§ Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 9, column 1, to leave out "70" and to insert "65".
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in page 3, line 12, column 1, leave out "65" and insert "60"; the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment in line 13, column 1, leave out from the beginning to end of line 14; and the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), in line 26, at the end to add:
- 11. Employed men over the age of 65 1s. 5d.
- 12. Employed women over the age of 60 1s. 1d.
§ Mr. MarquandYes, Sir Gordon, I think that that would be for the convenience of the Committee. It would mean dealing with the greater contribution payable by employed men as well as
§ the rate of contribution payable by employed women. I take it that, as we shall be discussing so many Amendments together, it will be possible to have more than one Division at the end, if we think fit?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe Chairman of Ways and Means has agreed to Divisions on the first and second of the Amendments if that would meet the convenience of the Committee.
§ Mr. HoughtonThere is no humbug or hypocrisy about the Amendment which I wish to submit. It is an Amendment after the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own heart. It is practical, it is objective and I hope that it can be argued with moderation.
I have always said that I do not like to apply the term "poll tax" to a social service contribution. Certainly I do not like it in connection with a National Insurance contribution, because it is directly linked with benefits, and benefits depend upon contributions and contribution records. This is a different kind of contribution. It ought never to have been given the respectable title of contribution, because the National Health Service contribution is unrelated to benefits. It has no connection whatever with the rights of the individual contributor or non-contributor to the benefits of the Health Service. That is where it differs fundamentally from the National Insurance contribution.
301 Here, if a person deliberately evades the payment of a National Health Service contribution, it does not disqualify him from the full benefits of the scheme. That was made clear at the time of the introduction of the increased contribution in the Act of last year. That alone exposes this contribution to serious criticism. On the whole I think people who pay genuine contributions expect them to be related to their title to benefit and, as I say, I believe this is a convincing reason why this should never have been called a contribution. It is in fact a tax, but it is not a tax levied on the community as a whole; still less is it a tax which is graduated to assumed ability to pay.
§ Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)But if I make a contribution to a charity, I do not necessarily benefit from that charity.
§ Mr. HoughtonThese are matters of opinion, but on the whole I think that, in our system of taxation, extra-budgetary levies in respect of social services are generally based on the use of the term "contribution" in relation to entitlement to benefits. Since this is so closely connected with the National Insurance contribution, my criticism is the more pointed for that.
I was saying that a person who deliberately evades contributions is not in any way disqualified from benefit. It is true that one cannot easily evade the National Health Service contribution without evading the National Insurance contribution, because they are rivetted together and covered by the same stamp, and there are severe penalties attaching to non-payment of National Insurance contribution. If ever the sins of a contributor were visited on the widow, there is a clear example of it in the penalties for the evasion of the payment of National Insurance contribution.
This Amendment relates to one aspect of what I think is the inequity of this contribution. The general principle is that the contribution to the National Health Service shall be paid by all persons paying, or liable to pay, a National Insurance contribution, so that the liability to pay towards the National Health Service is put fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who contribute for National Insurance, and no others. 302 That is a serious inequity. It discriminates for this purpose against all those who are contributors under another scheme. In connection with the people who reach retirement age there is an especial unfairness about this contribution. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule the Committee will see that the proposed contribution of 1s. 10½d. is to be paid by:
Employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment.So here we find that a man who has reached the age of 65 and a woman who has reached the age of 60—women are dealt with lower down in the Schedule—and who have retired have no liability to pay the National Health Service contribution, for the simple reason that they have no liability to pay the National Insurance contribution. But a man or woman who postpones retirement, and who is under the obligation to pay full contributions under the National Insurance scheme, must in order to earn the increments to the pension, pay the National Health Service contribution in addition to the National Insurance contribution.Here is a special levy on those who postpone retirement. It may be argued that those who do so, and who will therefore gain a higher rate of pension, should pay contributions during the period of postponed retirement, since by paying those additional contributions they are entitled to the extra pension. But the conditions under which the extra pension may be earned are very rigid. There is no credit for sickness or unemployment in the case of a person who has postponed retirement. The twenty-five contributions must be paid; there are no credits given. So, in this respect, the person who postpones retirement pays contributions under stricter conditions than the one who has not reached retirement age and is contributing in the normal way.
I am not quarrelling with that at the moment. I fully understand that a person who has postponed retirement, and who thereby hopes to earn a higher pension, cannot earn it merely by going sick or being unemployed for lengthy periods during the time of postponement. Again, it is something which is related directly to contributions paid. Why, however, should 303 this additional tax be put upon them? Why should a person who postpones retirement, and who pays contributions in order to earn the additional pension, be put under this imposition when a person who has reached the same age and has retired has no similar contribution to pay. I see no reason why, because of that, he should be caught by the National Health Service contribution.
A person who retires and who then re-enters full-time employment without exercising his rights conceded by recent legislation, need not re-enter insurance. He can allow the earnings rule to reduce or even to extinguish his retirement pension, and he can continue in full employment, earning full wages and liable to neither the National Insurance contribution nor the National Health Service contribution. I see nothing fair in that. Of course, it is true that the man who, once retired and without reentering insurance, goes back to work and earns more than is permitted, without a reduction of his pension and whose pension may be completely extinguished by his earnings, is not earning increments for his pension, but, then, he is not paying for them.
That is why the Amendment seeks to relieve all men over 65 and all women over 60 from the payment of this additional contribution. It surprises me that this matter was not debated at the time of the original Act. It seems not to have been, but this is a point which the Committee should now notice. Although not covered by the Amendment, a similar anomaly arises in connection with married women who may opt out of paying the National Insurance contribution if they do not think it to their advantage to pay for a pension in their own right. But the married woman, because of circumstances of her own, probably connected with the age relationship between herself and husband, who may consider it necessary to contribute to the National Insurance Fund, has at the same time to contribute to the National Health Service, whereas another married woman who has opted out of the National Insurance contribution does not have to pay the National Health Service contribution.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not regard this argument 304 as humbug and hypocrisy. It is directed against the fundamental unfairness of the scheme. Why should those who are paying National Insurance contributions—and those alone—pay National Health Service contributions, and why should the differences between liability to National Insurance contributions determine differences in liability to pay National Health Service contributions? The Act is riddled with unfairness where an additional tax has, for the purposes of the Government, been riveted to a National Insurance contribution which has nothing whatever to do with the National Health Service contribution.
Among men and women of the same ages there are three sets of people. In the case of men, there are those over 70 who pay neither National Insurance contributions nor National Health Service contributions and who can earn as much as they like, because they are beyond the effect of the earnings rule. There are men between the ages of 65 and 70 who have retired, but who may re-enter full-time employment and be subject to the operation of the earnings rule, but who will pay neither National Insurance contributions nor National Health Service contributions. Finally, there are men between the ages of 65 and 70 who have not retired, who have postponed retirement, but who pay National Insurance contributions in order to earn a higher pension and who are taxed to pay the National Health Service contribution.
6.45 p.m.
Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been searching his vocabulary to find suitable words to express himself, I call this stuff and nonsense. It cannot be justified on any equitable basis of taxation according to the principles which we have adopted in this country. When a contribution of a modest amount is first levied, it may be small in relation to the resources of the great mass of the contributors and it may be thought unnecessary to graduate it according to incomes, earnings, or assumption of ability to pay. After all, if we are asked to pay 6d. we do not trouble to modify it for particular income groups and so on. We say that 6d. is something which everybody can pay.
However, the Government then begin to build it up and up and it becomes 305 6s., 7s., 8s., 9s., 9s. 11d. and then another 6d. is added to make it 10s. 5d. That is a contribution very different from the modest beginnings of the National Insurance contribution and its forebear, the National Health Insurance contribution prior to the 1946 Act. We seek to put this matter right and to deal with this narrow grievance. There are other aspects of the contribution and how it depends on other classes of contributors with which it is not now my purpose to deal.
We ask that the Government reconsider this aspect of the scheme. We are now adding to the original scheme of last year and following the same principles. As some of my hon. Friends have already said, we cannot be sure that there is not another increase in the contribution to come later. We have heard certain principles of financing the National Health Service which have been enunciated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and which will mean further increases in the National Health Service contribution. In fact, I regard that as almost inevitable—by reference to some of the things which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the financing of the whole Service and the relationship between the amount of the contribution and that to be borne by the Exchequer and so on, all related to what Beveridge had in mind, or plans of sources of income incorporated in the original National Insurance Act. I am certain that a further increase in contribution is to come.
That is all the more reason why we should re-examine the principles upon which the National Health Service contribution is based. I have drawn attention, I hope reasonably, to what seems to us to be an unfair feature of the scheme. Unfortunately, the rules of order preclude us from doing more than amend the Bill and that explains why we cannot go the whole hog and seek to amend the Schedule of the original Act. The evil of this Bill—perhaps "mischief" is less offensive—is that it says that it is a Bill to increase the rates of National Health Service contributions and, as was said on Second Reading, to give some kind of flimsy authority to the Government to go on with it.
Therefore, during the Committee stage, we have to adjust ourselves to the rules of order, which deny us the opportunity 306 of moving an Amendment which would go counter to the whole purpose of the Bill. Nor can we amend the original Act even in the particular manner that I have prescribed. I mention that so that there should be no misunderstanding as to our attitude in the matter. It might otherwise be thought that having swallowed the camel, we were now straining at the gnat; that having swallowed the 1s. 4½d, we were now boggling at the 6d. I wish it to be made plain that we are objecting to the whole of the contribution, although we can only seek to amend the addition proposed in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will give us a reasoned reply to this, because, as far as I can see, this is a matter which has not been fully debated before. There is nothing, I suggest, to preclude the right hon. and learned Gentleman from accepting modifications of the National Health Service contribution to meet these criticisms, even though that departs, for certain people, from the main principle of the original contribution—that it is an adhesive to the stamp of the National Insurance contribution.
I trust, therefore, that these arguments will carry some weight with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I know how impervious he is to argument. When he was saying, a little earlier this afternoon, that we on these benches were sometimes prevented from doing what was right because we were restrained by forces within our party, I was moved to ask him whether in this case he was doing right or whether he had been restrained. We are still without a complete understanding of why this Bill comes to the House at all.
I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading on that matter, but it is unfortunate that we are discussing this Bill in blinkers. We have neither seen the shape of the Budget nor the Estimates for the Health Service. We are asked to take everything on trust, that it is clearly desirable, that it is justified and that a united Government have brought this before a united party for the consideration of the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as we do that that is not the case.
There have been ructions in the Cabinet over the purpose of this Bill or matters connected therewith. There must 307 have been; what else could there have been a row about, were it not for the belief on the part of some in the Cabinet that this was the wrong way to reduce budgetary expenditure, that this was a fraud on the public, that this was a bogus reduction in national expenditure, a mere transfer from budgetary to extra-budgetary taxation, and the word taxation is clearly applicable to the National Health Service contribution.
§ Mr. PrenticeI rise briefly to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I feel that he has explained to the Committee in great detail and very clearly the anomalies created by the Act of last year, which are liable to be increased by the Bill now before us, as between those who postpone retirement and those who elect to retire.
I wish to add one other point, which is that the effect of this will be to discourage people from postponing their retirement and I believe that to be a bad thing from the point of view of public policy. I feel that when a man reaches the age of 65 or a woman reaches the age of 60, the question whether to retire or not is a personal one, and it is not for any of us to lay down general rules about it. Some people dread retirement. They love their jobs, and they dread the idea of not having that job to go to. Others are "fed up" with their jobs and want to follow some hobby of theirs and enjoy extra leisure time. Into these personal considerations certain financial considerations are bound to come, such as the question of wages, and so on, but the State ought not to interfere and put a special levy into the scales to discourage people from doing what otherwise would be the best for themselves.
The point is that the Act of last year did bring a special levy into the scale. All people on retirement enjoy the services of the National Health Service. Therefore, it is clearly unfair to those who elect to postpone their retirement to have to pay this special contribution, whereas those who elected to retire, even if they have gone on working, should escape from it. It is unfair, and the unfairness increases when extra charges are put on. For these reasons, I feel that the case before the Committee is un- 308 answerable and that the Amendment should be accepted by the Government.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson)Let me start by saying that I entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) when he began his speech by saying that there was no humbug or hypocrisy about this Amendment. I certainly accept that, and I must say, having heard all the speeches this afternoon, that the hon. Member put the case for it in a most persuasive and reasonable manner.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with the point of principle which was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I realise that he could have gone into a lot of figures and cases, but it was the question whether this group of people to whom he has referred are being unfairly treated, as compared with others which he specified, when they are obliged to pay the National Health Service contribution at all. That was his point.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the payment of the National Health Service contribution is, in any case, linked, under the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, with the payment of National Insurance contributions. The two go together, and that is the principle and the framework within which we work. It may be that at certain points it operates unfairly, but I submit that in a limited Bill of this character, which simply has the limited purpose of increasing the contributions, we cannot elect a piecemeal approach to this problem and start tinkering, as it were, with the principle on which the whole thing has evolved.
I realise that, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, that is rather cold comfort, but perhaps I could say to him that the future of the National Health Service contribution—and some hon. Members have expressed fears that it might rise again and that kind of thing—is, of course, bound up with the main Insurance contribution. As the Committee knows, we are at present reviewing the financial basis of the National Insurance scheme. Clearly, it would not be sensible to attempt to deal with National Health Service contributions, relatively so much smaller, in advance of the decision about the main National Insurance 309 contribution. That is about as far as I can go on the point of principle, but I have devoted time to it because I realise that it is the matter which has mainly inspired and guided the hon. Member in the remarks which he has made to the Committee today.
7.0 p.m.
The object of these Amendments is to reduce the National Health Service contributions by employed men over 65 and employed women over 60, who have not retired, from 1s. 10½d. and 1s. 4½d., which is what is proposed by the Bill to 1s. 5d. and 1s. 1d. I realise that the rules of order imposed certain restrictions on hon. Gentlemen opposite and that, had they been able, they would not have accepted the ½d. increase which they had to include in the figures in their Amendments.
The principal argument urged on the specific as against the general case was well made by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who urged that it was a deterrent. He said that although the charge is not very great in terms of money, ought we to apply it to people at a stage in their lives when it is in the national interest that they should, if possible, remain in employment? Was it not unwise to do anything which might have the effect of discouraging them? That is a fair point, but I wonder how far this argument about disincentives may properly be taken.
People go to work after retirement age for three main reasons; first, because they need the money, secondly, because they like their work—and that is a good reason—and thirdly, that they wish to earn extra increments on their pensions. Given those three reasons—and one could think of others—I cannot imagine that this 6d. a week is a real deterrent, especially when one reflects that the number of years that it is likely people will have to pay it is restricted. We could argue forever about the precise point where an additional charge becomes a deterrent and where it is only an irritation if one remains at work because of the additional money secured, or because one likes the job, or because of the additional pension.
§ Mr. HoughtonI suggest that we call this a "nuclear increase," and then we shall know that it is a deterrent.
§ Mr. ThompsonIf I accepted that suggestion, I might get into trouble in following up the argument.
There are other reasons which I think hon. Members can guess at which do not dispose me to accept the Amendment. There is the administrative aspect, the question of the creation of a special class of persons within the scheme, and the fact that this Amendment brings odd halfpennies into the combined contribution. But I shall not make too much of the administrative inconvenience, because we are all agreed that if a thing is just and right we should not allow administrative inconvenience to prevent us from passing the right legislation. But for the more substantial reasons, which, I hope, I outlined earlier, rather than because of any reasons of administrative inconvenience, I find it impossible to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman earlier, and to which I replied, and if he feels that honour is satisfied and that this rather limited Bill is not the sort of vehicle in which to make a great change in principle, I am not unhopeful that he may wish to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. MarquandI do not think that we can pass from this discussion leaving the impression that we accept the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary, because to me they seemed completely unconvincing. The hon. Gentleman referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) had to say about men and women who are entitled to retire, but postpone retirement and continue working. He said, no doubt rightly, that when they do this it is because they are attracted by the wages they expect to receive, or by the satisfaction of doing more work—and we are all becoming increasingly aware that if we keep on working we are likely to live longer—or they are attracted by the increments which they can add to their pension when eventually they retire.
I do not dispute that description of the influences which may weigh with a person in these groups, but I do dispute the argument that another 6d. a week on their contribution would make no difference to their choice. That seems to be an argument which completely confutes everything ever written by 311 economists about the relationship between money and what is obtained for it. The economic theory, both modern and ancient, at any rate from the time of Jevons onwards, has always laid emphasis on the marginal utility of what is to be demanded. I cannot doubt that in this matter the doctrine of marginal utility applies as effectively as in any other sphere.
The person who is old and, therefore, by definition less able to work, who is a little more feeble than when he was younger, has to make a difficult decision, whether to continue working, and for how long. In making his calculations about how far it is worth while to get another 1s. 6d. added to his pension he considers the discomfort of getting out of bed early on cold mornings and all the things which weigh when people make up their minds about whether they want to go to work or not when they do not really have to. To a person making such a decision the marginal cost of the extra effort he has to make weighs very strongly indeed, and to him 6d. would be much more important than to anyone else. In any case, he has probably calculated this margin already, and the extra 6d. could tip him over to the point of saying that it was not worth while and the bargain was not good enough. When discussing the National Insurance contribution previously I have said that it is already doubtful whether the bargain is good enough; whether the amount receivable at the end is good enough in relation to the amount sacrificed to carry on work after 65. I think that this additional 6d. will prove a very serious matter.
