§ Amendment moved [9th March], In page 3, line 12, col. 2, leave out "2s. 8½d." and insert "1s. 11d.".—[Mr. Houghton.]
§ 3.31 p.m.
§ Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)I was in the middle of a sentence on Thursday night when the Guillotine came crashing down at half-past eleven. For some minutes before that there had been so much commotion and ribaldry from the Government benches that I was having difficulty in making myself heard. It is very likely that in those circumstances the force and cogency of my arguments in support of the Amendment escaped the notice of many hon. Members opposite, and I should probably be justified in starting my speech all over again. However, the Guillotine is still hanging over us and we shall be feeling the tug of the gag throughout the rest of the day. Therefore, on this side of the Committee we have to arrange our time to the best advantage.
The Amendment, which is a simple one and is the first of nine which seek to reduce the increases proposed in the First Schedule, relates to employed men and proposes to reduce the increase in the National Health Service contribution to the lowest possible within the rules of order—an increase of ½d. from 1s. 10½d. to 1s. 11d., whereas the figure proposed by the Government is 2s. 8½d.
The arguments that I was using in support of the Amendment are the general arguments against increased contributions for all classes of contributor. We shall have an opportunity later in the day to debate the Motion, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill", and we shall 984 then have an opportunity of deploying further arguments against the increases as a whole. In those circumstances, and since hon. Members opposite will today probably be more Lobby fodder than participants in the debate——
§ Mr. Houghton—the best thing to do is to get them on the move now and keep them on the move.
Therefore, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to bring the debate on this Amendment to a very early conclusion. We can then move on to discuss a group of contributors about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) will have something to say.
I propose, therefore, to register the dissent of my right hon. and hon. Friends from the increase for employed men and to ask the Committee to consider against these increases all the arguments that have been used in earlier stages of the Bill against the Government's proposals in general.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)While we have all enjoyed the short speech which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has just made, I think that all of us on this side of the Committee enjoyed even more the speech, even though it was frequently interrupted, which he made last Thursday evening.
I think that we should like to condole with the hon. Gentleman, possibly, on the fact that his leadership of the party opposite has been such a short one. If hon. Members refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings last Thursday night they will see that when the hon. Member for Sowerby was speaking my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), with his accustomed moderation and courtesy, said, in an intervention to the benches opposite:
Where are your leaders? Where is little Hughie?The hon. Member for Sowerby replied:At the present moment, I am the leader on this side"—.[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March; 1961; Vol. 636, c. 838.]I would remind the hon. Gentleman, whom hon. Members on all sides hold in great esteem in this Committee, of the 985 closing chapter of a famous Victorian novel, "Vice Versa", when Dick and his father resume their accustomed places as father and son and one of Dick's scapegrace friends says to him, "Goodbye, old boy. Like the Serbian Crown, eh? Always a happy reminiscence."The hon. Member for Sowerby has reminded us this afternoon of the fact that the combined effect of this Amendment, with others in the name of the hon. Gentleman, would be to reduce the proposed new amounts of the Health Service contributions for everyone except employers to the existing amounts of the contributions plus ½d. for an employed person and a penny for a non-employed person. The hon. Member has rightly and fairly pointed out to the Committee that this would be a wrecking Amendment designed entirely to defeat the main purpose of the Bill. I will not say anything about the discussion in Ways and Means, but we had a very full discussion of the Bill on Second Reading. In effect, we had another fairly full discussion of
§ the principle of the Bill on one of the Amendments to Clause 1, and on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". If we make progress with our present Amendments we can have a further discussion, in effect, on the principle of the Bill on the Question, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill", and we have, of course, all Thursday of this week for the remaining stages of the Bill.
§ Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby, and would say that I am not sure that it would be wise for the Committee to have yet one more discussion of the general principle of the Bill on this Amendment. I support what the hon. Member for Sowerby said and suggest that the Committee might care to come to a decision on this Amendment straight away.
§ Question put, That "2s. 8½d." stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 142.
987| Division No. 92.] | AYES | [3.39p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.) | Dance, James | Jackson, John |
| Arbuthnot, John | Digby, Simon Wingfield | James, David |
| Balniel, Lord | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Jennings, J. C. |
| Barber, Anthony | Duthie, Sir William | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Eden, John | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Barter, John | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Joseph, Sir Keith |
| Batsford, Brian | Emery, Peter | Kerans, Cdr. J. 8. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Kerby, Capt. Henry |
| Bell, Ronald | Farr, John | Kerr, Sir Hamilton |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Fell, Anthony | Kershaw, Anthony |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) | Finlay, Gnome | Kitson, Timothy |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) | Lagden, Godfrey |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Fraser, fan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Lancaster, Col. C. C. |
| Bidgood, John C. | Freeth, Denzil | Langford-Holt, J. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Gammans, Lady | Leavey, J. A. |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Leburn, Gilmour |
| Bossom, Clive | Goodhew, Victor | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Green, Alan | Lindsay, Martin |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Grimston, Sir Robert | Linstead, Sir Hugh |
| Brains, Bernard | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Litchfield, Capt. John |
| Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter | Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Longbottom, Charles |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Longden, Gilbert |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Loveys, Walter H. |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd) | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn |
| Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) | Harvey Anderson, Miss | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | Hastings, Stephen | McLaren, Martin |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Hicks Beach, Ma). W. | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hiley, Joseph | Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.) |
| Chanson, H. P. G. | Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | McLean, Neil (Inverness) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hill, J. E. B. O. Norfolk) | MacLeod, John (Roes & Cromarty) |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim N.) | Holland, Philip | McMaster, Stanley R. |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Hollingworth, John | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Niell | Hornby, R. P. | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Cordeaux. Lt.-Col. J. K. | Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia | Madden, Martin |
| Cordle, John | Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Maginnis, John E. |
| Corfield, F. V. | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Maitland, Sir John |
| Costain, A. P. | Hughes-Young, Michael | Marshall, Douglas |
| Coulson, J. M. | Hulbert, Sir Norman | Marten, Neil |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | Hurd, Sir Anthony | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) |
| Cunningham, Knox | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Mawby, Ray | Prior, J. M. L. | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Mills, Stratton | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter |
| Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr) | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Rees, Hugh | Turner, Colin |
| Morgan, William | Renton, David | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Morrison, John | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Nabarro, Gerald | Robertson, Sir David | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Roots, William | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John |
| Noble, Michael | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) | Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis |
| Nugent, Sir Richard | Russell, Ronald | Wall, Patrick |
| Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Sharpies, Richard | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Shaw, M. | Watts, James |
| Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | Skeet, T. H. H. | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Osborn, John (Hallam) | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) | Whitelaw, William |
| Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood) | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | Speir, Rupert | Wills, sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Stevens, Geoffrey | Wise, A. R. |
| Peel, John | Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm | Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick |
| Percival, Ian | Storey, Sir Samuel | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Studholme, Sir Henry | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Pitman, I. J. | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) | Worsler, Marcus |
| Pitt, Miss Edith | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) | |
| Pott, Percivall | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Temple, John M. | Mr. Edward Wakefield and |
| Price, David (Eastleigh) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret | Mr. Gibson-Watt. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Hannan, William | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Albu, Austen | Hart, Mrs. Judith | Peart, Frederick |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Hayman, F. H. | Pentland, Norman |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Healey, Denis | Popplewell, Emest |
| Beaney, Alan | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis) | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Benson, Sir George | Herbison, Miss Margaret | Probert, Arhur |
| Blackburn, F. | Holman, Percy | Randall, Harry |
| Blyton, William | Houghton, Douglas | Rankin, John |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) | Hoy, dames H. | Reid, William |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Hughes, Emrya (S. Ayrshire) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowles, Frank | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Janner, Sir Barnett | Ross, William |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Short, Edward |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Kelley, Richard | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N-) |
| Chapman, Donald | Kenyon, Clifford | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Cliffe, Michael | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Collick, Percy | King, Dr. Horace | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Lawson, George | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Cronin, John | Ledger, Ron | Stones, William |
| Crosland, Anthony | Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) | Lipton, Marcus | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Logan, David | Swain, Thomas |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Loughlin, Charles | Swingler, Stephen |
| Davies, Ifor (Cower) | MacColl, James | Sylvester, George |
| Deer, George | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Delargy. Hugh | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Timmons, John |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Manuel, A. C. | Tommy, Frank |
| Edelman, Maurice | Marsh, Richard | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Edwards, Robert (Bliston) | Mason, Roy | Warbey, William |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Mellish, R. J. | Watkins, Tudor |
| Finch, Harold | Millan, Bruce | Weitzman, David |
| Fitch, Alan | Mitchison, G. R. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Monslow, Walter | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Morris, John | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Forman, J. C. | Moyle, Arthur | Williams, D. J. (heath) |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Mulley, Frederick | Williams, LI (Abertillery) |
| Ginsburg, David | Neal, Harold | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Oswald, Thomas | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Grey, Charles | Owen, Will | Woof, Robert |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Paget, R. T. | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Grlmond, J. | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Caine Valley) | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Irving and Mr. Redhead. |
§ Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, column 1, after "including", to insert "widows and"
§ The ChairmanIt may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for 989 Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the names of other hon. Members, in page 3, line 27, at the end to add:
| s. | d. | |
| 11. Employed widows between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment | 1 | 5 |
§ Dr. KingThat would be convenient, Sir Gordon. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for inviting me to move this Amendment. In view of what the Financial Secretary has just said, I say to him that we on this side of the Committee are very proud of the leadership which my hon. Friends are giving us from the Front Bench in this battle against the Government's bad Bill. While my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby may have been only temporary leader of the Opposition on Thursday night, for about 14 minutes, it is certainly true that he has been our leader for a number of years now on questions of social insurance, and we are proud of the able leadership he shows in all our debates on them.
§ Mr. NabarroMuch better than little Hughie.
§ Dr. KingI do not propose to take any notice of the interruptions made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has tremendous ability, but who defeats his own cause and does Parliament no good by some of the interruptions that he indulges in in serious debates.
The part of the Schedule which we are discussing excludes from the payment of weekly contributions women over the age of 60 who have ceased to be employed. Our Amendment would similarly exclude all widows who work from such payment, and for the first time it would give a benefit in British law, even if small, to all widows. As I hope to show, all other insurance benefits which are given are given to different groups of widows of varying ages. The second Amendment is much narrower and would cut down from 2s. 0½d. to 1s. 5d. the contribution made by all working widows. The aim is, first, to give at least a modicum of benefit to all working widows and, secondly, if the second Amendment is accepted, to give a benefit of 7½d. to working widows.
990 I do not wish to repeat the general arguments which we have continually advanced throughout the debates, except to say that they apply to widows especially, because most widows are poor. Throughout the Committee stage, we have been seeking to isolate groups to whom the new poll tax means special hardship. Our general case against the poll tax, as everybody knows, is that it is paid equally by rich and poor. The two Amendments seek to pinpoint a group which, with very few exceptions, consists of poor women—the widows of Britain. I count it an honour to move the Amendment, because from time to time I have tried to call attention to the needs of the British widow.
Let us look, first, at the general picture of widowhood, which is a complex picture. First, there are the widows of men who died before July, 1948. They are divided into two groups. First, there are those whose husbands were insured under the old contributory pensions legislation and who might get a flat-rate contribution of 10s. a week. They are the so-called 10s. widows—10s. which, despite our efforts, has never been changed throughout all these last years of the so-called affluent society. On the other hand, if the husband died before July, 1948, and was not paying under the old contributory pensions schemes, we have the second group who get no widow's pension at all, the so-called no-shilling widow.
Those are the first two groups and those groups are ageing. They must work to live, unless they go to the National Assistance Board, and if they are working, already most of the 10s. that they get—if they are lucky enough to get even 10s. a week goes in their National Insurance and National Health Service contributions. We seek to exempt those getting 10s., or no shillings, from the new charges, and if the Amendments were carried those widows would benefit by 2s. 0½d. a week.
Then there is the second great group of widows, those who were bereaved after July, 1948. They fall into three groups. First, if the husband paid a minimum contribution of less than 150 stamps, that is, if the widow had been married only a short time, that group is entirely excluded from State benefit. Up to a point, the whole Committee will 991 accept that, for we could not contemplate keeping the young widow indefinitely. There is no difference between us about that, although I hope to show that the case I am making can be applied to those young widows, too.
Then there are widows under the age of 50. They get widow's allowance of £4 a week for the first thirteen weeks, to tide them over the economic and spiritual crisis of bereavement. If they are under 50 when their husband dies, after that thirteen weeks they get nothing, unless they have children. Such a widow, like the young widow, after thirteen weeks would have to go out to work in order to live.
Then there is the group over 50 when they are bereaved. They get £4 a week for thirteen weeks and after that continue to get £4 a week. But I hope that no hon. Member will say that in a society in which, we are told by the Government, the average worker's income is £14 a week, £4 a week is a sum on which the widow can keep herself. Even those widows over the age of 50 will have to supplement their pension by some kind of work if they are to live at all decently.
The third great group of widows consists of those with children. The widow with one child get £4 a week plus 25s. for the child. Widows with more than one child get 17s. for each extra child. To gather those groups together—we have a group getting no shillings a week from the State; a group getting 10s. a week; a group getting £4 a week; the widowed mother with one child getting£5 5s.; and the widowed mother with two children, £6 2s.; and so on.
I am the first to admit that during his long period in office the Minister of Pensions has steadily stepped up improvements for the groups I have mentioned. He has raised the widow's allowance and especially the allowance for widowed mothers and their children. But even under this Minister, the 10s. group and the no-shilling group have had nothing.
In these great groups there are widows of various kinds. Most of them go out to work. They have to go out to work. They are allowed to earn another 71s. a week before they start whittling away their pensions. That means very little 992 to the no-shilling and 10s. widows, but it may mean something to the widow getting £4 a week and who then earns another 71s. a week.
In 1951, there were 2½ million widows. That is a frightening figure. Many of those widows lost their husbands in the defence of Britain in either world war. Of that 2½ million, more than 1 million are over 70, so we can ignore them from the point of view of the debate. There are 400,000 who are over 65, and we can ignore them, because they are not caught by the Government's poll tax. About 350,000 of them are over 60, many of them having to work. We have about ¾million widows who can gain any benefit from what we propose in our Amendment, if they go out to work and pay insurance contributions. In that ¾million there will be some of each of the categories which I have mentioned, and of course some who do not work and will not benefit from this Amendment.
The 10s. and no-shilling widow group must be a rapidly diminishing one. In the nature of things, their husbands having died before July, 1948, they are rapidly approaching the age of 60, and on to 65. If they go over 65, even this Minister does not want a poll tax from them.
4.0 p.m.
I also ask the Committee to note that as long as the widowed mother has children to look after she gets children's allowances and widow's allowance, but that that all goes when the children grow up, except for the widow's allowance; and sometimes they may even lose their widow's allowance if they were under 50 when they lost their husbands.
I have often spoken in the House on the depth of the tragedy of widows; the sudden descent from comfort to poverty with the death of the bread-winner; and the limited kinds of work available to widows, especially older widows, and those without any previous experience of outside work except the noble work of bringing up a family.
Motherhood is a full-time job. My daughter, who is bringing up two children, does a hard day's work at home, and she could not possibly go out to work. I cannot imagine how the widowed mother manages to cope with her task when she has to go out to work 993 to supplement the allowance for doing what she ought to be doing, and what the State ought to encourage her to do, the full-time job of looking after her children. Thousands of widowed mothers with young families have to go out to gain some money to supplement the allowance we give them.
It is extremely hard for a widow to have to go out to work late in life. Having given her energies to bringing up a family, it is extremely hard for her to go out to seek work at the age of 50 or 55, with the alternative of living on £4 a week. Moreover, most of the part-time jobs which women can get are drudgery jobs, and most of the full-time ones are those which nobody will take on unless economic circumstances compel them to do so. They are badly paid, with long hours for the money earned. I believe that we need a widows' trade union—just as we need a married women's trade union—to protect widows, and especially ageing widows, from being exploited by employers in their desperate need for money.
In the debates in this House I have always pressed the tragedy of widowhood per se, and the fact that we ought in some financial way to recognise widows' needs. The Amendment provides a chance to do a little good. It must be galling to the widow who receives 10s. a week from the State to have to pay most of it back—8s. to 9s.—to qualify for the other National Insurance benefits. Next month she will have to pay a stepped-up National Insurance charge, and if the Amendment is not accepted she will have to pay 2s. 0½d. for National Health benefits. By the Amendment we seek to relieve her of a bit of her National Insurance burden.
Moreover, most of the widows who go out to work, or to part-time work, even with the best possible grants which they can get from the State, and with the best possible jobs, fall into the group whose incomes are so meagre that every increase in the flat-rate contributions means a real hardship. The 2s. 0½d. which we are seeking to reduce may not seem very much to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is a very real sum indeed to most of the widows whom I know, who are living on depressed income.
994 The main Government case for the general increase in poll tax is that average wages are now up to £14 a week. That is a fallacious argument. If it is true that wages are up to that extent, the Government could easily get from those who have had the wage increases, the profit increases and the dividend increases the extra bit which they need by stiffened-up graduated taxation. That would ease the burden on those who get less than the average wage. Even if it is true that the average wage is £14 a week, it is not true that the average wage of widows is anything like that figure. Nobody can argue that as the nation's prosperity has increased, and as we have moved away from the war, widows have adequately shared in that increased prosperity.
I know that the Treasury is opposed to creating new categories; of hiving-off any new category for taxation exemption. It does not like such grouping, and it says, very often rightly, that it is hard to define a group. It is even possible that the Financial Secretary will argue that, although I have stated what is generally true of widows, there are a handful of rich widows who would benefit, and that it would grieve him very much not to collect their contributions. But even if it is true that there is a handful of rich widows in the category we seek to exempt, it is much more true that in the flat-rate contribution which the Treasury is imposing on all the British people there are millions of people who, because of their poverty, ought not to pay the extra sum.
Here is a clearly defined group in which almost every member is in the low income group. The widows, and especially the widowed mothers, are doing a noble job under grave handicaps. There can be no hon. Member on either side of the Committee who does not know from personal experience the noble work done by widows. They are an inspiration to the whole country. I therefore ask the Government to ease them at any rate of this burden. I pay tribute to what has been done by the Government in other respects, but I do not think that they have done enough. They could accept the Amendment and bring a little benefit to the widows.
