increase is.
All we are left with to discuss effectively in Committee is the amount of the pension and the Table in the Second Schedule. If that is a correct interpretation of the position, it is an absolute insult to us, after the long and throughtful debate we have had, to ask us to go into Committee to discuss the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friends on this side will realise the seriousness of the restrictions imposed by the Resolution and will act accordingly.
However tolerant we have been with the Financial Secretary in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill—we have been extremely kind to him and have made our contributions in a friendly and constructive way—if we are to be treated in this way, after having given the Bill a Second Reading, it is time for us to register a very emphatic protest. I hope that hon. Gentlemen 2157 opposite who have made contributions on points which are excluded from the Financial Resolution will join us in making that protest.
What earthly use has it been for them to sit the whole afternoon and evening to make suggestions to their hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench only to find themselves bound and gagged by this Resolution? I am greatly indignant about this matter and about the principle of the thing. If the House is asked to consider a Bill containing a variety of complex clauses and important proposals, the voice of the House is entitled to be heard when we come to deal with the detail of the Bill in Committee. I hope that the Financial Secretary will make a reply which will enable us to finish up on this Bill in a spirit of co-operation and good will.
§ Mr. CoveI support the protest. I am not quite sure that what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said in relation to this Resolution is not too generous. This is a very tightly drawn Financial Resolution, and if it goes through as it is now it will make a farce of the Committee proceedings.
I should have thought the wise thing for the Government to do would be to respond to what is undoubtedly the feeling on both sides of the Committee. I will not go through the list of Members in detail, but undoubtedly views have been expressed on many matters with which the Committee should have a chance of dealing, for instance, the application of the date in October. If the present Financial Resolution is carried, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should realise clearly that the House cannot do anything of any value to improve the Bill; there is no shadow of doubt about that.
One of my objections to the Bill is that its provisions have been settled outside the confines of the House of Commons; the principles have been discussed and agreed to by bodies outside this House. We have little or no Parliamentary control, and I ask hon. Members opposite to join with us——
§ Mr. Ellis SmithTo what parties is my hon. Friend referring?
§ Mr. CoveMy hon. Friend had better look it up; I do not want to go into 2158 detail at this time of the night. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to join with us in seeing that the Committee stage will be a real one, in which we can deal with the points made by both sides of the House. If not, I hope my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will vote against this Financial Resolution.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. G. ThomasThe Financial Secretary has not been unreasonable in his earlier statement to the House, and I am sure he will appreciate that hon. Members on both sides have spent their time today in making constructive suggestions for the improvement of this Bill. To say the least, it is disrespectful to all hon. Members who thought that their contributions to the debate might be taken notice of by the Treasury during the Committee stage.
The fact that we shall not be able in Committee to seek any alteration to the one-third stipulation, which hits the lower pensioner severely, to my mind makes a mockery of the Committee stage. The fact that we are unable to deal with the means test principle means that one of the main items to which we object will be put outside our range.
I am quite sure that it would not be the wish of the Government to steamroller this Measure through without the Commons being given the opportunity to be the watch dogs of the public purse in matters of this kind. I earnestly hope that the Financial Secretary will not stand at the Box and merely indicate that he is unable in any way to meet the wishes of the Committee.
Hon. Members opposite who have spoken in scathing terms about some of the things in this Bill knew that there would be no Division. It was announced at the beginning from this side of the House that we would not take the Question to the Division Lobby. It was easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to be severe in their condemnation, knowing they would not have to follow their convictions to the Division Lobby. The test of their sincerity is the attitude they will now adopt when the things to which they object are being put beyond our reach of correction, and I earnestly hope that we shall find from that side of the Committee an enthusiasm equal to this side of the House in objecting to the Financial Resolution as it is framed.
§ Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)I think it is generally understood that it is rare for a Financial Resolution connected with a Bill to be opposed in this House unless there is a profound feeling that it does not go far enough to deal with the anomalies and injustices contained in the Bill in question.
Since the debate started, practically every speaker, with one exception, has called attention to the unfairness of certain sections of the Bill. If our debate this afternoon and this evening is to prove worth while, we should have an opportunity of putting down Amendments to remove some of the injustices to which the House has had its attention drawn. If the Financial Resolution goes through in its present form, it will be impossible for any person, however generous or however mean, to put down Amendments to remove some of the things which the Bill contains.
