HC Deb 01 May 1957 vol 569 cc243-88

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2.—(BENEFITS FOR PERSONS

OVER PENSIONABLE AGE.)

5.23 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "and".

I think that this Amendment and the following one might be considered together.

These are technical Amendments designed to ensure that the improvements in the Bill apply to the largest number of people who may stand to benefit. There is a small group of widows who were not insured before 5th July, 1948, and who will reach the age of 60 between the appointed day and 5th July, 1958. At present these widows, in common with other widows, have their widows' pension automatically converted to a retirement pension on reaching the age of 60, unlike late-age entrants, who have to complete ten years in insurance and who do not qualify until 5th July next year.

Clause 2 (1) would remove the automatic conversion to retirement pension at the age of 60 and, as it stands, would turn the small group of widows into late-age entrants, so giving them no right to earn increments as we propose other widows shall be able to do. The Amendment will prevent that, and will enable all widows to earn increments if they choose to defer their retirement beyond the age of 60.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

We accept the Amendment. We think that it is very good indeed that those widows should be able to earn increments if they work beyond 60 years of age.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 41, at end insert: and (d) regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) of section seventy-one of the principle Act (which relates to certain women over the age of fifty immediately before the appointed day for the purposes of that Act) shall not apply ".

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, at the end to insert:

(5) In subsection (4) of the said section twenty (which provides in certain circumstances for an increase of the weekly rate of a retirement pension) there shall be inserted after the words paid by "the words" or credited to "and at the end of the subsection the following— Provided that for the purposes of this subsection no contribution shall be credited to a person over pensionable age other than contributions (not exceeding five in any contribution year) for periods of incapacity for work.

This Amendment has been put down as a result of a number of cases which have come to the notice of hon. Members on this side of the House. I think that the Minister will have come across quite a number of cases of men and perhaps women who are in the position with which the Amendment deals.

By the Amendment, we are trying to give to the men or women who work after retirement age an opportunity, even although they are ill for a certain time, to obtain the maximum increments to their pensions. In Section 20 (4) of the principal Act a provision is made for the increase for every 25 contributions paid by the beneficiary after that man or woman has reached normal retiring age.

The subsection states: Subject to the next following subsection, the weekly rate of a retirement pension shall be increased by one shilling for every twenty-five contributions as an employed or self-employed person paid by the beneficiary in respect of the period after his attaining pensionable age

If a man or woman is absent from work through illness or incapacity before reaching the retiring age contributions are credited to them. In other words, contributions are not paid by them during the period of absence but are credited to them. The contributions credited to them make it possible, on their reaching retiring age, to get the full retirement pension.

The men or women who work beyond the retiring age are in a different position. If they are off work through sickness, no contributions are credited to them to help to increase their pension. In other words, if they are away from work because of sickness they have to pay the contribution if, when they come to retire, they want to get the maximum increments. A number of people—perhaps the Minister will know the exact number—find that they have failed to get an increase because of the lack perhaps of one stamp. We feel that that is wrong.

When this matter was raised in Questions to the Minister, he suggested that it had been made perfectly clear to the contributors who continued to work after pensionable age that for any period of absence from work because of sickness no credits were given for an increase in pension, and that the worker had to pay his contribution. That may be so; I am not doubting that. The fact is that there have been cases where old men or old women have been terribly disappointed, when the time came for them to collect their retirement pension, to find that they have not got the increases they had expected, That shows that no matter what publicity has been given to this matter by the Minister, it has failed to register with some of our old people.

5.30 p.m.

We are not asking in this Amendment for parity of treatment between those who continue to work after the normal retiring age and the men and women below retiring age, who, when absent from work because of sickness, have contributions credited to them for a very long period. I would call the Minister's attention to this proviso in our Amendment: Provided that for the purposes of this subsection no contribution shall be credited to a person over pensionable age other than contributions (not exceeding five in any contribution year) for periods of incapacity for work ".

That is all we are asking to cover periods of incapacity. Surely that is not too much to ask.

As we want as many old people as possible to continue to work after the normal retirement age we must give them as many inducements as we can. If we can tell them, "We are trying to provide for your short periods of illness during those extra years of work," we shall be adding another inducement and giving them a measure of justice.

Men from 65 to 70 years of age and women from 60 to 65 pay exactly the same contributions when they are at work as do people under pensionable age. As we want them to continue at work it might not only be an inducement but justice to give them even more than we ask in the Amendment, but we have limited our proposal in the hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

Mr. Frank Beswick (Uxbridge)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and I hope that the Minister will muster all his reserves of sympathy when he considers the Amendment, because there is something in it. When we have made this proposal hitherto, by way of Question in the House, or in the correspondence which I have had with the Minister's Department, we have not found the right hon. Gentleman very forthcoming. He does not seem to think that there is anything in the case that has been made. I hope that he will look at it rather more sympathetically today.

Let us look again at what is involved. At present, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us at Question Time recently, it is possible to be excused contributions for two weeks in one year and still earn the maximum number of increments within one year. Pensioners have to get fifty contributions recorded in the one-year period. The Minister indicated that that was equivalent to two credits being given in the year.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter) indicated dissent.

Mr. Beswick

The Minister is shaking his head, but I have his remarks here. He actually said that ten contributions in five years were excused, which was two a year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I was shaking my head because the hon. Gentleman was talking about credits.

Mr. Beswick

I went on to say that these people were excused two payments per year. It is conceivable that a man taking on a new job might only have fifty weeks' employment in one year, so there is no gap or room for manoeuvre for sickness. People have to work fifty weeks in the year to get the maximum number of increments. That is asking a lot of people who have reached that age.

I understand that there are two reasons why, under the legislation passed by the Labour Government, this concession of counting sickness credits could not be given to the employed person after the age of 65 or 60. The first reason was repeated by the Minister in a letter which I have here. It is that a person who is sick after reaching the age of 65 gets his sickness benefit, and, the benefit being the same as the retirement benefit, he could not possibly expect to be given a credit for it for the same week. The fact of the matter is that the contribution includes an element of insurance against sickness, so that these people pay extra for the sickness insurance in addition to the amount they are contributing towards pension entitlement. They are not getting anything twice over; they pay an element in the insurance contribution for sickness, and are therefore entitled to sickness benefit.

Secondly, it was apparently thought that a person over the age of 65, or 60, in the case of a woman, was more likely to be sick and more easily able to get a certificate for sickness than a younger person. There has been talk about it being possible for an older person to malinger, but it seems odd if we are accepting the proposition that sickness benefit is paid to a person who is not genuinely sick. If, under present arrangements, that is possible, the arrangements ought to be tightened up.

The argument seems to be underlined by the practice now followed of credits in the case of industrial injury being counted for pension increments. The justification for that appears to be that before a person gets an industrial injury pension there has to be a check by an independent doctor. If industrial injuries benefit is payable, and the contribution is credited and is counted for pension increments, credits should be given in the case of a person who is genuinely sick.

A constituent of mine was injured in the course of his work at London Airport. He was off work with a broken arm for fourteen weeks and was two payments short of gaining the maximum pension entitlement at the age of 70. Had he realised what the effect of that would be on his eventual pension I have no doubt he would have claimed industrial injury benefit. If the claim had gone through that procedure he would have been entitled to an industrial injury benefit and would then have qualified for the maximum increments to his retirement pen- sion. It seems wrong that there should be this difference in the way the two classes are treated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North said that we were not asking for parity for these older people with the ordinary insured persons under the age of 65 or 60, but when I consider the figures I think we are entitled to claim rather more than parity for the older person. I do not think that these people who earn their increments owe anything to the State insurance scheme.

It seems to me that we profit, if we do not profiteer, out of the man who goes on working after the age of 65 and tries to earn additional increments up to the age of 70. Going into the matter very roughly, with the aid of a little mental arithmetic, I find that he forgoes about £800 or £900 of pension payments between the ages of 65 and 70. That is quite apart from the extra contributions that he pays and any accrued interest on the sum that he has forgone. If he is to get back the £800 or £900 he has to live until he is 81. He and his wife would both have to draw the maximum number of increments for eleven years to get back the amount of pension that he has forgone.

I do not know what statistical evidence the Minister can bring forward to suggest that that is fair. I do not know what the actuarial basis is, but I have spoken to a number of people about the matter, and they support my feeling that we are making a profit out of those whom we have persuaded to carry on working until the age of 70. That being the case, I think we ought to be as generous as possible when we consider sickness credits.

In this Amendment we are not asking that all credits should be counted towards the increments. I accept that it would be wrong for a man on reaching the age age of 65 to say that he would carry on until he was 70, then promptly go sick and remain sick until he was 70 and, with credits for five years, ask for the additional pension. We are asking that each year five of these credits should be countable towards the increments. That seems a very modest request and one which I hope the Minister will meet.