Apart from the first tragic thirteen weeks of widowhood, recognition has 995 never been given to the simple fact that the widow loses the best half of her life; that on top of great sorrow she faces great deprivations; and that for the rest of her life she faces a bitter struggle, doomed in all cases never to achieve the standard of living she enjoyed when she was happily married.
One of the finest things about the Retired Police Officers' Association has been the way in which, during the last few years, it has fought on behalf of the dead comrades of policemen. It has gained some remarkable successes. In a letter to the Minister of Health, on 8th February, the Association protested bitterly against all new charges, including this one, and said:
It is not justice further to depress widows and pensioners who are compelled to conform to the principles of taxation both direct and indirect out of their miserably low means.Unfortunately, there is as yet no organised national body to voice the claims of widows. Apart from the efforts which people like the police officers make, there is as yet no spokesman and no organisation which can speak for and press their rightful demands. That is why I am happy to be able to do it in this debate.I urge the Government to accept this Amendment and make the concession which we seek, because it is worth while. Last week, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) said that he thought that we had reached the limit of poll tax. I suggest that the limit was reached for widows a long time ago. If the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment, in the years ahead when we open the new hospitals which have been promised by the Minister of Health, invitations to the opening of one of them should be sent to the no-shilling widows, the 10s.-widows and the £4-a-week widows, because, by their enforced contributions, the widows of Britain will have paid for one of those hospitals.
Were this Amendment accepted, it would not solve the economic problem of the widows, any more than the Amendment moved last week on behalf of those earning £9 a week and under would have solved their economic problems. But it would help. Much greater assistance is needed than we can give merely by cutting down the cost of 996 their insurance stamps. But this Amendment would help, and the help which it would give would be the greatest for those whose incomes are the smallest. That is not only good Socialism; it is good human justice, and ought to appeal even to the occupants of the Treasury Bench.
§ Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), the group of people whom we are trying to help are unorganised. Much of the assistance which has been given to the old-age pensioners would never have been accorded had they not organised themselves, and it would appear that this group of people should organise themselves and make their voices heard.
My hon. Friend referred to widowed mothers. No one in his right senses would say that a widowed mother with, for example, two children to look after, who is in receipt of £5 a week, could possibly be doing her duty to herself and to her children and keeping up an adequate standard of living. Every woman whose husband dies finds that her standard of living is reduced, but most of them have to carry on facing the same responsibilities which they previously shared with their husbands.
Some have to take over the buying of the house and others must face the task of continuing to pay the rent. All must buy the necessities for the household and often this has to be done with a standard of living which brings them below the poverty line. A widow with children has the added responsibility of ensuring that her children are able to take advantage of any further education facilities for which they have the ability.
4.15 p.m.
These widows are compelled to go out to work—they have no alternative—if they wish to keep their home going. Even with the increased assistance, it is not very long before a widow who goes out to work finds her pension is taken away because the earnings allowance is so small. We must remember that the no-shilling widow or the 10s. widow already face a great disadvantage. Every hon. Member of this Committee has received complaints from widows, and 997 particularly from the 10s. widows, for whom representations are repeatedly made to us. The only answer we can give is, "There is not much which can be done for you".
Today, we are trying to help this large group of people. We are asking that something shall be done for them at a time when more and more women are being asked to go out to work. The Government are inviting former members of the teaching and nursing professions to come back to work; they are begging them to come back. The widowed mother who goes out to work has also to rush home to get a meal ready, do the shopping, keep the house tidy and see to the sewing, mending and darning in the same way as every mother has. We may be told that there are many women who do this, but we must remember the great responsibility which a widow has to bear of being the only person responsible for the running of her home. She must face the fear, the worry and the sorrows of widowhood.
Last week, when we sought to reduce the contribution for another class of people, we were taunted and told that a reduction of 2s. 8½d. represented little more than the price of 10 cigarettes for that class of person. But in this case the 2s. 0½d. which we are discussing is very important to people in the low income group. It may make the difference between whether the Sunday joint is meat of the best quality, or whether the family has to make do with a few chops. It can make the difference between whether a widowed mother can afford to buy fruit for her children, or the salads which they should have; and 2s. 0½d. represents a considerable amount of bread or milk.
The acceptance of this Amendment would accord some measure of justice to this group of people. Not only have we an economic duty to them, but we also have a moral responsibility and I ask hon. Members opposite, in view of that moral responsibility, to ensure that the Amendment is accepted.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)Of all the Amendments which have been moved from this side of the Committee during the proceedings last Thursday and today, this probably is the one most worthy of sympathy from the Government. We have not had very much sym- 998 pathy up to the present, but we hope that at least this will appeal to them.
We have had Amendments about the aged, the young and those with under £9 a week. Now we come to a section of the community which probably finds it most difficult to get along. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is a section of people who not only find themselves on very small incomes, but who, in a vast majority of cases, have to make considerable adjustments in their standard of life because their husbands have died. That itself imposes a very great strain and considerable hardship on the women concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) was quite wrong in saying that the type of job available for the widowed mother is usually a low-paid job, such as that of a school cleaner. She has to do that kind of work in order that she may also look after her home while supplementing her income.
We have not been told what this Amendment would cost if it were accepted. I should doubt very much whether it would cost more than £2 million, judging by the figures which have been given by the Treasury Bench in respect of other categories. It might help if the Economic Secretary would give the figure now. It places the Committee at a disadvantage if we cannot be told now how much it would cost. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could nod to indicate whether £2 million is right or wrong. Surely when £49 million is being collected under these proposals, there would be room for the Treasury to manœuvre.
§ Mr. HoughtonMay I appeal to the Economic Secretary to assist the debate by giving us the answer which would help my hon. Friend and the rest of the Committee? He need not save the answer until the end of the debate. We should like to know now.
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber)If it will help the Committee, I shall certainly answer. On the basis of these two Amendments, which I think is narrower than the arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), the cost would be about £300,000 a year.
§ Mr. WillisNo wonder the hon. Gentleman was hiding the figure until 999 the end of the debate. It is almost unnecessary to debate this matter at any length.
Surely, for a matter of £300,000, the Government are prepared to do justice to one of the most deserving sections of the community. That sum could not hold up the great programme of hospital building which is held out before us. What would happen if the Government did not get this £300,000? I cannot see that anything would happen. The Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Force would drop £300,000 into their laps and think nothing of it. Millions of pounds are nothing to those people. This is a paltry £300,000 to do justice to a very deserving section of the community.
§ Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)One could get that amount in a football pool.
§ Mr. WillisSurely the Economic Secretary will not resist this Amendment on the ground that it cannot be afforded. The only other reason I can see for resisting it is the one which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, that the Treasury does not like to have special classes. I cannot see why we should not have special classes, for there are special classes of people. To refuse to recognise that is to refuse to recognise the society in which we live, the pattern of that society and the hardship suffered by certain groups in it. If a particular group has to suffer hardship as the result of what we do in This House, we should put it right whether the Treasury likes that or not.
Surely we are not to be told that this cannot be afforded out of a Budget of £300 million or £400 million, or that we cannot create special categories. A very good case has been made on the ground of hardship in respect of these widows. In the light of what has been said, I hope that the debate will be shortened by the hon. Gentleman springing to the Dispatch Box to tell us how much he welcomes the Amendment and that he is glad to assist the Opposition in doing their duty in trying to protect the weak.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)I do not see how the Government can resist the eloquent and very human appeal made by my hon. Friends the 1000 Members for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), and the unanswerable argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on statistical grounds.
On the humane argument, there is no doubt that, although this is regarded as a comparatively negligible sum by financial and statistical experts who are used to thinking in terms of millions of pounds, it comprises a definite hardship for very poor people. This concerns people we meet on buses and trains when we are coming to the House in the morning, such as cleaners, who do very useful drudgery work for our civilisation. I suggest that if the Government are to give any concession this is the occasion on which they should do so.
I remember that many years ago, before public assistance committees were heard of, I served on a Scottish parish council. There we considered the means of very poor women who, when their husbands were killed in the mines, were called upon to do cleaning work in the local school. Often there was great difficulty because there was competition for these jobs. To clean a school or an office was very badly paid work. I do not know the actual income of these people, but I do know that they have every right to object to the new imposition made by this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North was right in stressing the grievance of the 10s. widow.
I was surprised that the Economic Secretary had to be enticed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), or almost conscripted, to rise to explain what the Amendment would mean. He had to be drafted to rise to his feet to say what it would cost. He knew that £300,000 is such a paltry sum that there must be a feeling of shame in resisting the Amendment. The £300,000 is about the same as that which goes to the Privy Purse in the Civil List. Taking other items into consideration, this Amendment is one which my hon. Friends are justified in bringing before the Committee. It should be accepted by the Government.
4.30 p.m.
Comparisons cannot be avoided. Why is this amount of £300,000 in extra contributions being asked for? It is to pay 1001 the other bills of the Government, to pay part of the £1,600 million which we shall have to consider tomorrow. So the widow's mite is being taken in this way. I hope that the Government will be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I hope that the next time the Minister rises to the Dispatch Box it will be to announce that he has decided to exercise common sense and humanity and to satisfy what I believe to be the overwhelming opinion of people in the country on this issue.
§ Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)I want to support the Amendment. I was interested in the argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) about the comparison that is always made about this extra contribution costing two cigarettes or a packet of 10 cigarettes. This argument has gone on for many years, but everybody appears to forget that the price of cigarettes has gone up substantially. That is especially hard if one's income is very small; and we are dealing here with a section of the community whose income is very small.
A school cleaner, which case has been used as an illustration, has a particularly difficult time. Only last week I put a case before the Minister in which a widow was working as a school cleaner and had to go off duty ill. As a result of that, she will get a little extra insurance benefit, but the Ministry deducts the 10s. pension she is receiving as a widow. That seems to me to be rather mean and contemptible, but it is upon that section of the community that the Government propose to make this added imposition.
Surely, when one considers the tremendous sums of money which are dealt with by the House of Commons, it is difficult to understand why the Government are resisting this Amendment, because it is quite obvious that the Government will resist it. The Economic Secretary has already disclosed that this concession would cost only £300,000 per annum, and, realising that that was all that was involved, if the Government had any intention of accepting the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman would have done so with alacrity. What will he argue when he replies?
It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, 1002 Itchen (Dr. King) that it is very difficult to divide sections of the community into categories. In other words, it is difficult to single out this particular type of contributor from all the others. I would point out to the Minister that we do this very thing every day, either in connection with the incomes of people or the insurance contributions which they pay, because we have a graded contribution for different sections. All that we are asking here is that the Minister should go a step further to deal with what is perhaps the most deserving class of contributor whom we shall he considering during the proceedings on the Bill
I appeal to the Economic Secretary to help this very small section of the community, which is perhaps the most hard hit section. I hope that he will allow a little humanity to enter into the discussion, that he will now rise and say that the case put is so overwhelming that he is willing to recommend that the Government should accept the Amendment, and thus exclude this category, who are already in very great difficulty because of the burdens which the Government have imposed upon them.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)I am surprised that the Economic Secretary did not rise a long time ago and say that he accepted this Amendment, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, if there is any Amendment which they should accept, this is it. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) put a most comprehensive and most convincing case, and I was indeed sorry that we did not get an immediate response from the Government.
Let us look at this case. The only widows who are penalised by being asked to pay the additional sum of 8d. per week in respect of this contribution are those who are contributors under the National Insurance Acts. That does not mean all widows. It is not to the advantage of all widows to pay full insurance, because there is nothing to gain from it. If they get a pension already or a widowed mother's allowance, which will become a pension, they have nothing to gain by insuring against unemployment benefit. If they were unemployed, they would not get anything because they get a widow's pension, and it is the same 1003 with sickness benefit and retirement pension. These are the widows whom we seek to help.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to acquaint themselves with the people who are being affected by their legislation. I have a feeling that one of the reasons why we get the Guillotine on a Measure like this is because it shortens the discussion, and, therefore, the process of educating, not only back benchers but sometimes Ministers as well, on what their Bills actually mean and on the people who will be affected by them, is thereby equally shortened. Sometimes, I think that that is the real reason for the Guillotine.
The position is that, although there are about 500,000 widows in any one year receiving widows' benefits of one kind and another, when we start to analyse the figures we find that, of that ½million, there are about 100,000 who receive only 10s.—that is all. There is a considerable number who do not receive anything at all, and who are not even recorded in the statistics of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It is only when we see just who are contributing and paying full insurance that we get the complete picture.
The number of people paying full insurance as employed persons is 190,000, and, obviously, most of these are widows with 10s. or no pension at all. There are 20,000 self-employed widows, and they will be asked to pay on the new rates an additional 6d. There are the non-employed widows, numbering 30,000. When we examine these figures, we find that, out of a total of just over 200,000, 140,000 are between the ages of 45 and 59. This is the important point. These are the widows, and the only widows—the worst-off widows, from the pensions aspect—who are being asked to pay this extra amount. The widows with a pension do not pay it; the widows with no pension do pay it.
How can hon. Members opposite defend this kind of thing? In this affluent Britain, is this the only way in which we can build our hospitals? I find it very difficult to justify, in logic, why we should build hospitals in this way at all, but I find it even more difficult to justify why certain categories of people are to be made to pay while others are 1004 not. There could be no real social justification for what is being done, but this is what is to happen.
I would ask the Economic Secretary to appreciate exactly what class of widow is involved here. I appeal to him in another way. The only widow who will benefit by paying full insurance is the widow with a war pension, because that is the only duplication of Government payments that can be made. Therefore, the war widow who works to acquire for herself an additional pension at 60 is also singled out for this payment. Can hon. Members opposite really justify that? This is meanness carried to its limits. It is shabbiness. I am sorry to say that in social legislation it is Toryism. That is the philosophy, "Let's get the money, and let's not ask the House to spend too much time examining where we are getting it." I am quite sure that if hon. Members opposite realised how this money was being raised they would find it very difficult to support the Government's proposal. I hope that the Economic Secretary will give us a reasonable answer. and will say that the Government will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. BarberI am sure that all hon. Members, particularly those on his own side, will agree that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) moved the Amendment not only with his usual modesty, but with obvious knowledge of the subject matter. The purpose of this Amendment and of the Amendment that we are considering with it is to reduce the contribution paid by employed widows from 2s. 0½d., as the Bill proposes, to 1s. 5d.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has just said that the Committee should consider with care what widows are involved. That is very important because the hon. Member for Itchen said, if I heard him aright, that all widows might benefit, but I understand that these Amendments are confined only to employed widows. Therefore, all we are considering at present are those widows in employment.
This is important, because the Amendments do not relate to all widows.——
§ Dr. KingWhen I spoke of "all widows" I meant all widows in the category, which I gradually narrowed down.
§ Mr. BarberI am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. We are considering, then, only those widows who are in employment.
The second aspect which is of great importance is that if these widows are receiving National Insurance benefits, or if they are war widows, then, although it may pay them to pay National Insurance contributions, they are, in fact, under no obligation to pay and, consequently, under no obligation to pay the National Health Service payments.
One hon. Member took as an example the widow with children who had to go out to work——
§ Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)The hon. Gentleman has just said that if they are in certain categories these widows are under no obligation to pay the contributions. Will he also say that they do not receive benefits and may want to pay contributions so that they may receive benefits?
§ Mrs. SlaterWould not the Economic Secretary also agree that it is very much more important that a widow should pay the full contributions than it is for a woman who has just married and whose husband is living?
§ Mr. BarberI do not say for a moment that there are not a limited number of widows who choose to pay the contributions because it is to their advantage, but I made careful inquiries about this and I am informed that, in practice, nearly all the widows who are in receipt of these benefits, or are war widows, choose not to pay because, in general, it is of no advantage to them. I went into this very carefully, because I wanted to satisfy myself whether or not this was so——
§ Mr. RossIs the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the statisics I used were not accurate? They were taken from the Quinquennial Report of the Ministry of National Insurance.
§ Mr. BarberObviously, I cannot, without notice, comment on the hon. Gentleman's figures. All I can tell him is that my inquiries have led me to the conclusion—and I have no doubt about this—that nearly all those widows who are in receipt of National Insurance benefits, or are war widows, choose not to pay the contributions because it is of no advantage to them to do so. That is important, 1006 because we have to realise that we are here dealing only with widows in employment and only those who choose to pay, assuming that they are in receipt of National Insurance widow's benefits or are war widows.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about cost, and I gave a figure of about £300,000. The reason for that figure being so limited is that we are concerned with such a limited number of people—and I will come in a few minutes to deal with what I consider to be certain implications of that, because this aspect cannot be considered in isolation.
4.45 p.m.
Who are these widows who are in work, but not in receipt of National Insurance widows' benefits of one kind or another? Normally, a woman who was widowed after the beginning of the National Insurance scheme and has children to support is entitled to National Insurance children's benefits, and would not be obliged to pay a contribution. Similarly, a woman widowed before the National Insurance Scheme came into operation, but who had eligible children to support at the beginning of the scheme would also be entitled to National Insurance benefits and, consequently, would not be obliged to pay the contributions. It follows that the only widows who are covered by these Amendments are those who are obliged to pay contributions, and some of those who are employed but who, in general, do not have children to support.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East asked why we should not make a special class of these individuals, while the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) said that he was sure that I would refer to administrative difficulties. I would ask the Committee to consider this as a matter involving some principle. A quite tenable view prompts one to ask: why should this limited number of individuals to whom I have referred be put in a special class, and separate from the spinsters? If these Amendments were accepted, so that there would be the benefit of a lower rate of contribution for widows who are working, I fail to see why one should not extend the same reduced rate of contribution to spinsters. Ever since the 1946 Act, it has always been thought that these two categories of people should be treated on a, par——
§ Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and I am trying to follow it as well as I can. There is a very distinct difference in principle between widows and spinsters. In very many cases the widow is seeking to maintain a home for her children and is deprived of the double allowance for taxation purposes that she would have had if she had had the enjoyment of her husband. On the other hand, spinsters are very often living with parents or with other people and are in quite different circumstances. While I have every sympathy with the hard-hit spinster who may have to maintain a home for aged parents, and who, in some ways, is in a similar position to widows, the very many widows who have to maintain a home and are deprived of the husband's allowance for taxation purposes are very much worse off than the spinsters. It is wrong to consider the two classes as being identical.
§ Mr. BarberI am not saying that they are identical. I am saying that it would not be right to provide for a lower rate of contribution for one class without doing something for the others. We cannot consider this aspect in isolation. When we think of the consequences of accepting these two Amendments, we cannot think simply in terms of about £300,000.