The part of the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary which surprised hon. Members on this side of the Committee most was the statement that the Health Service contribution is linked with the National Health contribution. This is, indeed, a new doctrine. Last year, when we had before us the Bill to institute a National Insurance Service contribution for the first time, it was made clear that this was a separate contribution and not related to National Insurance; that it was different altogether, something which people were to pay for the Service only, and that it could be devised on a somewhat different principle.
Now we are told that it is inextricably linked. "The two go together," said the 312 Parliamentary Secretary. He went on to say, "This is only a small Measure to increase the National Health Service contribution. We cannot adopt a piecemeal approach. We cannot tinker with the structure." In other words, what the Government told us, not a year ago, in 1957, is changed. There were to be two entirely separate contributions, one for insurance and one related solely to the needs of the Service and under the responsibility of the Minister of Health.
That Minister has been present in all these debates. The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was responsible only for issuing the stamps and seeing that they were put on the books. The Minister of Health had the money to spend for the Health Service. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution, we are now told, is not going to be different. Last year, it was to be an entirely different thing, which was to bring home to the people the cost of the Health Service. Now it is to be indissolubly linked with insurance.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the future of the Health Service contribution was bound up with the future of the National Insurance scheme. It was good news to us, to hear that the Government were taking our advice and were reviewing the structure of the National Insurance scheme. No doubt they are beginning to realise, as we told them in the last debate on the scheme, that they cannot go along on the flat rate basis. No doubt they are working out proposals which will eventually result in a plan for a graduated system of contributions. As I said in that debate, the sooner they do it the better. We can then have a grand debate of the nation on the subject.
To say, after all that has been said in previous debates on the subject, that the contribution which we are now discussing is indissolubly linked with the insurance structure, is very surprising, because we were told only five months ago that it was to be entirely different. The flat rate was said to be quite a reasonable and sensible method by which to collect, because it related to a Health Service in which the benefits to be received were in a way equal for all, in that they depended entirely upon the state of health. Therefore, it was justifiable to have a flat-rate contribution. Now we 313 are told that it is linked with the National Insurance scheme which may be on a graduated basis. It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary has thought up an argument on his own, quite separate from the arguments of his right hon. and learned Friend and quite ignoring what his right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health, the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), told us five months ago.
We find that there has not been a real answer to the admirably presented pleas by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby in the sort of explanation which is now thrown at us, in the hint
§ that the whole basis is to be changed. The very arguments which were used to try to persuade us to accept the original insurance contribution have now been abandoned and substituted by quite different ones. We are, therefore, obliged to divide the Committee. We feel that our arguments have not been met in the least, and that the arguments put up against us have no value, in the light of what was previously said.
§ Question put, That "70" stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 194.
317| Division No. 58.] | AYES | [7.15 p.m. |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Duncan, Sir James | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) |
| Aitken, W. T. | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.) | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Joseph, Sir Keith |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Errington, Sir Eric | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot |
| Arbuthnot, John | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Keegan, D. |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Fell, A. | Kerby, Capt. H. B. |
| Ashton, H. | Finlay, Graeme | Kerr, Sir Hamilton |
| Atkins, H. E. | Fisher, Nigel | Kimball, M. |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Kirk, P. M. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Lagden, G. W. |
| Balniel, Lord | Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Barber, Anthony | Freeth, Denzil | Leather, E. H. C. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. | Leavey, J. A. |
| Barter, John | Gammans, Lady | Leburn, w. G. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Garner-Evans, E. H. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | George, J. C. (Pollok) | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Gibson-Watt, D. | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Glover, D. | Linstead, Sir H. N. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Godber, J. B. | Llewellyn, D. T. |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Goodhart, Philip | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) |
| Biggs-Davison, J. A. | Gower, H. R. | Longden, Gilbert |
| Bingham, R. M. | Graham, Sir Fergus | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S-) |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Green, A. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Body, R. F. | Grimond, J. | McAdden, S. J. |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Macdonald, Sir Peter |
| Bossom, Sir Alfred | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | McKibbin, Alan |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Gurden, Harold | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Maddan, Martin |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) |
| Bryan, P. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Hay, John | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. |
| Campbell, Sir David | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Markham, Major Sir Frank |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Marlowe, A. A. H. |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Marshall, Douglas |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. | Mathew, R. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terenee (Portsmth, W.) | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Maude, Angus |
| Cole, Norman | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Mawby, R. L. |
| Conant, Maj. Sir Roger | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. |
| Cooke, Robert | Hirst, Geoffrey | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) | Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Holt, A. F. | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Hornby, R. P. | Nairn, D. L. S. |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Neave, Airey |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Horobin, Sir Ian | Nicholls, Harmar |
| Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. | Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Deedes, W. F. | Hurd, A. R. | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) | Osborne, C. |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Hyde, Montgomery | Page, R. G. |
| Doughty, C. J. A. | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Drayson, G. B. | Iremonger, T. L. | Partridge, E. |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Peel, W. J. |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Peyton, J. W. W. |
| Pike, Miss Mervyn | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Pitt, Miss E. M. | Spearman, Sir Alexander | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Pott, H. P. | Speir, R. M. | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Powell, J. Enoch | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard | Wade, D. W. |
| Price, David (Eastleigh) | Stevens, Geoffrey | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Ramsden, J. E. | Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| Rawlinson, Peter | Storey, S. | Wall, Patrick |
| Redmayne, M. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Rees-Davies, w. R. | Studholme, Sir Henry | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Remnant, Hon. P. | Summers, Sir Spencer | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Ridsdale, J. E. | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) | Whitelaw, W. S. I. |
| Rippon, A C. F. | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | Teeling, W. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Temple, John M. | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Roper, Sir Harold | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) | Woollam, John Victor |
| Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. | Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, S.) | |
| Sharples, R. C. | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Shepherd, William | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin | Mr. Lego and Mr. Brooman-White. |
| NOES | ||
| Ainsley, J. W. | George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) | Messer, Sir F. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mikardo, Ian |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Greenwood, Anthony | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. | Moody, A. S. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Grey, C. F. | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Mort, D. L. |
| Baird, J. | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Moss, R. |
| Balfour, A. | Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Moyle, A. |
| Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) | Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Mulley, F. W. |
| Benson, Sir George | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Hastings, S. | Oliver, G. H. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hayman, F. H. | Oswald, T. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Healey, Denis | Owen, W. J. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Boardman, H. | Herbison, Miss M. | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Houghton, Douglas | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W) | Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) | Parker, J. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Paton, John |
| Boyd, T. C. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pearson, A. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Pentland, N. |
| Brockway, A. F. | Hunter, A. E. | Popplewell, E. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Prentice, R. E. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Probert, A. R. |
| Burke, W. A. | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Randall, H. E. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Janner, B. | Rankin, John |
| Carmichael, J. | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Redhead, E. C. |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St.Pncs.S.) | Reeves, J. |
| Champion, A. J. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Reid, William |
| Chapman, W. D, | Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Clunie, J. | Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Coldrick, W. | Jones, jack (Rotherham) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Ross, William |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Royle, C. |
| Cove, W. G. | Kenyon, C. | Short, E. W. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | King, Dr. H. M, | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Ledger, R. J. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke. N.) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lewis, Arthur | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Deer, G. | Lindgren, G. S. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Delargy, H. J. | Lipton, Marcus | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Diamond, John | Logan, D. G. | Steele, T. |
| Dodds, N. N. | McCann, J. | Stonehouse, John |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwch) | MacColl, J. E. | Stones. W. (Consett) |
| Dye, S. | MacDermot, Niall | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | McChee, H. G. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | McLeavy, Frank | Taylor,-Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Mainwaring, W. H. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Finch, H. J. | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Tomney, F. |
| Foot, D. M. | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mason, Roy | Viant, S. P. |
| Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. | Mellish, R. J. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Weitzman, D. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) | Woof, R. E. |
| Wells, Percy (Faversham) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| West, D. G. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Wheeldon, W. E. | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) | |
| Wilkins, W. A. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Willey, Frederick | Winter-bottom, Richard | Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price. |
| Williams, David (Neath) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
§ The ChairmanI suggest that with the next Amendment, in line 10, column I. after "including", to insert:
men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds and",might also be discussed the following Amendments: In line 13, column 1, after "including", to insert:women whose wages for the relative contributions week do not exceed ten pounds and";
§ In line 26, at the end to add:
| 11. Employed men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds | 1s. | 5d. |
§ In line 26, at the end to add:
| 12. Employed women whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds | 1s. | 1d. |
§ Mr. MarquandI think that arrangement would be satisfactory to the Committee. While I am on my feet, Mr. MacPherson, may I draw attention to the fact that the numbers in the last Division seemed to be lower than before? I am told that simultaneously a Division took place in a Committee upstairs. I am afraid that you will say, as your predecessors have said, that there is nothing you can do about it, but I hope you will report to the proper quarters the great difficulty in which this Committee has been placed throughout its sitting today by reason of the fact that another Committee is sitting at the same time.
§ The ChairmanThe right hon. Member is right in the first part of his comment. The procedure is laid down, and there is nothing I can do about it.
§ Mr. A. E. Hunter (Feltham)I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, column 1, after "including", to insert:
men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds and".We on this side of the Committee feel that by these continuous increases in contributions the lower-paid worker is being penalised. When we consider the increases in contributions which have been made by the present Administration during the past few months we can see very strong evidence in support of our case in this Amendment.318 There was a 6d. increase, then a 2s. increase for National Insurance, and now there is another 6d. increase. The lower-paid worker is now paying 2s. 6d. per week increase, and this Bill, unless it is amended, will impose another 6d. increase. Since this Administration came into power insurance has gone up by leaps and bounds. The insurance contribution was 5s. 1d. in 1951 and, if this Bill becomes law, it will go up to 9s. lid. for men and 8s. for women. Since 1951 there has been an increase of 4s. 10d. Those in the lower income groups and lower wage groups have almost 10s. a week taken from them, and that is far too heavy a sum.
The argument of the Minister of Health on Second Reading and the Financial Secretary on the Ways and Means Resolution was that employees could afford the increase because the average was £12 11s. a week. It was unfair for the Government to say that the average wage is £12 11s. a week. It is like taking a group who dine at the Ritz Hotel or the Savoy Hotel, a group who dine in an industrial or factory canteen, or even in the Tea Room of this House, adding them together, and then saying that that is the average amount a person can afford to spend on a meal.
I can give the Minister many examples of several millions of men and women who are earning under £10 a week. There must be 60 per cent., or 70 per cent., or even more, women workers who receive less than £10 a week.
7.30 p.m.
There is the agricultural worker. His wage, settled by trade union negotiation, is £7 10s. a week. That means that he gets £5 Is. less than the average quoted by the Minister. The male shop assistant in London gets £9 a week, and £8 10s. a week in the provinces, so that the one gets £3 11s. and the other £4 1s. below the average stated by the Minister when defending these increased contributions. I could also quote railway workers, nurses, packers, porters, clerical workers—many millions of employees who today 319 still receive under £10 a week. Therefore it is unfair for the Minister to quote £12 11s. as an average wage.
This Amendment, if accepted, would call a halt to increases in the contributions of the lower-paid workers. It is a modest Amendment, by which we seek to get away, for those men and women not earning £10 a week, from the flat-rate principle. It gives the Minister the chance to do that, and I therefore hope that he will accept it.
§ Dr. KingI want briefly to support the Amendment moved so persuasively and simply by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter). There are three ways in which to pay for our National Health Service. One is by direct taxation, one is by indirect taxation, and the third is by the poll tax contained in this Bill. The difference between direct taxation and the other two is that, whereas the direct taxation is graded according to income, rich and poor have to pay the others equally. Indirect taxes can be left out, because we need not pay them if we are prepared to go without the things on which there is a purchase or similar tax.
We are left, then, with the poll tax, and the worst feature of that tax is that everyone is concerned—the low-paid worker and the Cabinet Minister, the poor widow—about whom I hope to address the Committee later on—and the richest "star," the chief officer in the civic centre and the humblest clerk, the general and the private. All pay their 6d., but it is a different 6d. The 6d. paid by the millionaire is nothing compared with the 6d. paid by the poorest people. That is why this is a simple, honest-to-God Amendment. It seeks to exclude from the Bill all the lowest-paid workers. The Minister may cavil at the £10 limit we have fixed and say that, though he accepts the humanist principle put forward, the limit should be higher—or lower, perhaps.
Let us consider what the married man earning £10 a week has to pay out of his weekly income. He has to pay rent for his house. That has increased, and may have increased savagely if the man is unfortunate enough to be the tenant of a decontrolled house. He has to buy food for the family. The cost of that 320 has steadily increased. He has to provide his household with coal, gas and electricity. That has increased steadily in the last two years. He has to provide clothing for his family and for himself. The cost of that, too, has gone up. The meals for his children in school have gone up.
On top of all those, one would hope that any respectable British citizen doing an honest week's work should have something out of his income to provide for holidays and insurance, and to provide, as indeed he must, for his trade union subscriptions. In addition, he previously had to find about 6s. 9d. per week for insurance charges. Unless modified by this Amendment, the Schedule will mean that in the last twelve months his health and insurance charges will have gone up from 6s. 9d. to 9s. 11d.
I suggest that this is an unfair burden on the poorest workers. It is true that the Amendment gives them very little—merely 6d. a week—but it gives it to those to whom it means very much. I therefore hope that the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration.
§ Miss Jennie Lee (Cannock)This Amendment represents for hon. Members on this side only a very simple holding operation, but although it is modest, I fear that there will be very little response from the Government benches. It seems almost impossible for the Government to understand that when first the Health Service was introduced we added to the dignity and status of our country all over the world. There were those who looked rather wistfully towards us and asked, "Is it possible that there can be a spirit of gentleness and a spirit of fair play so widespread in a nation that the whole of that nation is willing to carry the burden of maintaining a Health Service?"
I support this Amendment, but I should like it to go very much further. I do not believe in the insurance principle being applied to the Health Service. I believe that the just and, in the long run, the best thing financially, as well as in every other way, is for the whole of the Health Service to be carried by the Exchequer. However, that goes rather beyond this Amendment.
I am afraid that I am rather without hope of getting any response—although I shall be delighted to get a pleasant 321 surprise—from the benches opposite. All that we on this side can do, therefore, is to make the country aware that there are some Members of the House of Commons who understand what a frightening thing it is when these extra pennies and sixpences and shillings keep piling up on a small weekly wage.
It is doubly frightening to find these extra charges being imposed when, at the same time, whenever there is illness, prescriptions have to be bought. This has been a very hard winter. Very few homes have not had sickness, colds or more serious illnesses for young and old, and I want the Minister to understand that it can all be extremely worrying and frightening.
I see it as most undignified as well as unjust for a great nation like this to act in this way when it could keep great, and be greater still, if it would only spend its money sensibly and not in some of the crazy ways in which it is now spending it. This is a nation that has all the intelligence to know that vast savings could be made on the Health Service far beyond the scraping represented by the charges we are discussing. Again and again, we have pointed out that those things could be done. There is a great racket in patent medicines, not in the way they are being prescribed, but in their cost.
There are exciting and new things that could be done to develop and improve the Health Service, but instead of having the guts to do it, instead of really caring about the poor and the sick, all this miserable Government can do is to start taking a few more coppers out of the pockets of the very poorest people.
§ Mr. PrenticeThis Amendment goes to the heart of our objection to the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) about the Health Service, the principles it enshrines, and the impact it has made on the world. The scheme embodies two great principles. The first is that those who are well should help to look after those who are sick. That is a principle which we established, and it is one from which there has been progressive departure by increasing the charges on medicines, appliances, and so on. The other principle is that people should pay for the Service according to their means, that those better off should 322 pay more than those worse off. The Bill now before us is one of a series which departs from those principles, and that is why we press our Amendment.
This theme entered into many of the speeches on the Money Resolution and the Second Reading debate. I listened to a number of speeches which hon. Members opposite made on the those occasions, and read those that I did not hear delivered, and it seemed to be that hon. Gentlemen were advancing four arguments, all of which can be shot down. I propose now to show how they can be so shot down. The first argument is to say that all that is proposed here is an extra 6d. a week—or 4d. for women or 2d. for young people—and that in itself is insignificant. We are fighting the Measure because it is part of a policy which is being applied by stages.
I entered the House less than a year ago, early last summer, and at that time the weekly insurance contribution for a male worker over 18 was 6s. 9d. a week. This is the third Bill to have come before the House during the very short time since then, and the cumulative effect of those three Bills has been to raise the weekly contribution from 6s. 9d. to 9s. 11d., an increase of nearly 60 per cent. in less than a year. It has had a tremendous impact upon the people with the lowest wages.
The second argument which is continually advanced from the benches opposite is that average earnings in this country are between £12 and 13 a week. This obsession with average earnings is irrelevant to the objections we make. We are not arguing, at least not strongly arguing, on behalf of those with average earnings or more than average earnings. We are arguing on behalf of those with less than average earnings, on behalf of men who are trying to keep a family on £7 10s. or £8 a week.
There are many women workers earning considerably less than that, widows or those whose husbands, perhaps, have left them, women faced with the necessity of keeping their families. I mentioned just now the extent of the increase for men. For women, in the same period, the contribution has risen from 5s. 6d. a week to 8s. or it will be 8s. if this Bill comes into operation. That is a tremendous increase for women who may be earning only £5 or £6 a week.