I wish to underline the unfairness of the present position by referring again to a particular case. In that case, instead of having an additional 25 contributions, my constituent had 23. He does not lose the equivalent of two weeks, but that of the whole six months. He is now 70 and draws 2s. 6d. a week less for himself and his wife than he would otherwise be entitled to draw. I think that that is wrong and ought to be looked at again.

Another point which I think is relevant to this Amendment, although it is an administrative matter, is that in this man's case it was first stated by the pensions officer that he was 25 contributions short. That was gone into rather more carefully, and it was found that he was only 14 contributions short.

I would refer to another case this month on which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has written to me, and I am very grateful to her for her courteous reply. She had inquiries made and it was found that, although in the first place it was reckoned that the man had paid 218 contributions between the ages of 65 and 70, he had, in fact, paid 225 contributions.

Those are two cases which came to my notice in the last two or three weeks. I do not say that there is slackness in the administration, but there seems to be something in the arrangements which makes a mistake possible. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would say that he will look into this administrative question again because these are only two cases on which those concerned have written to me recently, and there may be many others. Apart from that administrative fault, there seems to be something wrong in principle in the Act as it stands. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this very moderate and modest Amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) will, I hope, acquit me if, without notice, I do not go into the details of the two individual cases to which he has referred, although I recall that in respect of one of them there was some genuine misunderstanding, not in principle affecting the number of increments the man was entitled to earn, but simply in stating the necessary figure enabling him to earn the nine increments and falling short of the further 25 contributions which deprived him of the tenth increment. The hon. Member and the House know that I am only too glad to look into any case that he or any other hon. Member feels has been improperly handled.

I wish to deal with the proposal which has been put forward. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) quite accurately described the effect of the Amendment, which would be to ensure that where a person was earning increments by continuing at work —in the case of a man at 65 and of a woman at 60— for five weeks of sickness he or she should be entitled in each year to credits which would have effect and take effect for the purpose of earning increments. That is very clearly stated and I say at once that I am not without sympathy with the objects of the proposal. I do, however, suggest to the House that this proposal seeks to deal with the problem in a manner which is fundamentally unsound.

The essence of the incremental system is that one earns increments on one's pension by forgoing drawing it and paying contributions at an age when one would be entitled, if one retired from work, to draw a pension. It is of the essence of this that one should not draw a pension or its equivalent under another form, such as sickness been. At, and that one should pay contributions.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that, be that as it may, the bargain is such a bad one that we ought to strain the system in favour of the pensioner. I do not think that the bargain is a bad one. Nor does it appear that contributors to our National Insurance system think so. The other day I gave the House the interesting figure that of the male pensioners now retiring half have earned some increments before they retire. That seems to indicate that the incremental system is not without its appeal to the insured population.

Miss Herbison

Has the right hon. Gentleman not thought that there might be another reason for men working after they are 65 and women working after they are 60? That other reason is that wages are much larger than any pension which those men or women could get. It is because they wish to try to keep the same standard of living they had before they were 65 or 60 that they continue to work. Yet many of them feel when they have retired that they certainly have lost something for which they have contributed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Of course, there are reasons, of which wages clearly is one, and I think that the improved health of the older section of the population is certainly another. There are many factors. I merely mention that with a sensible population such as ours if half in the case of men and a smaller proportion in the case of women continue at work and earn increments it cannot be such a bad bargain. I shall follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge on that.

In his calculations about the advantage or disadvantage of earning increments and forgoing pension, the hon. Member left out one element, an element which his hon. Friend has just supplied—that of wages. If a person is earning wages during that period—the first five years—unless those wages are very small, then, under the earnings rule, he or she cannot also draw the pension; and, therefore, it is quite unrealistic simply to take the pension forgone and the contribution and set it against the other side of the equation, the increased pension subsequently paid, if, at the same time, one ignores the fact that wages are being earned during that period and that as a result of earning them. in any event, under the earnings rule, the pension could not have been drawn. I hope I have made the position clear. I will now give way to the hon Member if he desires.

Mr. Beswick

I clearly followed what the Minister said, although I did not agree with a word of it. They get the extra wages, but, of course, they have to earn them; they are giving some additional services for which they get the additional wages. Does the Minister challenge the arithmetic under which the pensioner will have to work an additional eleven years before he gets back the bare amount which he has forgone?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Member has not faced the point which I put to him. If the man were earning wages of any substance he could not, in any event, have drawn the pension. It is, therefore, wrong for the hon. Member in that context to describe it as forgone. While his mathematics are, as one would expect from a distinguished airman, always accurate, his navigation is somewhat below the high standard of his Service.

Let me come to the proposal put for ward. I think it is fundamentally unsound, because it ignores the essence of the incremental system which—and I say this in no carping sense—is a system for which right hon. and hon. Members opposite were responsible under the original Act. If I may say so, I think it is one of the very best parts of the original Act. For that reason, I do not think that this proposal can be accepted.

Let us follow up the difficulties which would arise in practice from ignoring the difficulty of principle and accepting the Amendment. I think it is inherent in the Amendment that right hon. and hon. Members opposite appreciate that this is an unsound proposal and, therefore, suggest it only in respect of five weeks in each year and only in respect of sickness as opposed to unemployment benefit. If their principle were sound, there would seem to be no reason for limiting it in this arbitrary way—in a way which clearly would give rise to all sorts of unfairnesses. Why do it for five weeks in each of the five years when somebody might be very sick for 20 weeks in one year and not sick at all in the remainder of the five years? If it is sound in respect of sickness, why do it in respect of sickness and not in respect of unemployment benefit? Unemployment may be just as conclusive a bar against being able to do work as sickness.

It is clear from the limited nature of the proposal that it is appreciated by the hon. Lady that, although her objectives are sound, her method of seeking to achieve them is fundamentally unsound. I ask the House to appreciate the ill-feeling which would be aroused if we were to enact it, and the individual cases which hon. Members would have to encounter in their constituencies of people who would say, "This is unfair. So-and-so has been sick for five weeks for each of five years and he has credits for the whole of that period, whereas I was very ill for a long period in one year and perfectly fit and working over the other four years, and I am credited with only five weeks". It is obvious that hon. Members and the Minister of the day would find the greatest difficulty in defending anomalies of that sort.

Mr. Beswick

If the right hon. Member wishes to carry logic as far as this, why has he not laid it down that there should be 26 contributions before one can earn one increment? Why is he prepared to accept that there should be two excuses?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am coming to that point. I hope the hon. Member knows me well enough to know that I do not duck the points which have been put, especially when they have been put as clearly as he has put them, but I shall detain the House less if I am allowed to develop the argument in its logical order. I therefore put it to the House, first, that this proposal would create a great number of anomalies and a general and understandable feeling of unfairness between one person and another.

The hon. Member asks, "What about the two weeks?" Of course, they are dealt with at present in a totally different way from that in which the Amendment proposes to deal with the five weeks. If a person does not contribute during ten weeks out of the five years, he is still able to earn the maximum increments—by 250 contributions for increments in 260 weeks —but this is the fundamental difference: during those two weeks in each year, as I said to the hon. Member in an interruption, he is not given a credit for purposes of earning increments. He is credited in the ordinary way in respect of sickness and in respect of other benefits, but he is not given credits in respect of the earning of increments. There is, therefore, a very real distinction between the existing position in respect of the two weeks and what the hon. Member proposes in respect of the five weeks.

What is provided under the original Act is that there shall be periods of 25 weeks for contributions and forgoing of pension in respect of which a man earns one increment. As the hon. Member appreciates, to earn the maximum—I am sorry to say that the hon. Member's constituent just failed to do so, but earned nine increments—this payment of contributions and forgoing of pension must have taken place on 250 occasions. That is the difference.

I am not concealing that difficulties have arisen in these cases, and I think one difficulty arises not from the fact that credits are not given for this purpose in respect of sickness but from the fact that it is possible that a period of 25 weeks for each increment is on the long side. I agree that it is rather hard in the case of the hon. Member's constituent, where he has made 23 out of the 25 necessary payments. Certainly, one of the ways in which it might well be worth looking at the problem would be to consider whether, instead of 10 incremental periods of 25 weeks, a somewhat shorter period would be administratively possible, earning a proportionately smaller increment. No system will prevent someone by hard luck just missing the increment by one contribution, any more than this Amendment would obviate such a thing, but the suggestion which I have just made might be well worth consideration.

Another matter which I should like to consider at leisure is whether the difficulty does not arise, as it arises in the case of the hon. Member's constituent, from the fact that the guillotine comes down at the age of 70 and that it is not possible for a man to complete an incremental period after that age, when he wants only two more payments.