The widow who goes out to work to help to support her children is normally in receipt of National Insurance widow's benefits in respect of those children and, consequently, she has the option of not paying contributions at all, and in general it does not benefit her to pay them. I am not making a political point, but it is fair for the Committee to remember that under the 1946 Act the health element in the National Insurance contributions was the same for all employed women, whether widows or spinsters. I believe that that principle, which is the principle which we are now following, is right and fair.
We all know from our own experience, not as Members of Parliament but as individuals, of the sorrow which arises from widowhood, but I am not satisfied that that in itself is an argument for accepting these two Amendments. As I have said, they relate only to employed widows, and when we are considering the impact of the Bill it is surely right to consider their earnings. The hon. 1008 Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) referred throughout her speech to widows who went out to work—quite rightly, because they are the people whom we are considering.
As I am sure the Committee realises, there are no earnings figures which apply only to widows, but, while making due allowance for the fact that widows earn less than other women, on the average—that is my view—we can, nevertheless, bear in mind that the average earnings for women of 18 increased between October, 1948, just after the health scheme came into operation, and October, 1960, by £3 13s. 10d. a week. The average earnings virtually doubled in that period.
Making due allowance for the fact that some widows have not shared to the full in that increase—in my view the average widow has not—I still think it fair to ask the Committee whether it is not reasonable to propose an increase in the Health Service contribution for widows which will make it only 1s. 6d. a week more than the health element which was paid under the 1946 scheme.
As I have said, no change in principle is involved in the Government's proposals. I do not believe that it would be right to make this concession without going further and without dealing with other people, too, including spinsters; and I do not believe that it would be right to make such a concession. The basic principles which have existed since 1948 are right. The simple question which the Committee has to consider is whether a widow who is in work should pay 1s. 6d. a week more for the health element in her contribution than in 1948, or whether she should be relieved of this increase, bearing in mind that the average earnings of women have risen considerably since that time.
I do not believe that the Government's proposal is unreasonable, and, consequently, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
§ Mrs. SlaterBefore the hon. Member sits down, may I point out that last Thursday I gave figures of the average wages of most women and showed that nearly all were less than £7 a week. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these women are almost forced to pay the full contribution because the only way in 1009 which they can get full benefits, should they fall ill—and their tendency to be ill is greater than with other people because of the heavy strain on them—is by paying the full contribution?
§ Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)I listened with amazement to the Economic Secretary's reply. I have never heard a meaner and more contemptible argument by the Government. Earlier, I listened to speeches by my hon. Friends, and I suggest that if the Government benches had been filled by those hon. Members who, shortly, will troop into the Committee to vote against these Amendments, those hon. Members would have been sympathetic towards the case which we have made. The only answer by the Government was, "Do not differentiate between widows and spinsters, because you will find that spinsters are in an equally bad state. As spinsters are in an equally bad state, we therefore should not help widows".
Having heard the case put by my hon. Friends, how can the Government refuse to accept Amendments of this character? There can be no doubt whatever about the difficulties which widows experience compared with other sections of the community and no doubt whatever that a most deserving case can be made for them.
§ Mr. BarberI want to make it clear that the reason that I referred to spinsters was that I was trying to indicate to the Committee that the figure of £300,000, which it would cost to accept these Amendments, was not a realistic figure for the Committee to take into account.
§ Mr. WeitzmanI do not care what the figure is. The Economic Secretary must recognise that it is very small compared with the £49 million which it is intended to raise by this poll tax. The amount involved in this small class must be extremely small. I suggest that anyone who has listened to the case which has been put forward must readily recognise how deserving it is.
What frightens me about this legislation is that hon. Members who have not heard the case put forward, who know nothing about the details and who have not heard a word about the hardships which will be inflicted upon these people will support the Government in this 1010 mean and contemptible attitude. That is disgraceful.
§ Mr. LoughlinI was not surprised at the stumbling which went on by the Government spokesman when he was replying to the debate. The Committee ought to pause at this stage and to ask whether there is not a serious challenge to the very basis of the form of Government which we are supposed to have in this country because, irrespective of the arguments advanced in the Committee, there is a rigidity on the part of the Government Front Bench which compels them to refuse to consider accepting any Amendments.
The Economic Secretary admitted that these Amendments will cost £300,000. He went on to talk about the possibility of having to include spinsters, if we give preferential treatment to widows, even if it were only those widows who are working. I can understand the hon. Member's partiality for spinsters but, having listened to him advance the argument about spinsters and having listened to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) which demolished his case altogether, I cannot understand why he intervened when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) argued the case for widows.
It is not good enough for the Government spokesman to talk about employed widows who have no obligation to pay contributions. What the hon. Member said, in effect, was that if we raise the contributions high enough we shall preclude people from paying them. If we believe in the Welfare State—I know that the hon. Gentleman does not—it is our duty to see that insurance cover is applied to the majority of people, whether widows or not. Experience proves that widowed women in employment pay the contribution for one good reason—they want to have the cover of the insurance benefits. I do not for a moment accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument that widows in industry do not subscribe to this insurance scheme.
5.0 p.m.
I think that there is general acceptance—and I want to reiterate it—of what my hon. Friend for Westhoughton said about spinsters. If it is argued 1011 that the spinsters are just as badly off as the widows, then the case is not that the widows should not have some consideration, but that they should both have it. It is a valid argument to advance that widows are maintaining a home for their families, even if their children are growing up, whereas the average spinster—perhaps the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will correct me if I am wrong—is invariably living in lodgings of one kind or another, without family responsibility.
The total cost of this concession is alleged to be £300,000. What is the function of this Committee? It is to try to make the Bill, whether we like it or not, more equitable for everyone in our society. The Economic Secretary ought to recognise that, where there is the possibility of an injustice being done, he should accept the Amendment. What worries me is the fact that in Bill after Bill, whether it be upstairs in Committee or on the Floor of the House, we repeatedly see this adamant attitude on the part of the Government, in no circumstances being willing to accept any Amendments irrespective of the arguments deployed in favour of them.
Unless hon. Members opposite wake up to the fact that without discussion, compromise and willingness on the part of the Government to accept Amendments of this type, we shall be entering a form of totalitarianism, and that will be for the ill of this country. I should like to see fewer speeches from hon. Members on this side of the Committee and hon. Members opposite advancing arguments. It may well be that they would be arguments to refute what we say, but at least they would be arguments—legitimate arguments. Unless hon. Members opposite do that we are not really having a Committee stage of the Bill at all.
I should like the Economic Secretary to stop fumbling and stumbling at the Box. If he cannot come with a brief that is worth while, then he should remain seated and allow some of his hon. Friends to advance those arguments that should be advanced.
§ Mr. A. V. Hilton (Norfolk, South-West)I, too, was very disappointed at the reply given by the Economic Secre- 1012 tary. Our great complaint against the whole of the Bill, and, in fact, against the majority of the proposals which we claim are undermining the Health Service, is that they are designed to hit those people who are least able to bear the additional financial burden. Surely what we are discussing this afternoon is a clear example of that sort of thing.
Once again, the widow, who, after all, is trying to be independent and trying to help herself, is to be penalised. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee frequently receive letters from widows who are finding things very hard these days. I did not receive a letter from a widow this weekend, but I was approached by one on Saturday, and, once again, listened to the heart-rending story that she had to tell. After hearing that story, and after listening to the fine case put this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) when moving the Amendment, to have to listen to the reply made by the Economic Secretary was a great disappointment.
We are told that this concession would cost about £300,000 out of a total bill of about £50 million. Had we not wasted such vast amounts of money on Blue Streak and other projects—I must not develop that, because, otherwise, I shall be ruled out of order, though I want to make the comparison—many more widows and those in the lower income groups could have been helped. Although £300,000 may not be much as far as Government expenditure is concerned, the additional coppers that widows are being asked to pay mean quite a lot to them. They will have to pay an additional 7½d. a week.
I should have thought that this Amendment was the least that the Government could have accepted. Many other Amendments moved from this side of the Committee on Health Service Measures have been turned down out of hand, but I should have thought that this was really a case where it would not have been difficult for the Government to accept our Amendment. It is not too late for them to do so even now. I remember that last week the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who is not now in his usual place, quoting a passage from the Book of Jude. I should like to quote a passage 1013 from the Gospel of St. Mark, where it says:
For he that hath, to him shall be given; and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.That is the philosophy which the Government are adopting in rejecting this Amendment. They are taking away from the poor widow who is trying to help herself and who is trying to be independent. I appeal once again to the Government Front Bench to have another look at this matter. We shall soon have Easter here—it is Lent now—and it would be a splendid thing if we could get this one crumb from the Government.
§ Mr. J. T. PriceI rise to express my own bitter disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to agree to this relatively minor concession for which we are asking. It is quite obvious to me and to every other intelligent hon. Member who has taken part in these debates why the Government wanted the Guillotine to operate on the Bill. They wanted it because, knowing that they could not defend by logical argument the case we should present against the Bill, they wished the clock to do what their own intelligence and power of argument could not do.
As he knows, I have personal respect for the Economic Secretary. I was very sorry indeed to see him put in the position this afternoon of having to speak from the paltry brief he has to defend something quite indefensible in any terms of Parliamentary procedure. I am not anxious to exaggerate anything, because the facts speak for themselves, but the Minister referred to the fact that women's wages, including widows' wages, have increased substantially in recent years. This may well be so. Of course, they must go on increasing in relation with the cost of living which is always increasing as a result of the Government's policies. But let us not have it suggested that there is something which can be called the "average widow" which can be statistically measured and given as evidence in the House of Commons to defend a Measure which is quite indefensible
The Minister mentioned a figure of £7 a week. Has he forgotten that a great many widows who, because of their circumstances, are forced to go out to work 1014 cannot work full-time? They are often women who have to dodge about, doing charring and all kinds of odd domestic work so that they can be home after school hours to make their children's meal and be at hand to help them when they return home. It is nonsense to describe as average women widows of this class who are, very often against their own better instincts, driven to go out to work to maintain their children who have been deprived of a father.
In some cases, widows may take advantage of the provisions in the National Insurance Act which allow them to opt out of insurance payments, but it is a very bad thing for anyone to opt out of insurance. Only the pressure of economic circumstances compels many of these women to opt out. I have had considerable experience in the trade union world, and it has always been the policy of my trade union, so far as I was able to influence it in any way, to advise all our people, whatever their circumstances, to maintain full rights of insurance.
What is the position of these widows if they take the cheap insurance and pay only for industrial injuries benefit? If they are out of work, or if they are sick, they are deprived of benefit as a right and they have to go to National Assistance. It is just those widows who will go out to work against their own feelings, putting up with all the difficulties and inconvenience of doing so to keep a home together but yet be able to be there when their children come home from school, who will not wish to go to National Assistance.
I have been present during a very great deal of our debates so far, and all that I have heard from the Government side has indicated that there is an underlying assumption on the part of the Minister of Health and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury who are advising him—this is a Treasury Bill, after all—that, if people do not like it and they find themselves in deep water, they can go to National Assistance. I tell the Minister frankly that in my part of Lancashire there are very many people who shrink from any necessity to go to the National Assistance Board. Anything which puts pressure on our people to resort to National Assistance goes against their independent spirit. 1015 They may be wrong in taking that attitude. They can have National Assistance as of right, and I pay my tribute to the many improvements which have been made over the years in the administration of National Assistance, but I hope that the Minister will take it from me that there are still many people of the old tradition who will not seek National Assistance even when they are right up against the wall.
The clock is ticking away and the longer we take now the more likely will it be that other important matters may not be discussed, yet the Minister tells us, apparently quite seriously, that even after the Government have claimed a tax of £49 million from the British people under the Bill they cannot afford to give about £250,000 back to a deserving section of the community. This will not do. We have made our protest. The Guillotine will come down and, as my hon. Friends have said, hundreds of hon. Members within the precincts will, blindly and quite unthinkingly, troop into the Lobby to vote against us without any understanding or knowledge of the merits of the case.
The prestige of the Government is low enough in all sorts of ways, apart from this Bill. If they had any sense, they would give way occasionally. They would be less inflexible and more prepared to meet a genuine case when it is presented to them. If they did so, their reputation would at least be less tarnished in the minds of many with a progressive outlook on life than it is.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Harry Randall (Gateshead, West)Why do the Government want to wring the last penny out of the most deserving and, probably, the lowest-paid section of the community? I just cannot understand it. There was no logic at all in the argument which the Economic Secretary put to the Committee this afternoon. The inference is that this is just another 7½d., just a few more coppers. He does not understand the sort of life which widows have to live. On a Thursday or a Friday, it may well be that there are only coppers in their purse.
I myself know of one widow who was quite unable to get the medicines prescribed for her because she had not a single copper in her purse. What does 1016 the Economic Secretary say to that?—that she can afford to pay another 7½d.?
The truth is that neither she nor thousands of other widows can afford it. There are hundreds and thousands of widows quite unable to pay the additional 7½d. or, if they do pay it, as they apparently will have to, something else will have to go. The Economic Secretary may not understand just what they will go without. It is quite surprising what some women can do with even a few coppers.
I appeal again to the Government. If they wish their Bill to find some favour, they ought to make a gesture for widows. The amount of money involved, £300,000, in comparison with the £50 million or so which is to come in by this poll tax, is really negligible. Why cannot the widow be excused? There can be no argument for it at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) quoted one of the Gospels. I shall not quote the Gospels, but I am reminded of the story of the widow's mite. Even that is being taken from her. I hope very much that the Economic Secretary will tear up the brief which has been provided for him. Will he allow his heart to prevail? He may get into trouble, but at least he will earn the good will of many people in the land.
§ Mrs. Alice Cullen (Glasgow, Gorbals)Is the Minister under the impression that widows go out to work for the fun of it? If so, the sonner he gets that idea out of his head the better. Widows with children go out to work not for the fun of it, but because they must do so. In my own family, one of my daughters is a widow. She has to provide for six children. She could not do so without going out to work. The sooner the Economic Secretary realises that and does the right and just thing by the widows the better.
§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)I am rather dismayed that on an important Amendment like this there is not enough stuffing among hon. Members opposite that one of them is prepared to get up and try to justify what the Government are doing.
§ Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge)have made three attempts to speak in this debate. When the hon. Gentleman stops speaking, I will be glad to speak.
§ Mr. ManuelI am glad that I have stimulated some courage, thought and initiative on the benches opposite. I hope that the contribution of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) will be a bit better than that of the Economic Secretary, who made very heavy weather of trying to answer the cogent and strong arguments put forward by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and on the back benches in trying to assist widows who are working.
Throughout the Bill what we have been trying to do by every Amendment—it was inevitable that we should try to do it—is to get some amelioration and relief of the situation of the weaker sections of the community. We must have a better argument from the Economic Secretary in reply than the one which has already been advanced. He reminded me of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who tried to repel the arguments which we advanced on behalf of the old-age pensioners. We are getting to a stage when, whatever argument we may use, no reasoned logic is applied to our arguments.
There have been no concessions made on the Bill. Anyone who has been present in the Chamber, or anyone who has listened intelligently to our discussions in Committee must admit that we have not had a reply to the strong arguments which have been advanced by us. Not one hon. Member opposite has tried during our discussions on the Amendment to justify the case which the Government say they have for imposing this further 7½d. on the widows.
It may appear to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that 2s. 0½d. a week is not a great sum for a widow to have to find. But they must have their constituency problems and get definite proof of people living in the direst of bad conditions because they have to scrimp and save every halfpenny and to make do with the cheapest of food. Certainly, we on this side have had this proof. The widows are in that category.
The things which have been said outside this Chamber by hon. Members opposite are just not true. The Tory Central Office of Information has given very misleading information about this Bill.
§ Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)How does my hon. Friend know?
§ Mr. ManuelI have been concerned in a little controversy in my local Press with the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). Bolstered up by the Tory Central Office information, he tried to reply at great length to what I had said. First, he said that the Labour Government started the prescription charges. He admits that that was wrong, but then he goes on to say:
Anyone on National Assistance can get an automatic refund of any charges paid, and anyone else in need can also get a refund.I hope that the Economic Secretary will explain that statement—"anyone else in need", whatever the need. It is a block statement. Then he says:Those who are ill or unemployed do not pay contributions and neither do widows …The Economic Secretary is bound to admit that that statement is false. By this Amendment we are proving conclusively that widows do pay.We refer to the 10s. widow. Whether she is working or not, she has to pay this contribution each week. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary is bound to know that many widows cannot go out to work. It would be interesting to know the proportion of 10s. widows who have to pay this 2s. 0½d. a week when they are sick in order to qualify for the retirement pension and how many of them have their contribution covered by National Assistance. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will answer that. What a ridiculous situation it is that we should regiment people through the Bill and then pay the contributions of certain of them from another source. Are the Government trying to humiliate people by holding out a begging bowl——
§ Mr. BarberI cannot understand some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be suggesting that someone on National Assistance should pay contributions. That is impossible. No one on National Assistance pays contributions. The hon. Member was talking about health charges. What we are concerned with here is nothing to do with that. He was also speaking about widows who could not 1019 go to work. These Amendments are concerned solely with widows in employment.
§ Mr. ManuelThat is what I am saying.
§ Mr. Ross—whether she is working or not? If she is not working, she has recourse to National Assistance. In that case, National Assistance may well be paying for the stamping of her card.
§ Mr. ManuelA card has to be kept so that she may——
§ Mr. BarberIt is important that we should get this matter right. As I understand, if a person is on National Assistance her card is credited, but she does not pay and does not draw a sum from National Assistance with which to pay.
§ Mr. ManuelNo, but say, for instance, that the widow——
§ Mr. RossMay we have the assistance of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, who was at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for quite a time? She could decide whether the Economic Secretary or myself is right.
§ Mr. WillisOn a point of order. I wonder whether you, Sir James, could give us some guidance. A very important matter has been raised in connection with this Amendment, and it now appears that the Government Front Bench does not know anything about it. In view of this ignorance of the Government Front Bench, what can we do about the matter under discussion?
§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan)That is neither a point of order nor a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for debate.
§ Mr. ManuelI do not want to aggravate the point of difference between the Government and ourselves. What I am certain about, as the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary must be certain, is that the 10s. widow has to pay the increased contribution.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt) indicated assent.
1020§ Mr. ManuelIf a widow has to get National Assistance, her card will be credited with that amount. If she went to work, she would have to pay, but whether she was at work or not and if she had only 10s. coming into the house without National Assistance she would have to pay. The Economic Secretary cannot get round that, no matter how much he tries.
