§ Miss Herbison
I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, at the end to insert:taking into account entitlement to widow's retirement benefit".
§ Mr. Crossman
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There are five of these Amendments all referring to the problem of widows' retirement benefit. It would be for the convenience of the House, therefore, if you could tell us which of the five you intend to call, so that we shall know on which to stage our major debate.
§ Mr. Crossman
If I understand aright, then, we shall discuss with this Amendment those to Clause 8, page 13, line 11; page 13, line 27; page 13, line 30; and page 13, line 39.
§ Miss Herbison
This Clause deals with non-participating employments; that is to say, conditions under which a man may contract out of the Government scheme or under which an employer may contract his employee out of the Government scheme. We feel that a man or his employer should be able to contract out of the Government scheme only if there is a sufficient guarantee that there is benefit for his widow on his death. We feel that unless this is done the employer ought not to be able to contract the employee out of the scheme. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the position of many widows in this country. There are many such friends of mine whose husbands were in what 734 might be termed a private occupational scheme which made provision for a pension for the man when he retired from work but which, on the death of that man, made no provision for his widow. There might also be the case of a man who had died before reaching retirement age, and again there was no retirement pension for his widow.
During the years that I have represented North Lanarkshire in the House, time and time again widows have come to see me at my home or at the interviews which I give at four centres in my constituency each month. These are among the most pathetic cases that have been brought to my notice. They are women who have perhaps been used to a fairly comfortable life. They are women whose husbands were in jobs which gave them, their wives and their families a fairly comfortable way of living, and these men were in pension schemes. However, when the husbands died those widows found themselves translated from a comfortable way of living to absolute penury. Many of them are of an age when it is impossible for them to find work even if they were fit to work. They are of an age when there is no employment for them.
If we are to allow employers to contract their employees out of the Government scheme, an essential condition of allowing such contracting-out is that provision should be made for widows. Any scheme which does not make provision for widows will carry on this unfortunate situation in which women who have had a comfortable way of life are plunged into penury and misery with no hope of a job. It is for those reasons that we place such importance on our Amendments.
§ Mr. Lawson
I beg to second the Amendment.
The Bill makes great play of the term "equivalent pension benefits". Most of us now know what the phrase means. It means that where a man or woman is contracted out of the State scheme, the employer must guarantee that the person will build up pension rights equivalent to those that a person in the State scheme earning £15 a week would accumulate.
In the pension rights that a person in the State scheme builds up there is a 735 certain provision for his widow whereby if he dies she gets part of the graduated benefits that he has built up. That is in addition to her basic pension. There is in the Bill for those who are contracted out—that is, for those in a private scheme—although there is the guarantee of equivalency with what a man earning £15 a week could obtain within the State scheme, no guarantee that the widow shall receive any advantage from the graduated benefits built up. By our Amendments we are trying to ensure that there is genuine equivalency.
Bad though the graduated part of the State scheme is, it gives the widow part of the benefits which her husband has built up. That is not the case with a private scheme. The private employer makes provision for the equivalent of the benefit that a £15-a-week man could receive, but he need make no provision for the man's widow, and if the man dies, the employer has no obligation towards the widow. We should be very wrong if we did not ask for this situation to be remedied.
We ask that there should be genuine equivalency, and that where an equivalent pension is guaranteed for a person taken out of the State scheme there shall be equivalence in that the private scheme shall make some provision for the widow such as the State scheme does. I cannot see how in logic we can escape from that. The benefit is a very poor one indeed. We are insisting here that there shall be genuine equivalency and that the widow shall get the benefit which she would get under the State scheme.
§ Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)
At the beginning of the debate today we were told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that one of the purposes of the Bill was to encourage occupational pension schemes. This Amendment is to ensure that schemes to which encouragement is given shall at least measure up to the provision which is in the State scheme.
Widows, as well as the old people, are among the worst hit at present. All that we are asking for is that when the Government make it possible for an employer to contract out of the State scheme and provide a scheme of his own for his employees, the same pro- 736 tection shall be afforded to the widow, poor though it is, as in the State scheme.
We think that this is something on which the Government should give way. They have given way on one or two little things this afternoon, not to us but to their hon. Friends. This is in the interest of the womenfolk who, when their husbands die, are left in a much worse position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has said. Very often they are not able to go out to earn their own living, or they find it extremely difficult to get a job because women do not have the same rights of opportunity as men.