This is not a Bill which seeks to deal either with the amount of increments or with the incremental system. The House knows, however, that National Insurance legislation—although I can give no pledge on this—appears with a regularity and punctuality which many railway systems might well envy.

6.0 p.m.

In the light of what has been said I will consider whether the admitted difficulty which we have experienced over these years can be met in some of these ways. It might be a matter in which it would be fruitful to consult the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which has great experience of these problems. In the light of the discussion, I should like to see whether there is a method of preventing, even in these limited number of cases, difficulties of this kind arising.

Although I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Lady has moved her Amendment, as I have ventured to say, I hope without discourtesy, the proposal itself is fundamentally unsound, would undermine the incremental system to a substantial degree and would create far more unfairnesses and anomalies than it could possibly cure.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

In his future consideration of this problem, would my right hon. Friend particularly ascertain whether it would be possible for each elderly person who has lost actual benefit owing to a certain number of periods of sickness to qualify by some such method after the age of 70 or, alternatively, whether it would be possible for each such person to pay something at the end of each qualifying period in the years between 65 and 70? In other words, at the end of a period he would retain the right to increase the stamp payment so that in the second period he might make up his qualifications. I think that that might be included in any future consideration of this rather difficult problem.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am not sure that I wholly follow my hon. Friend's proposal. Perhaps I shall follow it better when I read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Naturally, nothing said in the House evades consideration by myself and my advisers. On the face of it, there would be considerable difficulty in the method which my hon. Friend suggests; it is not possible to forgo more pension than one is entitled to. I will, however, look at his proposal.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

The latter part of the Minister's speech was certainly more helpful and more hopeful than the earlier part. Indeed, as he came to the conclusion of the speech with the suggestion that he would like to consider the whole matter further and probably refer to the National Insurance Advisory Committee some of the difficulties about postponed retirement rules, we modified our view somewhat on the action we should take on this Amendment.

We do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Amendment. He says that the essence of the arrangements for earning increments is that the insured person should continue to pay contributions and forgo pension. Whatever the essence of the retirement rules is, this House put those rules there and we can change them. In six out of its eight Clauses the Bill changes things which he could very well have said were the essence of the original rules.

One thing which the right hon. Gentleman does, which is so typical of his right hon. and hon. Friends, if I may say so, is that when there is something in a Labour Measure which we criticise after a lapse of time and after seeing it in operation, he says, "But your Government put it there." When we on this side of the House claim some credit for the great social reforms which we introduced during the period of the Labour Government, right hon. and hon. Members opposite say, "But everybody was thinking of those. Lord Beveridge started them, the Coalition White Paper carried them forward, and these were Measures which the Conservative Party was moving towards introducing if an ungrateful and unwise electorate had not thrown it out of office in 1945."

We claim the right to re-examine the rules which have been in operation for so long and to see whether there are flaws in them. I looked up the Reports of the Committee upstairs on the principal Act, and it is not surprising to find how many things were not discussed in that Committee. After all, it was a very large Measure, containing several scores of Clauses. When Clause 20 was under discussion in the Committee, other matters received the Committee's attention, but not this. In a long and complicated Measure of that kind, introducing a scheme with entirely new principles, it is not surprising that the first thoughts on those proposals undergo change in the course of experience.

We do not agree that our proposal in the Amendment is fundamentally unsound. We do not agree that there is necessarily any anomaly in giving credits for sickness and not for unemployment. We were trying to be reasonable. We thought that after pension age there are two tendencies somewhat stronger than before pension age. One is a greater liability to sickness and the other is perhaps a somewhat greater risk of unemployment.

Our Amendment does not propose to extend beyond retirement the more liberal conditions for giving credits in lieu of contributions before retirement and it limits the credits to be given for sickness to what seemed reasonable in the circumstances. It does not give credit for very long illnesses, which would certainly destroy the basis upon which increments to pension are being earned by postponed retirement and continuance in employment. What we do in the Amendment seems reasonable enough. The right hon. Gentleman, has, however, redeemed himself.

When Ministers have something helpful and hopeful to say, why do they not say it to begin with instead of leaving it to the end? Why do they bring out all the unpleasant things and make all the party points and scoring points and then become reasonable at the end? We should have much greater admiration for the right hon. Gentleman if he had been reasonable to start with and reasonable the whole way through. However, we forgive him the earlier part of his speech and we hope that he means to act on the latter part. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4.—(TREATMENT OF DAYS AS DAYS OF UNEMPLOYMENT.)

Mr. Houghton

I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, to leave out "each" and to insert "at least one".

I suggest that it may be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in page 5, line 23, at the end, to insert: or unless in that week and in the week immediately preceding that week the same day (other than Sunday) of each week is a day of interruption of employment".

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should have thought that that would be a very convenient course.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

As it is for the convenience of the House, the two Amendments can be taken together.

Mr. Houghton

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

The meaning of the second Amendment, which I have just read, will not perhaps be immediately apparent at first sight, although I think it is a skilful piece of drafting. I hope, however, in the course of my remarks to leave the House in no doubt of what we are trying to do.

The Amendments are an attempt to find a somewhat better remedy than the provisions of Clause 4 for a problem concerning unemployment benefit for very short spells of unemployment. The problem arises from the wide extension of the working of a five-day week. For practical purposes, Clause 4 relates to short-time working by those normally employed on a five-day week.

At present, a worker on a five-day week who is put on short time and who works only four days may claim unemployment benefit for two days in that week, that is to say, for the Friday when he is stood off, if the Friday is the day of unemployment, and for the Saturday which is also a working day and for which he may claim unemployment benefit. The fact that he is unemployed for only one day and yet can draw unemployment benefit for two days is alleged by the right hon. Gentleman to be unjustified. The Minister further alleges that it also creates an anomaly in relation to a worker on a six-day week who, if unemployed for one day only of his working week, can draw no benefit at all.

I am surprised that hon. and right hon. Members opposite should swallow and condone the greater injustices and yet should strain at the technical anomalies. I do not believe that this is either unjustified in itself or anomalous to the extent that it need be remedied in the Bill.

The problem was referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which reported upon it in Cmd. 9609 in December, 1955. That Committee devoted a large part of its Report, which dealt also with other associated matters, to this difficulty. That Committee did, however, dispose of two points of importance. The first was that where neither the normal working week nor the weekly wage is interrupted, there is no case for granting unemployment benefit. In other words, if a man is on a four-day week and he works four days, the fact that there are two remaining working days would not entitle him to unemployment benefit. He will have completed his full working week and is not, therefore, entitled to unemployment benefit even though it is a shorter working week than usual. That is the first point that the Committee disposed of.

The second point was that when a man is unemployed for the whole of a week, whether he is on a working week of six days, five and a half or five days, he shall be given a full week's unemployment benefit; if he is unemployed for the whole of his working week, whatever length it may be, he is entitled to a full week's unemployment benefit. Neither of those two issues arises now.

What we are dealing with solely is the worker whose normal working week is less than six days and whose work and weekly wage are interrupted by unemployment for a period of less than the full working week. The Minister said that there was something wrong about this and that it should be put right. The National Insurance Advisory Committee was unable to come down on one side or the other in the matter.

In paragraph 36 of its Report, the National Insurance Advisory Committee said: As things now stand, we find ourselves almost equally divided as to whether or not there should be an extension of the full normal extent rule by providing that unemployment benefit should never be paid for a day on which a person does not normally work. The Committee was almost equally divided about it. The Minister, however, has said that from his point of view that is the nub of the problem and that it is wrong in principle to pay unemployment benefit for a day upon which a man or woman does not normally work. The Minister has reached a judgment which the National Insurance Advisory Committee found it difficult to reach, so divided was that Committee in its views.

6.15 p.m.

The Committee did, however, say one or two things about both sides of the question which it is worth while to recall. In paragraph 31, the Committee said: Having regard to the object for which unemployment benefit is provided, it may be argued in principle that benefit should not be paid for any day on which a man does not normally work.

That is the argument which the right hon. Gentleman is using. On it, the Committee said: At the same time it must be recognised that, where a person has lost earnings in respect of a day on which he normally works, the loss for each day is likely to be a more serious matter the fewer the number of days normally worked.

That is certainly one aspect of the matter. The worker on a five-day week who loses one day's work has lost a higher proportion of the week's earnings than a man working a six-day week and who is unemployed for one day.

In the same paragraph the Committee went on to say: We think, therefore, that if there were to be a general rule that unemployment benefit should not he paid on any day on which a person does not normally work, special provisions as to the amount of benefit would have to be made in the case of persons who normally work on five days a week or fewer.

That is very important. Acknowledging the argument—which the Committee did not acknowledge—that unemployment benefit should not be paid for a day upon which a man does not normally work, the Committee said that if that was made the rule special provisions as to the amount of benefit would have to be made for those who in the ordinary way work five days a week or fewer.

