§ Where a person has paid graduated contributions and before attaining pensionable age has ceased to be in whole-time employment and has become permanently incapacitated therefor, there shall be paid to him, in addition to any sickness benefit or industrial injury benefit to which he may be entitled, the amount of graduated benefit that would have been payable had he reached pensionable age on the date on which he became incapacitated as aforesaid.—[Mr. Houghton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is a proposal to introduce a breakdown Clause into the Bill. It proposes that where a person under the scheme retires from whole-time employment on health grounds and is permanently incapacitated from working whole-time, the graduated benefits, if any, accrued to the date of his retirement on health grounds should be payable to him, in addition to any sickness or industrial injury benefits to which he may be entitled under the National Insurance Acts.
This is a feature of most vocational pension schemes. It is obvious that an employed person who has contributed towards retirement benefits which he would normally enjoy on reaching the age limit, and who retires prematurely on health grounds, should be given some compensation for the surrender of his interest in the pension scheme. Indeed, some vocational schemes go further by paying more than the accrued benefit at 641 the time of retirement, especially in cases where the employee has comparatively short service and would otherwise retire on quite a small pension. Where total incapacity is involved, the aim of some of these schemes is to ensure that the employee stricken down by ill-health is given something approximate to a living wage retirement pension.
This Clause is more narrowly drafted than the breakdown clause in most vocational schemes. Most private schemes, and in the public services, too, have a provision that a person may retire on health grounds on satisfying the employing authority that owing to ill-health he is permanently incapacitated from doing his job—that is, the job in which he is employed under the public authority or the private employer. The Clause restricts the benefit of accrued pension rights on retirement for ill-health to those cases where a person has become permanently incapacitated from working whole time. It does not specify working whole time in the employment in which he is engaged, but working whole time and, therefore, it is intended to apply to a person who is so ill that he is unlikely to be able to work whole time again. This seems to be the minimum which should be provided under any scheme which has to bear comparison with schemes outside.
In some schemes where contributions are returned not only does the employee receive back his own contributions, but the employers' contributions as well, and in many cases plus interest. In other schemes, as I have already mentioned, there is an actual pension payable, as in the case of civil servants and in most vocational schemes, where there is a normal expectation of a life career and where a pension is payable on retirement.
The Minister may say that this is a very late time at which to introduce a new benefit. It is true that in Committee we became immersed in the complicated arrangements for graduated benefits on retirement, and we did not ask the Committee to devote itself to this aspect of the matter. However, under our procedure it is never too late to improve a Bill until it finally passes from our control, and the Minister must be conscious of the fact that his 642 scheme has this rather significant omission of not providing for permanent breakdown.
The Minister may say that we can write what benefits we like into the Bill, provided that all concerned are prepared to pay for them. While that is true, there are some schemes which are basically inadequate unless they provide for the sort of immediate contingencies which we have to take into account in devising schemes of social benefit of this kind.
We all appreciate that sickness benefit and even industrial injury benefit, which is higher than sickness benefit, are not enough to provide for those permanently suffering from ill-health and who are in the wage or salary ranges covered by the Bill's graduated contributions. It is to those and those alone that these provisions would apply. That is why we propose that the graduated benefits—which in all conscience will be small enough, and in many cases even tiny—should be provided in cases where permanent breakdown takes place after comparatively few years in the scheme. No lavish provision is involved in the request that graduated benefits be paid in addition to sickness or industrial injury benefits, if those are payable.
It is impossible to make any firm estimate of what the likely burden of this breakdown pension on the fund would be, but we think that the Bill should contain the provision and that the finances of the scheme should provide for it. Taking the long-term view, they appear to do that. They appear to provide a margin for additional benefits in the years to come. We went into that matter very fully in Committee when we saw that there was apparently to be a considerable surplus of contributions over likely benefits. We realised that some part of the surplus would be utilised for paying basic retirement pensions under the National Insurance Scheme. This is a matter which can be studied as the scheme emerges and passes through its initial stages, when some more valid estimate could be made of the likely expense of breakdown pensions.
Finally, the House will want to ensure that a scheme of this kind should provide benefits as nearly as possible comparable 643 with those provided under private schemes. In many cases, vocational schemes providing for breakdown benefit will be difficult to compare with this scheme if the comparison is confined to retirement benefits—for the purpose of opting out, for instance. The minds of those who have to decide may well be influenced by whether there is any breakdown provision in the State scheme. It seems desirable in this respect, as in one or two others, that the State scheme should be comparable with private schemes, and that cannot be so unless there is provision for cases of permanent incapacity.
Whenever we have discussed breakdown provisions in a State scheme, something more than sickness benefit, the question of certification, has been raised as a serious medical and administrative problem. There have been discussions on whether under the existing scheme something more adequate could be provided for total or permanent incapacity other than sickness benefit. In those discussions, the problem of certification has always been raised. This problem arises in the ever-extending range of private schemes with breakdown clauses. More and more people are having to submit themselves to medical opinion as to whether they are permanently incapacitated from continuing their employment for the purpose of taking advantage of breakdown benefits. We have to face this question. People do break down and are totally incapacitated. In vocational schemes, account is taken of that and special benefits are provided for it. Are we to say that those benefits cannot be extended to a national scheme because of the difficulty of dealing with more claimants?