The Government Front Bench is in this difficulty. The hon. Member for Barrow, who always jumps into the breach — [HON. MEMBERS: "NO — Barry."] I am sorry; I hope that I am not slandering anybody. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is strangely lacking today. I hope that we shall have his assistance, along with that of the hon. Member for Uxbridge, who says that he will spring to attention when I sit down and will introduce some false courage and reasoning into the debate.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. CurranWith some of the speeches which have been made on behalf of the Amendment, I have a great deal of sympathy. Furthermore, if this matter could be considered in the abstract, I should be happy to vote for the Amendment. So far from approaching it in any spirit of hostility, I approach it with the greatest sympathy. But I suggest that the arguments that have been advanced from the Opposition benches in favour of the Amendment illustrate vividly a basic defect of the Welfare State. That State is based, among other things, upon an assumption about the economic position of women and, in particular, about the position of widows which does not correspond with reality.
Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do that the Welfare State was constructed on the observed assumption that widowhood is not of itself a disability and that a woman who loses her husband does not thereby become somebody who ought to get the support of the community. That assumption has been common to both political parties. It has governed the Welfare State since the end of the war. It is an assumption, as we all know from our constituencies, which is not accepted as valid by large numbers of women. I am astonished that the organisations which set out to speak on behalf of women have not challenged it vigorously a good many years ago. In spite of emancipation and sex equality, it remains 1021 a fact that for the ordinary woman, marriage is a career and that when she loses her husband, she is in the position of a man who suffers the loss of his job or who suffers an industrial injury.
The Welfare State, however, is not constructed on that basis. It was constructed, with the support of the Labour Party—this has nothing to do with the Tories; the Labour Party has stuck to it since the war—on the basis that a woman who loses her husband is not thereby entitled to be treated in the same way as a man who suffers an industrial injury. It can well be argued that she ought to be so treated. If it were argued, I believe that that proposition would command the enthusiastic support of the great majority of women voters.
That, however, is not the assumption. Consequently, all the arguments to which we have been listening are based upon a completely false premise. The Opposition now seeks to argue that we should treat widows as people who are in a special category because they are widows. If that proposition is argued in general terms, I have the greatest sympathy for it and, as I have said, I believe that the great majority of women voters would support it, too.
We cannot do this by a side-wind. We cannot do it by an incidental Amendment. If we want to do it, we must make a radical reconstruction of the Welfare State. [Interruption.] One moment. I have listened to a great many words from the benches opposite and I invite Members there to let somebody from this side put his case without being bawled down and without being jeered at. I have given careful and silent attention to the speeches of hon. Members opposite and I invite them to do just as much for me and my colleagues. We have a case, too. So far from being apologetic about the Bill, so far from being dumbfounded by it and ashamed to speak un for it, we have a case. It is a case with merit and substance. We are entitled to put it.
I believe that all the debates on the Bill, including the point now being discussed—whether being a widow is a state which calls for special sympathy in a way that being a widower does not—illustrate one basic fact. It is that the assumptions on which the Welfare State was set up at the end of the war are 1022 assumptions which do not correspond with contemporary reality.
I believe—I want to say this plainly and, perhaps, brutally—that we ought to reconstruct the Welfare State, the Health Service and the other social services, too, for the purpose——
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas)The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of widows.
§ Mr. CurranExactly, Mr. Thomas. I was putting the point parenthetically; I did not propose to develop it. I was saying that the need for reconstructing and for revising the basic assumptions of the Welfare State, a need in which I believe profoundly, is illustrated by the Amendment. The assumption on which we are arguing is an assumption that most of us regard as nonsense.
§ Mr. ManuelI should like the hon. Member to answer this. I think he would agree that hon. Members opposite could today take a definite step forward by saying that, while we are not relieving widows entirely, we agree that their payment of 1s. 5d. is sufficient and that we will not increase it by another 7½d.
§ Mr. CurranThat allows me to go on and develop a point which I want to make. When we talk about widows, just as when we talk about other groups who receive the benefits of the social services, we are talking about people at all income levels. There are rich widows, well-off widows, poor widows and almost destitute widows. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members opposite to allow me to put the case. When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was putting his case, I did not keep on barracking him. I kept quite and listened.
The point which the hon. Member has put to me lets me go to the root of it all. If we are distributing a universal concession, we shall be giving it both to the people who need it and to those who do not. I believe that we should reconstruct the Welfare State, both in this matter and in other matters, so as to concentrate every farthing we can upon the people who need help and to let the others look after themselves. For that reason also, I am not prepared to support the Amendment. It would distribute a benefit indiscriminately to widows who do not need the money as well as to widows who do
1023 I am urgently in favour of two things: first, of giving the utmost possible help to the hard-up widow and, in particular, to the hard-up widowed mother. Secondly, I am in favour of re-examining the foundations of the Welfare State in respect of this matter so as to treat widowhood—as, in fact, it is—as a disability which should be compensated in the same way as industrial injury for a man.
§ Mr. Houghton rose
§ The Temporary ChairmanMr. Houghton.
§ Mrs. SlaterBefore the hon. Member sits down, will he, therefore, say in plain English that he agrees with the Bow Group that even in this case there should be a means test and that that is the basis of the Welfare State?
§ Mr. CurranIf I may reply in detail, I shall be happy to do so. I refuse to be bullyragged by this turnip ghost of the means test. We are told told by the Opposition that we cannot distinguish between the people who need help and those who do not unless we raise the ghost of the poor law. This is their constant cry. This is the kind of emotional blackmail in which the Opposition constantly deal. [Interruption.] I am sick and tired of this dishonest blackmail about the poor law. I insist that in our society we ought to be able to distinguish between the people who need help and the people who do not, without going back to the poor law. [An HON. MEMBER: "In all sections?"] Yes, in all sections. After all, we need not go to the poor law or even to the Assistance Board. We could go to the Inland Revenue——
§ The Temporary ChairmanIs the hon. Member reaching the end of his reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater)? I had called the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
§ Mr. CurranI have one sentence, Mr. Thomas. I did not want the Committee to suppose that I was not prepared to meet this taunt about the means test. I think I have demonstrated that there is an answer to it. Having said so, I will 1024 gladly sit down and listen to what hon. Members of the Opposition have to say.
§ Mr. HoughtonI am sure that after two hours the whole Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) for turning a one-sided argument into something of a debate. The hon. Member said that he had listened to our arguments with a good deal of sympathy. His hon. Friends have listened to them with a good deal of silence. Had we had contributions from hon. Members opposite earlier in the debate, we might have had a much more satisfactory two hours on this matter.
The hon. Member said that he has a case and that he is entitled to put it, and so he is. It is a very different case from that put by his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. Had we the time, it would be interesting to see how far the two cases—the Front Bench case and the Uxbridge case—could be reconciled. I remind the hon. Gentleman and indeed the whole Committee that the Guillotine overhangs the whole of this debate.
§ Mr. NabarroThere is a long time yet.
§ Mr. HoughtonThere may be a long time yet, but there is a great deal to do in that time. I know that there are many hon. Members sauntering about the Corridors, looking to 11.30 when this debate must automatically come to an end, but we wish to debate other groups concerned with this Bill in the time remaining.
The Economic Secretary needs no reminding that his reply was grievously disappointing to my hon. and right hon. Friends, but I will say to the hon. Member for Uxbridge that we cannot in this debate on this Bill reshape the whole structure of widows' benefits in the Welfare State. It may well be, and we believe it is, desirable, for the position of the widows to be reconsidered in the light of contemporary conditions in Britain today. The position of the widows has been looked at several times since the Labour Government had responsibility for the National Insurance Scheme and laid the social security measures. I do not believe that we have got the answer right yet, but at the moment we can concern ourselves only with whether we should provide relief 1025 to a certain group of widows by this Bill.
It is true that right from the inception of the present scheme widows have been divided into several categories, some of whom have been regarded as deserving of more liberal support from the Welfare State than others and some of whom have not been regarded as deserving of permanent help from the Welfare State at all, but that conception comes under challenge when the burden to be imposed on widows reaches the point when it seems to be unreasonable, having regard to the position of widows in the labour market in Britain today.
We have to consider what type of widow we are seeking to relieve of the National Health Service contribution. Let me remind the Committee that the National Health Service contributions we are talking about are governed by National Insurance contributions devised under different conditions and for different objects, and they are an additional tax on the health of widows.
There are many things challenged in the arrangements for our Welfare State. The Government have selected the contributors to the National Insurance Scheme as taxpayers in these contributions to the National Health Service—[An HON. MEMBER: "Regardless of income."] regardless of income, regardless of the conditions under which they contribute to the National Insurance Scheme. We shall be coming in a moment to another group of people—I refer to married women—some of whom contribute and some of whom do not, under the National Insurance Scheme. The reasons which govern whether they contribute or do not contribute have nothing to do with claims on the National Health Service but only to their interests and benefits under the National Insurance Scheme. The Treasury waylays them and says, "I am a tax gatherer disguised as a contribution collector and I impose on you contributions to the National Health Service".
§ Mr. BarberI take it the hon. Member is not saying that, under the Labour Government, National Health contributions were not provided as part of the expenditure of the National Health Service?
§ Mr. HoughtonI am not going to start on that one now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have refuted that suggestion time and time again in these debates, and I did it as recently as Thursday evening. I do not propose to spend Guillotine time, which is precious to us on this side of the Committee, in examining that proposition any further.
§ Mr. BarberI shall be brief, but I should just like to ask the hon. Member to deal with the passage in the White Paper presented to Parliament by the Labour Government in 1946 about the Health Service, when it was said that the National Health Service has to be financed partly from the Exchequer, partly from local rates, and partly from the help which National Insurance contributions will give.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. HoughtonI can only ask the hon. Gentleman to read my speeches in previous debates on this matter. There he will get the answer.
I want to come to grips with this problem of the widows, and what I am saying is that we can deal under this Bill only with the relief to be given to those who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme, because they are the only people on whom this tax falls. We acknowledge that we are dealing with widows who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme. If they do not contribute they do not pay National Health Service contributions. So we can do nothing for them under the Bill. As for the position of widows generally, we would have to do it otherwise. We were debating these matters when widows' pensions and benefits were under discussion last autumn. That was when the Government made certain proposals to improve the position of widows and when we urged them to go further than they did.
At the moment, however, we are concerned solely with relief to be given to certain widows who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme because they and they alone suffer this additional National Health Service contribution. The hon. Gentleman should realise that this batch of widows are mostly those who were widowed before they had reached the age of 50 and had 1027 no young children at the time and therefore had no widow's pension after the initial period of their widow's allowance. We are also dealing with those who began as widowed mothers and whose children left school before the mothers had reached the age of 45, and who, therefore, get no widow's pension. When the last of their children reached school-leaving age the widowed mother's benefit ceased and the widowed mother's allowance ceased with it. So in those circumstances she has now no benefit at all and she has obviously to maintain herself and must go out to work, and if she goes to work as a widow she becomes a contributor to the National Insurance Scheme and, as a contributor to the National Insurance Scheme, she has this additional National Health Service contribution placed upon her.
We are also dealing with the 10s. widow whose husband died under the wrong scheme. Had her husband died under the new scheme she would have been more favourably placed for widow's benefits. She has to go out to work unless she has other resources and is not in receipt of any widow's benefit which exempts her from paying contributions. We have tried in this Committee again and again to improve the position of the 10s. widow and we have been defeated every time.
Take this block of widows who go out to work. They are, therefore, middle-aged widows. They have had their working lives interrupted by widowhood. Since the hon. Gentleman can never become a widow I do not hope to convince him that there is all the difference in the world between widowhood and spinsterhood. Many of these widows had their family lives disrupted; their working lives had been interrupted earlier on. They had to recover some kind of position in the field of employment and, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, many of these widows were at a great disadvantage in their earning capacity. They had lost their skill. They had, in many cases, little ability to earn a reasonable rate of pay.
I would remind the Committee that it is almost three years to the day since a similar Question was before the Com- 1028 mittee on the 1958 Bill, when Mrs. Jean Mann, a respected Member of the House and then Member of Parliament for Coatbridge and Airdrie, made a most moving appeal to the Committee in support of more consideration for the widows upon whom the National Health Service contribution would be imposed. We made no impression on the Government Benches then, and it does not look as though we are making any impression on the Government Benches now.
The starting points on the two sides of the Committee are poles apart. On the other side of the Committee, the Government have introduced this Bill to impose charges on all who come within the Schedule. The Government say that all should pay; we are against any one within the Schedule paying additional contributions. The Government say all; we say none. That is where we start. That fundamental argument has not yet been resolved and cannot be until we come to the Third Reading. In the meantime, we can seek relief for particular categories whom we regard as harshly treated under the Government's proposals. That is a process of selection and any process of selection is bound to lead to marginal difficulties and considerations of equity. We believe that this category is clearly distinguishable from other categories covered by the Schedule.
What we seek today is not to change the whole structure of widows' benefits, but to try to relieve them of the additional burden as the proposition comes to us and as we go along. Sometimes the best in the enemy of the good. What good we want to do is to stop the Government from imposing this additional burden. We cannot remove the Health Service contributions entirely from them. All that we can do is to mitigate the hardship which by this increase the Government propose to inflict. We believe that this category is distinguishable and deserving. Without prejudice to our views on the wider issues of the treatment of widows within the Welfare State, we believe that this small relief would be welcome to them. We believe it to be fully justified and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of it.
§ Question put, That those words be—there inserted:—
1030§ The Committee Divided: Ayes 178, Noes 260
1031| Division No. 93.] | AYES | 5.54 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Hannan, William | Peart, Frederick |
| Albu, Austen | Hart, Mrs. Judith | Pentland, Norman |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Hayman, F. H. | Popplewell, Ernest |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Healey, Denis | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) | Probert, Arthur |
| Beaney, Alan | Herbison, Miss Margaret | Proctor, W. T. |
| Benson, Sir George | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Randall, Harry |
| Blackburn, F. | Hilton, A. V. | Rankin, John |
| Blyton, William | Holman, Percy | Reid, William |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S W.) | Houghton, Douglas | Reynolds, C. W. |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Hoy, James H. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowles, Frank | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Ross, William |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Janner, Sir Barnett | Short, Edward |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Callaghan, James | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Chapman, Donald | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Cliffe, Michael | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Collick, Percy | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Snow, Julian |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Kelley, Richard | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Kenyon, Clifford | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Cronin, John | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Crosland, Anthony | King, Dr. Horace | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Crossman, R. H. S. | Lawson, George | Stones, William |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Ledger, Ron | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) | Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, L.) | Lipton, Marcus | Swain, Thomas |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Logan, David | Swingler, Stephen |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Loughlin, Charles | Sylvester, George |
| Deer, George | MacColl, James | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Mackie John | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Dempsey, James | MacMillan. Malcolm (Western Isles) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Driberg, Tom | Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg) | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Timmons, John |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Manuel, A. C. | Tomney, Frank |
| Edelman, Maurice | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Mason, Roy | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Mellish, R. J. | Warbey, Willam |
| Evans, Albert | Millan, Bruce | Watkins, Tudor |
| Finch, Harold | Mitchison, G. R. | Weitzman, David |
| Fitch, Alan | Monslow, Walter | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Moody, A. S. | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Morris, John | Wigg, George |
| Forman, J. C. | Moyle, Arthur | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mulley, Frederick | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Neal, Harold | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn) | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Williams, LI. (Abertillery) |
| Ginsburg, David | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Oliver, G. H. | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Oswald, Thomas | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Owen, Will | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Grey, Charles | Padley, W. E. | Woof. Robert |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Paget, R. T. | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Grimond, J. | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Gunter, Ray | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | |
| Hall, Rt. tin. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, W. T. | Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Burden, F. A. |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, Si) | Bidgood, John C. | Butcher, Sir Herbert |
| Allason, James | Bingham, R. M. | Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian (Preston, N.) | Bishop, F. P. | Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Bossom, Clive | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Bourne-Arton, A. | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) |
| Balniel, Lord | Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) |
| Barber, Anthony | Boyle, Sir Edward | Cary, Sir Robert |
| Barlow, Sir John | Brains, Bernard | Chichester-Clark, R. |
| Barter, John | Brew's, John | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) |
| Batsford, Brian | Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) |
| Bell, Ronald | Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Cleaver, Leonard |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Bryan, Paul | Cole, Norman |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Bullus, wing commander Eric | Cooper, A. E. |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Iremonger, T. L. | Pilkington, Sir Richard |
| Cordle, John | Jackson, John | Pitman, I. J. |
| Corfield, F. V. | James, David | Pitt, Miss Edith |
| Costain, A. P. | Jennings, J. C. | Pott, Percivall |
| Coulson, J. M. | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Crowder, F. P. | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho |
| Cunningham, Knox | Joseph, Sir Keith | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John |
| Curran, Charles | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Daikeith, Earl of | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Dance, James | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Kershaw, Anthony | Rees, Hugh |
| Merles, W. F. | Kimball, Marcus | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Kitson, Timothy | Renton, David |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Lagden, Godfrey | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey) |
| du Cann, Edward | Langford-Holt, J. | Robertson, Sir David |
| Duthie, Sir William | Leavey, J. A. | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David | Leburn, Gilmour | Roots, William |
| Eden, John | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Russell, Ronald |
| Emery, Peter | Lilley, F. J. P. | Seymour, Leslie |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Lindsay, Martin | Sharples, Richard |
| Farr, John | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Shaw, M. |
| Fell, Anthony | Litchfield, Capt. John | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Finlay, Graeme | Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Fisher, Nigel | Longden, Gilbert | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) | Loveys, Walter H. | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Freeth, Denzil | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Speir, Rupert |
| Gammons, Lady | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Gardner, Edward | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset N.) | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Godber, J. B. | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Storey, sir Samuel |
| Goodhart, Philip | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Goodhew Victor | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Simmers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Gough, Frederick | McMaster, Stanley R. | Sumner, Donald (Orpington), |
| Cower, Raymond | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Donald (Orpington) |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford. N.) |
| Green, Alan | Maddan, Martin | Temple, John M. |
| Grimston, Sir Robert | Maginnis, John E. | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maitland, Sir John | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Marshall, Douglas | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Marten, Nell | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Matthews, Cordon (Meriden) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vero (Macclesf'd) | Mouthing, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Turner, Colin |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Mawby, Ray | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Hastings, Stephen | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Mills, Stratton | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward | Montgomery, Fergus | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Wall, Patrick |
| Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Morgan, William | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Hendry, Forbes | Morrison, John | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Nabarro, Gerald | Watts, James |
| Hiley, Joseph | Heave, Alrey | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Whitelaw, William |
| Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Noble, Michael | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Nugent, Sir Richard | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Hobson, John | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Wise, A. R. |
| Holland, Phillp | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Hollingworth, John | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Hornby, R. P. | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Page, John (Harrow, West) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | |
| Hulbert, Sir Norman | Peel, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hurd, Sir Anthony | Percival, Ian | Mr. Gibson-Watt and |
| Mr. Frank Pearson. |
§ Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 14, column 1, after "including", to insert "married women and".