The good husband or parent makes provision in the event of his death for those dependent upon him. He does not leave his widow stranded. We are now asking that the State shall provide the same kind of protection and insist that private employers at least write this into their occupational schemes, in the same way that the Government have a moral obligation to write it into the State scheme. That is all we are asking for in this Amendment.
If I took five seconds to stand up to reply, it was a great deal less than hon. Members opposite needed to decide which of them was to move the Amendment.
I was about to say so.
The suggestion that some provision for widows should be added to the test of equivalency before contracting out can be accepted is undoubtedly attractive at first sight. If the development of occupational schemes was still in its infancy and the field was very much clearer than it is now there would be far stronger arguments for it. We are not now dealing with some pioneering venture in occupational insurance, but with many established schemes which have developed on the lines on which their members wanted them to develop and which have covered a very wide part of the total field.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Miss Herbison
The hon. Gentleman said that the schemes were not in their infancy and that they had been developed in the way which their members wanted them to develop. Surely he knows that that is not the case. The many thousands in the teaching profession have long been fighting to have benefits for widows and the Government have always been against them. That very big scheme has not developed in the way that its members would have liked.
I was not referring only to teachers, although I know that case. I was speaking generally. If the hon. Lady studies the many private schemes, she will find that many options have not been taken up. It is the facts of the situation which we now have to face.
It has been represented over and over again, and with a large measure of truth, that the graduated scheme which we are now proposing is a great deal smaller than the pension schemes of many industries. The scale is a great deal smaller. We consider that when it comes to contracting out the test of equivalency must be simple and something which should fit in with the world of occupational schemes as we find it. It is not the purpose of this Bill to try greatly to change the basis of the many occupational schemes which have been built up by people in the way that they wanted to see them grow. We want to see something running in parallel and not in conflict with appropriate occupational schemes.
Speeches to that effect were made many times from hon. Members opposite in Committee and I am sure that not many hon. Members—although there may be some—would like to see the range of occupational pension schemes curtailed.
§ Mrs. Slater
Do the Government not take the view that if they have better ideas than those which exist in some occupational schemes they should encourage them and ensure that they come up to the Government scheme and, as he said, run parallel and not in conflict with it? They will run in conflict if the Amendment is not accepted.
The hon. Lady has not got it quite right, because her idea of 738 encouragement seems to be to have some power of compulsion. That cannot correctly be described as encouragement.
The test we have chosen is simple. It is that there should be equivalency at the maximum. That means that many people will have something more than they would have been able to claim if they had been members of the State scheme. The Amendment asks that the equivalency test should be carried further and that there should be some provision for widows analogous to the provisions in the State scheme and that those provisions should be made compulsory before a private scheme is accepted as appropriate for contracting out.
If the hon. Lady studies the development of private schemes—and there are many very good schemes in existence which have the support of people in different industries—she will find that they have been built up on a much bigger scale than the Scheme which we are now considering. The people concerned have paid more and have wanted something on those lines. The hon. Lady will find, however, that very few have provisions for widows which could match exactly those in the Bill.
Without an immense amount of research one cannot say accurately how many schemes would qualify for contracting out according to present rules, but from the information that we have about 90 per cent. would fail the test because provision for widows exists in many schemes in different ways. There may be an option, and a man may be able to contribute towards widow's benefit at his own choice. This would perhaps mean that after he was married and had the responsibility of a wife to support he would think about changing his basis of membership.
There are many complications which would make this simple comparison not really quite so simple if hon. Members started putting it into operation. If this provision were put into the Bill contracting out, which many hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies want to see, would be virtually impossible and the whole process of development would be changed.
Because it has been built up on different lines. At this juncture, if one does not want contracting out, one can start applying this kind of test which many private occupational schemes will not be able to satisfy. If one does not want contracting out one can press for other tests as well. If hon. Members want to see contracting out of good schemes, which we all have in mind and which can provide for their members' benefits in excess of the State scheme, there is no purpose in pressing for tests on equivalency which, clearly, they would not be able to satisfy.
In addition, there is the complication which arises—and I have touched on this generally—because of the different provisions which different schemes may have now or in the future for the provision of widows' benefits. If there is a test at all it must be reasonably exact and fair, such as the scale that we have provided for in the State scheme. This will not be easy to satisfy without substantial modification of those schemes even where some provision for widows' benefit is now in existence.