We on this side are anxious to have a discussion upon the subject of the means test, which is creating a great deal of heartburning throughout the country for those who have been on pensions for a considerable time. We appeal to the Financial Secretary to reconsider the Financial Resolution—it would not hold up the Bill for more than a few days—and to widen it as far as the purse will allow, so that when we come to put down Amendments to certain parts of the Bill we shall not be met with the argument that they are outside the financial terms of the Bill. We have had too much of that in the past.
We feel very indignant on this side that after spending all the debate on this important Measure, we now find that the Financial Resolution does not give an opportunity to put down Amendments which would improve the Bill and, consequently, improve the economic position of those who would benefit under it. I strongly support those who have made their protest against the Financial Resolution as it now stands.
§ Mr. CallaghanI have no desire to stand between the Financial Secretary and the Committee, because we hope to hear some good news from him. None of us on this side has any desire to prolong the debate, because there has been an atmosphere of reasonableness during the whole day.
2160 The Financial Secretary will have been impressed by the feeling that has been displayed on this side of the Committee about the way in which the Money Resolution has been drawn. I fully understand the indignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). He has given a lifetime of service in this cause, and he feels greatly indignant at the manner in which the Resolution has been drawn.
I hope I shall not be ruled completely out of court in saying this, but I also have some sympathy with the Treasury. They clearly want to limit to some extent their financial liability. They want to go into Committee knowing that they will not be over-committed on what is likely to come out of the Committee stage. Clearly, the House and the Committee must have a measure of responsibility and must take a sensible point of view about what is being done in this matter.
I say to the Financial Secretary and to his supporters that it is the job of the Committee to hold a balance in this matter. Our complaint on this side is that we do not think the balance has been fairly struck. We think that the Financial Secretary has tied it up—perhaps not with intent, but certainly as it has appeared in front of the Committee—in an extremely tight way, and I should hope that some of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the other side earlier will support us in this matter.
There is one aspect concerning the operative date, which I feel should be much earlier. I do not intend to argue that again now, because it has been argued before. On the question of the date from which the Bill should operate, there is not a great deal of liability. The Treasury are not giving too much away if they leave that matter to be discussed in Committee.
By drawing the Financial Resolution so tightly, the Financial Secretary has vitiated a great deal of the usefulness of the Committee stage, and I do not want us to embark upon the Committee stage in an atmosphere in which it is felt by certain Members that the Government, by drawing the Resolution very tightly, prevent adequate discussion of strongly felt grievances which could be decently and properly aired in Committee.
2161 The Leader of the House is here, the matter has been circulated among the Whips, and I have no doubt that the Government could beat us if it came to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps they are not so sure, but I am assuming that that is what would happen, although I am sure that a number of the Government's supporters would not vote very wholeheartedly with them.
I appeal to the Financial Secretary We do not want to end on a Division tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That would finally kill it if the Government won, and I give the best advice I can to hon. Members on my side of the Committee. If the Government were to put on the Whips and their supporters who have supported the general criticism—and there has been concrete criticism—were forced to go into the Lobby, any hope of amending the Bill in the way in which we want to amend it, because the Financial Resolution has been drawn so tightly, would be killed. My objective, and I take it, the objective of most hon. Members, is to try to get the best Bill we can for the pensioners. That seems to be the best way to approach this matter. I do not want this debate to end in a Division in which two sides will be shepherded into two Lobbies each voting a particular way.
What I am doing, therefore, is making an appeal to the Leader of the House and to the Financial Secretary. As these points are really tightly drawn, I appeal to the Financial Secretary to consider withdrawing the Money Resolution for the moment, to have another look at it and to see whether he can redraft it so that the liability of the Treasury is properly covered—clearly we must take that into account in Committee—but, having covered their liability, that we should also be able in Committee to exercise a useful function by discussing the matters as we want to discuss them.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a reasonable answer and consent to look at the Resolution again before the Question is put and to see whether he can amend it in some way.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI do not quarrel with what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has said as to the principle to be followed on these Money Resolutions, that one must hold 2162 a fair balance between the responsibility of the Government for the recommendation of expenditure and the freedom of the Committee on Committee stage to have a proper, adequate and satisfying debate. Indeed, the drafting of these Money Resolutions ought properly to strike a fair balance between those two, on the face of them, somewhat conflicting considerations——
§ Mr. Ellis SmithThis Resolution does not do that.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterWhere I part company from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, and from the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), is when they say that this is a tightly drawn Money Resolution. With great respect, it is nothing of the sort. To begin with, as I ventured to indicate during the speech of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), it is modelled on the Resolution which he moved on the 1947 Bill. It was deliberately drawn so as to leave a very wide field for discussion.