§ The Temporary ChairmanThis Amendment can be taken with the Amendment in page 3, line 22, column 1, 1033 after "including", insert "married women and"; the Amendment in line 26, column 1, at end insert "not including married women"; and the Amendment in line 27, at end add:
s d. 11. Employed married women between the ages of 18 and 65 not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment 1 5 12. Self-employed married women between the ages of 18 and 65 not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment 1 9 13. Non-employed married women between the ages of 18 and 60 1 9
§ Mr. HoughtonThank you very much, Mr. Thomas. Your suggestion is very welcome. I fully accept that the Amendments can be taken together.
I will be frank with the Committee and say that I do not feel as deeply about this Amendment as I did about the one which we have just discussed, but it is worth while spending a short time looking at some of the anomalies which are created by the imposition of National Health Service contributions on those, and only on those, who pay National Insurance contributions. The Amendment is designed to leave all married women out of the additional National Health Service contributions, whether employed or self-employed. Married women who are working, whether employed or self-employed, can elect to pay or not to pay National Insurance contributions. There may be a number of factors such as the age of husband and wife respectively, the economic circumstances, and even the relationship between husband and wife, which govern a wife's decision whether to pay contributions for a pension in her own right.
I emphasise, however, that the decision when she takes it will be solely in relation to her position in the National Insurance Scheme. If she decides to pay contributions for reasons of her own under the National Insurance Scheme, the Treasury imposes upon her under the Bill the additional National Health Service contribution. If she elects not to pay National Insurance contributions she has no National Health Service contribution to pay at all, and she would escape not only the additional contributions under the Bill but the earlier contributions under the 1957 and 1958 Acts,
1034 I wish to stress that this question of election whether to pay or not to pay contributions by a married woman at work has everything to do with how she thinks she will stand under the National Insurance Scheme and has nothing whatever to do with how she thinks she will stand under the National Health Service. Mostly the married women who are more than five years younger than their husbands may decide not to pay, because it is all a question of whether the wife will reach the age of 60, and become entitled to pension in her own right if she retires, before the time her husband reaches 65. If the husband is under 65 by the time the wife reaches 60 she will have to wait for her pension, unless she had paid for it in her own right, until her husband reaches 65.
Therefore, this question of the relative age of the husband and wife is all-important when the married woman decides whether to contribute or not. But whether the wife decides to contribute or otherwise has no effect upon her claims on the National Health Service. In that respect she is in the same position as any other citizen. I think that it is unfair not only in this context but in other connections as well to select only the contributor under the National Insurance Scheme to bear this additional tax towards the National Health Service.
This is the issue and the theme which runs right through the examination of categories of this kind. We are not in favour of rectifying this anomaly by bringing the married woman non-contributor within the scope of National Health Service contributions. We are in favour of reducing the burden on married women contributors. We cannot leave them out of the Bill altogether. They must still continue to pay National Health contributions under previous Acts and all we can do is to seek by Amendment to reduce to a derisory amount the sum for which the Schedule provides. We cannot solve all the problems. All we are doing is to do what we can to mitigate hardship or inconvenience where we see it in the extent and imposition of the National Health Service contribution.
§ Mr. BarberThe hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has been very brief and to the point in dealing with 1035 this series of Amendments, and I shall try to be the same.
The hon. Member has explained the effect of the Amendment, and so I need not go over that ground again, but I would stress that we are dealing with a position in which married women may choose whether to pay the National Insurance contribution or whether they are content with the benefits earned for them by the contributions paid by their husbands. I am informed that about two-thirds of the married women in employment choose not to pay the contribution. The reason is fairly obvious when one realises that the husband's contribution earns a widow's benefit of 57s. 6d., maternity and death grants and a wife's retirement benefit of 35s. which is added to her husband's retirement pension as soon as he has qualified for it.
But, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are certain circumstances in which a married woman may decide that it will pay her to contribute. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case where the wife is older than the husband and, consequently, she may want to qualify for a pension before her husband reaches the age of 65. There is also the case of the married woman who wants to qualify for unemployment or sickness benefit in her own right.
I understand the point which the hon. Member was making about a possible anomaly here. He said, very fairly, that if there is an anomaly it is due to the fact that the liability to pay the National Health Service contribution follows the liability to pay the National Insurance contribution. I take his point, although I do not think he would wish me on this Amendment to go into the more fundamental question which is involved there.
I should like just to make a comment with regard to a possible anomaly in the case of married women. The National Health Service contribution is, after all, a flat-rate contribution from all classes of contributor, and if it is said that there is any anomaly in the case of a married woman, it might well be said that there was a strong case for arguing that all married women, whether or not they opted out of paying the National Insurance contribution, should pay the National Health Service contribution. 1036 This, I should have thought, was the real anomaly, but I need not pursue that further, firstly, because the hon. Gentleman says that that is not a way in which he would advocate dealing with the situation, and, secondly, because to put it right would create, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, certain difficulties of administration which led the Government to accept the present position on an earlier occasion.
I do not wish to go into great detail on this series of Amendments, nor do I wish to refer to what the principle was in 1948 or anything like that. However, I should like to tell the Committee that here basically, I think, the issue is one of amount. In 1948 the health element of a married woman's contribution was 6½d. and that of an employed man's contribution 8½d. Therefore, it was then thought reasonable that the woman's contribution should be, as it were, 76½ per cent. of the man's contribution. The position was similar with regard to the self-employed and non-employed. Under the Bill the percentage of the woman's contribution in relation to the man's contribution will have been reduced to 75 per cent. In other words, the relationship between the married woman's contribution and the man's contribution is much the same as it has always been since the beginning of the scheme.
Bearing in mind the fact that no married woman is obliged to pay the National Insurance contribution and, consequently, the National Health contribution, there really is here no question of principle involved. It should also be borne in mind that the National Health Service contribution to be paid by a married woman bears much the same sort of relationship to that which has to be paid by a man and also that, without going into details, earnings have risen considerably since 1948. In view of all that, I should have thought that it was not unreasonable to increase the contribution as proposed in the First Schedule. For these reasons, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Ron Ledger (Romford)I do not want to spend a long time on this Amendment, but I feel that something must be said because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Economic Secretary to the case put by my 1037 hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). The Economic Secretary seems to miss the whole point. When he says that this is merely a matter of amount as compared between today and a former period, he is missing my hon. Friend's point, which was that married women who go to work are able to elect to pay the National Insurance contribution or not, and, if they do pay it, it is obviously for some very good reason, perhaps as a safeguard. In all the cases that I know there are very good reasons connected with the age of the wife compared with the husband, there probably being a benefit which has been very carefully worked out by the woman.
The increased contribution is in respect of the element which goes towards the National Health Service cost. What the married woman who stays at work elects to pay when she pays the National Insurance contribution is on the National Insurance part of the stamp, because of the extra benefits which she will get; she gets a benefit over and above what is obtained by the married woman who decides not to pay the contribution. When the amount which goes towards the Health Service charges is increased, the woman is paying for something over and above the insurance element, and yet she is not at the same time getting any benefit for the extra she is paying. At this point, although she is being asked to pay more, she will still get from that payment only the same benefit as the married woman worker who pays nothing.
The Economic Secretary says that there is no principle involved here, that there is not really a big difference and that it is just a matter of amounts. That is ridiculous. If it was purely and simply a question of the extra amount which was being paid we might have a little difficulty with the Amendment; but it is the principle of the matter which is involved here. I ask the Economic Secretary to think again about this. On this side of the Committee we are coming to the conclusion that there is one speech on each Amendment which it does not matter if one does not hear, and that is the speech from the Government Front Bench, for it seems totally to disregard the arguments put forward from this side of the Committee. It 1038 seems to me that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are not taking the Bill with the seriousness that it demands.
It seems to me that the Economic Secretary completely ignored my hon. Friend's case. I would ask him seriously to consider the unfairness in the situation that, when a married woman has elected to pay a contribution because she is staying at work, the Government tell her that for that part of the stamp for which she gets no preferential treatment over and above those who do not pay for it they are going to charge her more.
If the Economic Secretary wanted to take his point further, he would say that all married women should now pay this extra amount. We take his point, and are making the argument strongly that it is not necessary to charge any married women—or, indeed, any men—this extra on the stamp. The hon. Gentleman knows our case, and the point we make is simple. He should give a serious reply.
What is to be the position of those married women who stayed on at work and elected to pay the contribution, but are now being asked to pay a further amount? It is totally unfair, because they will gain no extra benefit above those women who elected not to pay the contribution.
§ Mr. BarberI do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) asked me a specific question, with his usual courtesy. The National Health Service contribution had not any separate existence before the Act of 1957, but an element of the National Insurance contribution was allotted to the National Health Service. I want to make it clear—there can be no dispute about this—that no attempt was made between 1948 and 1957 to reduce the National Insurance contribution paid by married women to allow for the fact that they should not have been asked to make such a notional contribution to the Health Service.
It was with that in mind that I said that there was no question of principle here, unless the Opposition, as they are entitled to do, have changed their mind since 1948. I tried to deal with the question of the alleged anomaly. That is what I meant when I said that no question of principle was involved.
§ Mr. WillisMy hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) has dealt with the anomaly which the Economic Secretary refuses to see. After listening to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, I find it difficult to understand why the Economic Secretary fails to see the anomaly. A group of women who are paying insurance are now being asked to pay more for an element out of which they will get nothing. That is an anomaly, and I would have thought that the Economic Secretary would have recognised it and have been willing to accept that we had at least a case.
One argument of the hon. Gentleman's, to which we have listened each time he has replied to an Amendment, is that a certain thing was done in 1946 so it should not be changed now. I am astonished by that attitude. Every time we examine a Bill we should do so on the basis of experience gained since the previous legislation was passed. If we accepted his idea that we should not change something because it had been done 12 or 15 years previously, we would never make any progress. How far do we go back before the Economic Secretary's argument becomes irrelevant? In terms of his argument, it would be right to say that because we did something in 1861 we should not amend it in 1961, or that because there was no National Health Service then we should not have one now. That is the logic of the argument he always adduces.
On each Amendment he says, "Ah, but the Labour Government did it this way." That attitude always touches me. It seems somewhat pathetic that the Government should have to argue like this. They put forward the pathetic belief that what the Labour Government did must not be altered. I am the last person to claim that, and I am surprised that it should be a Tory argument. Legislation of the Labour Government should be altered in the light of experience.
The Labour Government were putting into operation for the first time a new and imaginative scheme. No one expected that scheme to be perfect from the beginning, or that its provisions would become immutable laws of the country. We expected to reconsider this 1040 legislation in the light of experience, and that steps would be taken to rectify anomalies where they were seen to have arisen. We are now, with this Amendment, trying to deal with an anomaly which has become bigger as time has passed and as the contribution has increased. Every time the contribution towards the National Health Service is increased the anomaly becomes greater, and the case for making a change becomes greater.
This anomaly has been clearly stated, and the time has come to do something about it. During today's debates on the various Amendments, we have heard one speech from Members opposite. It was a treat to hear the views of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) instead of reading them in the Press——
§ Mr. ManuelOr on television.
§ Mr. WillisI do not often listen to him on television. But we usually have his views in the Press rather than on the Floor of this Committee.
The Opposition are being modest with this Amendment. We say, "Here are some small things that can be done; let the Government look at them and do something about them." That is a modest approach and a realistic one, in accordance with the manner in which we in this Committee carry out our business. I cannot understand how the Economic Secretary can refuse this Amendment. Our case is a good one, and he might at least have attempted to answer it by adducing some arguments against it.
§ Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unduly, because I have a strong interest in some later Amendments, and I do not wish the Guillotine to fall and cut them in half. This Amendment gives yet another example of the anomalies which are occurring now in National Insurance legislation as soon as the amounts concerned become sufficiently large to be important.
To that degree, I agree with the Economic Secretary that this is partly a matter of amount and partly a matter of principle. The principle enshrined in the Labour Government's legislation was incorrect, but he is right in saying that it is only when the amount involved becomes substantial that one seriously becomes worried about the principle.
1041 There is an anomaly enshrined here which, when it was a matter of 4d., we did not worry about. But it is now becoming a matter of substance, the shoe pinches, and the principle is no more valid than it was in the early days, when we took little notice of it. This is only a further example, of which we have a number in our taxation system, of the difficulties in which we have placed ourselves owing to the failure of society in general to regard women as persons. It looks upon a woman as some kind of sub-being who has no individual personality.
6.30 p.m.
I am not proposing to enter into a long feminist discourse on the matter, but I point out that some of our difficulties arise from the fact that historically women have been regarded as having no personality in the legal sense. For some time we have been moving towards the position of recognising that they have such a personality, and women have become persons of some economic consequence, but it is difficult to adjust our legislation to take account of their modern position and to treat them as persons in their own right. If we were taxed, assessed and paid contributions separately as persons, with due allowance for children and families, that would avoid many of the troubles of which this instance is but one.
The married woman, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, is being unfairly treated. On the insurance side, it depends on the woman's age relative
§ to that of her husband whether it is worth her while to pay for insurance purposes. She and her husband get nothing like the full benefits, because her husband is not able to obtain them, although he has paid exactly the same as the man who does, whereas the married woman who has paid as much as a single woman does not get more benefit at the end. Men and women paying insurance contributions together do not reap benefits equal to those which they would have received if the arrangements has been straightforward.
§ I still think that the anomaly of women paying a percentage is without logical foundation when related to their earnings. The Minister said that women paid 75 per cent. of the contribution paid by men. I have said before that women's earning in industry are half men's earnings and for them to pay a 75 per cent. contribution is completely inequitable. Average earnings for men in industry are £14 10s. 8d. per week, while for women the figure is £7 8s. 4d. per week. In manufacturing industry alone, average earnings for men are £15 0s. 3d. a week, while for women they are only £7 8s. 3d. A contribution of 75 per cent. for women is therefore inequitable and has no relation to earnings. I do not want to go over the ground again, but the Minister's reply on this occasion has been no more satisfactory than those given previously.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 248.
1043| Division No. 94.] | AYES | [6.34 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) |
| Albu, Austen | Cronin, John | Galpern, Sir Myer |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Grossman, R. H. S. | George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Cullen Mrs. Alice | Ginsburg, David |
| Awbery, Stan | Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Gourlay, Harry |
| Beaney, Alan | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Greenwood, Anthony |
| Benson, Sir George | Davies, !for (Gower) | Grey, Charles |
| Blackburn, F. | Deer, George | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) |
| Blyton, William | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Griffiths, W. (Exchange) |
| Boardman, H. | Delargy, Hugh | Grimond, J. |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) | Dempsey, James | Gunter, Ray |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Driberg, Tom | Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Coins Valley) |
| Bowles, Frank | Dugdate, Rt. Hon. John | Hannan, William |
| Brockway, A. Farmer | Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Hart, Mrs. Judith |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Hayman, F. H. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Healey, Denis |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regls) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Evans, Albert | Herbison, Miss Margaret |
| Callaghan, James | Finch, Harold | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Chapman, Donald | Fitch, Alan | Hilton, A. V. |
| Cliffe, Michael | Fetcher, Eric | Holman, Percy |
| Collick, Percy | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Houghton, Douglas |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Forman, J. C. | Hoy, James H. |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Neal, Harold | Stones, William |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Heel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C) |
| Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Oliver, G. H. | Swain, Thomas |
| Janner, Sir Barnett | Oswald, Thomas | Swingler, Stephen |
| Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Owen, Will | Sylvester, George |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Padley, W. E. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Paget, R. T. | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Kelley, Richard | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Kenyon, Clifford | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Peart, Frederick | Timmons, John |
| King, Dr. Horace | Pentland, Norman | Tomney, Frank |
| Lawson, George | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Ledger, Ron | Probert, Arthur | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Lipton, Marcus | Proctor, W. T. | Warbey, William |
| Logan, David | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry | Watkins, Tudor |
| Loughlin, Charles | Randall, Harry | Weitzman, David |
| MacColl, James | Rankin, John | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| McKay, John (Wallsend) | Reld, William | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Mackie, John | Reynolds, G. W. | Wigg, George |
| MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield,E.) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Manuel, A. C. | Ross, William | Williams, LI. (Abertillery) |
| Mason, Roy | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Mellish, R. J. | Short, Edward | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Millan, Bruce | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Milne, Edward J. | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) | Woof, Robert |
| Monslow, Walter | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Moody, A. S. | Snow, Julian | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Morris, John | Sorensen, R. W. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Mort, D. L. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | |
| Moyle, Arthur | Spriggs, Leslie | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mulley, Frederick | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) | Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton |
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, W. T. | Cordle, John | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Corfield, F. V. | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) |
| Allason, James | Costain, A. P. | Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.) | Coulson, J. M. | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Craddock, Sir Beresford | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Crowder, F. P. | Harvie Anderson, Miss |
| Barber, Anthony | Cunningham, Knox | Hastings, Stephen |
| Barlow, Sir John | Curran, Charles | Hay, John |
| Barter, John | Currie, G. B. H. | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel |
| Batsford, Brian | Dance, James | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | d'Avigdor-Coldsmid. Sir Henry | Hendry, Forbes |
| Ben, Ronald | Deedes, W. F. | Hicks Beach, Maj. W. |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | de Ferranti, Basil | Hiley, Joseph |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon Charles (Luton) |
| Bidgood, John C. | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Hirst, Geoffrey |
| Bingham, R. M. | du Cann, Edward | Hobson, John |
| Bishop, F. P. | Duthie, Sir William | Holland, Philip |
| Bossom, Clive | Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David | Hollingworth, John |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Eden, John | Hornby, R. P. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Howard, John (Southampton, Test) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Emery, Peter | Hughes-Young, Michael |
| Brains, Bernard | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Hulbert, Sir Norman |
| Brawis, John | Farr, John | Hurd, Sir Anthony |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Fell, Anthony | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Brooman-White, R. | Finlay, Graeme | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Fisher, Nigel | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & stone) | Jackson, John |
| Burden, F. A. | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | James, David |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Freeth, Denzil | Jennings, J. C. |
| Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Gammons, Lady | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) |
| Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | Gardner, Edward | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Gibson-Watt, David | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Joseph, Sir Keith |
| Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Godber J. B. | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Goodhew, Victor | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Gough, Frederick | Kerby, Capt. Henry |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Gower, Raymond | Kimball, Marcus |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Kitson, Timothy |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Green, Alan | Lagden, Godfrey |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Grimston, Sir Robert | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Cole, Norman | Halt, John (Wycombe) | Langford-Holt, J. |
| Cooper, A. E. | Hamilton Michael (Wellingborough) | Leavey, J. A. |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Leburn, Gilmour |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Harris Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Nugent, Sir Richard | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Lilley, F. J. P. | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Speir, Rupert |
| Lindsay, Martin | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Linstead, Sir Hugh | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Litchfield, Capt. John | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Longden, Gilbert | Page, John (Harrow, West) | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Loveys, Walter H. | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Percival Ian | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Pilkington, Sir Richard | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.) | pitman, I. J. | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter |
| McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Pitt, Miss Edith | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Pott, Percival) | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| McMaster, Stanley R. | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Prior, J. M. L. | Turner, Colin |
| Maddan, Martin | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Maginnis, John E. | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Maitland, Sir John | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Quennell, Miss J. M. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Markham, Major Sir Frank | Rawlinson, Peter | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | Wall, Patrick |
| Marshall, Douglas | Rees, Hugh | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Marten, Neil | Renton, Davies, W. R. | Watts, James |
| Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Renton, Devid | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas | Whitelaw, William |
| Mawby, Ray | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Robson Brown, Sir William | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Royce, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) | Wise, A. R. |
| Mills, Stratton | Russell, Ronald | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Seymour, Leslie | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Sharpies, Richard | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Morgan, William | Shaw, M. | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Morrison, John | Shepherd, William | Worsley, Marcus |
| Naharro, Gerald | Simon. Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn | |
| Heave, Airey | Skeet, T. H. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) | Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel. |
| Noble, Michael | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
§ Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 15, column 2, to leave out "2s. 0½d." and to insert "1s. 5d.".