The Minister, however has not done that. What he has done in Clause 4 is to accept the argument that no unemployment benefit shall be paid for a day upon which a worker does not normally work and he has left it at that. He has done nothing more. He has not accepted the view of the Advisory Committee that if that were done, some special provision would have to be made regarding the amount of benefit.

In paragraph 33, the Committee went on to say: If five-days a week working were universal, or nearly so, in this country, there could be no dispute about the proposal put forward in this representation— the Committee was referring to a representation in the previous paragraph— that the daily rate of benefit should be one-fifth of the weekly rate. Supporting the view that it is not right merely to disqualify a worker from drawing unemployment benefit for a day upon which he does not normally work and to make no change in the calculation of unemployment benefit, we on this side believe that present arrangements should remain. The Minister, however, in Clause 4, has put forward a change in conditions which, it is fair to say, earn the criticism of the National Insurance Adivisory Committee if the views that I have quoted represent the Committee's viewpoint on this proposal. The argument for retaining things as they are was set out in paragraph 35 of the Committee's Report. One point that the Committee made, which has been fully supported by the Trades Union Congress in discussing the matter subsequently with the Minister, was this: The argument "— that is, the argument that things should be left as they are— is reinforced by pointing out that there would be considerable, and justifiable, resentment if five-days a week workers regularly on four days a week short-time, lost half the benefit they are now getting. We are here to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there exists that considerable and justifiable resentment amongst the workers who may be principally affected. What we are trying to do is to find a less objectionable way of dealing with the matter than the Minister has put in Clause 4. This, again, is something which the Advisory Committee considered. In paragraph 34 it said: We have examined a number of alternatives to the present rule designed to secure that a five-days a week worker should not receive two days' benefit for one day's unemployment. In particular we gave much consideration to what seemed to us to be the most promising alternative, that is that a person working on less than six days in the week should not receive benefit unless he lost two or more working days in the week, or unless he lost the same day in at least two successive weeks. The effect of this (apart from waiting days) would be that the five-days a week worker who lost one isolated Friday would receive no benefit instead of two-sixths of a week's benefit as at present. If he lost two successive Fridays he would receive one-sixth of a week's benefit in each week instead of two-sixths in each week as at present. If he lost two or more days in the week he would receive benefit for all the days of the week on which he was unemployed, as at present. That promising alternative which the Committee considered is what we have put in our Amendment. The effect of it is that if the worker on a five-day week is unemployed for one Friday he gets no benefit; if he is unemployed for the Friday of the following week he will get one day's benefit—that is, the two Fridays, the same day in successive weeks, would count as one day's unemployment, that is half benefit for each day; and if he were unemployed for four successive Fridays he would get two days' benefit because he would have had the same day unemployed in two successive weeks in a period of four weeks.

That seems to us to be a preferable alternative to the disqualification from unemployment benefit completely in this case without any change in the calculation of unemployment benefit. I cannot say that we regard even our own Amendment as preferable to leaving things as they are, but we are trying to save something from the wreck, and we agree with the National Insurance Advisory Committee that it is better than the Minister's solution.

I cannot see why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should see anything seriously wrong in giving unemployment benefit to men who are unemployed, even though for a short period. One would have thought, in conditions of full employment especially, that when some temporary recession hit an industry and put large numbers of men out of work for one day a week the Government would have been prepared to regard the operation of the existing rules as some comfort to those who, for a time, were suffering a reduction in wages. Unemployment benefit is there to compensate for unemployment, and I do not think that we ought to be too meticulous in applying that principle.

Why is it that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the line that to pay unemployment benefit for a day upon which a person does not normally work is wrong in principle when unemployment benefit is related to being available to work a full week? When men do not get it, unemployment should be a supplement to replace the loss of earnings they have suffered. Why do those who are in a position to get away with so much take the high moral line about social benefits and claim the right to stop the poorer folk from getting away with so little?

I think that this should be regarded as an inevitable feature of the transition of British industry from six days a week working to five days; and as, as the Committee says, when the five-day week has become universal, or nearly so, then a change could be made in the basis of calculation of unemployment benefit.

The Minister knows full well that the Trades Union Congress has expressed itself as strongly opposed to this change, and we on this side of the House feel so strongly about it that we shall have to divide the House upon the Amendment in the same way as in Committee upstairs resistance to the Minister's proposal was carried as far as could be. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment and, in present circumstances, to regard it as a compromise of respectable origin, namely, the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee.

He need not take it from us. He can say, "I found this in paragraph 34 of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee "—a wise body to which the Minister pays frequent tribute. Cannot he do that? We hope he can. Then we shall be able to finish consideration of the Bill without dividing the House upon it, and that will be a very pleasant ending to our discussions on the Bill. I hope, therefore, that this time the Minister will begin with hopeful comments and give us encouragement to feel that, by the time he has finished, he will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

If the Minister does not accept the Amendment, he will have remedied what he believes to be one anomaly and created another. Even by the Amendment we are not giving unemployment benefit in full measure to the actual amount of unemployment. That is a sacrifice which we are making in the hope that this compromise will appeal to the Minister as a reasonable way out of the difficulty, leaving the wider reform of unemployment benefit conditions to a later stage when the pattern of British industry and the working life of our workers are, perhaps, a little clearer than they are at the present moment.

Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I must begin by saying how glad I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said that we on this side of the House regard the proposal which we are putting forward as second best. We would rather the position had been left as it was. I do not know what the joke is on the Government side of the House. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies to the debate.

Among the workers of the country, in the Trades Union Congress, certainly in the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, in Coventry, opposition to Clause 4 is as strong as ever it was before, and in the few minutes only for which I intend to detain the House I shall try to explain to the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what our objections are. I hope that the hon. Lady, if and when she replies, will try—I know she will—to give me an answer to the questions I shall raise.

When we discussed the Bill on Second Reading the hon. Lady, who had been asked how much the Government expected to save by the Bill, replied that they hoped to save very little because they did not believe that there would be any short-time working.

6.30 p.m.

There is a great deal of short-time working in Coventry today. The unions are very much concerned about it. The hon. Lady will know that it is always very difficult to get figures of short-time working because employers do not like to give them to the employment exchanges since they hope to have their men employed again. The figures provided by the unions and the estimates given by the employers vary widely. I shall not give any figures now, but I ask the hon. Lady to take it from me and from the Coventry District Committee of the Confederation that there is a considerable amount of short-time working. I do not know whether the hon. Lady can possibly remove the district committee's feeling that the present legislation will make it much more difficult for people who are on short-time to claim unemployment benefit. That feeling was not removed by our previous discussion.

The second point is that in column 615 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, to which I have already referred, the hon. Lady gave me an assurance that the Bill would not change the legal effects of any agreements which were then in operation. We are still not happy about that. I do not mean that I doubt the hon. Lady's word, but perhaps she could emphasise the point a little more this evening. The Confederation has been working for years to devise a form of words that would ensure that short-time workers would qualify for unemployment benefit within the framework of present legislation for odd days of unemployment. The Confederation is not convinced that that agreement, worked out by it and accepted by the employers, will not be invalidated by the Government's present proposals.

When this matter was raised with the Engineering and Allied Employers' Federation, that body supported what the hon. Lady subsequently said. The Federation said that the Bill would not nullify agreements already reached. It added that if short-time workers were laid off on the Friday of one week and on Monday of the following week they would still qualify for unemployment benefit under the rule that they must be unemployed for at least two days within any period of six days to qualify for benefit.

The Confederation argues that this would not always be practicable. I should welcome the hon. Lady's views on that point. The secretary of the Confederation's district committee at Coventry has said, and I think that this is unanswerable, that in any case the arrangement would not enable the short-time worker to qualify for benefit every week and even if it were practicable the employee would qualify for benefit only twice in three weeks.

In that same debate I asked the hon. Lady whether she could answer another question. I do not think that she did so. The Confederation's district committee, at Coventry, is of the opinion that a man could be employed for only one day in each week yet still be refused benefit for the other days of unemployment because he would be said to be covered by his guaranteed week agreement for four days a week. In that debate on Second Reading I mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the views of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The unions find it very hard to understand why the Government feel that there is such great urgency to introduce the Amendment to Clause 4. When the Advisory Committee was quite unable to recommend any change, the Minister has been advancing the argument that this is something vital which really must be done.

The Advisory Committee said that if this matter were to be dealt with, some special provision would have to be made for those working five days or fewer. We are quite unable to understand why the Government say that this is a matter of great importance when the Advisory Committee could offer no such recommendation. We cannot understand why the Government should now put forward a solution which is not in accordance with the Advisory Committee's views. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply on this Amendment will be as reasonable as was the Minister's reply on the first Amendment, and that she will enable us to withdraw it.

Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)

A large percentage of people who are now working in industry are regularly working a five-day week. The six-day week, as we knew it before and during the war, has disappeared over a very large area of industry. Therefore, we are dealing with a very appreciable percentage of employed workers when we talk about those who habitually work a five-day week.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out, we are discussing a situation in which men stand to lose half the benefit to which they are now entitled when, through no fault of their own, they are, unfortunately, working a four-day week. It seems to be the philosophy of the Minister and of the Tory Government that when an employer cannot employ a man for five days the man is to be penalised again in unemployment benefit when he has been penalised already by being forced to work short-time.

I believe that behind the Minister's mind is the knowledge that in these days employers are very loath to dismiss their workers. In other words, there is, in effect, an agreement between employers and trade unions that, instead of dismissing out of hand 200 or 300 workers, the employer tries to spread the work over the whole of his staff. He does not do that because of any particular liking for the workers themselves. The background to it is that in days of full employment employers like to keep their team together. That is very laudable and I have nothing against it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) mentioned industry in Coventry. A great many of these employees have had to be specially trained to take part in a team working on a production belt. Once that team is disrupted, the employer, when he gets back again to a period of full employment, has to start training "green" labour. Therefore, I think it is a correct approach that the trade unions and the employers should agree, that as far as possible short-time working should take supremacy over the dismissal of a number of employees. I believe that in the Minister's mind is the point that this is causing a certain drain on employment problems which he feels is not justified.

Again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the alternative. If we are now to say that we will penalise employees wherever four days a week is worked, it will discourage workers from agreeing to remain in the team of a given factory when there is short time. Therefore, the flow of production will be disturbed permanently by that kind of reaction to the present suggestion of the Minister.

I should have thought that on a calculation of the losses which are incurred by leaving the unemployment benefits as they are now, and contrasting that with the loss in production which will undoubtedly take place if the Minister's present proposals are maintained, it is very much in the interests of the nation that he should think again. Although I am supporting the Amendment, and I have my name to it, I feel it would be far better if the Minister would think out the problem again, and agree that, on balance, in the interests of the nation, it would be far better to leave the position as it now is.

Let us look at the future. We all agree that we are living in a period which will see vast changes in the methods of industrial production. Automation is the word which most readily springs to mind, but in many industries which will not automate there will, nevertheless, be vast changes in the methods of production, and, inevitably, there will be changes in the working week. It may well be that we shall see a great extension of "round-the-clock" working.

I should have thought that in such a fluid situation the first thing we must try to do is to give a basis of security to the people who are employed in order to get them to appreciate the need for the changes which, in modern times, are a necessity. Yet at the very moment when it is so necessary to give that feeling of security as a preliminary to asking people to accept such vital changes, we cut down in this stupid way, and put fear and insecurity into the minds of the very people whose decisions on these matters will affect us all so deeply.

Rather than get into that position, and then merely label them as Luddites because they do not accept the need for change, I should have thought we would ourselves be culpable if we agreed to this legislation going on the Statute Book as a preliminary to asking people to change the way of life they have known in some cases for thirty or forty years. These are reasons of great importance. They affect the whole of the productive effort of this nation at a time when production is already stagnating. When we cannot see our way, because of present Government policies, to get an increase in production comparable with our competitors, we are putting insecurity into the minds of our workers.

I should not think that there was anything discreditable in achieving an agreement between the employers and the unions that wherever work is short there should be four days for all instead of the sack for quite a number, which was the old pre-war sanction that we do not want to see again. I can assure the Minister that many working men will feel that this is a deliberately conceived attack upon them because they are unfortunate enough to work only four days a week.

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Lee

The hon. Member shakes his head. I am not saying whether it is so. I am saying that is the interpretation I would put upon it if I were working in industry only four days a week. Because I would do so, I know that millions of people in the same position as I was will also put that interpretation upon it.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to hesitate before forcing a position of this kind which will create a defensive mechanism in the minds of many people. The T.U.C. itself, weighing the balance of it, has asked the Minister not to do this. It would appear that we have almost reached the point that when the T.U.C. advises something it is always certain to mean that the Government go precisely the other way.

Mr. Osborne

No.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Lee

Oh, yes. It is not good enough for the Government to expect cooperation from mechanised labour in these matters and from men of great responsibility. They are by no means wild cats, and it is not good enough for the Government to expect co-operation from them on a series of economic problems and then snap their fingers in the faces of these men when they suggest things which do not happen to suit a Tory Government. I hope that the Minister will think again before forcing us to take a defensive attitude towards this proposal.

Mr. A. E. Hunter (Feltham)

I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). At the same time, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that I would rather see the law unchanged so far as Clause 4 is concerned. The Amendment was ably moved by my hon. Friend who gave convincing arguments in support of the plea which we put before the Standing Committee when this matter was discussed there.

Speaking now mainly about the five-day week people—because I believe that under the Bill it will be they who will be penalised and rendered an injustice—it does not mean that these people are not doing a full week's work. A five-day week has been brought about in this country mainly by the trade unions and by enlightened employers who realised the benefit of the long weekend to the health of the workers in industry and commerce. Today, in this country nearly 50 per cent. of the working population is on a five-day week. Various methods have been used to bring that about. Sometimes they work an hour longer early in the morning or later at night. Sometimes there is a shortened interval for meals. Therefore, it can be seen plainly that though people may be working a five-day week, the hours worked are equal to those of a six-day week or a five-and-a-half-day week worker in many instances.

In Middlesex there are many on a five-day week, which I believe is almost universal in the engineering and kindred trades. This is also pronounced in a large number of productive and distributive units. When it covers a population of nearly half the country it will be seen that this is an important matter. It seems to me unfair that a five-day week worker should lose one day's benefit if he is unemployed one day of that week. This is clearly an injustice for a five-day week is often equal in hours to a six-day week.

I have said that this practice is prevalent in the engineering industry. The Minister does not represent a Middlesex constituency but he represents one which is only just across the border in Surrey. There is a large number of engineering workers at Hawkers, so some of them work in his constituency and some of his constituents work in the Feltham constituency. Therefore, this matter affects many not only in my constituency, but the majority of those in Middlesex and in the London constituencies, and also in many other parts of the country.

I have always considered the Minister to have a logical mind. I put this point to him. If a five-day week worker is not to get the same benefit when he loses a day as a six-day week worker, why should he pay the same National Insurance contribution? Surely, it is not logical that the five-day worker and the six-day worker should pay the same contribution unless both are to be covered for all the unemployment risks. I therefore ask the Minister, even at this late stage of the Bill, to give consideration to these points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby rightly said that the National Insurance Advisory Council was divided on this point, and that there was a great difference of opinion on it. On insurance matters, I think all Ministers follow the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Council. Therefore, when it is a question of a big division of opinion, which must have the effect, as some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have said, that the five-day week worker would be penalised if the Bill went through unamended, I think that if the Minister cannot withdraw Clause 4 he should accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

Personally, I would like to see the law unchanged, and it is in the interests of my constituents, many of whom work a five-day week, that I make my plea that they should not be penalised by this Bill.

Miss Pitt

Lest the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) should later reproach me with beginning unreasonably and ending reasonably, may I make it quite clear at the outset that neither of the two Amendments is acceptable. The hon. Member began by referring to the skilful drafting which he thought he and his hon. Friends had employed. In fact, I think they have been very clever, for they have endeavoured to negative the Clause by a procedure different from the straight vote which they employed in the Standing Committee. But they have not been quite as skilful as apparently the hon. Member himself feels, because, unless I misunderstood him, the effect of the Clause would be different from that which he outlined in the speech which he has just made.

The effect of the first Amendment would be to negative Clause 4 and leave the position as it now stands; that is to say, the five-day week worker could count Saturday as a day of unemployment if he was unemployed on one other day in that week, and so he would still get, as he does at present, two days benefit for the loss of one day's work. That is an abuse which Clause 4 is designed to remedy. It is an abuse which has grown up with the growth of the five-day working week, and we seek to remedy it because it is unfair to other workers and other contributors. This Saturday is not a normal working day for the men on a five-day week, and that represents about half the working population.

This status of the man working the five-day week was confirmed, I think perhaps unconsciously, by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. A. E. Hunter) during the Committee stage of the Bill when, if I may quote him, he said: The five-day week has been brought about in this country by enlightened employers, by trade unions and by public opinion, and it has been recognised that the weekend break is beneficial to the health of the workers, because it provides them with leisure, … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd April, 1957; c. 42.] The hon. Gentleman has repeated himself today, and I propose to comment on that later on, but what I have just read from his speech in the Committee stage defines exactly what I believe the position to be with the five-day week worker—that Saturday is not a normal working day, but is part of the leisure time of the worker.