At the outset, 1 said that the Clause was tightly drawn. Permanent incapacity refers to incapacity from any whole-time employment. That is an extreme qualification on which doctors would have little difficulty in pronouncing with some degree of certainty. In the extension of our social benefits as the years go by, the problem of breakdown will loom very largely in any national scheme and it will be necessary to overcome any administrative difficulties which arise. With the development of the science of diagnosis and the ever- 644 widening knowledge and experience of the medical profession, it will become easier rather than more difficult to arrive at medical judgments in cases of this kind.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will sympathetically consider our proposal. He has the opportunity to say what the Government's attitude will be towards this significant omission from the scheme as it stands. If he says that we are making a small beginning, and will enlarge upon it or extend it as the years go by, he will have to say something more positive about his hopes and expectations about the benefits in the scheme. We are looking to the Minister to enlarge on this new angle of the scheme and to give the House some encouragement that this is the sort of benefit which the scheme will provide.
§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)
I beg to second the Motion.
I will be surprised if the Minister resists our proposal, or something very like it. What we are asking is very modest. We are not asking that when a man is sick he should have his sickness benefit supplemented, or that when he is unemployed he should have his unemployment benefit supplemented, or that when he is injured his industrial injury benefit should be supplemented.
We are merely saying that when a man is found to be so incapacitated that he is adjudged not to be able to work again, he should have added to his sickness or industrial injury benefit the amount of the graduated benefit which he had built up at that time. He should be treated at the time when he ceases to be able to work as though he were at that stage 65 years of age, and paid on the basis not of what he might have achieved had he gone on working until he was 65, but what he had built up by that time.
My right hon. and hon. Friends are asking for something very modest indeed, and if the Minister is not prepared to accede to this request he will be most ungenerous indeed. I hope that he will show that at least one Amendment from this side of the House can be accepted.
The Clause should be judged from the standpoint of what the Government 645 are supposed to be doing in the Bill. They are supposed to be giving a State substitute for the private industrial insurance schemes that have grown up so rapidly in the past few years. We recognise that a growing number of workers are insured in addition to the normal State insurance scheme. Many of them are very well insured indeed. Some will have a benefit of perhaps two-thirds of their earnings during the last five years of their working lives. There is nothing like this in the State scheme which is a substitute for those private vocational schemes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out, in those private vocational schemes, or private industrial insurance schemes, where an insured person becomes incapacitated from working he is paid the benefit, or. at any rate, some part of it, which has accrued to him. We are asking that in this respect the State scheme should be more comparable to the private schemes for which it is supposed to be a substitute.
This concession, if it could be called a concession, would cost very little indeed. I hardly think that most hon. Members are aware of how small the graduated benefits would be. If a man aged 40 Joined the scheme and paid contributions until he was 60 and was then unable to continue working, the addition to his pension would be as follows. If he had been earning £10 a week during the whole of that period and been paying the graduated payment that would be paid by a man earning that sum, the addition to his basic pension would amount to only 3s. a week.
If, over those twenty years, he had been earning £11 a week, and been paying on that basis, the addition would amount to only 7s. a week. If he had been earning £12 a week, the addition would be 10s. a week. If he had been earning £13 a week, the addition would be 14s. a week. If he had been earning £14 a week, the addition would be 18s. a week. If he had been earning the maximum of £15 a week, the addition to his pension would be only 22s. a week.
It means that a person receiving a basic pension of 50s. a week would, at the most, receive an additional 22s. We know that many people would 646 receive very much less than that. It seems, therefore, that what we are asking for here is so small—in fact, it is so niggardly under circumstances of that sort—that I shall be amazed if the Minister tells me he will not accept the Clause.
There is one further point which we ought to bear in mind. The graduated payments, or the graduated contributions and benefits derived from those contributions, are not in any way subsidised by the Exchequer. There is no Exchequer grant towards those contributions or benefits, so they would cost the Exchequer nothing. It would be a case of the contributor being prepared to pay for the man who had dropped out and was unable to work. I am sure that if this proposition were put to the contributor he would say "Oh, yes. I will lend a hand to my fellow workman who is unable to carry on working. especially when the amount is so small."
I hope that the Minister will tell us for the first time in the course of the long arguments that we have had on the Bill that he is prepared to accept something coming from this side.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt)
As the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, the new Clause has the effect of providing a premature graduated pension for those who become permanently incapacitated for full-time work before pension age.
The hon. Member used the colloquial expression, with which I think most of us are familiar, of a "breakdown" pension. It means that the graduated pension earned up to the date of the breakdown would be paid from the date that the permanent incapacity was certified, and would normally be payable in addition to the flat-rate sickness benefit or Industrial Injuries benefit under the National Insurance scheme.
I should add the caution that that would not always be the case, because the Clause allows room for some part-time work. If the Clause were acceptable I would not object to that because it is a good thing that any man incapable of doing full-time work should he encouraged to do part-time work if he is able to do so.
§ Mr. Houghton
I said that it should be payable in addition to any sickness benefit or industrial injuries benefit which may be payable. I had in mind a person who might be totally incapacitated for the purpose of the breakdown pension, but not sick for the purpose of National Insurance sickness benefit. It is conceivable that they might be distinct physical conditions. I also had in mind the question of entitlement.