Let me remind the Committee of what is left wholly open. The actual amount of the increases, each and all of them, is fully open. On the precedent of many Bills they might well have been fully covered, but on this occasion they have been left open. The amount of income to be disregarded in computing the income for the purposes of entitlement to pension is left open. In that way, in practice, the issue of the ceilings on income at which entitlement to pension ceases is left open. As I explained on Second Reading, the income limits and disregards are the converse and obverse of the same thing.
Finally, what was described earlier as the tapering arrangements are all left open. A Money Resolution which leaves those things open may well be liable to criticism, but that criticism would be on the grounds that it has not, perhaps, fully discharged the responsibility of the Government in recommending expenditure to the House with some degree of precision.
Let me take two matters to which reference has been made, which the Resolution covers. In the first place, there is the date of the coming into effect of the Bill. I cannot go into the argument, Sir Charles, as to the merits of the date chosen without incurring your 2163 displeasure. But, in point of fact, of course, the hon. Gentleman has answered the question. He has said with some force that this matter arises out of my right hon. Friend's Budget speech and out of the adjustments made in it. This Bill is therefore on his own showing a Bill, the whole purpose of which and the recommendations of which are to deal, so far as this section of the community is concerned, with the situation following from that.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. M. StewartIt is not on my showing, it is originally on the hon. Member's showing. He does confirm that this Bill is to deal with the position created by the Chancellor's Budget? I would like that confirmed, because the right hon. Lady took a quite different view.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I will make the position clear. I have had experience now extending over nearly 20 years of his skill as a debater, and he knows that I was only half-way through the argument. It was not he but his right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) who said this. If that view is right, this fits in with other social changes which followed from the Budget, and in particular with the adjustment to the old-age pensions which take effect on 29th September, two days from the date in question. So, on his own right hon. Friend's showing, it is one of the purposes of the Bill to fit in with those arrangements.
I would not go as far as my right hon. Friend. I would say it has not been only the need to make adjustments following on the Budget, but also on the fact, as many of my hon. Friends have said, that the party opposite did not see fit to take any steps in this matter since 1947. But, in so far as there is force in the contention of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley that this is a sequel to the Budget, it is surely logical to arrange it so that it comes into force at substantially the same time as the comparable provisions made in respect of National Insurance.
Let me come to the point which roused so much indignation in the normally equable temperament of the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart). In the Resolution, he said, there appeared 2164 the principle of the income limit. That, I am bound to remind him, did appear in the Resolution of 1947. And I am bound to remind the Committee that when the right hon. Member for Colne Valley moved the Resolution on 6th December, 1946, not a single hon. Member on that or any side of the Committee raised their voices in protest.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithThat is six years ago.
§ Mr. HoughtonThey would have done, had I been here.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI will willingly agree that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is an exception to all rules, but, in point of fact, it was the hon. Member for Fulham, East, who was I think then a member of the Administration, who became so indignant on this point.
§ Mr. M. StewartThe hon. Member compares what is happening now with what happened then, but he does omit the point that that was so because in those days there was a very flaccid and idle Opposition. The hon. Member cannot expect things that went uncriticised then to go uncriticised now. And will he not accept this fact, that while we on this side of the House take a good view of the record of the late Government, none of my right hon. and hon. Friends or myself who were members of it have ever suggested it was infallible?
We cannot understand the continued argument advanced from the Front Bench opposite that because something was done by the late Government that puts it immediately beyond question or argument. I should be happy to believe that that was so, but our natural modesty and common sense precludes us from the doctrine of the infallibility of the late Government, to which the Front Bench opposite are so addicted. Will the hon. Gentleman believe that he is now responsible, and if he is satisfied that it is a right provision he ought to be able to justify it on its own merits and with his own arguments?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterTwo most interesting points arise from that brief intervention. First, the hon. Member for Fulham, East apparently took the view that during the lifetime of the late Government sole responsibility for looking after the welfare of public servants in 2165 this country fell on the Opposition. That indeed explains a great deal.