323 The third argument regularly coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite is based upon their obsession with earnings rather than wage rates. They are always emphasising that people can earn more than their basic wage through overtime, and so on. The fact is that millions of workers can do nothing of the kind, and have no opportunity to do so. Indeed, with the present trend of trade, the number of those able to do so is growing less all the time. It is, therefore, quite unfair to take that into account.
§ Colonel Tufton Beamish (Lewes)Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that there was no basic wage in 1946 when the 4s. 11d. stamp was introduced? Is that his argument, or have I got it wrong?
§ Mr. PrenticeI share the view, expressed many times, that we are becoming a little tired of the constant attempts by hon. Gentlemen opposite to go back to comparisons with 1946 and 1950. It is not my function, if I may say so, to defend things then; they may be right or wrong. I was not a Member of the House at the time.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanMy hon. Friend might like to be reminded that, in 1946, there was no contribution towards the Health Service.
§ Mr. PrenticeI am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to defend the Government, they should direct their remarks to what is happening here and now, in modern conditions.
The fourth argument that they advance implies that no account need be taken of family circumstances, of the number of children a man may have or the number of his dependents. So far as the Health Service is paid for by direct taxation, those things are taken care of, perhaps in a rough and ready fashion, in the Income Tax system; but this Bill makes no distinction between a bachelor and a man with a wife and four children to look after.
The fact is that, today, millions of people are living in a quite considerable degree of poverty. Hon. Members opposite have become obsessed with the idea that, as they put it, people have "never had it so good". They ignore all the 324 factors which have crept into post-war life, particularly under this Government—the high cost of housing, the burden of trying to pay a post-war council rent, perhaps, or, even worse, the burden. which so many have, of trying to maintain mortgage payments on homes they have tried to buy with interest rates as they are now. There are many factors of that kind which mean that, in millions of families, there is a struggle to make ends meet. There is a constant worry about how to get shoes repaired, or buy clothes.
I remember reading, in a book on the life of Ernest Bevin, of a remark he made in the 'thirties, that for many of his people it was a tragedy when a breakfast cup was broken. There are very many families today to whom that still applies, particularly large families living in post-war houses, when the wage earner earns below the average.
Our principle is that the Health Service should be paid for according to the ability of people to pay. This Bill is a retrograde step, one of many, and we shall oppose it as hard as we can.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who said that she did not consider that the insurance principle ought to apply to the National Health Service. I fully agree with that, but let us not suppose that the Government in this Measure are applying the insurance principle. They are not. The insurance principle is applied, by and large, over the range of social security legislation, in pensions, unemployment, and sickness benefit.
§ Sir Frederick Messer (Tottenham)Financial benefits, not service.
§ Mr. SilvermanCertainly. Those things may fairly be described as being based upon a kind of insurance principle, with a kind of proportional premium to establish a social insurance fund out of which the risks are met, as an insurance company would meet them. The analogy is not complete or exact, but it is a fair enough analogy to use. This has never applied to the National Health Service, and there has never been any attempt to apply the insurance principle to it.
325 If the Government were applying the insurance principle now, we should oppose it tooth and nail, but we should understand it. Although we should strenuously oppose it, at any rate it could be said that this is the kind of thing one can insure against, and that what was proposed was the establishment of an insurance fund, out of insurance premiums, from which the cost could be met. That would be a wrong principle, but at least it would be a principle.
There is no principle here. The contributions provided for in the principal Act, as increased now by this amending Bill, will not provide an insurance cover; they will not provide a fund out of which finance can be found to bear the charges for the Service. There is no fund. These payments, when they are collected, will not be set aside, as an insurance company would set them aside, on an actuarial basis.
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson)I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an introduction to some comments on the Amendment. The introduction is somewhat lengthy, and I hope he will come to the point of the Amendment quickly.
§ Mr. SilvermanI am much obliged to you, Mr. MacPherson. If I may say so, you have correctly apprehended the trend of my argument, and for that I take a little credit to myself in having managed, at any rate, to be thus far clear. But the point of the Amendment will not be understood except against the background of the finances of the scheme. That is all my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock had in mind when she made her point about the insurance principle. We could not have moved this Amendment if an insurance principle were being established. It would be a regular contribution from everyone in order to insure against unascertained risk. That is not the position under this Bill at all. This Measure involves merely the collection by the Government of money which will go towards the general finances of the nation. It is a poll tax on the poor in order to relieve the rich of Income Tax and Surtax. It is nothing else.
What is the point of the Amendment seen against that background? The Government are not introducing this universally. The Schedule makes exceptions. 326 One exception it makes that we are seeking to extend or expand is an exception for people over the age of 65. Why should there be this arbitrary age? Why not 64 or 66? We all know the answer to that. It is that the Government do not wish to incur any further opprobrium by increasing the burdens on old-age pensioners.
In other words, the Government accept the principle—which is also the principle of the Amendment—that we should temper the wind to the shorn lamb. Before charging the extra sum one takes into account what one is charging it against, and whose pockets it is being taken out of and what will be in the pockets when it has been taken out. What will be left after this extra sum has been taken out?
The Government have not been entirely oblivious to this principle, but, having accepted it and applied it to old-age pensioners, how can they resist the Amendment? There are many people in this country who are earning less than £10 a week and there are those who are earning £7 a week and who have family and other responsibilities. They are in no better position than many old-age pensioners who are receiving a full pension in addition, perhaps, to other means, or whose pensions are supplemented by the National Assistance Board.
Mention was made of unemployed people. I think that there is an Amendment concerning them on the Order Paper. But there are also the partially unemployed. I speak with some knowledge on this matter, which affects every cotton town in Lancashire. It certainly affects my own constituency, where people are not employed by the week for a weekly wage. The earnings in the factory are apportioned to the output of the looms, which is not within the control of the worker. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) spoke about people who have not the opportunity of working overtime; but there are hundreds of thousands of people who have not the opportunity of earning a full week's wages, let alone overtime. They are the partially unemployed, but they have to pay their contributions. They will be liable under the Bill. Why? They will not be liable on any insurance principle.
327 It is not a contributory scheme. It is not intended to pay for itself.
The Government are proposing to relieve some people, and I applaud them for it. I am not criticising that proposal. They have rightly decided to exempt certain people from the extra charge, but they have not exempted enough. Every one of the reasons which prompted the Government to exempt old-age pensioners is valid in support of this Amendment. It is impossible without complete irrationality to do the one and refuse the other.
In the old days, when Tory Governments wanted to deflate, they did not pursue these indirect methods. They could make an all-out attack on wages. They did not mind if it produced strikes, because, after all, strikes are only another form of unemployment. If unemployment is wanted, a strike will do as well as anything else. So the Government made the direct attack knowing that they would either reduce the wages directly or produce voluntary or involuntary unemployment as a result. They dare not do that today. They do it indirectly. I will not repeat the speech that I made on an earlier Amendment, but this is only another example of the same thing.
The Government do not need these coppers out of the poor box. They do not need to search the pockets of the very poor to get the extra 2d., 4d. or 6d. This proposal is a part of a general scheme. Where one cannot attack the wages directly, the wages in the pay envelope are attacked or the standard of living is attacked through the housewife's shopping purse. There is nothing to be said in favour of it at all. If the Government want to raise the money because we are spending more than we ought to spend having regard to what we collect, there are many readier, wealthier and juster ways of raising more national revenue than by going to people with less than £10 a week and all sorts of family responsibilities and saying, "Come on; another 6d., please".
Will not the Government, even now, think again about this Measure? They will not get much money by resisting the Amendment. It will not make much difference to their expenditure. The surplus will not be very much less on 328 Budget day if they dispense with these extra payments. They will not even have them. The Minister said earlier that he would not be able to collect the money until 1st July, or thereabouts, at the earliest.
I say to the Government, "Think again. As you are sparing the old-age pensioner, spare the people at the lower end of the wage scale. They need it more than you need it. Every additional impost you have made in other ways cries aloud for an exemption in this case". I hope that the Government will not resist these pleas.
§ Dr. SummerskillMy hon. Friends have made speeches tonight which, think, have moved the Committee. They have not tried to adduce an academic argument as to why people earning under £10 a week should be relieved. The only means that we have at our command to mitigate the severity of this Bill is to come to the House of Commons and select special categories of workers who, we believe, would suffer under the Bill, perhaps, more than others.
8.0 p.m.
During the Second Reading debate an hon. Member opposite implied that hon. Members on this side of the House were apt to exaggerate the conditions of the workers. He said "Consider the railwaymen", and he quoted their earnings. I have observed that the Conservative Party always refers to earnings, and never to basic wages. My hon. Friends have pointed out that overtime is not always available, and that some people are permanently on short time. I hope that in future hon. Members opposite will think in terms of basic wages.
It is no exaggeration to say that there are men—and thousands of women—who are earning only £5, £6 or £7 a week. Hon. Members opposite may not be in contact with them, but I expect that the houses of many are them are cleaned by daily domestic workers earning £5 or less a week. They will be called upon to pay 8s. a week.
When I mentioned the figure of 8s. previously the Minister said, "You must remember that this is a health contribution only. You must not think in terms of a payment of 8s. a week." We must be realistic. This is a cumulative matter. People do not say, "Oh, I am only being 329 asked for a small amount as a extra contribution towards the Health Service." The Minister should bear in mind that this extra contribution will be thought of in terms of a payment of 8s. a week and not as a payment of a few extra coppers.
My hon. Friends have asked the Minister to exercise the quality of mercy, but if he finds it impossible to do so I would remind him of what Lord Beveridge said; and he has been called in aid time after time. The Minister will recall that the Beveridge Report recommended that employees should make contributions, but paragraph 287 said that
persons with low wages … should be relieved at the cost of the taxpayer or the employer.The Amendment directs the attention of the Committee to persons earning low wages—the people specified in the Beveridge Report. Such people command our sympathy. The figure of £10 is an arbitrary one, but we felt that in inserting it we might command the sympathy of hon. Members opposite, who know that many people are in that wage category, who would suffer great hardship by this increase. Therefore, even at this late hour, I ask the Minister to reconsider the position and to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)I have been hoping that we would have heard more about some of the people earning £10 or less. I hoped that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) especially would substantiate the argument that he advanced last week. I am sorry to say that he has not yet risen. It may be that he will do so after I have finished speaking; the Committee likes to have honest arguments put forward. When the hon. Member for Cheadle was talking upon this subject last week he referred to the earnings of porters and ticket collectors as being £9 17s. 6d. and £11 16s. 2d. respectively. He might at least have informed the House then that he obtained his figures from an estimated census and not from records of actual payments.
The hon. Gentleman's figures were calculated not upon an average yearly basis, but upon one week in 1957—the week ended 23rd March. To say that porters and ticket collectors are getting £9 17s. 6d. 330 and £11 16s. 2d. respectively is all nonsense. His figures were taken from an estimate based upon the court of inquiry award. He should have told the House then that that was where he got his figures. The correct figures issued in the census were £10 10s. 7d. for the ticket collector and £8 17s. 6d. for the porter, and those figures included Sunday duty. They applied to a porter working 12 hours on Sunday duty, with all the inconvenience of shift working and night duty. Would the hon. Member like to work a constant succession of shift duties? Would he like to work every Saturday afternoon, when everybody else is enjoying himself?
The correct figures are not as the hon. Member indicated. The porter on the lowest grade earns £7 7s. a week, rising after the second year to £7 11s. 6d. Those figures apply not only to porters, but to 40.000 other members of the railway industry, and include crossing keepers, who sometimes work the clock round. If such people make a mistake involving a loss of life they stand trial at court. Only a few years ago a crossing keeper who was in receipt of this miserable pittance was sentenced to six months' imprisonment because he made a mistake in carrying out his duty.
This situation applies not only to railwaymen, but to miners. Many miners who work above ground are disabled, and cannot do ordinary work. Such a miner receives £8 10s. a week, and he may have to keep a wife and three or four children on it. He is now to be asked to pay an increase in his contribution, bringing the total deduction from his pay up to 9s. 11d. per week. The same consideration applies to shop workers and agricultural workers, who earn a minimum of £7 per week. If such a worker earns anything in addition it is through extensive overtime, and he is penalised for it. Then we have the case of the widow, who may have been left with a home to keep going, with no additional income. In many cases she receives between £5 and £6 a week, or less. Nevertheless, she has to pay the additional charge.
This charge has risen by 2s. 6d. in the last twelve months. Although an easement of £35 million was given to the Surtax payer in the last Budget the Government are asking for another 6d. 331 from the pockets of the poor people. The matter does not bear consideration. As has been said, this is indeed a poll tax.
There has been a very steep increase in the cost of living, and the class of workers to whom we are referring have been penalised because of increasing food prices. A reduction of £300 million in food subsidies works out at £6 per head of the population. If there are four persons in the family such people are penalised to the extent of 10s. a week—and then this miserable charge is imposed, in addition. Moreover, there are all the other charges which they have to pay towards the Health Service. It is no use hon. Members opposite referring back to 1950 and 1951 and saying that it was a Labour Government which enabled these charges to be made. The 1951 Act was brought in with a limited objective for a limited period to meet a specific emergency. There was no intention that this should be a continuing provision.
We also remember how the adjustments were based. Instead of the Exchequer contribution being based on the figure of one-fifth, as was originally intended, the contribution remains on the basis of one-seventh. This saving in the Exchequer contribution has continued, and yet the poorer people who are living on the poverty line have to pay these extra charges. When I refer to the poverty line I do not apologise for doing so. I know people in my own constituency who are drawing very small wages. Surely it is not asking the Minister too much to say that he is prepared to accept the principle involved in this Amendment, namely, to exempt people in the lower-paid income groups from paying these increases.
If the Minister cannot accept the figure of £10, we on this side of the Committee would be prepared to meet him and agree some figure which will do justice. I ask the Minister not to brush this suggestion to one side, not to use the old shibboleth that we have heard so often and to tell us what took place in the years 1945 to 1950, when we were in the midst of an experiment and introduced a first-class Health Service. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to shelter himself behind that sort of thing. Let him be a realist and answer the arguments 332 which have been advanced from this side of the Committee. Let him give some easement and sense of justice to these lower-paid people
§ Mr. ShepherdI had not risen to make the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) thought I might make, because I thought it would be better made on a later Amendment. However, as the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to cast doubt upon my statements and even to accuse me of some very disgraceful things, I think I ought to reply to those allegations.
When last week I quoted figures in respect of railwaymen's earnings, which have a relevance to this Amendment, I in no way exaggerated the position. Every statement I made was absolutely true, and I refrained from elaborating my statements which would have made my case stronger. The hon. Gentleman said that the figures I quoted related to one week. It is very important that they are in respect of one week. If one is to do what the British Transport Commission does—to make a census of the earnings of its staff—it must be done scientifically. I invite the hon. Gentleman to suggest means by which this census can be carried out more scientifically than it now is. In my view, it is done in the most scientific manner possible.
It is true that the March, 1957, period was taken into account and that the earnings in respect of the various grades were recorded. In addition, due weight was given to the number of people in the provinces, and due weight was also given in respect of categories. This attempt to obtain a census of earnings was conducted in the most scientific manner possible.
I did not give the whole of the case, as I might have done. For example, I did not tell the Committee last week that labourers on the railway have an average earning of £11 6s. 4d.
§ Mr. PopplewellFor one week.
§ Mr. ShepherdThe hon. Gentleman cannot use the argument that I selected one week which was favourable, because there would be no means of deciding which was a favourable week, In fact, I would say that that week was an unfavourable week. I will deal with that in a moment.
333 There are other grades where the earnings are surprisingly high. The hon. Gentleman says that these people work overtime. Let me tell him that I come from a railway town, and I know that to work sometimes at night, on a Bank Holiday and on a Saturday is an indispensable part of a railwayman's life. It is as important as it is for a farmer or for anybody in public service. It is not an exceptional circumstance for a railwayman to work overtime occasionally. It is the normal kind of existence.
8.15 p.m.
This sort of working is indispensable to the running of a railway. If men did not work on Bank Holidays or at night or on Saturdays the railways would come to a full stop. Therefore, when I say that these earnings are a true reflection of what the men are earning, I mean it. Earnings on the railways are a better criterion than earnings in other industries, because working at what to some people appears to be odd times is an indispensable part of running the railways. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the calculations that I have made.
When I mentioned railway porters, I was particularly helpful to the hon. Gentleman because I did not mention senior porters who get £11 6s. 4d. a week. Neither did I mention any of the tips which porters receive. Therefore, I understated my case. I feel that the hon. Gentleman, in trying to show that wages received by railway workers are lower than they actually are, is doing a disservice to the system of recruiting.
§ Mr. PopplewellThe hon. Member has fallen into the same trap again. He has been using the word "earnings" and he concludes by using the word "wages". We on these benches have been trying to point out the difference between earnings and wages. The senior porter to whom the hon. Gentleman referred is paid £7 11s. a week, and he gets that only after two years' service.
§ Dr. KingWould the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) tell us whether he is in favour of the Amendment or against it, and why? Does he even know which Amendment we are discussing?
§ Mr. R. ThompsonThe debate on this Amendment has shown the same concern as was expressed so widely by hon. 334 Members opposite in our discussions on the Financial Resolution and again on Second Reading. Indeed, one hon. Member opposite during the course of this debate said quite rightly that this Amendment went to the heart of the whole matter.
The objection of hon. Members opposite to the Bill is that this is a wrong way of collecting the additional funds required to run the service. They feel it is wrong because, as they put it, the increased charge which it is proposed to levy would fall most heavily on those least able to pay it. I think that is not an unfair summary of the views of hon. Members opposite.