As to the general development, there is no doubt that the provision for widows' benefits in the private field is expanding. I saw some papers in connection with one of the bigger private schemes, this morning. Its trustees had sent a circular to members suggesting that they should elect to be put on a different basis to provide some benefit for their widows. I am told this happens in many schemes, but where a free choice exists it is surprising, and rather unfortunate, how few people have taken it up. If we want contracting out of good schemes to go ahead we must make this test of equivalency simple and of such a nature that everyone understands it.
Superficially, it might seem simple to add the second test of equivalency of widows' benefits. In fact, it is far from simple and would have far-reaching effects on contracting out. I therefore advise the House not to accept the Amendments, because in practice the result would be very different from that which the supporters of the Amendments would like.
§ Mr. Marquand
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has spoken at greater length than the Minister or his hon. Friend the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary spoke when we discussed this matter in Committee, but his reply is just as unsatisfactory as those then given by his colleagues. The requirement of equivalence is laid down in the Bill. It is provided that the service in the scheme which is allowed to contract out must provide for retirement benefits by way of pensions which are, on the whole, as favourable as the right to benefit to be derived from graduated contribution in the national scheme. That is a very easy test to apply.
The right to benefit in the national scheme, provided by the Bill, includes the right to widows' retirement benefit. It is clearly defined in Clause 5. There can be no difficulty about being exact in this matter. Even the hon. Member implied that he thought it was obvious that it was only fair that the widows' retirement benefit contained in the national scheme should, if possible, be included in the contracted-out scheme. He thought the difficulty would arise in terms of definition, but the definition is clear in the Bill. The woman concerned must have reached the age of 60, must be retired, and must receive 6d. by way of pension for every Is. to which her dead husband would have been entitled. That is as exact a definition as one could wish for.
The other argument on which he seeks to rest his case is that private schemes find it difficult to provide benefits of this kind. We know that this is so by what the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) told us in Committee. He explained that widowhood was rather a difficult risk to assess and he said:Unfortunately, in this unpredictable world we can never say when a male human is going to get married, or what age his spouse will be, and often we have a man in his fifties who decides to get married to a bright young thing in her early thirties. That can play ducks and drakes with any actuarial studies. It is well known amongst private firms that provision for widows' pensions is most difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th March, 1959; c. 699.]It is accepted that this is difficult; we do not deny it. But even the hon. Member for Horsham went on to say that some private schemes succeeded in including widows' retirement benefit.
741 All that this description of the difficulties involved in assessing the risk of widowhood amounts to is to say that only group insurance can be covered, and that individual insurance cannot easily do so. But good private schemes and quasi-governmental schemes exist which cover this risk, and we say that in view of the known facts about widowhood—in view of the fact that under our present pension law widows get a pretty raw deal and have to live for years on end on a pension which is no more than the pension provided for short-term difficulties like unemployment and sickness; in view of the fact that many widows are obliged to resort to National Assistance, and in view of all the difficulties from which widows undoubtedly suffer, we say that the State should now come forward with a new proposal for including widows' benefit, however small.
The Government should say that they will not permit schemes to contract out which do not do at least as well as that. We must insist upon this. It will not do to say that the contracting-out schemes should be allowed to avoid this obligation which is now being undertaken in the State scheme. As I have said earlier, the contracted-out schemes have big advantages in that the members of such schemes avoid the major part, if not the whole, of the obligation to meet the emerging cost of pensions. By contracting out they avoid the greater part of this obligation, which falls upon millions of those who are not able to contract out.
As those contracted-out schemes are so highly privileged under the terms of the Bill, it is not too much to ask that, by methods of group insurance which have proved to be satisfactory and which the best private schemes employ, they should come up to the level of the best in this respect and provide this small addition to the pensions of widows whose husbands have contributed in some way under the terms of these schemes towards an insurance but have died before they could benefit from it. The husband pays contributions to the scheme, and where he dies before receiving benefit his widow should be entitled to this small amount provided 742 in the national scheme of half the amount to which her husband would have been entitled by his contributions.
In view of the surrounding circumstances and the difficulties which widows have to meet in our community, to which I have frequently referred, I advise my hon. Friends that if the Minister persists in his refusal they should divide the House.