This is the female partner to the Amendment in page 3, line 12, column 2,
§ which has been before the Committee. I therefore move it formally.
§ Question put, That "2s. 0½d." stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 181.
1047| Division No. 95.] | AYES | [6.44 p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Eden, John |
| Allason, James | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.) | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Emery, Peter |
| Arbuthnot, John | Cary, Sir Robert | Farey-Jones, F. W. |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Farr, John |
| Barber, Anthony | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Fell, Anthony |
| Barlow, Sir John | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Finlay, Graeme |
| Barter, John | Cleaver, Leonard | Fisher, Nigel |
| Botsford, Brian | Cole, Norman | Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Cooper, A. E. | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Bell, Ronald | Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Freeth, Denzil |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Gammons, Lady |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Cordle, John | Gardner, Edward |
| Bidgood, John C. | Corfield, F. V. | Gibson-Watt, David |
| Bingham, R. M. | Costain, A. P. | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Coulson, J. M. | Godber, J. B. |
| Bossom, Clive | Craddock, Sir Beresford | Goodhew, Victor |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Crowder, F. P. | Gough, Frederick |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Cunningham, Knox | Gower, Raymond |
| Boyle, sir Edward | ||
| Braine, Bernard | Curran, Charles | Grant, Rt. Hon. William |
| Brewis, John | Currie, G. B. H. | Green, Alan |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Dance, James | Grimston, Sir Robert |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | d'Avigdor.Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Brooman-White, R. | Deedes, W. F. | Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) |
| Broome, Percy (Torrington) | de Ferranti, Basil | Hare, Rt. Hon. John |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Burden, F. A. | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | du Cann, Edward | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) |
| Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A, (Saffron Walden) | Duthie, Sir William | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd) | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | McMaster, Stanley R. | Boyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Russell, Ronald |
| Hastings, Stephen | Maddan, Martin | Seymour, Leslie |
| Hay, John | Maginnis, John E. | Sharpies, Richard |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Maitland, Sir John | Shaw, M. |
| Hendry, Forbes | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Shepherd, William |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Hiley, Joseph | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Marshall, Douglas | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Marten, Neil | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Hobson, John | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Holland, Philip | Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Speir, Rupert |
| Hollingworth, John | Mawby, Ray | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Hornby, R. P. | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | Mills, Stratton | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Hulbert, Sir Norman | Montgomery, Fergus | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Hurd, Sir Anthony | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Morgan, William | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Morrison, John | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Nabarro, Gerald | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Jackson, John | Heave, Alrey | Temple, John M. |
| James, David | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Jennings, J. C. | Noble, Michael | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Nugent, Sir Richard | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter |
| Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Joseph, Sir Keith | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | |
| Kerby, Capt. Henry | Page, John (Harrow, West) | Turner, Colin |
| Kimball, Marcus | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Kitson, Timothy | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Lagden, Godfrey | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Peel, John | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Langford-Holt, J. | Percival, Ian | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Leavey, J. A. | Pickthom, Sir Kenneth | Wall, Patrick |
| Leburn, Gilmour | Pilkington, Sir Richard | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Pitman, I. J. | Watts, James |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Pitt, Miss Edith | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Lilley, F. J. P. | Pott, Percivall | Whitelaw, William |
| Lindsay, Martin | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Linstead, Sir Hugh | Prior, J. M. L. | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Litchfield, Capt. John | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | Wise, A. R. |
| Longden, Gilbert | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Loveys, Walter H. | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Quennell, Miss J. M. | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Rawilnson, Peter | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | Worsley, Marcus |
| McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Rees, Hugh | |
| Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Rees-Davies, W. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Renton, David | Mr. J. E. B. Hill and |
| McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas | Mr. Chichester-Clark. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) |
| Albu, Austen | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Griffiths, W. (Exchange) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Grimond, J. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crews) | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Gunter, Ray |
| Awbery, Stan | Deer, George | Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | de Freltas, Geoffrey | Hannan, William |
| Heaney, Alan | Delargy, Hugh | Hart, Mrs. Judith |
| Benson, Sir George | Dempsey, James | Hayman, F. H. |
| Blackburn, F. | Driberg, Tom | Healey, Denis |
| Blyton, William | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regls) |
| Boardman, H. | Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Herbison, Miss Margaret |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Lelcs, S.W.) | Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Edwards, Robert Bilston.) | Hilton, A. V. |
| Bowles, Frank | Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Holman, Percy |
| Brookway, A. Fenner | Evans, Albert | Houghton, Douglas |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Finch, Harold | Hoy, James H. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Fitch, Alan | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Fletcher, Eric | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) |
| Callaghan, James | Forman, J. C. | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) |
| Chapman, Donald | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Janner, Sir Barnett |
| Cllffe, Michael | Galpern, Sir Myer | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas |
| Cellick, Percy | George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Cmrthn) | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Ginsburg, David | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) |
| Cronin, John | Gourlay, Harry | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) |
| Crossman, R. H. S. | Greenwood, Anthony | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) |
| Culten, Mrs. Alice | Grey, Charles | Kelley, Richard |
| Kenyon, Clifford | Paget, R. T. | Swain, Thomas |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Swingler, Stephen |
| King, Dr. Horace | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Sylvester, George |
| Lawson, George | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Ledger, Ron | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Lipton, Marcus | Peart, Frederick | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Logan, David | Pentland, Norman | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Loughlin, Charles | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Thornton, Ernest |
| MacColl, James | Probert, Arthur | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| McKay, John (Wallsend) | Proctor, W. T. | Timmons, John |
| Mackie, John | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry | Tomney, Frank |
| MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Randall, Harry | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Rankin, John | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfleld, E.) | Reid, William | Warbey, William |
| Manuel, A. C. | Reynolds, G. W. | Watkins, Tudor |
| Mason, Roy | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Weitzman, David |
| Mellish, R. J. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Milian, Bruce | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Milne, Edward, J. | Rose, William | Wigg, George |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Monslow, Walter | Short, Edward | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Moody, A. S. | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | Williams, D. J. (heath) |
| Morris, John | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) | Williams, LI. (Abertillery) |
| Mort, D. L. | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Moyle, Arthur | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Mulley, Frederick | Snow, Julian | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Neal, Harold | Sorensen, R. W. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | Woof. Robert |
| Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Spriggs, Leslie | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Oliver, G. H. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Oswald, Thomas | Stones, William | Zilliacus, K. |
| Owen, Will | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John | |
| Padley, W. E. | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton. |
§ Mr. RossI beg to move, in page 3, line 16, column 1, after "18" to insert "not including apprentices".
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)I think that with this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss the Amendment on page 3, line 27, at the end to add:
11. Apprentices under the age of 18 … 11d.
§ Mr. RossThis Amendment is a particularised aspect of the following Amendment which covers the actual payments with the increases, and, finally, what the Government suggest should be paid by the 18 to 21-year-olds.
We have already had a good discussion on the 18 to 21s when we discovered that some hon. Members opposite adjudged whether or not it was right to put an increased payment on the young people on the basis of teenage squanderers. They seemed to be spending so much money in doing all sorts of wonderful things——
§ Mr. LoughlinRiding motor-cycles.
§ Mr. RossYes, riding motor-cycles and all the rest of it, and hon. Members opposite suggested that they could easily afford this little extra. If we are to take what people spend as a criterion of their ability to pay, I think that the tax gatherers will have a rich harvest to draw 1050 in before even touching the young people; but it is a rather fallacious and dangerous argument.
Here we are dealing with apprentices, young people in industry who have taken a step which, I presume, the Government want them to take. In Scotland and in England I hear Ministers proclaiming the value of apprenticeships and the desirability of securing skilled manpower. They deplore the fact that there are so few apprentices in industry today. I hope that the Government will be prepared to mitigate this increase in respect of apprentices.
We have to bear in mind that the Government seem to work with strange and divided minds regarding this kind of thing. Only in September of last year I received from the Ministry of Pensions and National Service a notification of the new family allowances in relation to apprentices. It states:
A 17-year-old apprentice can count for family allowances if his weekly earnings are less than 89s. 6d. For apprentices aged 16 the limit is 87s. and for those aged 15 84s. 6d.This increase, as recent as September of last year, was a recognition that the limits existing at that time were too low. Obviously, it would follow that if the Government now presume to raise by 6d. the allowance in respect of National Health Service contributions paid by 1051 apprentices, they ought to raise this limit by another 6d.The interesting thing is that it states, in this official document:
This is the effect of a decision, published today, by the National Insurance Commissioner on an appeal by the mother of an electrical engineering apprentice. The Family Allowance Act covers apprentices whose earnings do not Provide 'wholly or substantially a livelihood'.That is an important ruling. It is not a ruling from this side of the Committee, or from the Government; it is a ruling by the National Insurance Commissioner who, in September of last year, stated that these payments did not provide "wholly or substantially a livelihood".The Commissioner ruled that that meant earnings up to the amounts stated. What justification can the Government have for making an increase in circumstances in which, as we all know, some apprentices earn very much less than the earnings which the National Insurance Commissioner himself says do not provide "wholly or substantially a livelihood"? Why should the Government snap on another increase in respect of the National Health contribution? The case is as simple as that.
I sincerely hope that the Government will not plead administrative difficulties in this matter. If a thing is right, let us find a way to do it. That is what the minions behind the hon. Gentleman are for—to ensure that the administration is so moulded as to cover cases which the House of Commons decides should be treated in a special way. We suggest that these Amendments are worthy not only of the consideration, but the support of every hon. Member in the Committee.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Sir E. BoyleThe effect of this Amendment, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly said, would be to reduce the rate for apprentices under 18 from 1s. 4½d. to 11 d. Perhaps I might remind the Committee of the present arrangements regarding apprentices. Those apprentices who are not paid at all of course pay no National Insurance, and consequently no separate National Health contribution. They are treated the same as girls and boys who stay on at school. Those 1052 who are paid are treated as employed persons.
The difficulty about the Amendment is that we have been discussing today and on previous occasions whether we should select categories which are not to pay this particular contribution. Without going into the arguments we have used in discussion of earlier Amendments, as I see it this Amendment is in a sense selecting a category within a category. My reason for asking the Committee to reject the Amendment is that I do not think there is sufficient justification for treating apprentices differently from any other lower paid juveniles. The apprentice is unlikely to have dependents and, to that extent, is in a better position than a number of older men or women with higher earnings but greater family liabilities.
I think the figures quoted by the hon. Member bear this out. Some idea of the level of earnings generally accepted by apprentices can be gained by noting that for the purposes of family allowances qualification, a reasonable livelihood for an apprentice under 18 is of the order of 85s. That provision of the Family Allowances Act has been changed on more than one occasion since the Act came into force as a result of the operations of the National Insurance Commissioner.
I cannot feel that there is a sufficient case for treating the apprentice in a separate position from other lower paid juvenile workers. I do not consider that in our system of social services apprentices in general are treated unfairly. Without getting out of order in developing this point, I can say that I think a number of people, including, if she were here herself, the late Miss Eleanor Rathbone, might be surprised to discover this figure of 85s. It would surprise many who were originally responsible for the Family Allowances Act. I cannot think that there is a sufficient case for acceptance of this Amendment, and for that reason I advise the Committee to reject it.
§ Mr. LoughlinI deliberately waited until the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had spoken because I was hoping that we had at last reached the stage at which he could find something to concede to us in the series of Amendments we have submitted. It does not 1053 appear that the hon. Gentleman has any intention of conceding anything about anyone.
It is true that the Amendments we have moved and these two Amendments have sought to place certain people, including widows and apprentices, in special categories. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think apprentices constituted a category which ought to be privileged in this way. The same answer has been given to every case we have put up so far. No doubt it will be given to every case we present until the end of this discussion. If rejection of these Amendments is on the ground that the persons concerned do not constitute a special category and if that argument is applied to every category we advance, there is no purpose in submitting our series of Amendments. It might be pertinent to ask the Financial Secretary, in view of the continual use of this argument, to indicate what people he would be prepared to accept in separate categories needing specialised treatment under these provisions.
He knows, and we all know, that the trade union movement, employers of labour and the Government have for years exhorted the institution of apprenticeships in practically every trade in the country. It is very difficult to persuade young boys into them when they are asked to pay increasingly on rates of wages which do not bear comparison with those paid to other youngsters of the same age who go into jobs where they are not tied down by indentures. It is no good the Financial Secretary saying that the average apprentice in industry today is quite capable of meeting the additional costs which this Government place upon him.
This matter may be only a matter of coppers, but many apprentices have to think in terms of coppers. The other night hon. Members opposite were arguing that youngsters in this country had an enormous amount of money to spend. One hon. Member opposite related how many youngsters with high rates of wages were riding motor-cycles and Vespars. I believe he said that £900 million was spent by young people in one form or another of pleasure seeking. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that if we are to start talking in terms of ability to pay, 1054 the argument applied by hon. Members opposite to youngsters in industry who can afford a certain amount of pleasure seeking should apply equally to many people whose interests are represented by hon. Members opposite—and I do not mean their constituents.
The Government ought to look at the possibility of encouraging apprentices in every possible way. Unless there is a quickening of apprenticeship schemes in industry, in fifteen years time we shall he in a difficult position. In other countries the emphasis is on creating technicians who will be required in the technological revolution which is taking place, but here the tendency is not to create them. The Government by low rates of wages are not encouraging the creation of apprenticeship schemes yet they are imposing these charges. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the average boy in an apprenticeship scheme does not receive anything like the rates of wages paid to boys who are not apprenticed. If the apprentice sees other youngsters of the same age in receipt of higher wages and yet has to face additional charges envisaged in this Bill, his younger brother who might otherwise have become an apprentice will be very reluctant to do so. In any case it is unfair.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we need apprentices. He has the opportunity now to give an indication that the Government want to encourage apprentices. We are in a dangerous situation. I believe in democracy and in debate and discussion. I believe in this House hammering things out and getting the best we can for the people of the country, but hon. Members opposite have been neglecting their duties completely in these debates.
Those who are arguing this case to improve this Measure are not on the Government side of the House, and when one hon. Gentleman on the Government benches rises to speak a cheer goes up. I am very worried about this, because not merely is it happening on this Measure, but on many more Measures as well. The Government are showing a complete rigidity they are not prepared to listen to arguments or to make any concesssions, and I make the prediction that they will not concede anything on any one of the Amendments which we are advancing from this side 1055 of the Committee in the course of the discussions on this Bill.
I think it is about time that the Financial Secretary looked at this matter again. I have a great respect for him, and I hope he will not take this in a personal way, but I hope he will be a little more considerate to the arguments we have advanced. We are advancing this case for a number of reasons, not merely the moral issues which are involved in this poll tax on people who cannot afford to pay, but also from the long-term aspect of this question and the effect on the production of apprentices for British industry. It is as much the Financial Secretary's responsibility as it is mine to see that we do not do anything to stop the encouragement of apprentices. I therefore ask him to look again at this matter.
§ Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)Is my hon. Friend aware that the hands of the Financial Secretary are tied on this matter?
§ Mr. LoughlinI thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but even if the Financial Secretary's hands are tied, after all he represents the Treasury. If, having heard the discussion in this Committee, he cannot say that he will accept the Amendment, there is nothing to stop him indicating to us that, although he cannot accept it in its present form, he will consult his right hon. and learned Friend and bring back an Amendment to meet the points made in debate on Report stage. I ask him to do that.
§ Mr. LedgerI should like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to clear up one small point. I had a feeling, when the hon. Gentleman was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that he was almost conceding a point with which we on this side of the Committee would very much agree. I have the feeling, having watched the hon. Gentleman during the past five or six years, that he is very much a man of principle, and that his principles have been giving him a lot of trouble during the course of these debates.
The hon. Gentleman was making the point that he could not accept this Amendment because, he said, it would 1056 give the apprentices a preference or a privilege over young people of the same age who might be earning less. The simple point I put to him is that if he were prepared to concede that these young people under 18 should be treated in exactly the same way as we wish apprentices could be treated, he would have our full agreement. We do not want this difference between apprentices and young people who are not apprentices, and this is where we would be all the way with him.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would indicate whether it was our attitude in wanting what may appear to be a privilege for apprentices which has given him his difficulty. I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee in saying that, if he would accept this Amendment or a similar one to provide that all young people under 18 should have the benefit of the Amendment, he would carry everybody on this side with him.