Although the general argument has been extensively debated during an earlier stage of the Bill, I do not complain that we should have gone into this matter pretty thoroughly again on this Amendment, for I recognise that this is a very fundamental point indeed—perhaps the most important consideration in the whole Bill.
I doubt whether this is really the place to go once again into the argument of whether to pay for this Service by contributions, by charges, out of general taxation, or, as we do at present, by a mixture of all three. The fact of the matter is that the cost of the Service has increased, and for reasons which we have already stated we consider that the appropriate way of recovering that is by this charge.
What hon. Members are proposing in this Amendment is that we exempt those earning less than £10 a week, and the hon. Gentleman did say he would not be particularly rigid about the figure provided we produce a figure somewhere in the lower income range. The object of the Amendment is to exempt such people from the increased charge.
This would, of course, introduce a completely new situation in our arrangements. National Insurance and National Health Service contributions already provide for a series of flat rates, namely, for men, women and juveniles, and there are refinements for each of those according to whether they are employed, self-employed, and so on. In my judgment, it would be quite inadmissible by a Bill of this restricted character to change, as it were, the whole basis on which the 335 contributions are paid by introducing this new principle which this Amendment seeks to introduce.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanHas the hon. Gentleman not conceded that principle already in the exceptions already made? That is the point I tried to make, that the new principle has been introduced there. All we are saying is: apply it equitably.
§ Mr. ThompsonWhat the hon. Member is saying harks back to what he said in his speech, which was, why have a figure of 65 above which contributions are not payable? Of course, the answer to that is that right from the beginning of the National Insurance scheme there have been retirement ages and everything flows from that.
§ Mr. SilvermanUnless I am mistaken, the age of 65 does not exempt a man from paying stamps if he goes on working. It is not a question of saying, "If you stop working you shall not pay". That is not said in the Schedule either. The arbitrary figure of 65 has been introduced, no doubt having old-age pensioners in mind; but the exemption is not limited to those on pension. If one is working above the age of 65 one is still exempted.
§ Mr. ThompsonIf one is in regular employment between 65 and 70, and one is a man, one continues to pay the contribution——
§ Mr. SilvermanBut it is exempted here.
§ Mr. Thompson—but if one has retired or is only working part-time or occasionally, one does not, and it does not seem to me that that involves any breach of principle.
§ Mr. SilvermanThe hon. Gentleman has stated the point without appreciating what he is saying. What he has just stated now is perfectly true, that under the social security arrangements, if one is in work, one goes on paying one's stamps whatever one's age, above 65 or not. The hon. Gentleman was trying to use that in order to explain that this Amendment introduced a new principle, but it does not. The new principle is introduced in the Schedule, where exemption from these contributions comes automatically if one is over 65, irrespective of whether one is working or not, irrespective of whether one is paying for stamps or not.
§ Mr. ThompsonThe new principle to which I was referring was the principle that contributions should in some way be affected by the proposed capacity to pay them of the people on whom they are levied; by that I mean the £10 per week line which has been adopted for the purposes of this Amendment.
The argument which has been urged upon many sides all along that the proposed way of financing the Service bears too heavily on those least in a position to pay seems to me to be very far from the whole story. Let us for a moment consider how the cost of the National Health Service as a whole in the year 1958–59 will be borne. We find that during that year 72 per cent. of the total cost of the Service will in fact be borne by the Treasury. That is to say, the money will be found, as hon. Members will appreciate, from the proceeds of general taxation. It will not to that very great extent, 72 per cent., come from contributions.
I think it is apt to be overlooked that the poor man, the lowest paid worker whom we have been talking about today, inevitably pays little in general taxation. He cannot pay much because he does not each much, but the better off man pays progressively more the more he earns. Therefore, he carries in his contribution to the general finance of the country a far larger proportion of the cost of the Service in absolute terms, and, because of high direct taxation, even in relative terms he probably pays more towards it than the poor man. I think that is perfectly right.
§ Dr. SummerskillWhy should he not?
§ Mr. ThompsonI think that is perfectly right, but if that is so we should not talk in terms which suggest that a totally unfair and monstrous impost is being laid on large sections of the population when in fact the greater part of the Service is financed from general taxation to which those very people do not make a very large contribution.
As I have said, this Amendment introduces an entirely new principle of contribution by means test. I take the view that this new principle should not be introduced in such a piece-meal or limited way.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Mr. A. EvansThe Minister refers constantly to a new principle. He has agreed that in general taxation and in Income Tax the man with a larger income pays more. He approves of that, and he accepts it as being fair. The Amendment is only a refinement of the principle which he accepts.
§ Mr. ThompsonI cannot accept that. Beveridge originally accepted the principle of a contribution factor, and the one he had in mind was not very different from what it will be under this proposed arrangement. If we accept that, we should not add an additional complication of a means test above which certain contributions are paid and others are not.
I cannot deviate from the view that this would be an entirely wrong way to seek to alter the basis of the financing of this service, and in the circumstances I must advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment.
§ Miss HerbisonI am afraid that the speech to which we have just listened shows clearly the difference between the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The Minister has said that it would be wrong to introduce such a new principle in this piece-meal, limited way. All we have been trying to do by this Amendment is to salvage something from this pretty poor Measure.
I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of this discussion, although I was in for the others. I am certain that my hon. Friends would wish, as we wished in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, as we wished on the Second Reading of the Bill, to do something for the lowest paid workers. If the Government did not feel that they could accept what they term a piece-meal and limited way of dealing with the matter, in spite of all the speeches made by back benchers on their own side, surely they could have decided to hold up this Measure until they were able to come forward with one which would suit the times much better?
Many back benchers on the Government side have realised in the various debates that the time has now come when we must leave this flat-rate contribution and adopt a graded contribution. That is the only solution whereby 338 we can stop putting burdens on the lower-paid workers who are unable to bear them. I was interested in the speech of one hon. Member, who has now left the Chamber, who was mixing earnings and wages. We believe it is right, as the Minister seems to believe, that a greater part of the National Health Service expense should be borne by those taxpayers who are able to bear it. We believe that, just as many of the lower-paid workers have been relieved of direct taxation because they could not afford to pay it, the stage has now come when the same workers ought to be relieved of any other addition to these contributions, particularly the addition to the National Health Service contributions. We are dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister and we intend to carry our dissatisfaction into the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)I found it difficult to follow the reply given by the hon. Gentleman. He said, in effect, that this was not the time to help the weak. That is a peculiar attitude of mind. I should have thought any time was a good time to help the weak.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOr no time.
§ Mr. WillisI should have thought any time was a good time to help the weak, even in a Bill dealing with the National Health Service contributions, and even in the manner suggested by the Amendment. Then the hon. Gentleman argued that there were verious ways of paying for the National Health Service. He said we paid part of it through our taxation, part through charges, part through our contributions. He said that through taxation wealthy people paid more than others, and he agreed that that was right. But surely the logic of that is to apply the principle of the Amendment.
If the principle which he accepted is correct, namely, that the well-to-do should pay more than poorer people, what is the reason for objecting to the Amendment when all that the Amendment does is to say that the contribution to be paid by poorer people, those with less than £10 a week, will be 6d. less than that paid by others? Obviously, that additional 6d. will be found through national taxation. How does he accept that as an argument against our Amendment? The case which he made was a 339 case for the acceptance of the Amendment, not for its rejection.
The hon. Gentleman said that to try to amend a provision in a Schedule was not good enough. It is good enough to amend a Bill in any respect, if the position happens to be the right one and the Schedule is the only part of the Bill wherein to deal with the exact amount of the contribution. Surely the hon. Member does not believe that he persuades many people of the soundness of his arguments in this manner.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Amendment is an endeavour to get something after we have lost the main principle. It is an endeavour to salvage something. It is a method of saying that we have not been successful in impressing upon the Government the strength of our case that there should have been no increase, but that we will endeavour to save the poorest people from the worst effects of the Bill. That is a good thing to do. What is wrong with trying to do that?
The Government themselves ought to have done that. If the function of government is to protect the weak, the Government and not the Opposition should have taken this step. Of course, the function of the present Government is not to protect the weak, but to protect the well-to-do, the reverse of the function of government.
§ There are already several gradations in the Schedule, a number of provisions which appear to be contradictory. Why should an employed woman who gets the same wage as a man pay less? One could ask all sorts of questions about such anomalies. For a great many of these contradictions in the Schedule there is not much justification, but there is a greater justification for the acceptance of the series of Amendments which we have suggested.
§ There are many people who earn exceedingly small wages. Hon. Members opposite never seem to realise that 6d. matters to many people. Of course, it does not seem very much to hon. Members opposite. We appreciate that it is something outside their conception that one should have to struggle along and be worried to death at the end of the week because one does not have that additional 6d. That is wholly alien to the way of life of many hon. Members opposite, and I appreciate that they find it difficult to understand such a situation. However, it is important to many people, and it is those whom we want to protect from the worst effect of the Bill.
§ Having listened to the arguments, I cannot feel that the Government have had the better of the discussion, and I believe there is no justification for their decision.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 231.
343| Division No. 59.] | AYES | [8.40 p.m. |
| Ainsley, J. W. | Champion, A. J. | George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Chapman, W. D. | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Chetwynd, G. R. | Greenwood, Anthony |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Clunie, J. | Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Coldrick, W. | Grey, C. F. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Baird, J. | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) |
| Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) | Cove, W. G. | Griffiths, William (Exchange) |
| Benson, Sir George | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Beswick, Frank | Cullen, Mrs. A. | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Hastings, S. |
| Blackburn, F. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hayman, F. H. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Deer, G. | Healey, Denis |
| Blyton, W. R. | Delargy, H. J. | Herbison, Miss M. |
| Boardman, H. | Diamond, John | Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C. | Dodde, N. N. | Holmes, Horace |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) | Houghton, Douglas |
| Bowles, F. G. | Dye, S. | Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) |
| Boyd, T. C. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Edwards, W.J. (Stepney) | Hunter, A. E. |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Hynd, H. (Accrington) |
| Burke, W. A. | Fernyhough, E. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Finch, H. J. | Irvine. A. J. (Edge Hill) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Fletcher, Eric | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) |
| Carmichael, J. | Foot, D. M. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A. |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Janner, B. |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Mort, D. L. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) |
| Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) | Moss, R. | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Johnson, James (Rugby) | Moyle, A. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Mulley, F. W. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Sparks, J. A. |
| Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | O'Brien, Sir Thomas | Steele, T. |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Oliver, G, H. | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Oswald, T. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Kenyon, C. | Owen, W. J. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) | Sylvester, G. O. |
| King, Dr. H. M. | Palmer, A. M. F. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Ledger, R. J. | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Pargiter, G. A. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Parker, J. | Tomney, F. |
| Lewis, Arthur | Paton, John | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Lindgren, G. S. | Pentland, N. | Viant, S. P. |
| Lipton, Marcus | Popplewell, E. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Logan, D. G. | Prentice, R. E. | Weitzman, D. |
| McCann, J. | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| MacColl, J. E. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | West, D. G. |
| MacDermot, Niall | Probert, A. R. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| McGhee, H. G. | Proctor, W. T. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| McKay, John (Wallsend) | Randall, H. E. | Willey, Frederick |
| McLeavy, Frank | Rankin, John | Williams, David (Neath) |
| MacMillan, M, K. (Western Isles) | Redhead, E. C. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) |
| Mainwaring, W. H. | Reeves, J. | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfd, E.) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Mann, Mrs. Jean | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Mason, Roy | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Mellish, R. J. | Ross, William | Woof, R. E. |
| Messer, Sir F. | Royle, C. | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Mikardo, Ian | Short, E. W. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Moody, A. S. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons. |
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) | Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Currie, G. B. H. | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Davidson, Viscountess | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Deedes, W. F. | Hirst, Geoffrey |
| Ashton, H. | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) |
| Atkins, H. E. | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Holt, A. F. |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Doughty, C. J. A. | Hornby, R. P. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | du Cann, E. D. L. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. |
| Barber, Anthony | Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) | Horobin, Sir Ian |
| Barlow, Sir John | Duncan, Sir James | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence |
| Barter, John | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Errington, Sir Eric | Hurd, A. R. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh. S.) |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Fisher, Nigel | Hyde, Montgomery |
| Bingham, R. M. | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdale) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Body, R. F. | Freeth, Denzil | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) |
| Bossom, Sir Alfred | Gammans, Lady | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Garner-Evans, E. H. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | George, J. C. (Pollok) | Joseph, Sir Keith |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Gibson-Watt, D. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H, | Glover, D, | Kaberry, D. |
| Brooman-White, R, C. | Godber, J. B. | Keegan, D. |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Goodhart, Philip | Kerby, Capt. H. B. |
| Bryan, P. | Gower, H. R. | Kerr, Sir Hamilton |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Graham, Sir Fergus | Kimball, M. |
| Carr, Robert | Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich) | Kirk, P. M. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Green, A. | Lagden, G. W. |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Grimond, J. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Leavey, J. A. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Leburn, W. G. |
| Cole, Norman | Gurden, Harold | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Conant, Maj. Sir Roger | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) |
| Cooke, Robert | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Harrison, A. B, C. (Maldon) | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Linstead, Sir H. N. |
| Llewellyn, D. T. | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare) | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Osborne, C. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Longden, Gilbert | Page, R. G. | Storey, S. |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &Chiswick) | Partridge, E. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Peel, W. J. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| McAdden, S. J. | Peyton, J. W. W. | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) |
| Macdonald, Sir Peter | Pike, Miss Mervyn | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| McKibbin, Alan | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Pitt, Miss E. M. | Teeling, W. |
| Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) | Pott, H. P. | Temple, John M. |
| Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Powell, J. Enoch | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Maddan, Martin | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.) |
| Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Ramsden, J. E. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) | Rawlinson, Peter | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Redmayne, M. | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Markham, Major Sir Frank | Rees-Davies, w. R. | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Marlowe, A. A. H. | Ridsdale, J. E. | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Marshall, Douglas | Rippon, A. G. F. | Wade, D. W. |
| Mathew, R. | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Maude, Angus | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Mawby, R. L. | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Roper, Sir Harold | Wall, Patrick |
| Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Nabarro, G. D. N. | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Nairn, D. L. S. | Sharpies, R. C. | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Neave, Airey | Shepherd, William | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Nicholls, Harmar | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) | Spearman, Sir Alexander | Woollam, John Victor |
| Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan | Speir, R. M. | |
| Nugent, G. R. H. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Oakshott, H. D. | Stevens, Geoffrey | Colonel J. H. Harrison and |
| Mr. Finlay. |
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mr. MarquandI beg to move, in page 3, line 11, column 2, to leave out "1s. 10½d." and to insert "1s. 5d."
§ The ChairmanThis Amendment may be discussed with the Amendments on the next page of the Notice Paper, in line 14, column 2, to leave out "1s. 4½d." and to insert "1s. 1d.", and in line 15, column 2, to leave out "10½d." and to insert "9d.", both in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
§ Mr. MarquandThese Amendments relate entirely to the contribution now to be levied upon employed men and women. We find ourselves in the same difficulty as that explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that owing to the nature of the Ways and Means Resolution and the Title of the Bill we are unable to do what we should like to do, namely, to eliminate altogether the increased contributions.
Therefore, we propose by our Amendment to leave in the minimum increase possible. We have already explained very fully, in the debates on the Ways and Means Resolution and on the Second Reading, our objection to this increased contribution. Whatever case might have been made out for the contributions which were instituted five months ago, the Com 344 mittee has now no idea what the shape of the Budget is to be, whether a large surplus will be shown or not, or what the estimates are of the yield of Income Tax and Surtax in the coming year. Therefore it is very wrong of the Government to propose to levy an increased contribution upon wage earners, and a flat rate contribution, to which we have already expressed our objection.
There is no additional argument which I can advance at this stage. We have already gone very fully over all the arguments. When we come to a later stage of the Bill and to other classes of contributors, including the ordinary employed contributor, different considerations may apply and they will be in some respects new matter for our consideration. The present examples fall squarely within the two previous debates that we have had, so I do not propose to weary the Committee by making a long speech. I doubt whether any of my hon. Friends will feel that it is necessary to say very much at this stage.
We must however register in the Division Lobby our dislike of the proposed increased contribution. We need not let this occasion pass without saying that we object to the increase just as strongly as before, as we said in our Second Reading and Financial Resolution speeches. I 345 will reserve any further remarks about any particular rates of contribution for later stages of the Bill.
§ The ChairmanMy suggestion was that we should discuss these three Amendments together. When we come to the next two in due course they will not be further discussed, but there could be a Division if wanted.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithThe right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has been very frank about these Amendments. He has explained to the Committee that he has formulated them in this way in order, within the bounds of order and the limitations imposed by the Ways and Means Resolution and the passage of the Second Reading, to undo as nearly as possible the main purpose of the Bill. The adjustment proposed, which in effect is to limit the increases to only ½d. above the existing level, is obviously derisory and one which no Government would bring forward in a Bill.
There are two main reasons why these Amendments are totally unacceptable. The first is that they would revolutionise by a side wind the traditional pattern of contribution as between employer and employee, and the second is that they take away most of the financial gain to the Exchequer which the Bill is designed to achieve. The pattern of contribution between employer and employee is broadly derived from Beveridge and has been consistently followed up to date in the history of these contributions. Out of the original total of 10d. the employer's share was 1½d. The 1957 Act brought the total contribution to 1s. 8d. with the employer's share as 3½d. Under this Bill the proposed total will be 2s. 4d. with the employer's share 5½d. There has been a reasonably consistent ratio of one to four which the adoption of these Amendments would reverse and make a ratio of four to one for the increase. By a side wind incidental to Amendments like this we obviously could not revolutionise the whole pattern of contributions.