§ Miss Pitt
In most cases they will he entitled to sickness benefit, but so long as the hon. Gentleman is aware that in not all cases would sickness or industrial injuries benefit be payable, I think that we are clear.
This permanent incapacity for whole-time employment would be a new conception for National Insurance, and it is not defined in the Clause. The Clause leaves the expression of permanent incapacity fairly wide, and no power is taken to define this by regulation. As hon. Members are aware, the present position is that someone who becomes sick for a long time receives the normal benefit of National Insurance, which is £4 a week for a married couple plus increases for dependent children. This is paid indefinitely, without limit and without reduction.
Sick pay for employees by employers for a limited period is now fairly widespread in industry and commerce. In my experience the pattern set by the Civil Service has been followed and some kind of sickness benefit, tied to the length of a man's service but with limits on it, is paid. In only a small proportion of cases do the employees—and these are mostly in the public service or nationalised industries—receive any cover for pension on premature retirement through ill health.
The hon. Member for Sowerby said that this was a feature of most vocational pension schemes. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that this was usually the case in private schemes, but that is not strictly true. It applies in the Civil Service and the nationalised industries, but if both hon. Gentlemen will refresh their memories and refer to the Report of the Government Actuary on Occupational Pension Schemes they will find this statement in paragraph 33:Section 10 shows that ill-health pensions or other special benefits are available to all mem- 648 bers of pensions schemes for employees of the public service and nationalised industries, but that a material proportion of non-insured private schemes do not include such benefits and that the majority of members of insured schemes receive only the normal withdrawal benefit, i.e. a refund of contributions or its equivalent.Their argument, therefore, is based on a false supposition.
§ Mr. Lawson
It must be pointed out that these private schemes are very different from the State scheme, namely, that on withdrawal the contributions are repaid. That does not happen in the State scheme.
§ Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)
We ought not to draw any false conclusions from the rather vague reference by the Government Actuary. No doubt he had good reasons for making that statement but, unfortunately, he does not quote any figures or proportions. From practical experience, as distinct from theorising, I can say that in the case of a vast number of private trust funds, including all the pension funds operating in the British Co-operative movement, of which there are several hundreds, there is a specific provision for breakdown pensions on a most generous basis to provide for those unfortunate people who do not reach the normal retiring age. It is a little risky to draw any general conclusion from the vague statement in the Government Actuary's Report.
§ Miss Pitt
The Report is not vague, nor is it a matter of theory; the hon. Member will remember that the Government Actuary circularised many private firms, and they answered his questionnaire, upon which he built up information which enabled him to present the Report to us. I still think that the description of vocational schemes given by the hon. Member for Sowerby and the hon. Member for Motherwell is not correct; however desirable it might be.
The Government proposals are limited to provision for old age, and are so limited because of the growing number of old people in the community and the growth of occupational pension schemes. We feel that an extension of the flat-rate scheme into the field of provision for old age can do the most good.
649 I sympathise with the view behind the Clause. We all feel tremendous sympathy for those who, entirely without fault of their own, are permanently incapacitated from earning a living or from the satisfaction of being able to work. The hon. Member for Sowerby asked whether we could not consider the matter in its initial stages, when, as he thought, the cost would be very low. I think that it would be better to project our minds further. It may be that after experience in the graduated field of retirement pensions it will be possible to consider an extension to cover the graduated breakdown pension, and it may be thought desirable to provide for such an extension. But, first, we need to have experience of retirement pensions. We think that it is much wiser to take one step at a time.
If it were possible to consider such a proposal in future it would require very detailed consideration. The problem is not simple. Indeed, the hon. Member gave me my cue when he talked about certification. What do we mean by "permanent incapacity"? How do we define it? Do we define it by the duration of incapacity? Do we say, "This man has been sick for six months, therefore he can be regarded as permanently incapacitated"? Or do we make the period twelve months? Is not there another danger, which is of interest to all those who are concerned with social work? Is it right to label a man as permanently incapacitated? Might that not be a bad influence against any hope of his recovery? Is it to be defined by the severity of the illness, or the prognosis of the medical people on the chances of the man's recovery? Is it to be based upon the limitation of his earning capacity, or it to be a combination of all the factors that I have mentioned?
We also need to take into account the question whether payment should be made in the modest proportions which both the hon. Member for Sowerby and the hon. Member for Motherwell have talked about. Would it not be wiser to consider whether such a benefit should be the amount of benefit earned to date or should be based upon some other formula? I am thinking particularly of the case of the younger man, with children, who may 650 suffer extreme hardship. He may have a terrible accident which renders him unable to work or to contemplate work for all the years that lie ahead. For those reasons I think that the Clause needs further consideration, as well as the question whether the contributions should be altered.
In proposing the Clause no reference was made to the man who would be contracted out. He would have no such benefit unless his scheme provided for it, and in many private schemes there is no such provision. We must take that point into account, unless we want two sections of the working population—those who, under the Government scheme, would get graduated benefit in the case of permanent incapacity, and those who, under occupational schemes, would not receive any such benefit.