The second Amendment is slightly more restrictive in its application, but it would have almost the same effect, except perhaps for some consequences which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may not have foreseen. The effect of the second Amendment would still be to allow the normal idle day to count for unemployment benefit where the same working day was lost in two consecutive weeks. It means that a five-day worker unemployed on two or more successive Fridays could be paid for the Saturday of the second week and each succeeding week when unemployed on the Friday.

I now take up the hon. Gentleman on his own speech. He said, unless I misunderstood him, that the effect of his Amendment would be that the worker would be paid unemployment benefit for two Fridays when he lost them in succeeding weeks. In fact, the effect of the Amendment would be to pay the worker for three days—two Fridays and one Saturday. It would mean, again, that the five-day week worker would continue to draw benefit for Saturday, with the exception of the first one, which would again negative the purpose of Clause 4.

It would also produce indefensible anomalies which the hon. Gentleman has not foreseen. The man who lost Friday in one week and also Monday in the next week would get no benefit for the Saturday in the second week. He would get two days, because of the two-in-six rule, whereas he would get Saturday if the day lost in the second week had been Friday, instead of the Monday which I took as an example. Alternatively, the man who lost four days in one single week would get no benefit for Saturday, whereas the man who lost the same day in two weeks running would receive benefit for Saturday, though, in fact, he would only lose half as much as the man who lost four days in a single week.

Mr. Houghton

Is the hon. Lady now criticising the Amendment in its literal effect, or is she also criticising the most practicable alternative mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee? I made it quite clear that, whatever may be the pitfalls of the drafting, our intentions were those set out in paragraph 34 of the Report.

Miss Pitt

If I may answer the hon. Gentleman, this is not the same as the alternative considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in the paragraphs which the hon. Gentleman read out to us. I will try to come back to the point in a moment.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that this is a technical anomaly, meaning the present operation of unemployment benefit, which we intend to alter by Clause 4. Surely, his choice of the word "technical" is unfair to the other half of the working population, the men who are themselves still on the five-and-a-half or six-day week. I would have thought it was much less than fair to dismiss the payment of two days' benefit for what is really only one day's unemployment as a "technical anomaly."

The hon. Member for Sowerby, and other hon. Members who have spoken, have referred again to the fact that the National Insurance Advisory Committee found itself almost equally divided on this subject. In fact, the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Minister in his judgment has reached a decision which the National Insurance Advisory Committee did not do. At the risk of repetition. I want to quote from the conclusions of the Report presented by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in which it said: We are agreed, however, that where an existing right to benefit is at issue, we should not recommend its removal save by a substantial majority of opinion. One can understand that a committee set up as an advisory committee, finding itself almost equally divided, would naturally feel that it was not proper for it to make a recommendation unless there was a majority in favour of it, but, having tendered its advice and having put forward the interests which it had take into consideration, it was then a matter for the Government to make up their minds what action they proposed to take.

The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) asked me a number of questions. She asked me whether this provision in Clause 4 will make it still more difficult for men on short time to claim unemployment benefit. The answer really is "No." They may not get the benefit as they have been doing up to now, being able to claim Saturday as a day of unemployment, but any other time when they are unemployed and they lose two or more days in a week they will be able to claim unemployment benefit.

7.0 p.m.

The hon. Lady also asked me to confirm what I said during Second Reading about guaranteed week agreements. I do so gladly. In our Ministry we have no wish to take any action which would affect the operation, the introduction, or the expansion of guaranteed week agreements. That is a matter of industrial relations and certainly Clause 4 is not aimed in any way to get round any guaranteed week agreement at present in operation.

The hon. Lady also said that the Engineering and Allied Employers' Federation had advised her that, under Clause 4, if an employee was laid off on Friday of one week and Monday of the next he would qualify for unemployment benefit. She asked me to confirm that. That is correct because, as I said during Second Reading, whether a man qualifies depends on the pattern of his unemployment, and if he lost Friday in one week and Monday in another, he would lose two days in six successive weekdays. It depends on the pattern of his unemployment and whether his employers are prepared to work in that way.

Another question the hon. Lady asked was whether a man who has an agreement which guarantees work for four days a week would be affected by the Clause. That again would depend on the particular pattern of the working week which he normally followed. I hesitate to give an outright answer on that question, because these cases, as the hon. Lady knows, are decided by the independent statutory authority. But I hope that I have been helpful to the hon. Lady in replying to some of the things which concern her so much in her Coventry constituency.

The hon. Member for Feltham concluded by saying that it was unfair that the five-day week worker should lose one day's benefit. He asked why a five-day week worker should not get the same benefit as a six-day week worker. That entirely makes the case which we have been putting from the Government benches. The intention behind Clause 4 is that the five-day week worker should be treated in exactly the same way as the five-and-a-half-day and six-day week workers, and not better, as is the case at present.

I conclude with this comment, which I think will interest hon. Members. During Second Reading I was asked to what extent short-time was being worked. I gave some figures. I said that 155,000 men were on short-time at the beginning of the year and that that number had dropped to 100,000 by the middle of March. I have the latest figures available, and hon. Members will be happy to learn that by the end of March the figure had dropped to 82,000. Short-time working is declining, but although it has focussed attention on this Clause in the last few weeks, the anomaly still remains. Even though short-time working may entirely disappear, as we all hope it will, nevertheless there is an anomaly in our existing unemployment insurance scheme, and we hope that Clause 4 will remove it. For that reason, we are not able to accept either of the Amendments.

Miss Herbison

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary made great play with the fact that the wording of our Amendments does not meet the case which we on this side of the House have in mind. That may be perfectly true. The Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary must know better than anyone how difficult it is to make Amendments to any National Insurance Bill. However, after the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) there can have been no doubt what we intended the Amendments to do. In answering the debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary paid no attention to the speech of my hon. Friend and to the case he made for what we wanted done.

In Committee, there was great play about the anomaly which the Government were trying to remove by Clause 4. There, the Minister had much to say. For instance: If he has evidence that there is a substantial anomaly in the sense in which I have defined it, he is bound to give consideration to putting it right. On the question of the advice from the National Insurance Advisory Committee, he said: On the contrary, I suggest in the light of that Report that the duty then falls on the Minister of the day to consider what in all the circumstances it is right to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd April, 1957; c. 33–4.] The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has again stressed that.

On this side of the House we have no objection to the Minister feeling that he must make the decision. The National Insurance Advisory Committee is an advisory committee, but we feel that the decision which the Minister ought to have made should have been made not merely in the light of paragraph 36 of the Report, but in the light of every paragraph dealing with unemployment and the five-day worker. If he had considered everything that was said, he would have decided either to leave things alone and to keep the anomaly about which he has talked so much, or to introduce some Measure which would have given effect to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby was trying to do.

The Minister decided against that. In Committee, we voted against Clause 4 and for the status quo. Today, our Amendments were an attempt to salvage something for the five-day worker. It is evident that the Minister has no intention, whether our wording is correct or incorrect, of doing anything about the matter. The Committee's Report is important and Ministers of National Insurance always pay great attention to whatever the National Insurance Advisory Committee says on this subject. In paragraph 35, the Committee said: The argument is reinforced by pointing out that there would be considerable, and justifiable, resentment if five days a week workers, regularly on four days a week short-time, lost half the benefit they are now getting. There was no difference of opinion among the members of the Committee on that. That seemed to be a unanimous decision. Clause 4 is doing exactly what the Advisory Committee said would cause justifiable resentment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am sure that the hon. Lady wants to be fair to the Advisory Committee. The whole of paragraph 35 puts the argument for one point of view. To get a balanced view of the views of the Advisory Committee, which was admittedly divided, the hon. Lady must refer to other paragraphs, not least to the very clear and cogent criticism of the present position in paragraph 30.

Miss Herbison

Certainly. I have read the Report very carefully. My contention is that the Advisory Committee must have given a great deal of thought and time to the topic of unemployment benefit for the five-day worker and apparently examined every alternative. It gave the pros and cons for this alternative. Our complaint, and our serious criticism of the Government is that, in spite of the fact that the Advisory Committee dealt with all the alternatives, the Minister has accepted none of them. He has just made a clean sweep, which seems to me completely against the advice contained in paragraphs 31 to 35.

I am not saying that because the Advisory Committee could not come to a decision the Minister should not come to a decision. The Minister must come to a decision. We would have preferred the status quo, but since we failed to get it during the Committee stage discussions, we prefer the alternative which we have tried to put before the House today, and which is to be found in paragraph 34. We may have the wrong wording in our Amendments, but I do not think that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary are in any doubt about our intention, particularly after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby.