The other main difficulty is the very large diminution in the amount of money which would come to the Exchequer in relief of Exchequer liability. As the Committee knows, the Bill is designed to secure £24 million in the current 346 financial year. If these Amendments, and certain others which are to be discussed, were all adopted, that £24 million would be reduced to £9 million, which is not enough for the purpose we have in mind.
In any event it would not be a net figure because we should have a much larger proportion coming from the employer than at present. The employer's contribution is subject to a double adjustment in order to reduce the gross figure to a net figure. The double adjustment arises from the facts, first, that commercial employers are eligible for tax relief in respect of their contributions and, secondly, that the Government are themselves considerable employers. For both reasons there is on my calculations a substantial reduction from the gross figure of £9 million, itself inadequate, which would be left if these Amendments were accepted.
§ Mr. HoughtonIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman now telling us that, in addition to rigging the Budget and giving us this extra budgetary taxation, the Government have adjusted the employer's contribution to what they think employers can afford to pay?
§ Mr. Walker-SmithNo. As I have already pointed out, although the hon. Member must have been listening with less than his usual careful attention, in the Bill the employer's contribution has followed the traditional pattern.
With adjustments for the halfpennies and so on, it has followed the pattern that we inherited from the original Beveridge concept, and we reproduced it in the 1957 Act, and in this Bill. As I say, this proposal would leave the ratio of the employers' contribution to that of the employees' at four to one, which is unrealistic in the context of a Bill like this, which is concerned with only a relatively modest increase.
I think, Sir Charles, as is clear even from what the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that these Amendments are not practical, and not really in keeping with the purpose of the Bill. It will, therefore, be no surprise to him when I say that I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject them.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. PrenticeOf the Amendments now before us, I should like to speak briefly on that relating to employed 347 boys and girls under 18. Throughout the debates on the Bill, our purpose on this side has been to draw attention to those groups likely to suffer the greatest hardship from the imposition of the new rates of contribution, but the concentration all the time has, naturally, been upon the older men and women, and the young people under 18 have not, so far as I know, been mentioned at all at any stage.
There are one or two special points in relation to them that ought to be made. For them, as for the others, this Bill is simply one of a series that has increased their weekly payments. Early last summer, the weekly National Insurance contribution of a boy under 18 was 3s. 11d. It was increased by 4d. last year, when the National Health Service contribution was imposed. It was increased by another 1s. at the end of January by the National Insurance Act. This Bill increases it by a further 2d., bringing the total to 5s. 5d. That is an added 1s. 6d. a week, which is a big increase in relation to their earnings. During the same period, the contribution required of a girl under 18 has risen from 3s. 3d. to 4s. 8d. a week.
It is often said in these days that young people of that age are earning good wages. It is sometimes suggested that they are earning more than they know what to do with, but if there is any truth in that about any of them it is not true of very large numbers of young people now out at work. There are two categories of these young people. There are those who are postponing the expectation of earning good wages in order to train at a craft or professsion. An obvious example is the craft apprentice. Perhaps, with my surname, I should here declare an interest in apprenticeships, but, seriously, young men or young women who take up an apprenticeship are postponing their chance of earning good wages, and are consequently bringing home relatively poor money during that time.
A recent report issued by a sub-committee of the National Joint Advisory Council for Industry stressed the need in most British industries for larger numbers of apprentices during the coming years. It said that this would depend on young people being willing to take 348 apprenticeships, and also on their staying the course so that they did not give up during their training. Young people in this position are reminded every day that their friends are earning higher wages in jobs requiring less skill, and they are tempted to abandon the harder course of apprenticeship.
The same applies to young people articled to a profession, and postponing their chance of earning higher salaries. At the same time, we all agree that it is necessary that they should train, and should develop their skill both for their own sake and for that of the community. The nation needs their skill. If one says to a boy of 16 or 17 years of age, "You will be earning good money at 25," that seems a very long time ahead. At that age, every year seems very much longer than it does later in life. We ought not, therefore, as a community, to impose a extra disincentive on these young people. We ought not to reduce further the pay they take home at the end of each week.
The other category are those young people aged, perhaps, 16 or 17, who have adult dependents. They are a minority, of course, because most young people of that age, after paying something for their keep, have what is left over for pocket money; but there are some who, even at that early age, have a serious responsibility in caring for adult dependents.
A few years ago, there was a boy who worked in the office where I was working—he was, in fact, my junior—and, though only 16, he had a widowed mother to support. Her health was not good enough to permit her to go out to work, and that boy used to put nearly all his small earnings into the family budget. Every penny meant something to him. He was often in the position of needing to borrow 2d. a couple of days before pay day, and that sort of thing. To increase the contribution on a flat-rate basis so that it affects young people in these positions of responsibility is really most unfair. It increases their difficulties compared with other young people of similar age who have more money to spend.
Our case against the Bill is that it creates hardship for many categories of people, and I hope that I have reminded the Committee that, among them, are 349 included young people under eighteen years of age.
§ Mr. MellishI should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). We shall, of course, soon have a Labour Government in power, and we shall introduce our own national superannuation proposals which will wipe away the sort of problems that we are discussing tonight. Our proposals, Sir John, will be based on individual contributions related to people's earnings. These present flat-rate proposals, on the other hand, as my hon. Friend has said, create many anomalies. Although the increases may seem small, the actual amount paid by many families as their share of the contribution for National Insurance is very large indeed.
In my constituency, Sir John, not very high wages are earned. Although, according to newspapers like the Daily Express, high wages are supposed to be earned, it just is not so. There are many people there who work in general factories in which the basic rates are very low, and there is little or no chance of earning overtime. One case came to my notice quite recently. The man's income was £8 10s. a week. The income of his wife was £5 a week, and the income of his son was £2 8s. The total income of that household sounds very high—£15 18s.—but, as a matter of fact, there are dependents, also, an elderly mother and father to be cared for. What do those three people pay by way of insurance contributions?
Under this Bill, the husband pays 9s. 11d. a week, the wife pays 8s. a week, and the son pays 5s. 5d., a total of £14s. 4d. a week deducted from their income for National Insurance contributions. Breaking it down even further, their contribution towards the Health Service is 1s. 10½d. for the man, 1s. 4½d. for the woman, 10½d. for the boy. Their total contribution every week towards the Health Service, therefore, is 4s. 1½d. Where it is so unfair is that, by contrast, to take my own personal case, for instance, my income is a great deal more than the whole of that family's income, yet I do not pay as much as they pay in contributions. The income coming into my family is that much higher. This is the kind of anomaly which makes us 350 feel so strongly about increases on the flat-rate basis applied by the Government. It is not just a matter of party politics.
I should not mind so much if people were going to get real value for money at the end of the day for their 4s. 1½d., or whatever it may be, which is paid as their part of the contribution to the Health Service. I have said it again and again. The Minister keeps shaking his head in disagreement, but I assure him that I am right and he is wrong. I know about these things, but he spends his time in an office being advised only of what is going on. This year, the National Health Service will be cut; the services provided for people will not be as good as they were, and development and improvements will come to a complete standstill. Here there is, on the one hand, an increase in contribution to make what appears to be a better Service and, on the other, a definite cut in that Service so that people paying this money will not even get value for the money that they are paying in.
Not long ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour set up a committee of which he was chairman. He submitted a unanimous report, which I read. It spoke about the problems of young people and the fact that in a few years' time there will be large numbers of youngsters coming on to the labour market. The longer the Government stay in power—I do not know how long this crowd will stay in; I suppose they will stay to the bitter end—the worse the problems of these youngsters will become. Young people leaving school will have a hard enough job to get employment while this Government are in power, producing more unemployment without, at the same time, slapping extra money on to their contribution.
There is a great deal of validity in this Amendment. It is no good the Minister saying that it is ludicrous and that he could not accept it because it is ludicrous. It is just and right that it should be accepted, although I know that hon. Members opposite will stroll into the Lobby and vote against it. All the years that the Government have been in power we on this side have been in the winning Lobby only once, and that was on capital punishment. But I had better not go into that, because I know that I shall be out of order.
351 This is a legitimate Amendment and it ought to be accepted on the financial grounds that I have mentioned. Although we keep talking in terms of a 4d. or a 6d., it is an added burden to an already large contribution being made by these people to the Health Service generally.
§ Mr. W. GriffithsI wish the Minister would not keep giving us this nauseating humbug about the Beveridge Report and saying that the component in the contribution is the same as that recommended by Beveridge. That is not the fact.
In the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred, the people who are making a contribution in that house are also keeping certain dependents. As a result of legislation passed by the Government, those dependents, if they fall ill, have to pay a prescription charge. If the old man were a cripple he would either have to pay for a surgical boot or for its repair. If there were need for other benefits from the National Health Service—if, for example, a member of the family had to have dental treatment—they would have to pay for it because of the actions of the Government. At least the Beveridge conception was not one which conceived of a whole range of charges. The Minister and his supporters keep concealing the reality of the matter, which is that, in addition to making them pay more, he is also a member of a Government which has inflicted charges upon the sick and which perpetuates them. It is not right to ride away and talk about the Beveridge contribution——
§ Mr. Walker-SmithMy reference to the Beveridge Report in the context of this debate was on the pattern of the contribution between the employer and the employee, respectively, I would certainly join issue with the hon. Gentleman's remarks in a much wider context, but they in no way arise out of what I have said in this debate.
§ Mr. GriffithsThey are very much present in the minds of my hon. Friends. Having opposed the Bill on Second Reading, all that the Opposition are trying, quite properly, to do now, seized as they are with the enormity of the inflictions on the sick, for which the Minister and hon. Members opposite are responsible, is to get a minor mitigation. That is a perfectly proper Parliamentary exercise.
352 9.15 p.m.
We should be failing in our duty if we did not remind the Committee about the humbug of this constant reference to the balance between the employers' and employees' contributions, as conceived by Lord Beveridge in the context of a free Health Service. It no longer is free. Therefore, we have to bear in mind the way in which the increase affects a family such as that referred to by my hon. Friend. We put aside the argument about the raising of money for the National Health Service for the time being. We say that even though the House decided on Second Reading to approach the raising of revenue for the National Health Service in this way, bearing in mind the burdens upon certain families caused by the charges levied upon the sick it is right to seek to minimise the effects of the burden of increased contributions falling upon certain special sections of the community.
The Government are obviously exposed to the charge of not knowing the size of the problem involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, it is only a few months ago that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends brought forward a Bill with a series of other charges. They have now produced this one, which seeks to raise £24 million this year and about £32 million in a full year. It just will not do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey is right to protest on behalf of his constituents and say that, quite apart from the unfair way in which the incidence of these contributions is levied, his constituents are not getting value for money. I prophesy that the Minister will not get away with this attempt to derive a sufficient amount of revenue for the National Health Service. He will be back again asking for a further contribution, or he will be faced—as we told him that he would be last year—with an increasing decay of the Service. I hope that even now hon. Members will think it proper to accept the Amendment, which will at least remove some of the burdens from people who cannot afford to bear them.
§ Mr. HoughtonWhat we have missed most in the debate is a speech from the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). The real purpose of 353 this Amendment and those associated with it is to get the right hon. Gentleman back into the Cabinet. We believe that it is because of this Bill that he went out. We are still plugging away at right hon. Members opposite, trying to discover the truth about his departure. The Bill is the outcome of those Cabinet differences, and it would be interesting to know whether the real complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is that the rest of his colleagues were proposing to cheat him of real economies in Government expenditure.
This series of Amendments reduced the increased contributions to a halfpenny. We intended to reduce them to a derisory amount. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) condemned an earlier Amendment on the grounds that it was a wrecking Amendment. It ill becomes hon. Members opposite to condemn Amendments because they are wrecking Amendments; they have moved plenty in their time. Of course this is a wrecking Amendment. Hon. Members opposite realise the difficulties within which we work in trying to defeat a Bill. We are entitled to use every device available to us to obstruct or wreck a Bill with which we disagree. That is an acknowledged part of the duties of Her Majesty's Opposition, and there are no greater past-masters in the art than hon. Members opposite. At least we have not said that we are going to harry the Government night and day and keep them all out of their beds on matters of this kind. We behave rationally and reasonably in our attempts to obstruct and postpone the operation of this Bill.
What is really nauseating about the whole attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that one of these days fairly soon, much of what has been said on this Bill and on its predecessor will have to be unsaid. I believe that the time is rapidly approaching when any Government will have to consider a fundamental change in their approach to financing the social services. The Financial Secretary in reply to an earlier Amendment said that the Government are considering this whole question of financing the social services. It seems a great pity that the Government are changing the existing scheme by increasing the flat rate contributions when they know that they will have to call a halt and change the system.
354 Most people think that the time to call a halt is now, before the Bill is passed, and to consider alternative means. Graduated contributions, of course, are not the only means of financing this and other social services. Other countries have such things as pay roll taxes. Some countries have no contribution from the worker whatever. There is a tax on the wages paid by the employer, and that is taken into account when he is arranging the financing of his business and considering the costs of production.
There are other choices which are open to the Government in their study of the problem. I see that The Times on 24th February said:
The flat-rate system imposes obvious limits on the possibility of social financing by extra-budgetary means.That is quite true, though a sinister note is struck in another part of the leading article which suggests that by changing over to a graduated system of contributions it will make it easier for the Government to shuffle more of the expenditure from general taxation to direct contributions. We on these benches would not support a system of graduated contributions which became an abuse of the whole principle of contributions.Of course, the main criticism of the National Health Service contribution is that it cannot be related to benefits and, therefore, it can be at any level and it can always be said that it is not too high; it can always be said that nobody is paying too much because there is no direct relationship between the contribution and the benefits. That is the mischief of this thing. The Government can stick another 6d. on in a month's time or so, and another 6d. after that. The slogan of the Government will be. "Another little 6d. won't do us any harm."
It is not until the cumulative effects of these things are noticed that we see where we are going. On the principal Measure I moved an Amendment which left the whole of the Bill intact except the money. It took all the money out of the Bill and left the rest without Amendment. That looked pretty good from this side of the Committee, but the Minister made the same complaint, that we had left him without the money. The intention is to leave him without the 355 money. Let there be no doubt about that.
We want to send the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his colleagues in the Cabinet with the message that if they are going to economise they must do it honestly and properly in full view
§ of the public and not cheat them in this way. That is all I can say on behalf of the right hon. Member for Monmouth.
§ Question put, That "1s. 10½d." stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 224, Noes 185.
357| Division No. 60.] | AYES | [9.25 p.m. |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | George, J. C. (Pollok) | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) |
| Aitken, W. T. | Glover, D. | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Godber, J. B. | Maddan, Martin |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Goodhart, Philip | Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Gower, H. R. | Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) |
| Arnuthnot, John | Graham, Sir Fergus | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R, |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R.(Nantwich) | Markham, Major Sir Frank |
| Ashton, H. | Green, A. | Marlowe, A. A. H. |
| Atkins, H. E. | Grimond, J. | Marshall, Douglas |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Mathew, R. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Maude, Angus |
| Barber, Anthony | Gurden, Harold | Mawby, R. L. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. |
| Barter, John | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Nairn, D. L. S. |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Neave, Airey |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. | Nicholls, Harmar |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) |
| Bingham, R. M. | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Hirst, Geoffrey | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Body, R. F. | Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare) |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Holt, A. F. | Osborne, C. |
| Bossom, Sir Alfred | Hornby, R. P. | Page, R. G. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Horobin, Sir Ian | Partridge, E. |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence | Peel, W. J. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) | Peyton, J. W. W. |
| Browne, J, Nixon (Craigton) | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Bryan, P. | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Hurd, A. R. | Pitt, Miss E. M. |
| Carr, Robert | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) | Pott, H. P. |
| Gary, Sir Robert | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Charmon, Sir Henry | Iremonger, T. L. | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Ramsden, J. E. |
| Cole, Norman | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Conant, Maj. Sir Roger | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Redmayne, M. |
| Cooke, Robert | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Joseph, Sir Keith | Ridsdale, J. E. |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot | Rippon, A. G. F. |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Kaberry, D. | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Keegan, D. | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) | Kimball, M. | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Currie, G. B.H. | Kirk, P. M. | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Lagden, G. W. | Sharples, R. C. |
| Deedes, W. F. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Shepherd, William |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Leather, E. H. C. | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Leavey, J. A. | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Doughty, C. J. A. | Leburn, W. C. | Speir, R, M. |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Duncan, Sir James | Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.) | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Linstead, Sir H. N. | Storey, S. |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Llewellyn, D. T. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Finlay, Graeme | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Fisher, Nigel | Longden, Gilbert | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Fletcher Cooke, C | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) |
| Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Freeth, Denzil | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Teeling, W. |
| Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. | McKibbin, Alan | Temple, John M. |
| Gammans, Lady | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Garner-Evans, E. H. | Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Tilney, John (Wavertree) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. | Wall, Patriok | Woollam, John Victor |
| Vane, W. M. F. | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) | |
| Vickers, Miss Joan | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Wade, D. W. | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold | Colonel J. H. Harrison and |
| Mr. Brooman-White. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Ainsley, J. W. | Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Oswald, T. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Owen, W. J. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Hastings, S. | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Hayman, F. H. | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Healey, Denis | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Herbison, Miss M. | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Baird, J. | Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) | Parker, J. |
| Balfour, A. | Holmes, Horace | Paton, John |
| Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) | Houghton, Douglas | Pentland, N. |
| Benson, Sir George | Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) | Popplewell, E. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Prentice, R. E. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Hunter, A. E. | Probert, A. R. |
| Boardman, H. | Hynn, H. (Accrington) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Randall, H. E. |
| Bowden, H. W (Leicester, S.W.) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Rankin, John |
| Bowles, F. G. | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Redhead, E. C. |
| Boyd, T. C. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Janner, B. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Jeger, George (Goole) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St.Pncs, S.) | Ross, William |
| Burke, W. A. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Royle, C. |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Short, E. W. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Carmichael, J. | Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Champion, A. J. | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) |
| Chapman, W. D. | Kenyon, C. | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Clunie, J. | King, Dr. H. M. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Coldrick, W. | Ledger, R, J. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Steele, T. |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lewis, Arthur | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Lindgren, G. S. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | Lipton, Marcus | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Logan, D. G. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | McCann, J. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Deer, G. | MacColl, J. E. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Delargy, H. J. | MacDermot, Niall | Tomney, F. |
| Diamond, John | McGhee, H. G. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Dodds, N. N. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Viant, S. P. |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) | McLeavy, Frank | Watkins, T. E. |
| Dye, S. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Weitzman, D. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Mainwaring, W. H. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | Mann, Mrs. Jean | West, D. G. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Mason, Roy | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Mellish, R. J. | Willey, Frederick |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mikardo, Ian | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Finch, H. J. | Mitchiton, G. R. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Moody, A. S. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Foot, D. M. | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mort, D. L. | Winterbottom, Richard |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) | Moss, R. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Moyle, A. | Woof, R. E. |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Mulley, F. W. | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Grey, C. F. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | O'Brien, Sir Thomas | |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Oliver, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons. |
§ Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 12, column 1, leave out "65" and insert "60".—[Mr. Marquand.]