I sympathise with the motives behind the Clause but I do not think that today is the time to accept such a recommendation, and I must ask the House to reject the Clause.
§ 5 p.m.
§ Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)
Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to refer to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. She says that permanent incapacity is not defined, and that that was one of the criticisms of the Clause. She posed a number of what she thought were difficult problems involved in defining permanent incapacity. Are the hon. Lady and the Minister aware that the whole problem is dealt with in Section 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925? That Section provides that an employer may redeem a payment of compensation where he satisfies the courts that the workman concerned is permanently incapacitated. The words are used in that Section although they are not defined. The matter may be referred to the judge for arbitration.
If the hon. Lady will look at the last edition of Willis she will find, on page 413, a reference to redemption by agreement, which states that the county court judge, with the assistance of medical witnesses and, if he cares to have him, a medical referee, can consider the question—which is a very mixed one of fact and medicine—whether a man is perma- 651 nently incapacitated. It is putting up a red herring to say that the phrase "permanently incapacitated" creates any obstacle to the acceptance of the Clause.
§ Mr. J. T. Price
I congratulate the hon. Lady for putting up such a brave defence upon grounds which convinced nobody but herself. She must realise as well as anybody else that if an insured contributor has the misfortune to become a total loss, in terms of employment, before he reaches the normal retirement age of 65, the State owes him not only a legal but a moral obligation. 1 know that in the isolated context of the Clause we are dealing with the strict legal obligations, as defined in the terms of the Bill. In principle, we are dealing with a man who may have paid contributions to National Insurance for ten, fifteen, twenty or even thirty years, but who may still be less than 65 years of age when his health breaks down and he can no longer work.
Let us deal with the hon. Lady's postulation that the question of permanent incapacity has never been defined in terms of National Insurance. I know that it is very difficult to define it, but the hon. Lady is overlooking the fact that when she administers industrial injuries benefit—as she has done with distinction in her Department—she works to the formula that if a man is 100 per cent. disabled, after 26 weeks of normal benefit he goes for assessment before a tribunal, which makes a final award.
I suggest to the hon. Lady that if this tribunal gives a final award of 100 per cent. it is tantamount to an acceptance of the fact that the man concerned is totally incapacitated. It is not only implicit in that sector of National Insurance, but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) has said, this matter was dealt with in great detail by the county court judges and occasionally by the Court of Appeal and higher courts of law, when we had widespread reference to the court of workmen's compensation cases.
The Workmen's Compensation Act is not a dead letter. It is no longer an active Statute governing the payment of benefit today. but we still have thousands of cases of men who are being dealt with and paid benefit under that 652 Act. They are the residual group of people whose benefit arose at the time that the Act was in operation. The hon. Lady might, therefore, reflect on these things and not come so readily to the Government Dispatch Box and say that these matters have not been defined. I suggest that they have been defined.
I wish to put one or two new points in support of the Clause. The hon. Lady said that the adoption of breakdown pensions is not widespread or general in the private occupational schemes. I very much dispute that. As an outstanding example of the kind of practice that is observed in the best industries and the best employments, I merely quote the practice observed by, for example, the hundreds of companies functioning within the Lever combine. As all the world knows, they are very good employers and have the most progressive schemes of benefit in favour of their employees, both in pensions and in insurance of all kinds.
In the schemes governing, for example, Imperial Chemical Industries, which is another of the giants of British industry, we find most specific reference to the question of men who break down in health. The Co-operative movement has over 98 per cent. of all its employees covered for pensions. Let it be said with credit to the Co-operative movement that this is the highest percentage of any industrial group in the country. In all the co-operative schemes of which I have knowledge, there is specific provision for the men who break down in health.
Let me deal with one proposition that the hon. Lady used in support of her argument. She said that in many of the insurance schemes—that is, pension schemes under which insurance companies issue a policy of indemnity to the employer for payment of certain benefits—breakdown pensions do not operate. I accept that in many cases they do not operate. The reason, however, is that in all those contracts between insurance companies and employers, there is provision for repayment of contributions or the payment of a deferred annuity on reaching a certain age which is equivalent to the rate of benefit in terms of capital values which would have been payable if the person concerned had not met with the unfortunate circumstance.
653 One cannot, therefore, use the argument that because the insurance companies do not give a breakdown pension, the Government are entitled to use this in defending their own refusal to give a breakdown pension. The insurance companies give an alternative pension which is equivalent to the breakdown pension. They give a return of contributions.
On several occasions in Committee upstairs, I took the opportunity of saying—and not always to the great pleasure of some of my hon. Friends on this side—that I considered that one of the major defects of the Bill and a major defect of the Labour Party scheme, which has been widely publicised and which I will strongly develop on the appropriate occasion, has been that there is no provision for the repayment of contributions or any part of the accumulated contributions in the event of death or breakdown in health. That is a major defect. Once we begin to scale up the schemes into any substantial contribution, we may find that a man who has paid for most of his life loses his life savings, which may be considerable if the contributions are made on a high scale.
§ Sir Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)
The hon. Member speaks of somebody losing the benefit of the contributions that he has paid if he is incapacitated before the age of 65. Surely, however, on becoming 65, he would be entitled to that benefit for which he has paid.
§ Mr. Price
I am coming to that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to it. I had not overlooked it.