§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
I regret having to delay the House for a few minutes, but when I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) describing the interviews which she has with her constituents who are implicated in the Amendment, I felt bound to confirm from my own constituency the number of harrowing cases of women who were married to men in receipt of reasonably good salaries which kept them out of some of the earlier contributory schemes but who come to me—on each occasion I visit my constituents I am sure to meet at least one and sometimes more—because they are faced with the fact that up to the present pensions schemes have left them out. They are faced with a humiliation in their way of life which is far more severe on a woman than on a man. I write to the Minister knowing the answer which he will give me. It always expresses sympathy with the woman and says that this matter may be dealt with in some amending Act. Let us be quite certain that we shall increase the number of women who will be in this position in the future if an Amendment on these lines is not accepted.
I do not believe that the difficulties of persuading the private schemes to extend their benefits in this direction are as great as the Joint Under-Secretary tried to make out. All I know is that in such schemes as those for local government officers, where this provision operates, the number of people who wish to join on this basis grows every year. I believe that we should set the example in this matter, otherwise a large number of women will be in a position in which no man ought to wish to see a self-respecting woman.
Such a woman has served the family well, and it is owing to some unfortunate circumstance, on the death of her 743 husband or a few years later after she has lived on the little capital which he could leave her, that she finds herself having no claim on the community at all except through the National Assistance Board. I very much regret
§ that the Minister made such a speech in reply to my hon. Friend.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 205.745
|Division No. 120.]||AYES||[9.7 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W,||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Herbison, Miss M.||Parker, J.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Parkin, B. T.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Paton, John|
|Awbery, S. S.||Holman, P.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Houghton, Douglas||Popplewell, E.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Howell, Denis (All Saints)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Benn, Hon. Wedgwood (Bristol,S.E.)||Hoy, J. H.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Blackburn, F.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Probert, A. R.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Randall, H. E.|
|Boardman, H.||Hunter, A. E.||Rankin, John|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Reynolds, G W.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Royle, C.|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Kenyan, C.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Carmichael, J.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||King, Dr. H. M.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Champion, A. J.||Lawson, C. M.||Snow, J. W.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Coldrick, W.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Lewis, Arthur||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Cronin, J. D.||Lindgren, G. S.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Grossman, R. H, S.||Logan, D. G.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||McCann, J.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||MacColl, J. E.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Deer, G.||McLeavy, Frank||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Diamond, John||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Thornton, E.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Mahon, Simon||Tomney, F.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Mann,Mrs. Jean||Viant, S. P.|
|Edelman, M.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Mayhew, C. P.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Messer, Sir F.||Weitzman, D.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Mikardo, Ian||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)||Mitchison, G. R.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)||Moody, A. S.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Fletcher, Eric||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Foot, D. M.||Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)||Willey, Frederick|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mort, D. L.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)||Moss, R.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Moyle, A.||Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Neal,Harold (Bolsover)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Grey, C. F.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)||Woof, R. E.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Oram, A. E.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Oswald, T.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Owen, W. J.|
|Hannan, W.||Padley, W. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hastings, S.||Paget, R. T.||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Barter, John||Bossom, Sir Alfred|
|Aitken, W. T.||Batsford, Brian||Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Baxter, Sir Beverley||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Brewis, John|
|Arbuthnot, John||Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Brooman-White, R. C.|
|Ashton, H.||Bidgood, J. C.||Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.|
|Balniel, Lord||Bingham, R. M.||Burden, F. F. A.|
|Barber, Anthony||Bishop, F. P.||Chichester-Clark, R.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Body, R. F.||Cole, Norman|
|Cooke, Robert||Howard, John (Test)||Page, R. G.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)||Partridge, E.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Corfield, F. V.||Iremonger, T. L.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Cunningham, Knox||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Profumo, J, D.|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Deedes, W. F.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Redmayne, M.|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Kimball, M,||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Kirk, P. M.||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Lambton, Viscount||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Leavey, J. A.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Leburn, W. G.||Sharples, R. C.|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Shepherd, William|
|Fell, A.||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Speir, R. M.|
|Freeth, Denzil||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)|
|Cammans, Lady||Loveys, Walter H.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Storey, S.|
|Clover, D.||McAdden, S. J.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Glyn, Col. Richard H.||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Go ugh, C. F. H.||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||McMaster, Stanley||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Grimond, J.||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Crimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Gurden, Harold||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Wade, D. W.|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Marshall, Douglas|
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Mathew, R.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Hay, John||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Wall, Patrick|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Mawby, R. L.||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Hesketh, R. F.||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Webster, Sir H.|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Webster, David|
|Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Nairn, D. L. S.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Neave, Airey||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Nicholson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Woollam, John Victor|
|Hope, Lord John||Noble, Michael (Argyll)|
|Hornby, R. P.||Oakshott, H. D.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co.Antrim,N.)||Mr. Bryan and Mr. Whitelaw.|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Osborne, C.|
§ Mr. Lawson
I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, to leave out "both" and to insert "concurrently".