358§ Question put, That "65" stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 226, Noes 183.
361| Division No. 61.] | AYES | [9.35 p.m |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Green, A. | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Aitken, W. T, | Grimond, J. | Nairn, D. L. S. |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Neave, Airey |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Nicholls, Harmar |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Gurden, Harold | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) |
| Ashton, H. | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Atkins, H. E. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare) |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Osborne, C. |
| Barber, Anthony | Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. | Page, R. G. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Barter, John | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Partridge, E. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Peel, W.J. |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | Hirst, Geoffrey | Peyton, J. W. W. |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Holt, A. F. | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Hornby, R. P. | Pitt, Miss E. M. |
| Bingham, R. M. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Pott, H. P. |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Horobin, Sir Ian | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Bishop, F. P. | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Body, R. F. | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. | Ramsden, J. E. |
| Bossom, Sir Alfred | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Hurd, A. R. | Redmayne, M. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Ridsdale, J. E. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Iremonger, T. L. | Rippon, A. G. F. |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) |
| Bryan, P. | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Carr, Robert | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Joseph, Sir Keith | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot | Sharples, R. C. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Kaberry, D. | Shepherd, William |
| Cole, Norman | Keegan, D | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Conant, Maj. Sir Roger | Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Cooke, Robert | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Speir, R. M. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Kimball, M. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Kirk, P. M. | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Lagden, C. W. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Lancaster, Col. C. C. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Leather, E. H. C. | Storey, S. |
| Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) | Leavey, J. A. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwoortl | Leburn, W. G. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Davidson, Viscountes | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) |
| Deedes, W. F. | Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) | Teeling, W. |
| Doughty, C. J. A. | Linstead, Sir H. N. | Temple, John M. |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Llewellyn, D. T. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Duncan, Sir James | Longden, Gilbert | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.) |
| Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.) | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Finlay, Graeme | McKibbin, Alan | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Fisher, Nigel | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Wade, D. W. |
| Ftetcher-Cooke, C. | Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| Freeth, Denzil | Maddan, Martin | Wall, Patrick |
| Calbraith, Hon. T. G. D. | Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Gammans, Lady | Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Garner-Evans, E. H. | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| George, J. C. (Pollok) | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Gibson-Watt, D. | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Glover, D. | Marshall, Douglas | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Godber, J. B. | Mathew, R. | Woollam, John Victor |
| Goodhart, Philip | Maude, Angus | |
| Gower, H. R. | Mawby, R. L. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Graham, Sir Fergus | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Colonel J. H. Harrison and |
| Grant-Ferris. Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich) | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | Mr. Brooman-White |
| NOES | ||
| Ainsley, J. W. | Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Oswald, T. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Owen, W. J. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Hastings, S. | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Awbery, S. S. | Hayman, F. H. | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Healey, Denis | Panned, Charles (Leeds W.) |
| Baird, J. | Herbison, Miss M. | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Balfour, A. | Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) | Parker, J. |
| Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) | Holmes, Horace | Paton, John |
| Benson, Sir George | Houghton, Douglas | Pentland, N. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) | Popplewell, E. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Prentice, R. E. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Price, J. T. (Westhoushton) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, w.) |
| Boardman, H. | Hunter, A. E. | Probert, A. R. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. S. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Randall, H. E. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Rankin, John |
| Boyd, T. C. | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Redhead, E. C. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Janner, B. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Jeger, George (Goole) | Ross, William |
| Burke, W. A. | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs. S.) | Royle, C. |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Short, E. W. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.) | Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech (Wakefield) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Carmichael, J. | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Champion, A. J. | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) |
| Chapman, W. D. | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Chetwynd C. R. | Kenyon, C. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Clunie, J. | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Coldrick, W. | King, Dr. H. M. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury) | Ledger, R. J. | Steele, T. |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Lewis, Arthur | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | Lindgren, G. S, | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Lipton, Marcus | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Logan, D. G. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Deer, G. | McCann, J, | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Delargy, H. J. | MacColl, J. E. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Diamond, John | MacDermot, Niall | Viant, S. P. |
| Dodds, N. N. | McGhee, H. G. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwch) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Weitzman, D. |
| Dye, S. | McLeavy, Frank | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | West, D. G. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | Mainwaring, W. H. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Willey, Frederick |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Mason, Roy | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mellish, R. J. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) |
| Finch, H. J. | Mikardo, Ian | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mitchison, G. R. | Willis, Eustace, (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Foot, D. M. | Moody, A. S. | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) | Mort, D. L. | Woof, R. E. |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Moss, R. | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Moyle, A. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Grey, C. F. | Mulley, F. W. | |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | O'Brien, Sir Thomas | Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons. |
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. S. Duthie)If the Committee so desires——
§ Mr. MellishOn a point of order. I feel that I owe you a personal apology, Mr. Duthie. In the discussion on the last group of Amendments, I kept referring to you as "Sir John." In the first place, John was wrong, and, secondly, you are not knighted. I took 362 it for granted that all Chairmen were knights. I do apologise.
§ The Temporary ChairmanIf the Committee so desires, I will put the Question on the next Amendment for the purpose of a Division.
§ Mr. MarquandI do not think that we need delay the Committee, Mr. Duthie. We have expressed our opinion already.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, column 1, after "including", to insert "widows and".
Of all groups, the widows have been the most neglected. No body of people has been so consistently forgotten. I am not alone in making this statement. It is reinforced by the observations of the Commission of Inquiry. There is no pressure group for widows. They are far too tired and worn and hardworked to go out to enlist support and to form organisations; very much in contrast with other heavy pressure groups. The result is that they are maltreated.
Consider those engaged in occupations which bring in a reasonable salary. Many such women were working when their husbands died. They found then that they had the children to support and the household, clothing and boot and shoe expenses to meet out of their earnings, from which the Income Tax man took £250 straight away. While their husbands were living the husband and wife allowance was received. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can knit his brows as much as he likes, but I know what I am talking about—it is happening to me at the moment. On the death of the husband, the allowance of £250 is swept away and the widow is left to struggle along on a single woman's Income Tax allowance of £140.
That is the fate of the prosperous widow. There is also the poorer widow who receives what is known as the widowed mother's allowance. It is bad enough for mothers with children, but it is much worse when the mother is also a widow and has to cope with household expenses and the need to satisfy young appetites which eat the plates empty day after day. And as soon as her earnings exceed £3 the "docking" process starts again.
One of the greatest scandals of our present administration is the 10s. widow. Reason after reason has been given for the anomaly of the 10s. widow, but if we examine these reasons we find that they are not reasons, but excuses.
The last time I brought this matter up was 11th November, when I queried why the 10s. widow should be asked to pay 2s. extra to increase the pensions of other women who were getting £2 10s. The 364 reply I got was that the great majority of these ladies were getting 10s. whereas their opposite numbers under National Health Insurance received no pension at all. I got that reply from the Minister of Pensions.
The Minister of Pensions is an honourable man; like Brutus, he is an honourable man but he was far from right. A breakdown of the figures shows that, of the 120,000 widows on 10s., 3,000 are under 40 and have got into the position of having something if they are childless while their opposite numbers who are childless get nothing. There are 27,000 women between the ages of 40 and 50. There is the answer; 30,000 women under 50. Their opposite numbers get nothing at all. To say that an able-bodied woman, even if she is widowed, is far better working and that she should not think that she can hang back on a pension for all time, is a principle to which I would not object, but the right hon. Gentleman was completely wrong when he said that the great majority of these ladies were getting only 10s.
There are 90,000 between the ages of 50 and 60 years of age; 90 to 30 is not the "great majority". What the Minister meant was that the great majority were being maltreated. I asked him to give me the number of widows between 50 and 60 who were getting 50s. His reply was noted by the Press and by other widows. I received any amount of letters, and so, I am sure, did the Minister, from widows between 50 and 60 who said that it was not true and that they knew other widows of 50 with children who were getting the full 50s.
I inquired into this matter and I was told that I just did not understand. How could I, a mere back bencher, follow the logical reasoning of the giant brain on the Government Front Bench? It would appear that the widow who gets 10s. gets it because her husband died under the wrong scheme. The widows of husbands who died under a different scheme get 50s. I do not know if Naughton and Gold made these rules. They seem to be the economics of the Crazy Gang, which is putting a very mild interpretation upon them. One widow may ask another, "How did your husband die?", and the answer may be, "I am sorry, I am going to be very poor, he died under the first scheme". The other widow 365 could say, "I was much more lucky; mine died under the second scheme."
§ Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)I asked exactly the same question as the hon. Lady is asking when her party was in power and got the same silly answers that she has received from our side of the Committee.
§ Mrs. MannI pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member. I know he did, and I followed his questions closely. When I began my speech I did not exclude either Front Bench. I have my own trouble, and I hope I have the sympathy of the hon. and gallant Member; I hope also that I will have his vote, because, tonight, we are faced with the position that the 10s. widow has not only had to pay that extra 2s. to allow the other widow to draw five times as much, but soon the poor thing will be paying the whole of the 10s. Why should a widow of 51 draw £2 10s. and a widow of 59 draw 10s.? The older widow has to go back into industry to compete with women half her age. Her struggle to get a job is double that of the younger woman. The widow of 51 has five times more on her contribution than the 10s. widow.
Both sides of the House have treated these women scandalously. The Committee should think about its past sins and try to redeem them by not imposing another penny on the contributions of widows.
§ Dr. KingI begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) on the very moving plea she has made on behalf of widows. I hope that other hon. Ladies present will join in that plea as the debate proceeds.
This Amendment, like several others moved during the Committee stage, seeks to exempt from the scope of the new addition to the poll tax some worthy group. We hope that if we proceed long enough we may at last reach a group lowly, mean and humble enough for the Government not to want to take from them this extra 6d. Every hon. Member in the Committee who has attended these debates must by now have realised that even if the Bill imposes a fair burden on those who earn an average income, or above an average income, it imposes an 366 unfair burden on the poorer sections of the community.
If hon. Members opposite do not agree that it is an unfair burden, they certainly must agree that it imposes a heavier burden on the backs of the poor than on the backs of the rich. We object to that because we think it unjust. If that general statement is true, surely one of the poorest groups in the country is that for which we are pleading, the widows. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), I have repeatedly urged in the House the case of the 10s. widow and widows differentiated from others merely by the date on which their husbands died.
They get little or nothing from the State. They have to earn a very precarious and difficult living. They would benefit, at any rate, to the extent of 4d. a week if the Amendment were accepted. There is the widowed mother, carrying out the noblest job a woman can do in the community, against exceedingly great odds—especially those women, and I know many of them, who make infinite sacrifices to keep their children on at grammar schools after the school-leaving age. That group would benefit by this Amendment.
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie that both sides of the Committee have always treated unfairly the widow—as distinct from the widowed mother—who has to earn her living. Most of these women cannot hope to get anything like a worth-while job. The older they are when they have to start working—after bringing up a family and looking after a home—the more difficult it is. They do school meals, they work as home—helps, they do any unskilled work that nobody else who wants to make a career will accept.
These widows have to pay the full insurance charges out of their meagre income. Practically the whole of the 10s. that the State gives to the 10s. widow she hands back in what will now be her weekly contribution of 8s. a week. The standard widow's pension is 50s. a week, but to get this she must be over 50 when her husband dies. Therefore, we have many younger widows getting nothing at all after their children grow up; another and older group that gets 10s. a week if their late husbands were 367 National Health Insurance contributors and were married before July, 1948; and another group of still older widows who get nothing, because their husbands died quite a time ago, and were not contributors under the old National Health Insurance scheme.
As I have said, these women are doing drudgery jobs, and very often they cannot find jobs. If they earn over 50s. a week, they lose 6d. for each extra Is, they earn up to 70s., and, after that, a 1s. a week is taken off their pension for every Is, they earn. In the Second Reading debate the Minister made great play of the average earnings of our workers, but I submit that the group we are now discussing is earning only about half that average quoted by the Minister. If the majority of the Committee defends this new charge on those with an average income of about £12 a week, I ask for its pity and its generosity for those whose average income must be nearer £5 or £6, but who yet have to pay a full insurance contribution.
If we talk about the contribution going up merely by a few coppers, let us remember all those widows who, in the last twelve months, have faced weekly increases in their contributions from 5s. 6d. to the sum of—if this Bill goes through—8s. a week. I know that the Amendment will not gain much for them, but we are, as we were on earlier Amendments—though with even more force now—pleading for people to whom every penny means something. The recognition that this group of widows have a grim economic struggle on top of their bereavement is something that, I hope, we shall one day bring into the pattern of National Insurance. Tonight, at any rate, we can take a little step towards helping them by accepting this Amendment, as I hope the Minister will.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Dr. SummerskillMy hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) put the case very movingly, and I was heartened to hear some sympathetic interjections from the other side. We have tried in these various Amendments to bring to the attention of the Minister certain categories that we believe deserve special attention. So far, we have been unsuccessful. Now, we bring this category of worker—the widow—to his attention. 368 Although my hon. Friend talked about both the widow without children and the widow with children, it is the position of those widows with children that I particularly want to emphasise.
Such a woman is in a very difficult position. She has all kinds of problems. In the first place, she has lost her skill during the time she was married, so that, when her husband dies, she is almost certainly forced into an unskilled occupation or a routine job with very low pay. She has to find accommodation for her children. She has all the worrry and trouble of trying to look after them and arranging for their care while she is at work, which inevitably involves more expense. The good mother also tries to see that her children have, perhaps, a better opportunity than she herself had. The harassed widow is always wondering how she can save a little to help her children.
I remind the Committee of these details, and I am sure that all hon. Members, on both sides, realise the special position of such women. I ask the Minister as least to make this exception tonight, if he can make no other, and regard sympathetically our Amendment to except the widow.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne)The effect of these two Amendments would be to reduce the contributions payable by employed widows from 1s. 4½d. weekly to 1s. 1d. I will not make any point about the additional stamps involved or the halfpennies in the pay packet; right hon. and hon. Members opposite know about those problems. The Amendment seeks, once again, to create a new category. In any national scheme, there are always arguments for exempting or giving preference to so many classes of citizens that, unless one takes a firm stand, the scheme can quickly cease to achieve its end.
I appreciate the sincerity with which the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) made her plea for consideration of the category to which she referred, but I am sure that she will agree that, if one is to have a national scheme, one must look very carefully before exempting certain categories, because one never knows where to draw the line.
§ Dr. SummerskillOur Amendment shows where the line could be drawn.
§ Mr. BrowneI shall deal with the purpose of the Amendment. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) made a powerful case for special treatment for working widows. Many of us do not realise what a wonderful manager and brave partner we have until she becomes our widow, and then it is too late to show proper appreciation.
§ Dr. SummerskillThe hon. Gentleman can show proper appreciation now.
§ Mr. BrowneThat is exactly what I was going to say. It is too late to show proper appreciation. We must do that now.
I could, perhaps, make a case for widowers, especially those left with young children. But that case, too, would fall on deaf ears. We, as a nation, have accepted to the full the State's moral responsibility towards widows. They really have not been maltreated, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said. The House of Commons has not treated them scandalously. There is, I submit, no case under the Bill for treating them as a separate category in respect of Health Service contributions.
I will not deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie about excessive Income Tax. Although the debate on this Bill, of necessity, goes a little wide, I do not think that I can deal with that.
§ Mrs. MannWill the Joint Under-Secretary deal with the 90,000 widows between 50 and 60 years of age who receive only 10s.?
§ Mr. BrowneI will deal with the 10s. widow, if I may, in due time.