My argument rests on the fact that in most of the private industrial schemes there are a number of provisions for dealing with situations like this. It is quite beside the point for the Government to defend their refusal to make provision by saying that it is not the universal practice in other schemes. In reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), it is true that in case of breakdown, the accumulated value that a man has acquired under the Government scheme, under the Bill, will be available for payment in terms of benefit at 1s. a week for each £15 of capital which stands to his credit at 654 the time of retirement. The Minister is smiling. I do not know whether he agrees with me. If he disagrees, I am willing to give way to him.
In all these situations in which a man has to cease work because of physical disablement so serious as to be total disablement, he is, in terms of insurance, an impaired life. In other words, in most cases he is not likely to live the expected span of life that the Government Actuary has calculated in deciding the rate of pension which should be paid.
Leaving aside the question of morality, when we consider the equity of these provisions we surely should be as generous and as progressive in our attitude to them in Parliament as the progressive, enlightened or efficient insurance company might be in writing a policy of insurance. Any insurance man who knows his business will agree with me. There is one on the back bench opposite, the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), who is smiling. I know that he agrees with me.
§ Mr. Frederick Gough (Horsham) indicated dissent.
§ Mr. Price
I am willing to give way to the hon. Member if he disagrees, because he knows a lot about this. Every insurance company would willingly write a more generous policy of insurance with a man who has an impaired life in terms of pension benefit that if he were a normal labourer who would live 13.5 years after reaching the age of 65.
I have put the case as impartially as I can. We have put forward a Clause which will have to be considered in principle either on this Bill or on subsequent Bills. Parliament cannot simply ride off and leave these people, who fall on evil times due to early breakdown in health, with no kind of benefit. In the preparation of the hon. Lady's brief, somebody has obviously overlooked that when as a Minister of her Department she pays, for example, industrial injury benefits, after the first six months a man may have a certificate from the medical board that he is 80 or even 100 per cent. disabled.
That does not take away from him the sickness benefit which is payable to him under the National Insurance Act. In other words, a disabled workman who has 655 sustained an injured or impaired condition as the result of an industrial accident can, at the same time, receive the full sickness benefit plus the full industrial injury benefit if the certificate of the medical board so determines.
I do not think that there is any distinction in principle to justify that a man who has sustained his injured condition because of something that happened in industry should be treated differently from a man who falls by the wayside from natural causes. There is a contradiction in terms in the Government's argument in that respect. I seriously hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, now that you have returned to the Chair, that we can have a more favourable reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if not from the Minister himself who is sitting there and so much enjoying the debate.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Sir S. Summers
In spite of the fact that you have returned to the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to say a word in support of the Minister in rejecting the proposed Clause.
It is unsound to call in aid of the argument of the mover and supporters of the proposed Clause anything that happens in the industrial injuries field or in a comparable field, because that is a social service which is financed largely by the taxpayer. The degree of generosity can be high or low at will, according to whatever Parliament may decide. We should be making a mistake if we introduced into this attempt to improve retirement pensions by paying graduated benefits in return for graduated contributions any element of assistance to hard luck cases as a sort of improvement to the scheme, which is designed to be a co-operative effort to improve retirement pensions. We should be much wiser to confine it to that.
The suggestion was made a little earlier that this proposal does not affect the Exchequer. It is asking that the cost, such as it is, of those who are to be paid when they break down a pension for very many more years than they would have been paid had they worked on till 65, shall come from the other contributors. I do not think that it is possible to argue that because in all the benefits of the graduated pension scheme there is 656 an element provided by the taxpayer, if, instead of getting his benefit at 65 the contributor gets it at 55, or 35, the share that the taxpayer provides for the Exchequer will not inevitably be much greater in such a case than it otherwise would be.
§ Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North) rose——
§ Mr. J. T. Price
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that there is no competition between us about who is to intervene.
This is a serious point, and I think that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) is trying to reply to my argument. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that when we are dealing with a man who may break down in health at 45 or 50 years of age, or some other early age, it does not automatically follow by any means that he will receive pension for much longer than if he had gone on to the normal age, because his will be an impaired life. Suppose he has a heart ailment; he will not have the expectation of life that he otherwise would have.
§ Sir S. Summers
That may or may not be true. The fact remains that if he becomes entitled to a pension for many more years than he would have been entitled had he remained sound the chances are that there will be an additional cost to the Fund. Some part of the cost will come out of the Exchequer. I do not want to make much of that point but merely to put right the suggestion that was made a little earlier, that only contributors would find the cost of this extra benefit of paying pensions in certain cases rather sooner.
My main reason for supporting the Government in their rejection of the proposed Clause is that we should be unwise to introduce a social element into the scheme. It will be far wiser, at any rate at this stage, to confine it to paying that benefit at the rate for which the contribution has been calculated.
§ Mr. Reynolds
We were given only one main reason by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary why the Clause should be rejected, and that was that the provision it contains is not the sort of provision that is included in any private 657 scheme at present. A little later the hon. Lady said that it would probably necessitate another look at the level of contributions.