This is an injustice to the five-day workers. If one examines the question of the five-day workers one comes to the conclusion contained in paragraph 31—I am sorry to have to go over this again, but it is of great importance. In that paragraph, it states: At the same time, it must be recognised that, where a person has lost earnings in respect of a day on which he normally works, the loss for each day is likely to be a more serious matter the fewer the number of days normally worked. Of course, it is much more serious for the five-day worker. I cannot say how it applies to all of them, but in my constituency there are a number of workers who, though they work five days a week, work exactly the same number of hours as when they worked for six days a week. These are the people who will be seriously penalised by the provisions in this Bill.

Now I come to the question of the Trades Union Congress. The men who

compose that body are very responsible. They give serious thought to matters such as this. They represent all, or almost all, of the workers in this country. At one stage during the discussion on this Bill I was told that, of course, the six-day worker complains about the conditions of the five-day worker so far as unemployment benefit is concerned. But the T.U.C. speaks not only for the five-day worker, but for the five-and-a-half-day and six-day workers, and the T.U.C. is completely opposed to this provision in Clause 4.

We have just recovered from a spate of industrial trouble and measures such as this must cause industrial unrest among those who work for five days a week. If I felt that there was any justice in this, no matter how unpopular it might be, I should be willing to support it. But it is because we on this side of the House feel that there is no justice in this provision in Clause 4 that we oppose it so strongly. It appears to me that, for the sake of some sort of saving, or for some party political purpose, the Minister has turned his back on the Report of the Advisory Committee and on the opinion of the responsible men who compose the T.U.C. For those reasons and for others adduced by my hon. Friends, we intend to vote on this Amendment.

Question put, That "each" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 130.

Division No. 101.] AYES [7.15 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Carr, Robert Gower, H. R.
Aitken, W. T. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.) Graham, Sir Fergus
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Cole, Norman Grant, W, (Woodside)
Armstrong, C. W. Cooper, A. E. Green, A.
Atkins, H. E. Cooper-Key, E. M. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Baldwin, A. E. Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Barber, Anthony Corfieid, Capt. F. V. Hall, John (Wyoombe)
Barlow, Sir John Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Harris, Reader (Heston)
Barter, John Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Baxter, Sir Beverley Crouch, R. F. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Deedes, W. F. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Doughty, C. J. A. Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Bidgood, J. C. du Cann, E. D. L. Hesketh, R. F.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Bishop, F. P. Elliott, R. W. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Body, R. F. Farey-Jones, F. W. Hirst, Geoffrey
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Fell, A. Hobson, J. G. S,(War'ok & Leam'ton)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Finlay, Graeme Hornby, R. P.
Boyle, Sir Edward Fisher, Nigel Horobin, Sir Ian
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Fletcher-Cooke, C. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Bryan, P. Freeth, Denzil Howard, John (Test)
Burden, F. F. A. George, J. C. (Pollok) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Glover, D. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R,A.(Saffron Walden) Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Hyde, Montgomery
Campbell, Sir David Goodhart, P. C. Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Iremonger, T. L. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Irvine. Bryant Godman (Rye) Medlicott, Sir Frank Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Storey, S.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Studholme, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Nairn, D. L. S. Summers, Sir Spencer
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Neave, Airey Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Joseph, Sir Keith Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th & Chr'ch) Teeling, W.
Keegan, D. Oakshott, H. D. Temple, John M.
Kerby, Capt. H. B. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Kerr, H. W. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Kershaw, J. A. Osborne, C. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.
Kimball, M. Page, R. G. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Lambert, Hon. G. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Lambton, Viscount Pickthorn, K. W. M. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Langford-Holt, J. A. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Turner, H. F. L.
Leavey, J. A. Pitman, I. J. Vane, W. M. F.
Leburn, W. G. Pitt, Miss E. M. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Pott, H. P. Vickers, Miss Joan
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Powell, J. Enoch Wade, D. W.
Linstead, Sir H. N. Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Raikes, Sir Victor Wall, Major Patrick
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Rawlinson, Peter Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Renton, D. L. M. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) Ridsdale, J. E. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Rippon, A, G. F. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Robertson, Sir David Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Roper, Sir Harold Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maddan, Martin Schofield, Lt.-Col, W. Wood, Hon. R.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle) Scott-Miller, Cmdr, R. Woollam, John Victor
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Sharpies, R. C.
Mathew, R. Shepherd, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Maude, Angus Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Mawby, R. L. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Mr. Hughes-Young.
NOES
Ainsley, J. W. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Parker, J.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Herbison, Miss M. Paton, John
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Houghton, Douglas Pearson, A.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hubbard, T. F. Pentland, N.
Balfour, A. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Popplewell, E.
Beswick, Frank Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Proctor, W. T.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hunter, A. E. Randall, H. E.
Blackburn, F. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rankin, John
Blenkinsop, A. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Rhodes, H.
Blyton, W. R. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Janner, B. Ross, William
Brockway, A. F. Jeger, George (Goole) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Johnson, James (Rugby) Short, E. W.
Burke, W. A. Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Burton, Miss F. E. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Kenyon, C. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Callaghan, L. J. King, Dr. H. M. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Champion, A. J. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook) Sparks, J. A.
Chapman, W. D. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Steele, T.
Clunie, J. Lindgren, G. S. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Lipton, Marcus Stonehouse, John
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Logan, D. G. Stones, W. (Consett)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A. MacColl, J. E. Sylvester, G. 0.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) MacDermot, Niall Timmons, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) McKay, John (Wallsend) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Deer, G. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Usborne, H. C.
Delargy, H. J. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Viant, S. P.
Dye, S. Mahon, Simon Watkins, T. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mellish, R. J. Weitzman, D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mitchison, G. R. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Moody, A. S. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Fernyhough, A. Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Fletcher, Eric Mort, D. L. Wigg, George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Moss, R. Williams, David (Neath)
Gibson, C. W. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Gooch, E. G. Oswald, T. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Owen, W. J. Winterbottom, Richard
Grey, C. F. Padley, W. E. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearme Valley) Woof, R. E.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Palmer, A. M. F. Zilliacus, K.
Hamilton, W. W. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Hannan, W. Pargiter, G. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price
Mr. Speaker

Does the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) wish to move the next Amendment?

Mr. Houghton

Yes, Sir.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 23 at the end to insert: or unless in that week and in the week immediately preceding that week the same day (other

than Sunday) of each week is a day of interruption of employment "

Miss Herbison

I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 174.

Division No. 102.] AYES [7.25 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Parker, J.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Herbison, Miss M. Paton, John
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Houghton, Douglas Pearson, A.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hubbard, T. F. Pentland, N.
Balfour, A. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Popplewell, E.
Beswick, Frank Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Proctor, W. T.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hunter, A. E. Randall, H. E.
Blackburn, F. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rankin, John
Blenkinsop, A. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Rhodes, H.
Blyton, W. R. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Janner, B. Ross, William
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Jeger, George (Goole) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Brockway, A. F. Johnson, James (Rugby) Short, E. W.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Burke, W. A. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Burton, Miss F. E. Kenyon, C. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) King, Dr. H. M. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Callaghan, L. J. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Sparks, J. A.
Champion, A. J. Lever, Leslie (Ardwiok) Steele, T.
Chapman, W. D. Lindgren, G. S. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Clunie, J. Lipton, Marcus Stonehouse, J.T.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Logan, D. G. Stones, W. (Consett)
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) MacColl, J. E. Sylvester, G. 0.
Cullen, Mrs. A. MacDermot, Niall Timmons, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) McKay, John (Wallsend) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Deer, G. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Usborne, H. C.
Delargy, H, J. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Viant, S. P.
Dye, S. Mahon, Simon Watkins, T. E.
Ede, Rt Hon. J. C. Mellish, R. J. Weitzman, D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mitchison, G. R. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Moody, A. S. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Fernyhough, E. Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Fletcher, Eric Mort, D. L. Wigg, George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Moss, R. Williams, David (Neath)
Gibson, C. W. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Gooch, E. G. Oswald, T. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Owen, W. J. Winterbottom, Richard
Grey, C. F. Padley, W. E. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Woof, R. E.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Palmer, A. M. F. Zilliacus, K.
Hamilton, W. W. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Hannan, W, Pargiter, G. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Elliott, R. W.
Aitken, W. T. Bryan, P. Farey-Jones, F. W.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Burden, F. F. A. Fell, A.
Armstrong, C. W. Butcher, Sir Herbert Finlay, Graeme
Atkins, H. E. Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Fisher, Nigel
Baldwin, A. E. Campbell, Sir David Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Barber, Anthony Carr, Robert Freeth, Denzil
Barlow, Sir John Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) George, J. C. (Pollok)
Barter, John Cole, Norman Glover, D.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Cooper, A. E. Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Goodhart, P. C.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Corfield, Capt. F. V. Gower, H. R.
Bidgood, J. C. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Graham, Sir Fergus
Biggs-Davison, J, A. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E. Grant, W. (Woodside)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Crouch, R. F- Green, A.
Bishop, F. P. Deedes, W. F. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Body, R. F. Doughty, C. J. A. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) du Cann, E. D. L. Hall, John (Wycombe)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Harris, Reader (Heston)
Boyle, Sir Edward Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. McLean, Neil (Inverness) Sharpies, R. C.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Shepherd, William
Hesketh, R. F. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maddan, Martin Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Storey, S.
Hirst, Geoffrey Mathew, R. Studholme, Sir Henry
Hobson, J. G. S.(War'ck& Leam'gtn) Maude, Angus Summers, Sir Spencer
Hornby, R. P. Mawby, R. L. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Horobin, Sir Ian Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. Teeling, W.
Howard, Hon. Grevitle (St. Ives) Medlicott, Sir Frank Temple, John M.
Howard, John (Test) Milligan, Rt. Hon.W. R. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E' b' gh, W.) Nairn, D. L. S. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Hyde, Montgomery Neave, Airey Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'oh) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Iremonger, T. L. Oakshott, H. D. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Turner, H. F. L.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Vane, W. M. F.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Osborne, C. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Page, R. G. Vickers, Miss Joan
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Wade, D. W.
Joseph, Sir Keith Pickthorn, K. W. M. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Keegan, D. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Wall, Major Patrick
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Pitman, I. J. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Kerr, H. W. Pitt, Miss E. M. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Kershaw, J. A. Pott, H. P. Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)
Kimball, M. Powell, J. Enoch Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Langford-Holt, J. A. Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Leavey, J. A. Raikes Sir Victor Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Leburn, W. G. Rawlinson Peter Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Ronton, D. L. M. Wood, Hon. R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Ridsdale, J. E. Woollam, John Victor
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Rippon, A. G. F.
Linstead, Sir H. N. Robertson, Sir David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Roper, Sir Harold Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Mr. Hughes Young.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(REGULATIONS— MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL.)