I would like to look at the position of the working widow. Let us ask ourselves whether she is so much less able to pay than spinsters and other working women that she needs special treatment. Consider the position of this widow. She usually has a home. She usually has her family allowances—[An HON. MEMBER: "And her rent has gone up."] That is another bill. If her husband has qualified for benefit, she receives the widow's allowance for 13 weeks. She receives the 370 widowed mother's allowance and something for the second child and other children.
If this widow is over 50 she receives her widow's pension, unless her children are still at school and she is treated as a widowed mother. If her husband died as a result of industrial injury, she has an alternative benefit which is more than her widow's pension. In all cases, when she goes to work—and we are talking about working widows—she has revenue coming in. She always has a little something extra under the earning rule if she has children. She can opt whether to pay contributions or not. These widows are surely no worse off than many of their sisters, and it would be wrong, in my view, to give them further preference.
Then there are the widows who, for one reason or another, do not qualify for any of the Welfare State benefits to which I have referred. The reason, as the Committee knows, is usually that they were widowed when they were young and childless.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanThey made the mistake of being widowed too young.
§ Mr. BrowneI do not appreciate that interjection. The Welfare State has decided in broad terms that such widows, who are normally, but not wholly, younger women, should be treated as single women and should return to work alongside their unmarried sisters. To make a case for the Amendment in respect of those widows, one has to give good reasons why they should pay at a rate less than single women. I do not think that this case can be, or has been, made out.
§ Mr. BrowneI have made the case in two parts. Widows with children receive the full benefits of the Welfare State. Widows without children are treated as single women at the expiry of the 13-week widow's allowance period. It has been rightly held by this House that that is so.
§ Mr. PopplewellBefore the Minister leaves the question of benefits, he did say that the widow could opt out of paying the full insurance stamp. What benefit does she get by paying the full 371 insurance stamp? He says that she can opt out and still get the benefits consequent upon her husband's past insurance contributions. What benefit does she receive by continuing to pay the full insurance stamp?
§ Mr. BrowneIf she is a war widow she can get the retirement pension.
§ Mr. PopplewellI am not referring to the war widow. I am referring to the ordinary widow.
§ Mr. BrowneIf she does not pay, she does not receive any pension.
§ Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)Is it not the case that if the 10s. widow fails to pay her full contribution she therefore loses her rights to retirement pension? That is the main difficulty of the 10s. widow. To keep in benefit for retirement purposes she has to pay this excessive proportion.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. BrowneI was coming to that point. The case of the 10s. widow has been discussed on numerous occasions. In the present Welfare State she is treated as an unmarried woman.
§ Mr. PopplewellThis is rather a technical point. It is said that if, when the widow reaches retirement age, she does not continue to pay the full amount of her insurance stamps, she loses her retirement pension. Does this refer to the increase which she would receive if she worked when she passed the age of 60? When she reaches that age she automatically receives the widows' benefit consequent upon her husband's past insurance.
§ Mr. BrowneIf the widow was widowed when she was less than 50 she must earn her life pension herself.
I want to return to the case of the 10s. widow. She is treated as a single woman. Because her husband qualified her for 10s., she receives a pension of that amount which is not part of the scheme. It is clear that the case for the 10s. widow is weaker than that for the childless widow who does not qualify under the National Insurance scheme. The 10s. widow is 10s. better off than her sister, whose husband died after July, 1958, without having participated in the old contributory pensions scheme.
372 I think that I have answered all the points that have been raised. I can only recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. PopplewellThe hon. Member has not answered my questions. Will he get in touch with his Department and let me have an answer to the points put forward?
§ Mr. BrowneYes. It is a question of National Insurance and not health, but I will see that the hon. Member receives an answer.
§ Dr. SummerskillI had hoped that on this occasion, when the whole Committee had shown sympathy with the widows, the Minister might have given way. I understand why he did not reply, but asked a younger colleague to do so. In view of what I consider to be an inhuman response, I ask the Committee to divide.
§ Mr. MellishI support what my hon. Friends have said. I should think that in my constituency more females are employed than in any other of its size. We know the problem involved. We have vast numbers of women whose husbands have been killed whilst at work—in the docks, for instance—or in the 1914–18 War. They have lived a wretched life under successive Conservative Governments. What they receive today is a pitiful amount, and most of them have to go to work in order to live in a condition of some decency.
To qualify for a pension in her own right a widow must pay 8s. a week in stamps, although she is paying for many benefits which she cannot receive. There is maternity benefit, for instance. A woman of fifty years of age is not likely to qualify for that. This 8s. is a tremendous hardship to these people.
We are back to the old argument. When a Labour Government returns to power they will introduce their national superannuation proposals, when people's pensions will be based upon what they earn and upon their conditions of employment. Such things will then really count.
It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak at the Dispatch Box without understanding what is going on. He has been asked some intelligent questions and does not 373 know the answer to any of them. Apparently all he is going to do now is to write a letter. To whom is he going to write? He had better write to all of us on this side of the Committee and not just to one of my hon. Friends who asked him some questions. We should all like to know whether the Minister makes any discoveries. I wonder what his colleagues who are supposed to advise him are doing.
§ It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "This case does not warrant special attention." This case does warrant special attention, for many widows have had a hard time and they are entitled to some relief today.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 169, Noes 214.
375| Division No. 62.] | AYES | [10.22 p.m |
| Ainsley, J. W. | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Oswald, T. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Hayman, F. H. | Owen, W. J. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Healey, Denis | Paling, Rt. Hn. W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Herbison, Miss M. | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Holmes, Horace | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Baird, J. | Houghton, Douglas | Parker, J. |
| Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) | Howell, Charles (Perry Bar) | Paton, John |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Pentland, N. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Popplewell, E. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Prentice, R. E. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Hunter, A. E. | Price J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Boardman, H. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Bottomley, Bt. Hon. A. G. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Probert, A. R. |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Randall, H. E. |
| Boyd, T. C. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Rankin, John |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Janner, B. | Redhead, E. C. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Jeger, George (Goole) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Burke, W. A. | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Hlbn & St. Pncs, S.) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Ross, William |
| Carmichael, J. | Jones, Rt.Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Short, E. W. |
| Champion, A. J. | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Clunie, J. | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Coldrick, W. | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Collins, V. J, (Shoreditch & Finsbury) | Kenyon, C. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | King, Dr. H. M. | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Cove, w. G. | Ledger, R. J. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Sparks, J. A. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Lewis, Arthur | Steele, T. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lipton, Marcus | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Deer, G. | Logan, D. G. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Delargy, H. J. | McCann, J. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Diamond, John | MacColl, J. E. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Dodds, N. N. | MacDermot, Niall | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) | McGhee, H. G. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Dye, S. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Thomson, George (Dundee. E.) |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | Mainwaring, W H. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nest (Caerphilly) | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Weitzman, D. |
| Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | West, D. G. |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Mason, Roy | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mellish, R. J. | Willey, Frederick |
| Finch, H. J. | Mikardo, Ian | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mitchison, G. R. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) |
| Foot, D. M. | Moody, A. S. | Williams, W. R. (Openthaw) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) | Mort, D. L. | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Moss, R. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Grey, C. F. | Moyle, A. | Woof, R. E. |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Mulley, F. W. | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Griffiths, William (Exchange) | O'Brien, Sir Thomas | |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Oliver, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins | ||
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Nicholls, Harmar |
| Aitken, W. T. | Gurden, Harold | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Nugent, C. R. H. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Malor Sir William | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare) |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Osborne, C. |
| Ashton, H. | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Page, R. G. |
| Atkins, H. E. | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Partridge, E. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Peel, W.J. |
| Barber, Anthony | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Peyton, J. W. W. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Barter, John | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Hirst, Geoffrey | Pitt, Miss E. M. |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) | Pott, H. P. |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Holt, A. F. | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Hornby, R. P. | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. |
| Bingham, R. M. | Horobin, Sir Ian | Ramsden, J. E. |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Bishop, F. P. | Howard, Gerald Cambridgeshire) | Redmayne, M. |
| Body, R. F. | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Hurd, A. R. | Ridsdale, J. E. |
| Bossom, Sir Alfred | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh.S.) | Rippon, A. G. F. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Iremonger, T. L. | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Bryan, P. | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Carr, Robert | Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) | Sharples, R. C. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Joseph, Sir Keith | Shepherd, William |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kaberry, D. | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Keegan, D, | Speir, R. M. |
| Cole, Norman | Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Cooke, Robert | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Kimball, M. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Kirk, P. M. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Storey, S. |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Leather, E. H. C. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Leavey, J. A. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Leburn, W. G. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) |
| Deedes, W. F. | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) | Teeling, W. |
| Doughty, C. J. A. | Linstead, Sir H. N. | Temple, John M. |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Llewellyn, D. T. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Duncan, Sir James | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Longden, Gilbert | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R. (Croydon, S.) |
| Elliott, R.W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Thompson-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Errington, Sir Eric | McKibbin, Alan | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Finlay, Graeme | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Fisher, Nigel | Macmillan, R.Hn. Harold (Bromley) | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Wade, D. W. |
| Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) | Maddan, Martin | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Freeth, Denzil | Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| Gammans, Lady | Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) | Wall, Patrick |
| George, J. C. (Pollok) | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Gibson-Watt, D. | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Glover, D- | Marshall, Douglas. | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Godber, J. B. | Mathew, R. | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Goodhart, Philip | Maude, Angus | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Gower, H. R. | Mawby, R. L. | Woollam, John Victor |
| Graham, Sir Fergus | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. | |
| Grant-Ferris, WgCdr. R. (Nantwich) | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Green, A. | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Mr. Wills and |
| Grimond, J. | Nairn, D. L. S. | Mr. Brooman-White. |
| Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Neave, Airey |
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. MarquandI beg to move, in page 3, line 19, col. 2, to leave out "2s. 2d."and to insert "1s. 8½d."
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)It would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment together with the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in line 22, col. 2, to leave out "1s. 8d." and to insert "1s. 4½d.," and in line 23, col. 2, to leave out "1s. 2d." and insert "1s. 0½d."
§ Mr. MarquandYour suggestion is acceptable to us, Sir Gordon.
I will not weary the Committee by explaining again why these figures have been chosen. The object of the Amendments is to draw attention to the very heavy impost which it is proposed to lay upon self-employed persons. Most hon. Members will have an interest in this matter because they are treated as self-employed persons for the purposes of National Insurance and National Health contributions. But it is not on behalf of myself or other hon. Members that I ask the Committee to pay close attention to what it is that we are asked to do in respect of this class. There are numerous persons in this class whose financial position is much more difficult than that of Members of Parliament.
The leaflet issued last month by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance tells us that ministers of religion are normally included in the self-employed class, together with persons trading in partnership, farmers, crofters, independent smallholders, shopkeepers, street traders and hawkers. Hon. Members opposite need not feel that by voting for our Amendment tonight they are voting for themselves. They can feel that they are voting for the class of the community for which they always express strong support, the small independent business man, the crofter, the smallholder and people of that kind.
It is difficult to separate the well-to-do people who are included from the poor persons. People are excepted from payment only if they are working on their own and if they earn less than £2 a week. I can hardly believe it, but that is what 378 is stated. However small may be a person's income, if it is over £2 a week he is asked to pay these contributions, and, unless the Amendment is accepted, will be asked to pay another 6d. a week.
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance will be aware, there is already great difficulty about collecting the contributions from those with the smallest incomes. If the £32 million extra which is required for the Health Service were to be taken, as we think it should be, from the Income Tax payers, the well-to-do among the self-employed would pay their fair share.
The smallholder, crofter or street trader, who has a hard job to make a living at all would be almost exempt from payment of this extra charge, but, as it is, the charge is bound to fall heavily upon some of these groups. Is it wise, in view of the existing difficulties of collection to impose this extra charge? The Conservative Party extols the virtues of the small independent trader and businessman. Does it make sense to impose this penal tax upon them?
We shall be reminded that this is only a small increase of 6d. per week, but what are these people paying already? Men in the over-18 group are paying 11s. 6d. per week, and the increase will bring it to 12s. Boys under 18—one of my hon. Friends described in an earlier debate how one of them carried on an independent business to keep his widowed mother—are now required to pay 6s. 7d., which the increase will bring up to 7s. Id. Girls under 18 are required to pay 5s. 9d., which will go up to 6s. 3d.
These are extremely high rates of tax to impose upon some of the poorest in the community who deserve encouragement, not discouragement, and upon people who are trying to carry on business. To do it at this time is a grave error when there lies open to the Government a simple, fair expedient of placing the charge where it should be, on the Income Tax payer, who pays according to his ability and according to his family responsibilities.
The sentimental case is not so strong here as with widows, but the economic case deserves the serious attention of the 379 Government. How much further will they go in the direction of making it virtually impossible to carry on small business? Do they think that this is wise? Ought they not to abandon the Bill, think it over again and then impose the burden of £32 million on shoulders fitted to bear it?
§ Mr. Walker-SmithThe right hon. Gentleman is nothing if not persevering. He is still seeking to undermine the principle and the main purpose of the Bill as accepted by the Committee of Ways and Means and by the House of Commons. It will not surprise him, and hardly even disappoint him, if I say that I am also persevering in my determination not to have the principle of the Bill eroded away by any of the right hon. Gentleman's far-reaching Amendments.
It might be helpful if I indicated the broad picture of the principles and the amount of money involved in regard to self-employed persons in the context of these Amendments.
There are about 1¼ million self-employed men and rather less than a quarter of a million self-employed women, making a total of nearly 1½ million people in this category. The right hon. Gentleman devoted part of his argument to the hard lot of the self-employed juvenile, but, though he painted a moving picture of their distressing position, I am advised that there are hardly any of them at all, so that is really not very material. Their numbers are negligible.
Perhaps I could give the figures of the loss of revenue that would accrue if the Amendment were accepted. While not in the same degree, of course, as the loss that would have flowed from acceptance of the corresponding Amendment about employed persons, it would total about £1½ million a year—certainly not a negligible sum. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly pointed out the very diverse occupations of self-employed people, but the very fact of the diversity and the variety, as he will appreciate, does not make it any easier to discriminate in their favour.
Though they comprise people like crofters and hawkers, of whom he spoke, they also comprise Ministers and Queen's 380 Counsel. Those are both reasons why I personally might feel a certain tenderness towards them. It is true, as he has said, that the Conservative Party does have a special concern for the interests of those people because of the contributions that they make to the stability of society, but we do not succumb to the temptation to destroy the pattern as between employed and self-employed people because of any traditional tenderness we may have for those categories.
We have now, of course, to look at the pattern of contributions in the light of the decision to which the Committee has already come in rejecting the Amendment relating to employed people. We should, I think, get the result that if we now adopted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment we would be open to the charge of having distorted the pattern in this rather narrow Bill, and in the modest adjustment it makes, to the detriment of the employed person.
The position would be this. At present, the employed man pays 1s. 4½d. in respect of his National Health Service contribution. The self-employed man now pays Is. 8d. Under the Bill, as the Committee has now decided, the employed man will pay 1s. 10½d., but if this Amendment was accepted the self-employed man would be paying only 1s. 8½d. We would, therefore, have changed the pattern from a payment of 3½d. less by the employed man to one of 2d. less by the self-employed man. I can well imagine what hon. Members opposite, less moderate and temperate than is the right hon. Gentleman, would say when they got to the hustings. They would say that for the sake of Ministers and Queen's Counsel and the like we had made this very large distortion to the detriment of the employed man. I would say:
… in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.10.45 p.m.The right hon. Member did not mention, in what otherwise was a very fairly put point of view, that the Bill makes what I think is a reasonable easement of the position of the self-employed. It gives as much easement to them as can be done without distortion of the pattern against the employed person to an extent which 381 would be unreasonable in the context of the modest adjustments in the Bill.
As the Committee will know, in a previous increase of the National Health Service contribution the increase for the self-employed person was equal to the sum of the increases paid by both the employer and the employee in the Class 1 category. That was the case in the 1957 Act. Under this Bill, however, the self-employed, both men and women, will pay only the same increase as the employee. In other words, they will not have to pay. as they have done before, the additional increase of the employer. That, so to speak, will be credited to them, so there is some adjustment of the pattern in their favour.
That is as far as we could reasonably be expected to go, having regard to the narrow context of the Bill and the danger of distortion of the pattern to the detriment of the employed person. Therefore, while certainly respecting the persuasiveness and temperate quality of the right hon. Member's advocacy, I regret that I must ask my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment, if it is pressed to a Division.
§ Mr. MarquandThis is an outstanding example of a case in which the tax ought to be put on to the Income Tax payers. It is the most outstanding example of all in a situation in which large numbers of contributors should pay more for the cost of the National Health Service and are not asked to do so while an extremely heavy burden is placed on lower income groups. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman came so far as to say that he would relieve the juveniles, I would gladly withdraw the Amendment. He did not accept my case that this is a very harsh imposition on young people. Although he did not accept my case, hon. Members must feel that it is a very harsh imposition. The Minister waved it aside and said they are very few in number. If the Committee is to reject a case on the ground that it affects very few, that is so bad that we must register our protest.
§ Question put, That "2s. 2d." stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 154.