§ Mr. RossI was hoping that the Financial Secretary would reply to the points which have been put to him. After all, we have tried so hard to reach his heart. We try with whole categories, but he places one against the other and says that it is impossible. We then try with a special category, and the hon. Gentleman then says, It cannot be done, because it would not be fair to the others within the category." Here we have two Amendments which marry them both—one relating to a specialised number of people within a category, as well as the whole category of the 18 to 21-year-olds itself, and still the hon. Gentleman refuses.
Why does not the Financial Secretary be honest and say that the Government are determined that they are not going to have a Report stage on the Bill and that it has to be finished, as far as this House is concerned, by Thursday. The hon. Gentleman is put there to stonewall and stonewall, and this is really what it comes to. This is futility, and it is reducing the House of Commons to a farce, but it is probably inevitable under the proceedings under the Guillotine.
Let us look at the situation, and the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite had better face it. Here we 1057 have the National Insurance Commissioner telling us, in respect of a category of people, that if they are not being paid a certain amount they are not receiving a sum of money which will constitute "wholly or substantially a livelihood," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to tax that section of the population additionally. There is no way out of this. So long as those people hold National Insurance cards, they will pay, and it is no good hon. Members opposite comforting themselves with the thought that they pay only 6d. It is only 6d. more, but that makes the total contribution in respect of the Health Service contribution 1s. 4½d. per week. If we look at their cards, we find no stamp for the National Health Service contribution, because that is only a part that is incorporated within something else.
7.15 p.m.
What they are paying at present is 5s. 5d. What they will pay in April as a result of the Act passed last year will be 6s. 3d., and the result of the Bill now before us, if this Amendment is turned down, will be that on 1st July they will pay 6s. 9d. That is what comes out of the wages of apprentices or young people under 18, and that is what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should face. I am not going into the argument whether we should specialise in getting our hospitals built this way. We have had that argument before and we shall be returning to it. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech about four times, and no doubt we shall hear it again, though it is no more convincing now than it was the first time.
It is dreadful that we cannot get one hon. Gentleman opposite to rise in support of his own Government. They make their speeches, if they make them at all, at the weekend, outside this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have lost all their courage."] It is not that they have lost all their courage, but that they have lost leadership. They have no interest in this. I feel very sorry for the Financial Secretary that he should be left to carry this miserable baby. I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter to a Division, because I think the Government have no justification for what they are doing, either in respect of a whole category, and certainly not in respect of apprentices as such.
§ Sir E. BoyleIf I take the mood of the Committee correctly, it is that hon. Members want to come to a conclusion fairly rapidly on this Amendment. I would not wish to be thought discourteous to any of the hon. Members who had spoken, but, remembering the trouble I got into once for making two speeches in two hours, I was wondering whether making two speeches in a quarter of an hour would go down too well.
In answer to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger), who made a perfectly reasonable point, I would say that we were addressing ourselves, in particular, to an Amendment to insert the words "not including apprentices". It was perfectly legitimate, in these circumstances, to say that, in my view, there would be no justification for treating apprentices differently from other lower paid juveniles, but, since the point has been made, I hope that you, Sir William, will not rule me out of order if I "come clean" with the Committee and say that in regard to lower-paid workers, we have disposed of that Amendment. I would find it difficult to be convinced that whether or not those persons should pay contributions should depend on their age, and I quite admit that if Amendments directed to those points had been put down I should be opposing them, too.
My experience in the House is that it is quite common, with a short Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution, that no Amendments get accepted in Committee—but I say that, obviously, without prejudice to any further Amendments that may be moved this evening. It is not at all unprecedented in the proceedings of this House that when a short Bill is introduced, as I say, founded on a Ways and Means Resolution, that the Bill leaves the Committee stage as it came to it. I am merely stating the facts; I do not seek to do anything else. I speak only of my own experience.
With those few words of mine, perhaps the Committee might agree fairly soon to take a decision on this fairly narrow Amendment, and then get on to the next Amendment, which raises issues of considerable interest.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
1060§ The Committee divied: Ayes 181, Noes 239.
1061| Division No. 96. | AYES | 17.21 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Hayman, F. H. | Pentland, Norman |
| Albu, Austen | Healey, Denis | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) | Probert, Arthur |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Herbison, Miss Margaret | Proctor, W. T. |
| Awbery, Stan | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W. | Hilton, A. V. | Randall, Harry |
| Beaney, Alan | Holman, Percy | Rankin, John |
| Benson, Sir George | Holt, Arthur | Redhead, E. C. |
| Blackburn, F. | Houghton, Douglas | Reid, William |
| Blyton, William | Hoy, James H. | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Boardman, H. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Lelcs, S.W.) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Ross, William |
| Bowles, Frank | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Janner, Sir Barnett | Short, Edward |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Silverman, Julius (Aston |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney C.) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Callaghan, James | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Snow, Julian |
| Chapman, Donald | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Cliffe, Michael | Kelley, Richard | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Collick, Percy | Kenyon, Clifford | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | King, Dr. Horace | Stones, William |
| Crossman, R. H. S. | Lawson, George | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Ledger, Ron | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Lipton, Marcus | Swain, Thomas |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Logan, David | Swingler, Stephen |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Loughlin, Charles | Sylvester, George |
| Deer, George | MacColl, James | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Mackie, John | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Dempsey, James | MacMillan, Maloolm (Western Isles) | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Driberg, Tom | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, S.) | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Manuel, A. C. | Timmons, John |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Tomney, Frank |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Mason, Roy | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Mellish, R. J. | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Evans, Albert | Millan, Bruce | Warbey, William |
| Finch, Harold | Milne, Edward J. | Watkins, Tudor |
| Fitch, Alan | Mitchison, G. R. | Weitzman, David |
| Fletcher, Eric | Monslow, Walter | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Moody, A. S. | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Forman, J. C. | Morris, John | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mort, D. L. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Moyle, Arthur | Williams. D. J. (Neath) |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Srmrthn) | Mulley, Frederick | Williams, Ll. (Abertillery) |
| Ginsburg, David | Neal, Harold | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby. S.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Oliver, G. H. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Grey, Charles | Oswald, Thomas | Woof, Robert |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanetly) | Owen, Will | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | Padley, W. E. | |
| Grimond, J. | Paget, R. T. | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Gunter, Ray | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Hannan, William | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Mr. Cronin and Dr. Broughton |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Peart, Frederick | |
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, W. T. | Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Browne, Percy (Torrington) |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Bidgood, John C. | Bullus, Wing Commander Eric |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.) | Bingham, R. M. | Burden, F. A. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Bishop, F. P. | Butcher, Sir Herbert |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Bossom, Clive | Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) |
| Barber, Anthony | Bourne-Arton, A. | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) |
| Barter, John | Boyle, Sir Edward | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) |
| Batsford, Brian | Braine, Bernard | Cary, Sir Robert |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Brewis, John | Chichester-Clark, R. |
| Bell, Ronald | Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Brooman-White, R. | Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.) |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Cole, Norman | Iremonger, T. L. | Pilkington, Sir Richard |
| Cooper, A. E. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Pitman, I. J. |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neil | Jackson, John | Pitt, Miss Edith |
| Cordle, John | James, David | Pott, Percivall |
| Corfield, F. V. | Jennings, J. C. | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch |
| Contain, A. P. | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Coulson, J. M. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John |
| Cunningham, Knox | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Curran, Charles | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Currie, C. B. H. | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Redmayne, Rt Hon. Martin |
| Dance, James | Kimball, Marcus | Rees, Hugh |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Kitson, Timothy | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Deedes, W. F. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Renton, David |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Langford-Holt, J. | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Leavey, J. A. | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Leburn, Gilmour | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| du Cann, Edward | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Russell, Ronald |
| Duthie, Sir William | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Seymour, Leslie |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Lilley, F. J. P. | Sharples, Richard |
| Emery, Peter | Lindsay, Martin | Shaw, M. |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Shepherd, William |
| Fell, Anthony | Litchfield, Capt. John | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Fisher, Nigel | Longden, Gilbert | Smith, Dudley |
| Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) | Loveys, Walter H. | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Freeth, Denzil | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Speir, Rupert |
| Gammans, Lady | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Gardner, Edward | McAdden, Stephen | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Gibson-Watt, David | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Godber, J. B. | Maclean, Sir Fltzroy, (Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Goodhew, Victor | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Gough, Frederick | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Gower, Raymond | McMaster, Stanley R. | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Grant, Rt. Hon, William | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Green, Alan | Madden, Martin | Temple, John M. |
| Grimston, Sir Robert | Maginnis, John E. | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maitland, Sir John | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Marshall, Douglas | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Marten, Neil | Turner, Colin |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Mawby, Ray | ||
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd) | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S.L.C. | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Mills, Stratton | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John |
| Hastings, Stephen | Montgomery, Fergus | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Hay, John | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Morgan, William | Wall, Patrick |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Morrison, John | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Hendry, Forbes | Nabarro, Gerald | Watts, James |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Neave, Airey | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Hiley, Joseph | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Whitelaw, William |
| Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Wise, A. R. |
| Hobson, John | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Holland, Philip | Page, John (Harrow, West) | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Hollingworth, John | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Hornby, R. P. | Pannel, Norman (kirkdale) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | |
| Hulbert, Sir Norman | Peel, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hurd, Sir Anthony | Percival, Ian | Mr. Finlay and Mr. Noble. |
§ Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 16, column 2, to leave out "1s. 4½d." and to insert "11d."
This Amendment deals with the whole group of employed boys and girls under 18. A few moments ago the Financial Secretary criticised the last Amendment on the ground that it dealt with a group within a group. The Committee has rejected the proposed Amendment to give relief to the group within the group and 1062 we therefore seek, by this Amendment, to give relief to the whole of the group.
All I need add is that the Financial Secretary, with his customary disarming candour, told us that it was very unusual for any Amendments to be accepted to a short Bill which had been the subject of a Money Resolution hut, to preserve his constitutional position, he added that what he said was without prejudice to the 1063 consideration of later Amendments on the Notice Paper.
We now know that it is not without prejudice to the remaining Amendments on the Notice Paper. The Amendment which I have moved is prejudiced by the general considerations to which the Financial Secretary referred. I will not
§ bandy further words with him about the Amendment. I will not waste my time. The Amendment is prejudiced from the beginning. It will not be carried, but I ask the Committee to divide on it.
§ Question put, That "1s. 43d." stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 180.
1065| Division No. 97.] | AYES | [7.33 p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Gibson-Watt, David | McLean, Neil (Inverness) |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) |
| Allison, James | Godber, J. B. | McMaster, Stanley R. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Jullan (Preston, N.) | Goodhew, Victor | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Gough, Frederick | Maddan, Martin |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Gower, Raymond | Maginnis, John E. |
| Barber, Anthony | Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Maitland, Sir John |
| Barlow, Sir John | Green, Alan | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. |
| Barter, John | Grimston, Sir Robert | Markham, Major Sir Frank |
| Batsford, Brian | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Marshall, Douglas |
| Bell, Ronald | Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Marten, Neil |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Mawby, Ray |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Bidgood, John C. | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Masclesf'd) | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. |
| Bingham, R.M. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Mills, Stratton |
| Bishop, F. P. | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Bossom, Clive | Hastings, Stephen | More, Jasper (Ludlow) |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Hay, John | Morgan, William |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Morrison, John |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Nabarro, Gerald |
| Braine, Bernard | Hendry, Forbes | Heave, Airey |
| Brewis, John | Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter | Hiley, Joseph | Nugent, Sir Richard |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie |
| Brooman White, R. | Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Hirst, Geoffrey | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Hobson. John | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) |
| Burden, F. A. | Holland, Philip | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Hollingworth, John | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | Hornby, R P | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Hulbert, Sir Norman | Peel, John |
| Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Hurd, Sir Anthony | Percival, Ian |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Iremonger, T. L. | Pilkington, Sir Richard |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Pitman, I. J. |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Jackson, John | Pitt, Miss Edith |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | James, David | Pott, Percivall |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Jennings, J. C. | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch |
| Cole, Norman | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Cooper, A. E. | Johnson, Erie (Blackdey) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John |
| Cordle, John | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Corfield, F. V. | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Costain, A. P. | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Coulson, J. M. | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Craddock Sir Beresford | Kimball, Marcus | Rees, Hugh |
| Cunningham, Knox | Kitson, Timothy | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Curran, Charles | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Renton, David |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Langford-Holt J. | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Dance, James | Leavey, J. A. | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Leburn, Gilmour | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Dudes, W. F. | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Russell, Ronald |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Seymour, Leslie |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Lilley, F. J. P. | Sharples, Richard |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Lindsay, Martin | Shaw, M. |
| du Cann, Edward | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Shepherd, William |
| Duthie, Sir William | Litchfield, Capt. John | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Emery, Peter | Longden, Gilbert | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chlswick) |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Loveys, Walter H. | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Fell, Anthony | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Fisher, Nigel | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Speir, Rupert |
| Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | ||
| Freeth, Denzil | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Gammans, Lady | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Gardner, Edward | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Stoddart-Scott. Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Storey, Sir Samuel | Turner, Colin | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Studholme, Sir Henry | Tweedemuir, Lady | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) | van Straubenzee, W. R. | Wise, A. R. |
| Sumner, Donald (Orpington) | Vane, W. M. F. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Temple, John M. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Thomas, Peter (Conway) | Wall, Patrick | Worsley, Marcus |
| Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) | Ward, Dame Irene | |
| Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin | Watts, James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) | Wells, John (Maidstone) | Mr. Finlay and Mr. Noble. |
| Tilney, John (Wavertree) | Whitelaw, William | |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Healey, Denis | Pentland, Norman |
| Albu, Austen | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis) | Price, J.T. (Westhoughton) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Herbison, Miss Margaret | Probert, Arthur |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Proctor, W. T. |
| Awbery, Stan | Hilton, A. V. | Purvey, Cmdr. Harry |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Holman, Percy | Randall, Harry |
| Beaney, Alan | Holt, Arthur | Rankin, John |
| Benson, Sir George | Houghton, Douglas | Redhead, E. C. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hoy, James H. | Reid, William |
| Blyton, William | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Boardman, H. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Ross, William |
| Bowles, Frank | Janner, Sir Barnett | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Brockway, A. Penner | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Short, Edward |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Callaghan, James | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Snow, Julian |
| Chapman, Donald | Keiley, Richard | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Cliffe, Michael | Kenyon, Clifford | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Collick, Percy | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | King, Dr. Horace | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Lawson, George | Stones, William |
| Crossman, R. H. S. | Ledger, Ron | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Lipton, Marcus | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Logan, David | Swain, Thomas |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Loughlin, Charles | Swingler, Stephen |
| Deer, George | MacColl, James | Sylvester, George |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Mackie, John | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Dempsey, James | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Driberg, Tom | Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg) | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Mallalleu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Manuel, A. C. | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Edwards, Robert (Bliston) | Mason, Roy | Timmons. John |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Mellish, R. J. | Tourney, Frank |
| Evans, Albert | Millan, Bruce | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Finch, Harold | Milne, Edward J. | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Fitch, Alan | Mitchison, G. R. | Warbey, William |
| Fletcher, Erie | Monslow, Walter | Watkins, Tudor |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Moody, A. S. | Weitzman, David |
| Forman, J. C. | Morris, John | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mort, D. L. | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Moyle, Arthur | Wigg, George |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) | Mulley, Frederick | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Ginsburg, David | Neal, Harold | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Williams, Li (Abertiliery) |
| Grey, Charles | Oliver, G. H. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Oswald, Thomas | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | Owen, Will | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Grimond, J. | Padley, W. E. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Gunter, Ray | Paget, R. T. | Woof, Robert |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Hannan, William | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | |
| Hayman, F. H. | Peart, Frederick | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies. |
§ Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 20, column 2, to leave out "2s. 10d." and to insert "2s. 3d."
1066 The Amendment deals with self-employed men. We think that they, too, should be relieved of the full impact of the proposed increases.
§ Question put, That "2s. 10d." stand part of the Schedule:—
1068§ The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 180.