Miss Pitt

I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, after "of". to insert: or of any regulations under ". This is a technical Amendment to facilitate the bringing into operation of the provisions of Clause 9. The provision enables an annulled marriage to be treated in the same way as a marriage ending in divorce, and so to qualify a woman for child's allowance where the husband was making a contribution before his death.

We shall be submitting to the National Insurance Advisory Committee within the next month or two draft regulations to enable the divorced woman to count her ex-husband's contribution during the marriage as credits and so to improve her record for retirement pension purposes. This improvement, though small in itself as it affects only a limited number of women, will be welcomed, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), Winchester (Mr. Smithers), and Bedford (Mr. Soames), who have recently written to me on cases in their own constituencies.

I am sure that all hon. Members will be glad to learn of the acceptance by my right hon. Friend of this recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which is made in its Report on Contribution Conditions and Credits Provisions.

Regulations to give effect to it will be made under Section 59 of the Act, and will be subject to affirmative Resolution of the House. We desire to give the same benefit to the woman whose marriage has been annulled, but that would also involve the affirmative Resolution procedure and would not be possible until the Bill is in operation. To avoid delay which might mean that no action was possible this Session, we have put forward the Amendment to permit regulations under Clause 9 to modify the provisions of regulations as well as of Acts of Parliament. We shall thus be able to help the woman whose marriage is nullified in the same way, and at the same time, as the woman whose marriage ended in divorce. For those reasons, I hope that the House will find the Amendment acceptable.

Miss Herbison

We welcome the Amendment, because it gives help to a greater number of people.

Amendment agreed to.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, a few weeks ago, I indicated that it seemed essentially suitable for examination in Committee and to be one on which it was almost impossible to make a clear and agreeable speech on the Second Reading. Whatever other proposition I have failed to establish in the course of the discussions on the Bill, I think that I have clearly established that one.

The same applies in increased degree to the Third Reading. The Bill is essentially a collection of Measures on which a great deal of thought and care has been expended by my Department, by the National Insurance Advisory Committee and by hon. Members in all quarters of the House. We have sought to bring the results of all those efforts together in a Bill which, as I indicated on the Second Reading, is designed to remove difficulties and correct anomalies and unfairnesses which our experience of the working of the National Insurance system has brought to light.

We had a good discussion in Committee, and to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Standing Committee and of the House on Report I would express my thanks for the quick but thorough examination which they gave to the inevitably complex provisions of the Bill. I should ill requite that courtesy and helpfulness if I were at this stage to make a speech which could not be other than a recooking and reheating of the subject matter of our earlier discussions.

I have indicated that the Bill contains a number of measures which are adjustments and minor improvements in the National Insurance Scheme. It includes three matters of somewhat greater importance. It initiates that hopeful and helpful process which will have to go forward under the ugly name of "deretirement" and of which the House will follow the development with interest. It may well help to mitigate some of the difficulties which have arisen, particularly in connection with the operation of the earnings limit. It makes improvement in the dependency test in respect of dependent wives. It also makes a not unimportant change in the law with respect to unemployment benefit in the context of the matter which the House has recently been discussing.

There are other matters of importance, such as the new special children's allowance to help children of parents who have been divorced, when the father subsequently dies. The House has given full and careful examination to the Bill and is well acquainted with these details.

It certainly is our intention, as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary indicated at an earlier stage, to make the necessary regulations under the Bill as speedily as possible and to exercise the power to appoint days of operation, with a strong bias in favour of bringing the provisions into effect as speedily as possible. In some cases, regulations made under the Bill will have to go to the Advisory Committee. That will inevitably take a little time, but I assure the House that the same spirit that the House has shown in its desire to get the Bill with reasonable expedition on to the Statute Book will be shown by my Department in ensuring that the provisions of the Bill shall come into effective operation as speedily as possible.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Houghton

I am sure that we on these benches are grateful for the Minister's appreciation of what we were able to do in examining the Bill in Standing Committee and to conclude those proceedings without unnecessary delay. Today, we have re-examined the controversial Clause in the Bill, but, nevertheless, we are not delaying its passage through the House. We were glad to hear the Minister's assurance of the speed with which his Department hopes to implement the various provisions which will require the drafting of Regulations.

Seven out of the eight legislative Clauses implement the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I hope it is not now a commonplace to acknowledge the value of its work. It undoubtedly simplifies the work of the House and, I am sure, of the Department in these most complex matters. It not only simplifies our work, but enables different points of view to be brought to bear on flaws and possible remedies for them, which it is its duty to consider. That is a most valuable institution for which I am sure the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who first incorporated it in the National Insurance Act.

We are particularly pleased to be able to improve benefits for certain categories of children who are placed in conditions of difficulty, or even of hardship, because of the unusual nature of their plight in life. For instance, the child's special allowance in Clause 5, as the right hon. Gentleman said, deals with the absence of any provision for the payment of child allowance to divorced mothers whose ex-husbands have died and who were contributing to their upkeep before their death.

We were astonished to find that there were difficulties in granting guardian's allowance to a child one of whose parents was dead and the other could not be traced. We have now relaxed the exacting condition of "cannot be traced." That is a good thing and will let some children into benefit who previously would be kept out. Another surprising thing to find was that guardian's allowance was denied where one parent was dead and the step-parent still alive. The step-parent, apparently, could legally disclaim all responsibility for the child and accept no responsibility for its maintenance, but the mere fact of that person being there denied someone who was caring for the child getting guardian's benefit. These unusual types of case obviously could not be provided for in the principal Act and probably not in subsequent legislation until the real nature of these difficulties became known.

We shall all watch with interest how Clause 1 turns out. Speaking for my self, I shall be very glad to discover how many retired husbands are tied to their wives' apron strings and will be forbidden to re-enter regular employment because their wives say, "If you do I shall lose my wife's pension and I am not having that happen." I should certainly hope to be present at the first appeal to the statutory authority when a husband goes there complaining that his wife's consent was being unreasonably withheld. That brave man should go down in history. I hope it will be possible to know when he is proclaiming his courage as a husband and is going to a statutory body to ask it to decide that his wife's consent is being unreasonably withheld.

Also under Clause I there are husbands who are tied to their wives, but certainly not by apron strings. They are tied by the legal point only of whether wives separated from their husbands may withhold their consent—from a distance, as it were—from motives I do not wish to discuss. They may be many and varied: some worthy and some not worthy. Experience will show how that turns out.

We on these benches wish that we could be speeding to another place a Bill containing widespread and substantial advances of National Insurance benefits generally, but, since the rules of order prevent us from turning the Third Reading of a Bill into a wailing wall where the lamentations of distressed suppliants can be heard loud and long, I regret that today we are not dealing with improvements for old-age pensioners.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.