383| Division No. 63.] | AYES | [10.48 p.m |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Deedes, W. F. | Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) |
| Aitken, W. T. | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Hornby, R. P. |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Doughty, C. J. A. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | du Cann, E. D. L. | Horobin, Sir Ian |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Duncan, Sir James | Horsburgh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence |
| Arbuthnot, John | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.) | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. |
| Ashton, H. | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Hurd, A. R. |
| Atkins, H. E. | Errington, Sir Eric | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) |
| Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M. | Finlay, Graeme | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Fisher, Nigel | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Barber, Anthony | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) |
| Barter, John | Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) |
| Baxter, sir Beverley | Freeth, Denzil | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | Gammans, Lady | Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | George, J. C. (Pollok) | Joseph, Sir Keith |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Gibson-Watt, D. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot |
| Bingham, R. M. | Glover, D. | Kaberry, D. |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Godber, J. B. | Keegan, D. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Goodhart, Philip | Kerby, Capt. H. B. |
| Body, R. F. | Gower, H. R. | Kerr, Sir Hamilton |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Graham, Sir Fergus | Kimball, M. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) | Kirk, P. M. |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Green, A. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Grimond, J. | Leavey, J. A. |
| Bryan, P. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Leburn, W. G. |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Carr, Robert | Gurden, Harold | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Linstead, Sir H. N. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Llewellyn, D. T. |
| Cooke, Robert | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Longden, Gilbert |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Macdonald, Sir Peter |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | McKibbin, Alan |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) |
| Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E. | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Macmillan, Rt.Hn, Harold (Bromley) |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Hirst, Geoffrey | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Maddan, Martin | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Ramsden, J. E. | Teeling, W. |
| Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) | Rawlinson, Peter | Temple, John M. |
| Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Redmayne, M. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Marlowe, A. A. H. | Ridsdale, J. E. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Marshall, Douglas | Rippon, A. G. F. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.) |
| Mathew, R. | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Mawby, R. L. | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) |
| Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | Roper, Sir Harold | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Nabarro, G. D. N. | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Neave, Airey | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Nicholls, Hartnar | Sharples, R. C. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) | Shepherd, William | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek | |
| Nugent, G. R. H. | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Wall, Patrick |
| Oakshott, H. D. | Spearman, Sir Alexander | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Osborne, C. | Speir, R. M. | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Page, R. G. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) | Stevens, Geoffrey | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Partridge, E. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Peel, W, J. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm | Woollam, John Victor |
| Peyton, J. W. W. | Storey, S. | |
| Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) | |
| Pitt, Miss E. M. | Studholme, Sir Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Pott, H. P. | Summers, Sir Spencer | Colonel J. H. Harrison and |
| Powell, J. Enoch | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) | Mr. Brooman-White. |
| Price, David (Eastleigh) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | |
| NOES | ||
| Ainsley, J. W. | Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) | Owen, W. J. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Holmes, Horace | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Houghton, Douglas | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Awbery, S. S. | Howell, Denis (All Saints) | Pargiter, C. A. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Pearson, A. |
| Baird, J. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pentland, N. |
| Sevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Popplewell, E. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hunter, A. E. | Prentice, R. E. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Probert, A. R. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Janner, B. | Randall, H. E. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Redhead, E. C. |
| Boyd, T. C. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech (Wakefield) | Ross, William |
| Carmichael, J. | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Short, E. W. |
| Champion, A. J. | Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Clunie, J. | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Coldrick, W. | Kenyon, C. | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury) | King, Dr. H. M. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Ledger, R. J. | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Soskice, R:. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Steele, T. | |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lewis, Arthur | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Deer, G. | Logan, D. G. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J, |
| Delargy, H. J. | McCann, J. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Diamond, John | MacColl, J. E. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Dodds, N. N. | MacDermot, Niall | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) | McGhee, H. G. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Dye, S. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | Mainwaring, W. H. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Weitzman, D. |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Marquand, Rt. Hon, H. A. | West, D. G. |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mason, Roy | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Finch, H. J. | Mellish, R. J. | Willey, Frederick |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mikardo, Ian | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mitchison, G. R. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Moody, A. S. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Grey, C. F. | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Griffiths. David (Rother Valley) | Mort, D. L. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Moss, R. | Woof, R. E. |
| Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Moyle, A. | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Mulley, F. W. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | |
| Hayman, F, H. | O'Brien, Sir Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Healey, Denis | Oliver, G. H. | Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Wilkins. |
| Herbison, Miss M. | Oswald, T. |
§ Dr. SummerskillI beg to move, in page 3, line 24, column 2, to leave out "2s. 2d." and to insert "1s. 8½d."
§ The ChairmanWith this Amendment we can also take the Amendments in line 26, column 2, leave out "1s. 8d." and insert "1s. 4½d." and in line 26. column 2, leave out "1s. 2d." and insert "1s. 0½d."
§ Dr. SummerskillYes, Sir Charles. In view of the Minister's intransigence, I have little hope that he will prove responsive to the Amendment, but I will persevere. I agree that part of my case is not as strong as I would like; nevertheless, I want to put to him a point which has probably not occurred to him. When I was a Minister I always thought that it was anomalous to call Class III persons non-employed The word "non-employed" includes those who have no employer, but to the person not familiar with our legislation it would appear to indicate those who do no work at all.
There is one category of people in Class III which is hard-working, and should therefore receive some sympathy from the Minister. I accept the fact that many non-employed people live on investments and other private incomes and may very well be parasitical in their approach to life, but I wonder if the Minister has considered the fact that the word also includes unpaid social workers. I know that that designation does not always command sympathy, and such persons are sometimes thought of as people who work very few hours, but it has occurred to me that many such persons are also found among unmarried councillors. Those hon. Members who have served on local councils will agree that such persons work very hard. I do not know whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance disagrees; I imagine that the Minister of Health is not so certain about it as she is.
11.0 p.m.
I see that there is a division of opinion on the Front Bench opposite. Perhaps we have not considered this before. Whereas the definition of a non-employed person includes those who live on investments or other private income, those who do unpaid social work, students, 386 women looking after the home or relatives and doing no paid work, it should also include the person who voluntarily works in a council and has no employer. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary nods her head. I would put this to her——
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt)What the right hon. Lady said which caused me to nod my head was that all single women on a council would be non-employed. That cannot be correct. I was a single woman on a city council, but I was employed in another sphere.
§ Dr. SummerskillThen the hon. Lady was an employed person. We are talking about non-employed people. I am completely right, I am sure. I am talking about individuals who serve as councillors and are not paid any salary in their spare time. I am thinking of a number of single women across the Bridge who serve the whole of the London County Council area and work very hard but who cone under Class III as being non-employed persons.
The hon. Lady must not quibble. Many single women work but there are plenty of single women who do not work but serve on a local authority. The hon. Lady ought to withdraw now because she is wasting time. She should have known this point in her job without having to argue. The point I am making is that here is a category of people called non-employed who serve the community very well, who are not paid but who pay this very large contribution. I am asking the Minister to reconsider this contribution. The contribution at present is, for women aged 18 to 60, 7s. 3d.; for girls of 16 to 18, 4s. 4d.; for men. 9s. 1d.: and for boys, 5s. 3d. This is for the non-employed. It is a curious anomaly. Here we have a body of people who work very hard indeed and who are unpaid, but nevertheless who have to make this quite substantial contribution towards the National Insurance Scheme.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithThe right hon. Lady is very persuasive on behalf of these non-employed people. The Committee probably detected in her manner of advocacy a consciousness that this was not really a very strong case, although not without sympathetic undertones. I 387 share with the right hon. Lady sympathy and respect for the single women who do social work, and so forth; but I do not think it constitutes a reason to make what I called in the last Amendment an unreasonable distortion of the pattern of contributions in the narrow context of this Bill.
The right hon. Lady has referred to the total amount paid by these women: 7s. 3d. for the total weekly contribution, which under the provisions of the Bill would go up to 7s. 7d. Of that, 5s. 11d. is the National Insurance contribution proper, the rest being the National Health Service contribution with which we are more particularly concerned. I am advised, though this is not my sphere, that all but about 6d. of the 5s. 11d. is for the retirement pension and therefore, so to speak, is a good investment.
Concerning the National Health Service contributions, I spoke at some length during the Second Reading debate, when I said that I thought the contributors generally got a good bargain for what they had to pay. There are about 250,000 non-employed women and about the same number of non-employed men, and here we have the same difficulty—perhaps even more aggravated—that we encountered during the last debate on the self-employed people; the great range and diversity of the positions of the people involved. I can only repeat that the non-employed people have the same moderate easement of their position as the self-employed.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsI gather that there are 1½ million self-employed and 500,000 non-employed who pay contributions.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithYes. I understand that there are 250,000 men and 250,000 women.
§ Mr. GriffithsPerhaps not now but on some other occasion the Minister can tell me how many people there are in these categories who should pay but do not pay. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about distorting the pattern, but I am sure that this is where 388 the present Bill distorts the pattern. I am sure that the flat rate contribution goes far beyond the non-employed and self-employed people.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithI do not think I follow the right hon. Gentleman. If their income is under £156 a year, they fall within the small income exemption limit, otherwise they are liable. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about evasion, that is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be happy to discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the modest adjustment made to help the non-employed is as far as we can reasonably go in the context of this Bill without distorting the pattern, and I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. PopplewellThis category includes people whose earnings are less than 40s. a week. Can the Minister say how many people come within that category? They are mentioned in his circular.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithIt is of course not my circular but that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I cannot without notice give the hon. Gentleman the number of people falling within the small income exemption limit. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject.
§ Dr. SummerskillThere are people who fall under hardship, including the category I mentioned, and the women who stay at home to help other people and do not receive any wage at all. I agree that they can opt out if they like. But there is a category of women who work very hard and receive little pay. Under the circumstances, I feel that we should divide the Committee on this Amendment.
§ Question put, That "2s. 2d." stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 144.
391| Division No. 64.] | AYES | [11.10 p.m. |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Green, A. | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Grimond, J. | Neave, Airey |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Nicholls, Harmar |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Gurden, Harold | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Ashton, H. | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Osborne, C. |
| Atkins, H. E. | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Page, R. G. |
| Baldock, Lt.Comdr. J. M. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Partridge, E. |
| Barber, Anthony | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Peel, W. J. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Peyton, J. W. W. |
| Barter, John | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Pitt, Miss E. M. |
| Beamish, Col. Tutton | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Pott, H. P. |
| Belt, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Hirst, Geoffrey | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Bingham, R. M. | Hornby, R. P. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Ramsden, J. E. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Horobin, Sir Ian | Rawlinson, peter |
| Body, R. F. | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence | Redmayne, M. |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. | Ridsdale, J. E. |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Kurd, A. R. | Rippon, A. G. F. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H, | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Bryan, P. | Iremonger, T. L. | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Carr, Robert | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) | Sharples, R. C. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Joseph, Sir Keith | Shepherd, William |
| Cooke, Robert | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Kaberry, D. | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Keegan, D. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Kerby, Cap. H. B. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Kimball, M. | Storey, S. |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Kirk, P. M. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Deedés, W. F. | Leavey, J. A. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Leburn, W. G. | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) |
| Doughty, C. J. A. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.> |
| Duncan, Sir James | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) | Teeling, W. |
| Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Linstead, Sir H. N. | Temple, John M. |
| Elliot, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.) | Llewellyn, D. T. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Longden, Gilbert | Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.) |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Finlay, Graeme | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) |
| Fisher, Nigel | McKibbin, Alan | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley) | Vane, W, M. F. |
| Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Freeth, Denzil | Macpherson, Nlall (Dumfries) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Gammans, Lady | Maddan, Martin | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| George, J. C. (Pollok) | Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Wall, Patrick |
| Gibson-Watt, D. | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Glover, D. | Marshall, Douglas | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Godber, J. B. | Mathew, R. | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Goodhart, Philip | Maude, Angus | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Gower, H. R. | Mawby, R. L. | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Graham, Sir Fergus | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Woollam, John Victor |
| Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwioh) | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield. |
| NOES | ||
| Ainsley, J. W. | Bowles, F. C. | Cullen, Mrs, A. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Boyd, T. C. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth | Davies, Harold (Leek) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Deer, G. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Burton, Miss F. E. | Delargy, H. J. |
| Barrel, J. | Carmichael, J. | Diamond, John |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Champion, A. J. | Dodds, N. N. |
| Blackburn, F. | Chetwynd, G. R. | Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Clunie, J. | Dye, S. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Coldrick, W. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Craddock. George (Bradford, S.) | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | King, Dr. H. M. | Proctor, W. T. |
| Fernyhough, E. | Ledger, R. J. | Randall, H. E. |
| Finch, H. J. | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Redhead, E, C |
| Fletcher, Eric | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Lewis, Arthur | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Logan, D. G. | Rodgers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Grey, C. F. | McCann, J. | Ross, William |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | MacColl, J. E. | Short, E. W. |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | MacDermot, Naill | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Griffiths, William (Exchange) | McGhee, H. G. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Mainwaring, W. H. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Mann, Mrs. dean | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Healey, Denis | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Herbison, Miss M. | Mason, Roy | Steele, T. |
| Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) | Mellish, R. J. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Holmes, Horace | Mikardo, Ian | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Howell, Charles (Perry Bar) | Mitchison, G. R. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Howell, Denis (All Saints) | Moody, A. S. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Mort, D. L. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Moss, R. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Hunter, A. E. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Weitzman, D. |
| Hynd, H. (Accrington) | O'Brien, Sir Thomas | West, D. G. |
| Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Oliver, G. H. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Oswald, T. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Janner, B. | Owen, W. J. | Willey, Frederick |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Jeger, George (Coole) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) |
| Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St.Pncs, S.) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Johnson, James (Rugby) | Pargiter, G. A. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Pentland, N. | Woof, R. E. |
| Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Popplewell, E. | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Prentice, R. E. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Kenyon, C, | Probert, A. R. | Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons. |
§ Question put, That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill:—
392§ The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 131.
393| Division No. 65.] | AYES | [11.19 p.m. |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Currie, G. B. H. | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) |
| Aitken, W. T. | Davidson, Viscountess | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount |
| Alport, C. J. M. | Deedes, W. F. | Hirst, Geoffrey |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Doughty, C. J. A. | Hornby, R. P. |
| Arbuthnot, John | du Cann, E. D. L. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. |
| Armstrong, C W. | Duncan, Sir James | Horobin, Sir Ian |
| Ashton, H. | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence |
| Atkins, H. E. | Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.) | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) |
| Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M. | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Errington, Sir Eric | Hurd, A. R. |
| Barber, Anthony | Finlay, Graeme | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Fisher, Nigel | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry |
| Barter, John | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Freeth, Denzil | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Gammans, Lady | Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) |
| Bingham, R. M. | George, J. C. (Pollok) | Joseph, Sir Keith |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Gibson-Watt, D. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot |
| Bishop, F. P. | Glover, D. | Kaberry, D. |
| Body, R. F. | Godber, J. B. | Keegan, D, |
| Boothby, Sir Robert | Goodhart, Philip | Kerby, Capt. H. B. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Gower, H. R. | Kerr, Sir Hamilton |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Graham, Sir Fergus | Kimball, M. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) | Kirk, P. M. |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Green, A. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Bryan, P. | Grimond, J. | Leavey, J. A. |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Leburn, W. G. |
| Carr, Robert | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Gurden, Harold | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Linstead, Sir H. N. |
| Cooke, Robert | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Llewellyn, D. T. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Longden, Gilbert |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Macdonald, Sir Peter |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | McKibbin, Alan |
| Craddook, Beresford (Sperthorne) | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | |
| Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley) | Pitt, Miss E. M. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Pott, H. P. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Powell, J. Enoch | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) |
| Maddan, Martin | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Marlowe, A. A. H. | Ramsden, J. E. | Teeling, W. |
| Marshall, Douglas | Rawlinson, Peter | Temple, John M. |
| Mathew, R. | Redmayne, M. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Mawby, R. L. | Rees-Davies, w, R. | Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.) |
| Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C | Ridsdale, J. E. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | Rippon, A. G. F. | Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) |
| Nabarro, C. D. N. | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Neave, Airey | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Nicholls, Harmar | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) | Roper, Sir Harold | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| Nugent, G. R. H. | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. | Wall, Patrick |
| Oakshott, H. D. | Sharples, R. C. | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Osborne, C. | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Page, R. G. | Spearman, Sir Alexander | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Partridge, E. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) | Woollam, John Victor |
| Peel, W. J. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm | |
| Peyton, J. W. W. | Storey, S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) | Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield. |
| NOES | ||
| Ainsley, J. W. | Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Howell, Denis (All Saints) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Awbery, S. S. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Baird, J. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pearson, A. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Pentland, N. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hunter, A. E. | Popplewell, E. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Prentice, R. E. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Jarmer, B. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Probert, A. R. |
| Bowles, F. C. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Boyd, T. C. | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs.S.) | Randall, H. E. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Redhead, E. C. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Jones, Rt.Hon.A. Creech (Wakefield) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Carmichael, J. | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Champion, A. J. | Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Ross, William |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Craddook, George (Bradford, S.) | Kenyon, C. | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | King, Dr. H. M. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Ledger, R. J. | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) |
| Deer, G. | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Delargy, H. J. | Lewis, Arthur | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Diamond, John | Logan, D. G. | Steele, T. |
| Dodds, N. N. | MacColl, J. E. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) | MacDermot, Niall | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Dye, S. | ||
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | McGhee, H. G. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nees (Caerphilly) | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Mainwaring, W. H. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Finch, H. J. | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mason, Roy | Weitzman, D. |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mellish, R. J. | West, D. G. |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mikardo, Ian | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Grey, C. F. | Mitchison, G. R. | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Moody, A. S. | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Mort, D. L. | Woof, R. E. |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | O'Brien, Sir Thomas | Zilliacus, K. |
| Hayman, F. H. | Oswald, T. | |
| Healey, Denis | Owen, W. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Herbison, Miss M. | Mr Holmes and Mr. Short. |
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.