The admission was thus made that this provision is in almost all the public service schemes. Of course, there is a provision in the Bill itself, at the top of page 11, for this sort of breakdown pension being paid to someone in a private scheme. Hon. Members have probably noticed that when someone finishes a term of employment in an approved scheme a sum of money has to be paid into the new scheme set up under the Bill, unless at the end the person is assured of an equivalent pension. If someone is getting a breakdown pension from a public service scheme, I assume that he would be assured of an equivalent pension and that therefore no transfer would have to be made to the new State fund if he prematurely retired from employment.
It seems to be recognised that some people are to get breakdown pensions. We were told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the thing is operating in the public service, so I cannot see any reason why it is impossible to have a similar provision in the new State wage-regulated scheme. The hon. Lady must realise that there is this provision in the vast majority of private schemes which have grown up during the last few years, as against those that have been in operation for a considerable number of years.
I will go further and say that almost all new schemes in private industry now include a breakdown provision of this nature. All that the hon. Lady was saying is that because a large number of these private schemes were drawn up twenty years or thirty years ago, when a breakdown provision such as we are now proposing was not the common practice, in introducing the State scheme we should be guided by the practice of twenty or thirty years ago. The hon. Lady will find that almost all private schemes drawn up at the present time contain provision for breakdown. Why should we not accept current practice and not what happened twenty or thirty years ago and write a breakdown provision into the Bill?
§ Mr. S. Storey (Stretford)
While it is right that new private schemes do pro- 658 vide a breakdown provision, is it not a fact that it increases the cost? Are hon. Members opposite willing to accept an increase in the contribution?
§ Mr. Reynolds
I was coming on to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's second argument that it might be necessary to have another look at the contributions if a breakdown provision were brought into operation. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) is like the majority of hon. Members who do not realise the implications of the Bill, which we have now been discussing for twenty-five sittings. The hon. Member is apparently unaware that the contributions that are to be paid in the wage-regulated section of the scheme are greatly in excess of what is required to cover the cost of benefits.
§ Mr. Storey
If the hon. Gentleman will read my Second Reading speech he will see that I made that very point.
§ Mr. Reynolds
In that case, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks there is justification for increasing contributions still further in order to get a "couple of bob" a week breakdown pension, after five or six years of this scheme. The hon. Gentleman admits what we have been trying to prove to the Minister upstairs—the Minister will not admit it—that the contributions are greatly in excess of what is required.
The hon. Lady said that if this sort of provision were accepted it would be necessary to have another look at the contributions. May I remind her that the contributions for a man earning £15 a week are to go up from 9s. 11d. to 13s. 5d. per week?
Then we are told that we shall need to have another look at them to give the sort of derisory extra benefit to which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred a few moments ago. With all due respect to my hon. Friend's calculations, I think that he overestimated the benefits by about 15 to 20 per cent.
We are providing in the Bill also for National Insurance contributions by a woman earning £15 a week or more to rise from 8s. a week to 12s. 3d. a week. Yet we are told that a Clause providing for an additional benefit which will cost 659 a mere fraction should not be accepted because it would mean increasing the contribution to an even greater height. I cannot understand that. No real arguments against the new Clause being inserted have been advanced.
I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell said about benefits. My first example is a man who enters the scheme when it starts in eighteen months' time, as it is proposed, at the age of 45. Let us assume that he works for a further ten years, earning £15 a week, and then at the age of 55 is suddenly found to be incapable of continuing further in employment. He would presumably receive the £2 10s. a week sick pay. The new Clause would make it possible for him to draw only a further 8s. a week to add on to the £2 10s. a week sick pay.
My second example is a woman earning £12 a week who when the scheme starts is 45. Let us assume that she works until she is 55 and is then unable to continue in employment due to some kind of incapacity. She has been earning £12 a week for ten years. The new Clause would make it possible for her to receive a further 3s. a week in addition to the 50s. a week sick pay to which she would be entitled.
The fact that these amounts are so small is not the fault of the new Clause. It is the fault of the Bill, because they are the type of niggardly benefit provided by the Bill which the Government have the audacity to call "wage-related benefit". It bears no relation to either wages or contributions. The new Clause cannot be blamed for the sort of benefit which would be payable under the Bill as a whole. Although it would be a slight improvement on the Bill as at present drafted, it would not go nearly far enough.
I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter before the Bill completes its process through the House.
§ Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)
I want to lend my very strong support to the acceptance of the new Clause. Anyone reading the Bill will soon discover that there is no provision in it for what we call a breakdown pension. By introducing the new Clause we seek to protect those who are overtaken by misfortune in industry.
660 The difference between the two sides of the House is that hon. Members opposite have very little knowledge, if any—I am not blaming them—of prevailing industrial conditions and the number of people who suffer accident or misfortune in industry.
We all know that those who will come within the scheme when it becomes operative will have to earn £9 to £15 a week. In the mining industry those men who will be within the scheme earning £9 to £15 a week are the men working in the most dangerous sectors, namely, at the coal face. The highest incidence of serious accidents is at or near the coal face. Although I am happy to say that there has been a considerable reduction in serious accidents over a period of years, many men will be compelled to pay into this scheme who, if they sustain an accident, will not have the advantage of the Bill as it stands. But they would have the advantage of the superannuation scheme if the new Clause was accepted. The new Clause would afford some protection to those men who are maimed and rendered permanently incapacitated.