This Amendment is merely a change of words. It is not in any way a change in the sense of the subsection, which reads:Where a person is in any income tax year employed both in a non-participating employment and in another employed contributor's employment. …Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary may say subsequently, I insist that 99 people out of 100 reading Clause 7 (5) would think that "both" meant in that year; it might be perhaps the first six months working at one job and the second six months working at another 746 job. "Concurrently" means at one and the same time, and to substitute that for the word "both" would make the meaning quite clear.
The Parliamentary Secretary will probably accept this Amendment, but I must admit to some disappointment. The Standing Committee had twenty-five meetings, during which we spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the Bill. This subsection was particularly difficult to understand by anyone—including, I think, the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary herself. We were, however, given an undertaking that the Minister would 747 look at the Clause to see if it could be made clearer.
I do not think that he has done so. Had he done so, he could not but have agreed that the word "both" would be taken by most people to mean both in one year and not both at one and the same time. I am sorry that even such a small promise as that has not been fulfilled. Had the Minister kept his promise, we should not have had to spend time on this Amendment.
§ Miss Pitt
I am not surprised to find this Amendment on the Notice Paper as the Clause is very complicated and the wording is a little difficult to understand. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that his interpretation is wrong. He believes that the wording means both at one and the same time, and that, therefore, the word "concurrently" would serve. In fact, what it means is both in the same Income Tax year.
I explained in Committee that the purpose of this subsection was to enable a refund to be made to a man who had two or more employments, one of which was non-participating. For his nonparticipating employment, he will be treated as if the maximum graduated contribution had been paid, so that any graduated contribution paid by an employee who has two employments, beyond the prescribed annual amount, would be refunded to him. That is, in the main, what this subsection provides, but there is a further point that I must now explain.
The hon. Gentleman has said that "concurrently" is clearer than "both", but although, in the main, the subsection will deal with concurrent employment—as I explained to him in Standing Committee, and have repeated today—it is also designed to cover cases where non-participating employment—contracted-out employment is, I think, the simpler expression—precedes or follows double participating employment in the same Income Tax year. That will be very rare, but there could be a case where a man first had a spell of contracted-out employment, then gave it up, and, in the same Income Tax year, took on double 748 employment which was participating. That is what this fine point is intended to cover.
The effect of the Amendment, if it were accepted, can be shown by an example. A man might, in the first six months, be in non-participating or contracted-out employment and, if he left it, he would be treated as having the benefit of the maximum graduated contributions of the scheme. In the second six months, he could be in double participating employment, earning £15 a week in each job. If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be that he would have to pay, in that second six months alone, graduated contributions on each of his two jobs with £15 earnings, resulting in his paying in that period the equivalent of twelve months' contributions, despite the fact that he had a transfer payment, or payment in lieu for the first six months of the year for his contracted-out employment. Under the Amendment he would not be entitled to the refund because his nonparticipating employment earlier in the year would be disregarded.
All this sounds very technical, but I hope I have said sufficient to show the hon. Gentleman that his doubts arise from a misunderstanding of what I admit is a very complicated piece of drafting, though it does cover the points which each of us has in mind.
§ Mr. Lawson
May I ask the hon. Lady to read what she said in Committee on precisely this point? May I also advise her that the Amendment which I have tabled is the precise interpretation of what she said in Committee? It is, therefore, clear that she herself did not understand the subsection with which she was dealing.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Reading)
I beg to move, in page 13, line 8, at the end to insert:(9) For the purposes of this section no superannuation scheme shall be a scheme for equivalent pension benefits which excludes or 749 purports to exclude any person from qualifying for retirement benefits by way of pension if and so long as he is a member of a trade union.This is a simple point which, I should think, will arouse no controversy because I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to accept this Amendment; nor can I imagine that any hon. Member opposite would wish to oppose it. The simple point is that since it seems clear that the employer will have the right to do the selection, so to speak, of alternative schemes, he should not be able to select a scheme which discriminates against trade unionists in his employment.