Secondly, he seems to be under the illusion that I am arguing for the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). I am not, but I commend to the hon. Member for Fulham, East, who was his colleague in the late Administration, that the fact that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley did something is not conclusive evidence that it was nonsense. It may amount to a prima facie case. I am prepared to concede that, but I beg the hon. Member for Fulham, East to believe that on occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley may have been right.
We have the fact that, included in the Money Resolution which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, without a dissentient voice from either side of the Committee, put through on 6th December, 1946, there was not only the limitation upon incomes but the two specific points which upset the hon. Member for Fulham, East. These were the actual amounts of money and the differentiation between the pensioner with dependants and the pensioner without dependants. When one realises that all that was contained in the Money Resolution, which was a matter of routine put forward in connection with the 1947 Act, I suggest that there has been some exaggeration in the suggestions that this Resolution, modelled upon that, will really have an unduly restrictive effect upon the deliberations of the Committee.
§ Mr. CallaghanMay I put it to the hon. Gentleman that during the Second Reading debate in 1947 there was no criticism of these factors to the marked degree that we have had today. They were never a source of contention, not between the two sides of the House but between everybody in the House and the Government at that time. In this Bill and on this Money Resolution these are factors of contention on which the Government may have a perfectly good case but which we suggest we should have an opportunity of arguing. If there is no disagreement, there is no point in arguing about it. That was roughly the position in 1947. On this occasion it is different.
2166 I submit in all sincerity that the hon. Gentleman should seriously consider this matter. He should take this Money Resolution back. He should look at it again and see if he cannot meet the Committee on one or two of these points.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe hon. Gentleman is a little ingenuous. When his right hon. Friend put down the Money Resolution in the terms I have quoted, he put it down before the debate took place. Clearly he did not know what would be said in the debate. No doubt I should be out of order if I went in detail into the debate which took place on 6th December, 1946. It was a debate which occupied a considerable part of HANSARD. The interventions of the hon. Gentleman no doubt helped to account for that. A Resolution in the same terms as this Resolution was put down and no complaint was made. Indeed, it is right that there should have been no complaint.
The point I would make is that, whereas we have left open many issues of great importance for the Committee stage, nevertheless in practice, and on the basis of long precedent, there rests upon the Government the responsibility of recommending expenditure to Parliament and of recommending the general direction in which such expenditure should be made. That is all that this Resolution does. It serves to embody the principle, which the House of Commons has already accepted by giving a Second Reading to the Bill, that this is a Measure for the relief of hardship. This is a Measure for relief to those with small incomes in the group of ex-Civil Servants and the other people who are benefited by this Bill.
The House has accepted that principle by giving the Bill a Second Reading. All that the Money Resolution does is to put the responsibility on the Government, as it must do, if the matter is to go any further at all behind that general proposition and that general aspect of the matter. I hope I have reassured the Committee that there is nothing in this Resolution which will prevent the valuable and effective debate on the Committee stage to which the Government look forward.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithIt will be for the Chair to say what is in order and what is out of order when we come to the Committee stage, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman a question before we part with this Money Resolution? In the opinion of the Financial Secretary, will the Committee be in order in acting in the following way? During the past six years, it has been shown that the police, in particular, have certain grievances with regard to pensions, and anomalies have also been proved. Will it be in order in Committee to move Amendments to rectify the legitimate grievances of the police and to deal with proved anomalies?
The same thing applies to a lesser extent to firemen, and, in view of the valuable war services of these two sections of our community, and of the assurance given by the Financial Secretary, will he go further and say that, in his opinion, it will be in order, subject to the Ruling of the Chair, to allow Amendments to be moved in Committee to deal with the matters that I have raised?
§ 10.27 p.m.
Mr. Glenvil HallWe are very disappointed on this side of the Committee at what the Financial Secretary——
§ Mr. E. Partridge (Battersea, South)You would be.
Mr. HallI will give reasons, if I may, why we are disappointed. Indeed, there is no reason why we should not be. It would surprise me very much if we were not, in the light of the direction taken by the debate on Second Reading. I do not think the hon. Gentleman who interrupted was there, but no speech on either side was concluded without considerable criticism of this Bill.