It is important that the House should examine the ages, because age is a determining factor. We have to employ in the pits today, in the most dangerous sectors, men between the ages of 25 and 45. Let us assume that a man enters straightaway when the scheme becomes operative, that he pays from the ages of 25 to 35 and that he is suddenly overtaken by a very serious accident which necessitates his absence from work and renders him totally incapacitated for any work. He will be debarred from receiving the benefit for which he has paid. If the new Clause were accepted, he would be afforded some protection.
It cannot be within the knowledge of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but a tremendous number of men are permanently maimed at the age of 35. It is because of their very dangerous work. It may be of interest to the House if I speak about a letter I received today, bearing on this very subject. It concerns a man who was injured in 1936. After all these years, he is still permanently incapacitated. I am not saying that this man would benefit by the Clause. What T am saying is that it is important that 661 Parliament should try to protect men earning between £9 and £15 a week, and who will be participators in this scheme. from suffering great financial misfortune.
Therefore, I strongly support the new Clause. I hope that the Government will note that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are anxious, as we have been all along, to give more protection than the Government are. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) mentioned our 25 meetings in Committee. My hon. Friends and are trying in every conceivable way to give further protection than the Government are prepared to do. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to give further consideration to this very important point.
The hon. Lady mentioned that in some private schemes provision is made for what we call breakdown pensions. I have had something to do with pensions in the mining industry. We have focused our minds on trying to protect those men, not on account of age, but on account of misfortune. I have always maintained that the Government of the day should go one better than operators of private schemes are prepared to do for their members or their insured contributors. They should do so because the Government are trying to apply by a far-reaching method the social schemes to which the people of the country are entitled.
I conclude by asking the Government to have another look at this matter. They should not throw it overboard by thinking up minor reasons against it. The new Clause is not put down for fun, but with a profound desire to protect those overtaken by misfortune in industry and other walks of life. Surely we can go one better than private schemes and afford these people protection, not only in old age, but when overtaken by industrial misfortune.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
This new Clause suggests that we should now put into the Bill provision for a graduated breakdown pension. If the House decides, as I hope it will, not to do this, it certainly does not conclude the matter for ever, even with this scheme. I thought that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in a most impressive speech, made it clear, in the first place, how undesirable it is at this stage, when we 662 are proceeding for the first time in this country to the introduction of a graduated system of pensions, to add to that system provision on a graduated basis for a new benefit.
I really must advise the House that, in our judgment at any rate, the wise thing to do is to go ahead with the provision as proposed in the Bill—and in that respect, at least, we are in the company of hon. Members opposite in their own proposals—and confine the graduated benefits to pensions. As my hon. Friend said, that does not exclude the possibility, later, of our proceeding to deal with this benefit—perhaps in this way. I would not go beyond saying that, because I am very doubtful, if at any time it is thought desirable to make an improvement in breakdown pensions, whether incorporation in the graduated scheme would be the best method.
The point was made earlier in the debate that perhaps the most tragic of these cases are those of quite young men suffering a breakdown. Of course, in the very nature of things. a man who has a breakdown earlier in life must, even when the scheme is in full operation, earn much less benefit—because he has had less opportunity to earn—than a man whose breakdown occurs later in life. It may, therefore, well prove doubtful—I do not put it higher—if we wanted, in another Bill and in another context, to deal with the question of breakdown pensions—which has very considerable appeal, as speeches from both sides of the House have made clear—whether incorporation in this system is the right way to do it.
In any event—and here I should like to take up what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds)—little, if anything, is lost if the House is prepared to respond to my appeal to leave the Bill, in its initial impact, as a Bill to provide graduated pensions. No provision is made in this Measure for back-service liabilities. People will draw in future, as the years pass, what they have contributed towards without, as in the flat-rate system, making some provision for back-service liability.
If the House is prepared to leave the matter over until the scheme is in operation, all that would be involved, in any event, in the first year or two of the 663 scheme, would be very small amounts, which would be all that anyone could have earned at that date. That, I think, reinforces the plea that we should consider the matter, perhaps, at another time, and decide, possibly, the context and scope of a Bill to devise graduated breakdown pensions.
We should not be wise, I believe, to add these complications to the present Bill. I take the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) about the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but settling what is, in form, an action between employer and employee is a very different matter from deciding on the administration of a social benefit.
These are complicated matters. I do not place excessive weight on the point about what the private schemes do, but I must point out that my hon. Friend referred to that practice only in reply to the argument that it was a universal practice of the private schemes. That, for better or worse, is not the case. The main weight of my argument is that the House will lose little and gain much by letting this not uncomplicated Measure go forward without further complications. Let us take the first step of getting contributions and pension benefits into operation. Then, when it is working, and when we can see how it is working, by all manner of means let us look at the possibility—and it is no more—of an extension, possibly, to other benefits.
For those reasons, I hope that the House, having discussed the new Clause with sympathy and understanding—and, as I have said, no hon. Member on either side of the House doubts the personal tragedy of some of these cases—will decide that we should confine ourselves in the Bill to the very heavy task that we are proposing to impose on our administration, and leave this other matter for another occasion.