I should be out of order if I attempted to anticipate an Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, which we are to discuss later, and I therefore content myself by merely saying that even if that Amendment were passed it would not alter the basic fact that the final decision might be made against the views and desires of employees. That would make it doubly serious if a scheme were in operation and were recognised which did discriminate against members of a trade union on the ground of their membership of a trade union and on no other ground.
There is already a quite widely used superannuation scheme—widely used in the engineering industry, at any rate—which is an estimable scheme in very many ways and has, as far as I can see, only one thing wrong with it, namely, that its constitution provides that benefits derived from this scheme may not be paid to any member who is a member of a trade union. It is a membership organisation. Membership of it is denied to a member of a trade union. and if a member of the superannuation society becomes a member of a trade union, he is ipso facto required to resign from and lose all his benefits in the superannuation society.
It is clear that that sort of arrangement and that comparatively small scheme could be extended. Its provisions could be extended so as to make itself, so to speak, a candidate for being treated as an alternative to the national scheme. Hon. Members opposite have very often paid tribute—and we have been glad to hear it—to the trade union movement, and have said how valuable 750 it is to have a responsible trade union movement.
Nothing infuriates trade unionists today more than this kind of discrimination. It smacks of the first half of the nineteenth century, not of the second half of the twentieth century. It would be quite out of keeping with the spirit of the times and with attempts to put forward progressive legislation if anything of the sort were to stand.
I do not know whether the sponsors of the particular scheme 1 have mentioned would desire to have it treated as an alternative. If they did, they could presumably make such alterations in their arrangements as were required to make the scheme a candidate for consideration as a scheme for equivalent pension benefits. It is to guard against those dangers that my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends and I have put down this Amendment.
I am sure that the Minister himself would have provided for this condition to be put in the Bill if the thought had occurred to him. We are very glad to be of service in bringing the matter forward since the thought has not occurred to him. I have never been so confident of the Government accepting an Amendment moved from the Opposition benches as I am in this case.
§ Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)
I beg to second the Amendment.
I have very little to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has said. He thought that the Minister would, no doubt, accept the Amendment and suggested that the thought might well not have passed through his mind if his attention had not been called to the fact that there is at least one scheme in existence of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. Anyone looking at the Notice Paper might well ask why people are wasting their time putting down an Amendment like this because no one in his right mind would draw up such a scheme which contained the condition about which the House has been told.
That is the situation, however. It is understandable, and this is no time to argue the merits of the other society's scheme. It is, at least, understandable that, generations ago, it was thought right to try to keep a certain category 751 of worker outside the conflicts which often took place between employees and management. But the whole trend of climate and opinion in these days has changed very much. Every political party urges each one of its members to belong to a trade union if he possibly can. Every political party recognises that the trade union movement as a whole is an integral and accepted part of our whole life and the wise administration of government in this country. Every political party admits that if we are to have more productivity, greater efficiency and better understanding in industry these things can come only through a better measure of understanding throughout industry.
This old notion is a hang-over from the past. Now that there has to be an answer "Yes" or "No", we should like to have an assurance on this matter of quite important principle, and we ask the Minister to accept the Amendment and to ensure, in due course, that the Registrar and those responsible for seeing through the new scheme will be in tune with what one can claim to be unanimous public opinion.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) on moving an Amendment in a debate which hitherto has somewhat resembled a closed shop confined to former members of Standing Committee A, and also on his ingenuity in bringing into our discussions on the National Insurance Bill his concern, which I know he has pursued in other directions on a number of occasions, in regard to a particular friendly society. I am the more sorry that the confidence which he expressed, I am sure, with complete sincerity, that his Amendment had but to be moved to be accepted proves to be unfounded.
It is the fact, of course, that National Insurance has under all Governments not been used or not been allowed to be used as a vehicle for the regulation of industrial relations, however desirable such regulation might be. That has been the fact under all Governments, and it would be a very serious innovation to introduce into the contracting-out provisions relating to National Insurance a provision of this kind.
752 9.30 p.m.
The House will, I think, realise that when I point out that a provision of this kind is certainly not the only unfortunate or invidious condition that one could imagine. If we were to use the contracting-out provisions of this Bill in order to regulate a certain aspect of industrial relations—I suggest to the House that that would be a most unfortunate departure from practice in National Insurance—we could not stop here. We should have to take the case, no doubt, of schemes which refuse entry to people on grounds of colour, race—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—political views—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—or for not being trade unionists. I notice that hon. Members do not cheer that. The fact remains that though they cheered the earlier, not the last, example, the only one which they picked out is this one.