I was saying, when interrupted, that we are very disappointed on this side of the Committee by the speech made by the Financial Secretary. He said that this Money Resolution is practically the same—he used the words "modelled on"—as the Financial Resolution which I moved when a similar Bill was passed through the House in 1946. I think he is not strictly accurate in making that assertion, because I have looked at this Financial Resolution, and, although I have not got the Resolution which I moved on the earlier occasion by me, 2168 I believe I am correct in saying that this Financial Resolution is really much more tightly drawn than was the one which I had the honour to move in December, 1946.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what there is of this Bill of a substantial kind that we really can discuss when we reach the Committee stage, in view of the fact that the Financial Resolution has been so tightly drawn. I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he did say that there was a wide field open for discussion, and he went on to describe what was in this wide field thus open. So far as my recollection goes, he said that the whole scale of pensions would be open for discussion.
Again, if I may correct him, with all due deference, because he is usually fairly accurate in his statements, that is not strictly true. One of the things contained in this Resolution about which we complain is that all pensions are to be subject to the one-third rule, and, therefore, it is not true to say that the whole wide field is open for discussion so long as that provision still retains in the Money Resolution. In spite of the hon. Gentleman's assertion that we could discuss cases of great hardships when we came to the Committee stage, its retention means that these will be the very cases we shall be able to do nothing about, because it is the small pensions which are going to be hit by the one-third rule.
10.30 p.m.
A man or a woman must have a pension of at least £78 a year before he or she is able to get the full £26 maximum laid down in the Second Schedule. If the pension is below that figure—and I understand there are thousands of people, particularly Post Office workers, whose pensions do not amount to 30s. a week—the person concerned will not qualify. It was obvious from all that was said this afternoon from both sides, that the House was unanimous in the view that it was the people on the very small pensions whom, whoever was or was not helped, we wanted to assist.
I have here Erskine May, a book not unknown to hon. Members, at page 681 of which this question of Financial Resolutions is discussed. Apparently, on 26th April, 1937, a Select Committee was 2169 appointed to consider this and ancillary matters. Erskine May says:
The principal recommendation of the committee, which reported on 13th July, 1937, was that the terms of a financial resolution should be drafted more widely than the terms of the related provisions of a bill, and it proposed that a declaratory resolution should be passed by the House indicating (in terms suggested by the committee) how much wider they should be drawn. In a statement in the House on 9th November, 1937, the Prime Minister announced that, while the Government was unable to support the proposed declaratory resolution, instructions were to be given to the departments and the Parliamentary Counsel's Office that financial resolutions in respect of bills should be"—and these words are in quotes—'so framed as not to restrict the scope within which the committees on the bills may consider amendments further than is necessary to enable the Government to discharge their responsibilities in regard to public expenditure, and to leave to the committee the utmost freedom for discussion and amendment of details which is compatible with the discharge of those responsibilities.'I think hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee, having had their memories refreshed by that quotation, must, if they are fair, agree with us on this side that something should be done to have this Financial Resolution altered in order that when we reach the Committee stage our debate may not only have some reality and dignity, but that hon. Members in all quarters who, as I have said, find a good deal to criticise in this Bill, may have an opportunity if necessary—if a majority so decide—to change some of its provisions.I see that the Leader of the House is on the Government Front Bench, and I am wondering whether it is worth while appealing to his very kind and generous heart. Many of us have been in the House for a good number of years with the right hon. Gentleman, and we all know that when the case is an unanswerable one he is more than willing to meet us half way. I am sure that, in the light of what is clearly stated in Erskine May, namely, that departments have actually been instructed to draw Financial Resolutions much less tightly than this one certainly has been drawn, he will be willing to look at this again. I do appeal to him and to the Financial Secretary to take back this Resolution. There surely is not all this hurry tonight. Let us have it again, perhaps next week, or as soon as may be, in a more elestic form so that 2170 when we come to the Committee stage we can do our work with realism.
Finally, may I—and I am reminded of this by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—appeal to the Financial Secretary, at any rate, to take out the commencing date set down if he will not, though I hope he will, budge on the one-third rule inserted in the Resolution? There really is nothing in the argument that he put forward with such plausibility. We had the same difficulties with the Treasury when the 1944 Bill was going through, and when the 1947 Bill was also being considered. It is quite unrealistic for the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education to suggest that in 1947 we came along very late with that Bill, whereas here they have legislated in advance.