§ of the introduction of legislation in the near future to provide breakdown benefit in better form than can be entirely provided by this Bill I might have been willing to advise my hon. Friends to withdraw the new Clause. But there is no promise. The Minister said that it is no more than a possibility, and, as we very well know, he is not in a position to make it anything more than a possibility. We are coming very rapidly to the end of this Parliament, and he will not be in a position to do anything about it.
§ We feel very strongly that there should have been some provision, even in this Measure, for a breakdown pension. We cannot accept for one moment the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it is not possible to make proper definitions of when a person is sufficiently incapacitated as a result of sickness or industrial injury to be unable to carry on with his work. These definitions already exist in relation to war pensions, to industrial injuries, unemployability supplement and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) reminded the House, in the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
§ When a man has contributed, however little—has bought bricks in the scheme—we think it wrong that he should be deprived of breakdown of that little amount, however small it may be, which he has, as a Conservative pamphlet points out, earned by his contributions. A refusal to give him what the Conservative Party itself claims he has earned by his own and his employer's contributions, when he suffers serious breakdown which permanently incapacitates him, is an ungenerous gesture, and we are bound to record our disagreement in the Division Lobby.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 220.667
|Division No. 116.]||AYES||[4.57 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Bonham Carter, Mark|
|Albu, A. H.||Benson, Sir George||Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Beswick, Frank||Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Bowles, F. G.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Blackburn, F.||Boyd, T. C.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Blenkinsop, A.||Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Blyton, W. R.||Brockway, A. F.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Boardman, H.||Brown, Thomas (Ince)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pursey, Comdr. H.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Randall, H. E.|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Rankin, John|
|Carmichael, J.||Hunter, A. E.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Reeves, J.|
|Champion, A. J.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Reid, William|
|Chapman, W. D.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Coldrick, W.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Cronin, J. D.||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Kenyon, C.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)||Lawson, G. M.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Deer, G.||Lever, Leslie, (Ardwick)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Diamond, John||Lewis, Arthur||Sparks, J. A.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lindgren, G. S.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Donnelly, D. L.||Lipton, Marcus||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Stonehouse, John|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||McCann, J.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||MacColl, J. E.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)|
|Finch, H. J, (Bedwellty)||McLeavy, Frank||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Fletcher, Eric||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mahon, Simon||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Thornton, E.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Tomney, F.|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Mayhew, C. P.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Mellish, R. J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Grey, C. F.||Mikardo, Ian||Wade, D. W.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mitchison, G. R.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Moody, A. S.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Grimond, J.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Hale, Leslie||Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Mort, D. L.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Moss, R.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Neal, Harold (Bolsever)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Hannan, W.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Willey, Frederick|
|Hastings, S.||Oswald, T.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Hayman, F. H.||Owen, W. J.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Parkin, B. T.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Paton, John||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Pearson, A.||Woof, R. E.|
|Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Peart, T. F.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Holman, P.||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Zilliacus, K.|
|Holmes, Horace||Popplewell, E.|
|Houghton, Douglas||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hoy, J. H.||Probert, A. R.||Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Bryan, P.||Farey-Jones, F. W.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Fell, A.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Burden, F. F. A.||Finlay, Graeme|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Butler,Rt. Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Fisher, Nigel|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Campbell, Sir David||Fletcher-Cooke, C.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Cary, Sir Robert||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Channon, H. P. G.||Freeth, Denzil|
|Ashton, H.||Chichester-Clark, R.||Gammans, Lady|
|Atkins, H. E.||Cole, Norman||George, J. C. (Pollok)|
|Balniel, Lord||Cooke, Robert||Glover, D.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Cooper, A. E.||Glyn, Col. Richard H.|
|Barter, John||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Godber, J. B.|
|Batsford, Brian||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Gough, C. F. H.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Corfield, F. V.||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)||Gurden, Harold|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Cunningham, Knox||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bingham, R. M.||Dance, J. C. G.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Deedes, W. F.||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||de Ferranti, Basil||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George|
|Brewis, John||Doughty, C. J. A.||Hay, John|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||du Cann, E. D. L.||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Errington, Sir Eric||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James|
|Hesketh, R. F.||McMaster, Stanley||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Russell, R. S.|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Sharples, R. C.|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Hope, Lord John||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Hornby, R. P.||Marlowe, A, A. H.||Speir, R. M.|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Marshall, Douglas||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Howard, John (Test)||Mathew, R,||Storey, S.|
|Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Mawby, R. L.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Hyde, Montgomery||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Teeling, W.|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Temple, John M.|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Nairn, D. L. S.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Neave, Airey||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Noble, Michael (Argyll)||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Nugent, Richard||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Oakshott, H. D.||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Kimball, M.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Kirk, P. M.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Page, R. G.||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek|
|Leavey, J. A.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Partridge, E.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Peyton, J. W. W.||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Webster, David|
|Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Lovays, Walter H.||Powell, J. Enoch||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|McAdden, S. J.||Profumo, J. D.||Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick|
|Macdonald, Sir Peter||Redmayne, M.||Woollam, John Victor|
|McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Renton, D. L. M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Rippon, A. G. F.||Colonel J. H. Harrison and|
|McLean, Nell (Inverness)||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)||Mr. Gibson-Watt.|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Robertson, Sir David|