The fact that that has never been done, not only in respect of this particular category—I agree with the hon. Member for Reading it is very rare; there is only one friendly society which he has in mind and which I also have in mind—but that none of the others has ever been put forward in this context in all our long discussions of this Bill, I think is an indication that those who have been very much concerned over many years with National Insurance questions have accepted the view I put a few moments ago, that this is not really the right method of dealing with this problem.
May I put it to the hon. Member for Reading in another way? If he feels that he would like to use this method to deal with the practice which he deplores, it is, of course, a singularly ineffective method. It would not affect any scheme unless that scheme applied to contract out. That, I think, discloses that this is really an attempt to deal with the matter by a back way, on a side issue.
We are not concerned in a National Insurance Bill to regulate private schemes, still less to regulate industrial relations, save in so far as it is necessary to do so to secure the objective that those who are contracted out shall be secured a pension at least as good as they would have had if they had not been contracted out. That is the limit 753 to which we are, I think, entitled to go on this Measure in regulating and dealing with private pension schemes.
Those hon. Members who were in the Standing Committee will recall that we discussed this in another context more than once and that I did make the point that though there may well be a case for considering further control over private pensions schemes, a National Insurance Bill is not the vehicle for it, nor is the Minister of National Insurance the Minister departmentally concerned. We have, therefore, gone only as far as we have in this Bill, in allowing this provision for contracting out, in order, as we have said time and again, to secure a proper future for the expansion of the private schemes in the case of those who prefer them, we should not seek to go further and to control or regulate the private schemes.
What really the hon. Gentleman is, with characteristic ingenuity, trying to do by this Amendment is to seek to legislate for the one aspect of the private schemes, in a Bill which is neither intended nor suitable for the purpose, and to do so by a method which could be frustrated if the scheme in question did not apply to contract out. As far as I know, the scheme as it stands at present would not be eligible to contract out and the Amendment really is unlikely to affect it in that way.
Therefore, whilst I congratulate the hon. Member on his ingenuity, I would point out to him that if we were to seek to use the Bill to regulate private schemes and deal with any other discriminations, which the House has agreed are at least as serious as those to which the hon. Member refers, we should have to go a great deal further than the hon. Member proposes. The fact that he has not proposed that illustrates and underlines that this is neither the right place nor the right time to seek to deal with the problem, and I must recommend to the hon. Member that if he wishes to pursue that matter it is not with a National Insurance Bill nor with a Minister of National Insurance that he should concern himself.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). I was not surprised by the 754 Minister turning this Amendment down, because we had heard him in Committee and had realised that his view on contracting out and ours differs in one basic particular. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think of contracting out as something which should be made as easy as possible, something solely concerned with seeing that as many private schemes as possible carry on, with no new kind of obligation imposed upon them.
The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with my hon. Friend at all. The issue that we on this side of the House raise is a great issue of principle, because never in the history of National Insurance have we permitted private employers to undertake what is an essential part of a State social welfare service. In future, after this Bill, there will be imposed for the first time on certain private employers the job of providing part of the old-age pension of millions of people. Part of the State old-age pension is to be provided by them. Therefore, the expression "contracting out" is highly misleading. We should talk about contracting into a grave obligation. Unlike the Minister, we feel that we should make it difficult to contract out for any employer who does not undertake to set the highest possible standard.
The real parallel here is with the State's traditional attitude to giving contracts. If one gives contracts to employers one seeks to encourage a high standard of behaviour by the employers, and one does not think it outrageous of the State to insert into contracts clauses by which employers must behave decently. It is not at all outrageous to suggest that when employers have the privilege of contracting out and taking over part of the responsibility they should be told that they will not be allowed to contract out if, for instance, they indulge in racial discrimination. It is outrageous that it should be suggested by the Minister that the Registrar should be permitted by him, under regulations, to allow a friendly society or an employer to contract out even if there is racial discrimination.
We have moved the Amendment because we knew of the case which has been mentioned and we said, "Let us test the Minister and let us see whether 755 he understands the job we have to do with employers in expecting a certain standard from them when they contract out." The same applies to widows. We believe that it should be laid down as one condition governing contracting out that schemes should be compelled to provide not less than the pitiable widow's benefit provided by the Minister's scheme, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, "Not at all." We shall want to make it difficult for 90 per cent, of employers. We believe that the 90 per cent, of employers are not doing the duty which they should be doing of providing a widow's benefit in addition to the ordinary benefit.