It is obvious that this Bill—poor though it is—would never have been introduced had it not been for the changes made by the Finance Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The last Bill was in 1947, when the cost of living index was being kept fairly stable. It is only in recent years and months that it has begun to gallop up. Everyone in every quarter of the Committee knows—and we are sorry on this side about it, for no one wants the cost of living to mount, even to gain a political advantage—that unfortunately it is going to go even higher due to the Chancellor having decided in his wisdom, or lack of it, to slash the food subsidies. That having been done, it was necessary, as many do not pay Income Tax and cannot have the difference made up to them in that way, that some other form of help should be given. That, frankly, and I am sure that the Financial Secretary does not deny it, is the reason for this Bill.
If, having brought in the Bill as a result of its own policy, the Government now comes along and says, poor and niggardly though the scales laid down in this Bill are, none of them shall be altered when we reach the Committee stage, then it seems to me that we have every reason to press them, and press them hard, to take back this Resolution. I hope that the Committee will insist on not being put into a strait jacket in this way. That would be farcical. It would be bad for the House, for the morale of hon. Members, and bad as an example to the public.
§ Mr. HoughtonI should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan), all hon. Members on the other side of the Committee who spoke on Second Reading have silently quitted the Chamber. I sincerely hope that that does not mean that after making their speeches on Second Reading, drawing attention to some of the defects of the Bill, they have now lost interest and are leaving it to us on this side of the Committee to make our appeal to the Financial Secretary to widen the Money Resolution.
It is perfectly true that, as the Financial Secretary said, the Money Resolution is drawn before the Second Reading debate and so the draftsmen have no means of knowing what will be the material points of criticism of the Bill. Although reasonable anticipation of the points of criticism can always be made, I am sure the Financial Secretary must have been impressed by the comprehensive nature of the criticism of this Bill. Some matters which could be remedied at the Committee stage were the Money Resolution not drawn as it is would be less costly to the Exchequer than some of the things that are left open in the Money Resolution.
In any case, what is this factor of total cost in relation to the total cost of the public services? I am the last person in this Committee to write down money values or to describe money as meaningless symbols, but the amount of money involved in this Bill is a mere bagatelle compared with the total cost of the public services.
Attention was drawn during the Second Reading debate to the fact that in the Civil Service, at all events, the total cost of both Pensions (Increase) Acts up to date is only just over £l—million as compared with the total, non-effective for the Civil Service, of something like £15 million. So the amount of money involved here does not justify drawing this Resolution as tightly as it has been drawn.
The greatest expense that it would be possible to incur at the Committee stage would be an increase in the amount 2172 of the supplementation proposed in the Bill. Other matters which are ruled out, though less expensive, do impress hon. Members as being points of some substance which would be worthy of some discussion and examination in Committee. But if our appeals to the Financial Secretary are going to fall upon deaf ears I think it is a great pity that he did not introduce a note of warning, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, that any hon. Members on either side of the House who had anything to say on matters which would be excluded from the Committee discussion by the Money Resolution would be wasting their breath and wasting the time of the House and their own time in being in the House. We then should have known what to do.
At least some hon. Members need never have made their speeches and they would have appeared less ridiculous in the eyes of the Committee than they now do, having beaten the air in the thoughtful speeches they made on Second Reading. I sincerely hope that some hon. Member on the opposite side of the Committee will express a point of view on this Money Resolution, otherwise it will look as if on the benches opposite the whole thing is being allowed to go by default, leaving my right hon. Friends and my hon. Friends to appear in the light of captious critics expressing vexatious sentiments and destroying the good will on Second Reading and altogether appearing to be unreasonable people.
10.45 p.m.
All we are trying to do—[Interruption.] If that is the attitude of hon. Members opposite, what purpose was served by their hon. Friends who spoke critically of this Bill on Second Reading? Are they repudiating them? Are hon. Gentlemen now in the Chamber saying that they could not care less, or that they have no conception of what all the speeches were about from their side of the House? The sentiment expressed in that interruption is an insult to their own hon. Friends who gave their time and thought to this Bill.
Notwithstanding the inflexible attitude—I was going to say stubborn, but I do not want to use any unkind word—of hon. Gentlemen opposite, we on this side must go on record as protesting strongly against the attempt of Her Majesty's Government to render ineffective and use- 2173 less, to a large extent, the debates which would otherwise take place in Committee.
Mr. Glenvil HallAre we not going to get a reply from the Leader of the House? Surely he is not going to treat with contempt the considered views expressed on this side in no feeling of antagonism. From a House of Commons point of view he should reply, because every hon. Member should have an interest in how the Financial Resolutions are drawn. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may be on that side tonight, but it will not be long before they are on this side, and they would object most strongly to this kind of treatment on a Financial Resolution.