In the same way, we say that we believe it would be useful if this miserable Bill did one thing; if it set a certain standard in respect of conditions of contracting out. We think that the Registrar should be instructed in the Bill not to give a certificate for any schemes
§ which discriminated against trade unionists. We have had a useful debate, for we have had here confirmed in the rather more public position on the Floor of the House what we all learned upstairs—the extraordinary failure of the Minister to appreciate the gravity of the principle of contracting out.
§ We would have liked the right hon. Gentleman to set a standard to employers. We would have liked him to impress on employers that, so far from making it easy, we want to make it difficult for an employer other than a good employer to take this obligation on instead of the State. Therefore, I have no hesitation in advising my right hon. and hon. Friends, if the Minister refuses to give way, to go into the Lobby on this Amendment.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 198.757
|Division No. 121.]||AYES||[9.41 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Gibson, C. W.||Mahon, Simon|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Greenwood, Anthony||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Grey, C. F.||Mayhew, C. P.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Moody, A. S.|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Hale, Leslie||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)|
|Blackburn, F.||Hamilton, W. W.||Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hannan, W.||Mort, D. L.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hayman, F. H.||Moss, R.|
|Boardman, H.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Moyle, A.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Herbison, Miss M.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Holman, P.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby,S.)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Houghton, Douglas||Oram, A. E.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Howell, Denis (All Saints)||Oswald, T.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hoy, J. H.||Owen, W. J.|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Padley, W. E.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Paget, R. T.|
|Carmichael, J.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hunter, A. E.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Champion, A. J.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Parker, J.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Parkin, B. T.|
|Coldrick, W.||Isaacs. Rt. Hon. G. A.||Paton, John|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Jeger, George (Goole)||Popplewell, E.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Probert, A. R.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Kenyon, C.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Randall, H. E.|
|Deer, G.||King, Dr. H. M.||Rankin, John|
|Diamond, John||Lawson, G. M.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Edelman, M.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Lewis, Arthur||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lindgren, G. S.||Royle, C.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Logan, D. G.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)||McCann, J.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Fletcher, Eric||MacColl, J. E.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Foot, D. M.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||McLeavy, Frank||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Snow, J. W.|
|Sorensen, R. W.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Taylor, John (West Lothian)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Sparks, J. A.||Thornton, E.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Warbey, W. N.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Stewart, Michael (Fulham)||Watkins, T. E.||Woof, R. E.|
|Stones, W. (Consett)||Weitzman, D.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||Wheeldon, W. E.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Sylvester, G. O.||Willey, Frederick||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Grimond, J.||Medlicott, Sir Frank|
|Aitken, W. T.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.|
|Allan, B. A. (Paddington, S.)||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Amory, Rt.Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Gurden, Harold||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Nairn, D. L. S.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Neave, Airey|
|Ashton, H.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)|
|Balniel, Lord||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Noble, Michael (Argyll)|
|Barber, Anthony||Hay, John||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim,N.)|
|Barter, John||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Osborne, C.|
|Batsford, Brian||Hesketh, R. F.||Page, R. G.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Partridge, E.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Hope, Lord John||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Hornby, R. P.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Bingham, R. M.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Horobin, Sir Ian||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Body, R. F.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Profumo, J. D.|
|Bonham Carter, Mark||Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Redmayne, M.|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Iremonger, T. L.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Brewis, John||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Jennings, j. c. (Burton)||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Bullus, Wing-commander E. E.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Sharples, R. C.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Shepherd, William|
|Chichester-Clarke, R.||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Cole, Norman||Kimball, M.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Cooke, Robert||Kirk, P. M.||Speir. R. M.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Lambton, viscount||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Corfield, F. V.||Leavey, J. A.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Leburn, W. G.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Storey, S.|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Cunningham, Knox||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Dance, J. C. C.||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Loveys, Walter H.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||McAdden, S. J.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Errington, Sir Eric||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Wade, D. W.|
|Finlay, Graeme||McMaster, Stanley||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)||Wall, Patrick|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Freeth, Denzil||Maitland, Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Gammans, Lady||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Webster, David|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Gibson-watt, D.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Glover, D.||Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Glyn, Col. Richard H.||Marshall, Douglas||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Mathew, R.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Mawby, R. L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Mr. Edward Wakefield and|