I hope that the Leader of the House will not sit silent but will give us the benefit of his very great knowledge in these matters. I hope he will intimate—he has the power—that the Government really are going to take back this Resolution, so that we may have a proper Committee stage on this Bill.
§ Mr. T. BrownSeveral questions have been addressed to the Financial Secretary regarding the police, firemen, and others who have done yeoman service in years gone by. What is going to be our position if we put down Amendments on Committee stage to improve the contents of this Bill? Will the Financial Secretary give an answer? An answer is of paramount importance.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI willingly respond to the hon. Member. It is not for me or any hon. Member but for the Chair to say what will be in order. I can help the hon. Member only by saying that so far as we are concerned any Amendments—of course, the hon. Member has not specified precisely what Amendments he has in mind, and obviously no opinion would be of the slightest value without that information—within the general purpose of the Bill, which is to provide certain increases for existing pensions, would, so far as I can see, be in order. I cannot go beyond that without interfering with the prerogatives of the Chair. So far as I can help him, if the hon. Gentleman has in mind Amendments dealing with increases to existing pensions, in one or other of these categories of public service, they would seem to come within the ambit of the Bill.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithThere are members of the staff not very far away from where 2174 we meet who have done great service and who are now on the eve of retirement. It has been proved there are certain anomalies. On the Committee stage, shall we have the right to try and remedy them?
§ Mr. EdeI was hoping that the Leader of the House would have responded to the appeal just made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), because he will recollect the long discussions and the strained feelings which led to the intervention of the late Mr. Chamberlain, which has been quoted by my right hon. Friend. On this particular occasion, we have a Financial Resolution which considerably invades the ground of the Ruling then given, and although no Resolution was passed by the House, I thought we had something better than a formal Resolution—a general understanding between both sides of the House.
During today I have heard two speeches which impressed me very much from the other side; that of the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), and that of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan). The former put forward certain criticisms of the Bill, in a good spirit, and I think that a high percentage of the electors of Hove must have considerably impressed him with the importance of seeing that certain alterations were made in it. I have no doubt that he came here to say that this Financial Resolution is wide enough for him to raise each and all of those issues put to him in Hove, and that he is only waiting for a few more speeches to be made in order that he may have the opportunity to intervene to inquire if he may put down an Amendment to meet each of the cases he has put forward.
§ Mr. MarloweThe right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in what he says, but the answer which the Financial Secretary has given already satisfies us on that point.
§ Mr. EdeThen I must say that he is far more easily satisfied than when he sat on this side; and I cannot but help thinking that he is going to have a pretty rough time in Hove Town Hall when, in a few months' time, if this Financial Resolution is not amended, he has to say, "I am sorry, but what you asked me to do was out of order." If this Financial Resolution goes through, several of the 2175 things he mentioned will not be able to be discussed on the Committee stage; and that is the only effective stage for this purpose.
I do appeal, in view of what has been said about Mr. Chamberlain's remarks, when a similar situation had been reached, through a series of Resolutions tightly drawn, to see if we could not have this Resolution so framed as to make all the matters mentioned capable of discussion. I do ask the Government not to rely on the argument that the Resolution moved by my right hon. Friend in 1946 was about the same as this. I understood that we were going to see better things from the present Government, and I still live in hope. This is an opportunity for the Government to live up to those hopes which we formed when it took over its tasks.
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)Might I just say that I remember the discussions which led to the arrangements announced by Mr. Chamberlain in 1937? I have not heard all of the debate today, but I heard the Financial Secretary's remarks just now on this Financial Resolution. He pointed out that it was dealing with a somewhat similar Bill as the 1947 Act, and that it was largely based on the Resolution of December, 1946.
For my part, he persuaded me that the action we are taking is correct. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot recommend that this particular Resolution should be withdrawn. But, as I have the opportunity of being on my feet, it may be for your convenience, Sir Charles, to know that, at the request of the Opposition, tomorrow's business has been altered and that, in place of the debate on the cost of living, there will be a debate on Korea in Committee of Supply. Perhaps that answer will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
Mr. Glenvil HallMay I ask whether this Bill is going to be taken on the floor of the House, or upstairs?
§ The ChairmanThere is no Motion moved, so the Bill will be going upstairs.