1069| Division No. 98.] | AYES | 17.43 p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Neave, Airey |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey |
| Allason, James | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Noble, Michael |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.) | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macelesf'd) | Nugent, Sir Richard |
| Arbuthnot, John | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Oakshott, Sir Hendrle |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Barber, Anthony | Hastings, Stephen | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) |
| Barter, John | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Botsford, Brian | Hendry, Forbes | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) |
| Bell, Ronald | Hiley, Joseph | Percival, Ian |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Pilkington, Sir Richard |
| Bevine, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Hirst, Geoffrey | Pitman, I. J. |
| Bldgood, John C. | Hobson, John | Pitt, Miss Edith |
| Bingham, R. M. | Holland, Philip | Pott, Percivall |
| Bishop, F. P. | Hollingworth, John | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch |
| Bossom, Clive | Hornby, R. P. | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | profumo, Rt. Hon. John |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hulbert, Sir Norman | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Braine, Bernard | Hurd, Sir Anthony | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Brewis, John | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter | Iremonger, T. L. | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Rees, Hugh |
| Brooman-White, R. | Jackson, John | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | James, David | Renton, David |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Jennings, J. C. | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Burden, F. A. | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Safron Walden) | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Russell, Ronald |
| Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | Joseph, Sir Keith | Seymour, Leslie |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Sharples, Richard |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Shaw, M. |
| Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Shepherd, William |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kimball, Marcus | Smith. Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Kitson, Timothy | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Langford-Holt, J. | Speir, Rupert |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Leaver, J. A. | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Cole, Norman | Leburn, Gilmour | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Cordle, John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Corfield, F. V. | Lilley, F. J. P. | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Costain, A. P. | Lindsay, Martin | Sotrey, Sir Henry |
| Coulson, J. M. | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Summers Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | Litchfield, Capt. John | Sumner, (Orpington) |
| Cunningham, Knox | Longden, Gilbert | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Curran, Charles | Loveys, Walter H. | Temple, John M. |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Dance, James | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Deedes, W. F. | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Thornton Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Turner, Colln |
| du Cann, Edward | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Tweednmuir, Lady |
| Duthie, Sir William | McMaster, Stanley R. | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Emery, Peter | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Maddan, Martin | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Fell, Anthony | Maginnis, John E. | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Finlay, Graeme | Maitland, Sir John | Wall, Patrick |
| Fisher, Nigel | Marmingham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Freeth, Denzil | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Watts, James |
| Gammons Lady | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Gardner, Edward | Marshall, Douglas | Whitelaw, William |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Marten, Neil | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Godber, J. B. | Mawby, Ray | Wise, A. R. |
| Goodhew, Victor | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Gough, Frederick | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Gower, Raymond | Mills, Stratton | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Montgomery, Fergus | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Green, Alan | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Grimston, Sir Robert | Morgan, William | |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Morrison, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Nabarro, Gerald | Mr. Peel and Mr. Frank Pearson. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Hayman, F. H. | Pentland, Norman |
| Albu, Austen | Healey, Denis | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regie) | Probert, Arthur |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Herbison, Miss Margaret | Proctor, W. T. |
| Awbery, Stan | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Purvey, Cmdr. Harry |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Hilton, A. V. | Randall, Harry |
| Beaney, Alan | Holman, Percy | Rankin, John |
| Benson, Sir George | Holt, Arthur | Redhead, E. C. |
| Blackburn, F. | Houghton, Douglas | Reid, William |
| Blyton, William | Hoy, James H. | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Boardman, H. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S.W.) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Bowden, Roderic (Cardigan) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Ross, William |
| Bowles, Frank | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Janner, Sir Barnett | Short, Edward |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Silverman, Julian (Aston) |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Snow, Julian |
| Callaghan, James | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Chapman, Donald | Kelley, Richard | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Cliffe, Michael | Kenyon, Clifford | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Collick, Percy | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | King, Dr. Horace | Stones, William |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Lawson, George | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Grossman, R. H. S. | Ledger, Ron | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Lipton, Marcus | Swain, Thomas |
| Daves, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Logan, David | Swingler, Stephen |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Loughlin, Charles | Sylvester, George |
| Deer, George | MacColl, James | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Mackie, John | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Dempsey, James | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Driberg, Tom | Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Mallalieu, J. P. W, (Huddersfield, E.) | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Manuel, A. C. | Timmons, John |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Tomney, Frank |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Mason, Roy | Ungned-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Mellish, R. J. | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Evans, Albert | Millan, Bruce | Warbey, William |
| Finch, Harold | Milne, Edward J. | Watkins, Tudor |
| Fitch, Alan | Mitchison, G. R. | Weitzman, David |
| Fletcher, Eric | Monslow, Walter | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Moody. A. S | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Forman, J. C. | Morris, John | Wigg, George |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mort, D. L. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Moyle, Arthur | Wilkins, W. A. |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthm) | Mulley, Frederick | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Ginsburg, David | Neal, Harold | Williams, Ll. (Abertillery) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Oliver, G. H. | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Grey, Charles | Oswald, Thomas | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Owen, will | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | Padley, W. E. | Woof, Robert |
| Grimond J. | Paget, R. T. | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Gunter, Ray | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | |
| Hannan, William | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Peart, Frederick | Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies. |
§ Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 23, column 2, to leave out "2s. 2d." and to insert 1s. 9d.".
This Amendment deals with self-employed women. My hon. Friends have reminded me that all hon. Members of this Committee have an interest in the position of self-employed persons under the National Insurance Scheme. I think that on their behalf I should declare that we all have an interest, but it is not in
§ our own interests that I move this Amendment. We are thinking of all self-employed persons outside, on whom this additional burden would bear harshly, and we want to mitigate it as far as possible
§ Question put, That "2s. 2d. "stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 236, Noes 179.
1073| Division No.99.] | AYES | [7.52 p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Amery, Rt. Hon, Julian (Preston, N.) | Barber, Anthony |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Arbuthnot, John | Barlow, Sir John |
| Allason, James | Atkins, Humphrey | Barter, John |
| Batsford, Brian | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Nugent, Sir Richard |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Hastings, Stephen | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie |
| Bell, Ronald | Hay, John | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Hendry, Forbes | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) |
| Bidgood, John C. | Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Bingham, R. M. | Hiley, Joseph | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) |
| Boasom, Clive | Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Percival, Ian |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Hirst, Geoffrey | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Hobson, John | Pilkington, Sir Richard |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Holland, Philip | Pitman, I. J. |
| Brains, Bernard | Hollingsworth, John | Pitt, Miss Edith |
| Brawis, John | Hornby, R. P. | Pott, Percivall |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Howard, John (Southampon, Test) | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Brooman-White, R. | Hulbert, Sir Norman | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otto) |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Sir Anthony | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Erie | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Burden, F. A. | Iremonger, T. L. | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden) | Jackson, John | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | James, David | Rees, Hugh |
| Campbell, George (Moray & Nairn) | Jennings, J. C. | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Renton, David |
| Can, Robert (Mitcham) | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Cary Sir Robert | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Joseph, Sir Keith | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Russell, Ronald |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Kerans, Cdr J. S. | Seymour, Leslie |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Sharples, Richard |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Shaw, M. |
| Cole, Norman | Kimball, Marcus | Shepherd, William |
| Cooper, A. E. | Kitson, Timothy | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Cooper-Key, sir Neill | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Cordle, John | Langford-Holt, J. | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Corfield, F. V. | Leavey, J. A. | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Contain, A. P. | Leburn, Gilmour | Speir, Rupert |
| Coulson, J. M. | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Cunningham, Knox | Lilley, F. J. P. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Lindsay, Martin | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Dance, James | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry | Longden, Gilbert | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Beetles, W. F. | Loveys, Walter H. | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Lucas, Sir Jecelyn | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Temple, John M. |
| du Cairn, Edward | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Duthie, Sir William | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Emery, Peter | Maclean, Sir Fitrey(Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Fell, Anthony | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford. W.) |
| Finlay, Graeme | McMaster, Stanley R. | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Fisher, Nigel | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Turner, Colin |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Madden, Martin | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Freeth, Denzil | Maginnis, John E. | van Straubenzee, W. B. |
| Gammans, Lady | Maitland, Sir John | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Gardner, Edward | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Wall, Patrick |
| Godber, J. B. | Marshall, Douglas | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Goodhew, Victor | Marten, Neil | Watts, James |
| Gough, Frederick | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Gower, Raymond | Mawby, Ray | Whitelaw, William |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Green, Alan | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Crimston, Sir Robert | Mills, Stratton | Wise, A. R. |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Montgomery, Fergus | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Morgan, William | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Nabarro, Gerald | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Heave, Airey | Worstey, Marcus |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | |
| Harvey, John (Waithametow, E.) | Noble, Michael | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Peel and Mr. Frank Pearson. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Awbery, Stan | Blackburn, F. |
| Albu, Austen | Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Blyton, William |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Beaney, Alan | Boardman, H. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Benson, Sir George | Bowden, Herbert W. (Leios, S.W.) |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Houghton, Douglas | Probert, Arthur |
| Bowles, Frank | Hoy, James H. | Proctor, W. T. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Randall, Harry |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Rankin, John |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Redhead, E. C. |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Janner, Sir Barnett | Reid, William |
| Callaghan, James | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Reynolds, C. W. |
| Chapman, Donald | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Clife, Michael | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Collick, Percy | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Ross, William |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Short, Edward |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Crossman, R. H. S. | Kelley, Richard | Slater, Mrs. Harriet |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Kenyon, Clifford | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Davies, G Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | King, Dr. Horace | Snow, Julian |
| Deer, George | Lawson, George | Sorensen, R. W. |
| de Freitas Geoffrey | Ledger, Ron | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Delargy, Hugh | Lipton, Marcus | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Dempsey, James | Logan, David | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Driberg, Tom | Loughlin, Charles | Stones, William |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | MacColl, James | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Mackle, John | Swain, Thomas |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Sylvester, George |
| Evans, Albert | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderafield, E) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Finch, Harold | Manuel, A. C. | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Fitch, Alan | Marquant, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mason, Roy | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Mellish, R. J. | Thornton, Ernest |
| Forman, J. C. | Millan, Bruce | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Milne, Edward J. | Timmons, John |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Mitchison, G. R. | Tomney, Frank |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) | Monslow, Walter | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Ginsburg, David | Moody, A. S. | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Gourlay, Harry | Morris, John | Warbey, William |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Mort, D. L. | Watkins, Tudor |
| Grey, Charles | Moyle, Arthur | Weitzman, David |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Mulley, Frederick | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | Neal, Harold | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Crimond, J. | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Wigg, George |
| Gunter, Ray | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Oliver, G. H. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Oswald, Thomas | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Hannan, William | Owen, Will | Williams, LI. (Abertillery) |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Padley, W. E. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Paget, R. T. | Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Healey, Denis | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Herbison, Miss Margaret | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | Woof, Robert |
| Hewitson, Capt. M. | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Hilton, A. V. | Peart, Frederick | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Holman, Percy | Pentland, Norman | Zilliacus, K. |
| Holt, Arthur | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies. |
§ Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 24, column 2, to leave out "1s. 6d." and to insert "1s. 3d.".
This Amendment deals with self-employed boys and girls under the age of 18. It is linked with the Amendment already disposed of in line 16, column 2, and was partially debated in principle on the Amendment in line 16, column 1. Therefore, it will be sufficient if I formally move the Amendment.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithI am beginning to wonder whether this Committee has become an automatic machine. I understand that the purpose of the Committee is to state a case, to have a Government
§ reply and then for other members of the Committee to consider the case which has been stated and the reply. I should like to know the Government's attitude on the Amendment, especially with regard to self-employed boys and girls under 18 years of age. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. LoughlinOn a point of order. May we have a little order at this end of the Chamber, Sir James? I cannot hear what my hon. Friend is saying.
§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan)I hope that hon. Members behind the Bar will keep quiet.
§ Mr. LoughlinThank you, Sir James.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithI was making the plea that the stage had arrived when we should 1075 have a statement from the Financial Secretary. I plead guilty and admit that for about forty minutes I have not been present in the Committee, because I have been dining. All of us want food at some time, so I am not speaking critically of other members of the Committee who may not have been present.
§ Dr. KingIs not the answer to my hon. Friend's anxiety that we are under a Guillotine and find it difficult to do what we would very much like to do?
§ Mr. Ellis SmithYes, but the Guillotine on this Amendment has not fallen yet. I am protesting because it appeared from observations that too many hon. Members were regarding the Committee as an automatic machine. Democracy has not become that yet. While time is available, when an Amendment of this character has been moved we are entitled to hear the Financial Secretary's statement concerning it and why he cannot accept it.
§ Mr. LoughlinI did not want to intervene in this debate, but I thought that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) had appealed to the Financial Secretary to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) he would have responded. [Interruption.] I cannot hear even myself. It may well be that I should be delighted, as some hon. Members have said, but it is they who were waiting for dinner, not I. I can stay here, as I usually do, until any hour.
It is a travesty of the proceedings of the House of Commons that so many hon. Members on the opposite side are concerned more about getting through into the Division Lobbies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Look at you own side.']—after the persistent appeals from this side, throughout the whole debate, to have a contribution on any of the Amendments from back bench Members opposite. As I recollect, and I have been present for the whole of the discussion, we have had a minute contribution from one hon.
§ Member opposite. On our last Amendment, a case was presented from the Front Bench on this side and no attempt was made by the Government to reply. We now move a further Amendment and, apparently, no attempt is to be made by the Government spokesman to answer the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby.
§ As I have said time and time again this afternoon, unless we arrive at the position where hon. Members on the Government side are prepared to take seriously these issues, which vitally affect the constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member, and attend to their business and the welfare of their constituents, this is a travesty of the proceedings of the House of Commons. I hope that on this occasion at least, the Financial Secretary will attempt to answer the points put by my hon. Friend.
§ Sir E. BoyleI am glad to explain why I did not rise a few moments ago in response to the appeal of hon. Members. There is a simple reason. This Amendment would reduce the rate for juvenile self-employed persons—that is, self-employed persons under the age of 18—from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 3d. There are practically no specimens of juvenile self-employed under the age of 18 in existence. Therefore, I did not think that this was quite an occasion for taking the time of the Committee.
In replying to the Amendment, I am a little reminded of a Latin construction which one used to learn in old-fashioned school about futurum fuisse ut, of which there were precisely two specimens in the whole of Latin authors. I suggest that the Committee might be more usefully employed in coming to a decision on this Amendment and spending rather more time on the next Amendment, about which there is a good deal more that is worth saying.
§ Question put, That "1s. 6d." stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 179.
1079| Division No.100.] | AYES | [8.10 p.m. |
| Aitken, W.T. | Barber, Anthony | Bennett, F.M. (Torquay) |
| Alian, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Barlow, Sir John | Berkeley, Humphry |
| Aliason, James | Barter, John | Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Jullan (Preston, N.) | Batsford, Brian | Bidgood, John C. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Bingham, R.M. |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Bell, Ronald | Bishop, F.P. |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Hiley, Joseph | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) |
| Bossom, Clive | Hill, Dr. Rt. lion. Charles (Luton) | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfok) | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Hirst, Geoffrey | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hobson, John | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Braise, Bernard | Holland, Philip | Peel, John |
| Brewis, John | Hollingworth, John | Percival, Ian |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Hornby, R. P. | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Pilkington, Sir Richard |
| Brooman-White, R. | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Pitman, I. J. |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Hulbert, Sir Norman | Pitt, Miss Edith |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Erie | Hurd, Sir Anthony | Pott, Percival |
| Burden, F. A. | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Iremonger, T. L. | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Jackson, John | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John |
| Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | James, David | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Jennings, J. C. | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Chichester. Clark, R. | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Rees, Hugh |
| Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Joseph, Sir Keith | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Renton, David |
| Cole, Norman | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Cooper, A. E. | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Cordle, John | Kimball, Marcus | Russell, Ronald |
| Corfield, F. V. | Kitson, Timothy | Seymour, Leslie |
| Costain, A. P. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Sharples, Richard |
| Couison, J M. | Langford-Holt. J. | Shaw, M. |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | Leavey, J. A. | Shepherd, William |
| Cunningham, Knox | Leburn, Gilmour | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Curran, Charles | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswiek) |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Smyth, Brig Sir John (Norwood) |
| Dance, James | Lilley, F. J. P. | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Lindsay, Martin | Speir, Rupert |
| Deedes, W. F. | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Longden, Gilbert | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Loveys, Walter H. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| du Cann, Edward | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Duthie, Sir William | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Emery, Peter | McLaren, Martin | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Fell, Anthony | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.) | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Finlay, Graeme | McLean, Nell (Inverness) | Temple, John M. |
| Forrest, George | MacLeod. John (Ross & Cromarty) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | McMaster, Stanley R. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Freeth, Denzil | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Gammans, Lady | Maddan, Martin | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Gardner, Edward | Maginnis, John E. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Godlier, J. B. | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Turner, Colin |
| Goodhew, Victor | Marshall, Douglas | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Gough, Frederick | Marten, Neil | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Gower, Raymond | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Green, Alan | Mawby, Ray | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Grimston, Sir Robert | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wall, Patrick |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Mills, Stratton | Watts, James |
| Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Montgomery, Fergus | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Morgan, William | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Nabarro, Gerald | Wise, A. R. |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Heave, Airey | Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Hastings, Stephen | Noble, Michael | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Hay, John | Nugent, Sir Richard | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Worsley, Marcus |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | |
| Hendry, Forbes | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Campbell. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Benson, Sir George | Brockway, A. Fenner |
| Albu, Austen | Blackburn, F. | Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Blyton, William | Brown, Alan (Tottenham) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Boardman, H. | Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Helper) |
| Awbery, Stan | Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) |
| Beaney, Alan | Bowles, Frank | Callaghan, James |
| Chapman, Donald | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Randall, Harry |
| Cliffe, Michael | Janner, Sir Barnett | Rankin, John |
| Collick, Percy | day, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Reid, William |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Cronin, John | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Grossman, R. H. S. | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Ross, William |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Short, Edward |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Kelley, Richard | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Kenyon, Clifford | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Deer, George | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | King, Dr. Horace | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Lawson, George | Snow, Julian |
| Dempsey, James | Ledger, Ron | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Dodds, Norman | Lipton, Marcus | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Driberg, Tom | Logan, David | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Loughlin, Charles | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | MacColl, James | Stones, William |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Mackie, John | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Swain, Thomas |
| Evans, Albert | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Finch, Harold | Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Sylvester, George |
| Fitch, Alan | Manuel, A. C. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Mason, Roy | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Forman, J. C. | Mellish, R. J. | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Millan, Bruce | Thornton, Ernest |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Milne, Edward J. | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) | Mitchison, G. R. | Timmons, John |
| Ginsburg, David | Monslow, Walter | Tomney, Frank |
| Gourlay, Harry | Moody, A. S. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Morris, John | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Grey, Charles | Mort, D. L. | Warbey, William |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) | Moyle, Arthur | Watkins, Tudor |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | Mulley, Frederick | Weitzman, David |
| Grimond, J. | Neal, Harold | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Gunter, Ray | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Gienvil (Colne Valley) | Noel-Baker. Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Wigg, George |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Oliver, G. H. | Wlicock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Hannan, William | Oswald, Thomas | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Owen, Will | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Padley, W. E. | Williams, LI. (Abertillery) |
| Healey, Denis | Paget, R. T. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Herbison, Miss Margaret | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Hewitson, Capt. M. | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Hilton, A. V. | Pearson. Arthur (Pontypridd) | Woof, Robert |
| Holman, Percy | Pearl, Frederick | Wyatt, Woodrow |
| Holt, Arthur | Pentland, Norman | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Houghton, Douglas | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Hoy, James H. | Probert, Arthur | |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Proctor, W. T. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry | Mr. Redhead and Mr. Her Davies. |
§ Mrs. WhiteI beg to move, in page 3, line 25, column 1, after "65", to insert:
not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".
§ The Temporary ChairmanI want to make clear that if this Amendment is not carried, the following Amendments fall:
In line 26, column 1, after "60", insert:
not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".In line 27, column 1, at end insert:not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".In line 27,column 1, at end insert:not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognized educational estabilishment".
§ In line 27, at end add:
| s. | d. | |
| 11. Non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment | 1 | 3 |
§ and in line 27, at end add:
| s. | d. | |
| 11. Non-employed men between the ages of 18 and 65 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment | 2 | 3 |
| 12. Non-employed women between the ages of 18 and 60 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment | 1 | 9 |
§ Mrs. WhiteI am well aware of that, Sir James.
This Amendment and the others which you have named, Sir James, which 1081 are connected with it deal with the position of students, that is, persons over 18 undergoing full-time education. I would remind the Committee that students are in a peculiar position in that while they are students they are not obliged to pay any contribution. Consequently, not having paid their contributions, when they cease to be students and enter employment they have a choice. One course open to them is that they can leave matters where they stand, in which case their entitlement to benefit is considerably impaired, because their average over the necessary period of years will be diminished. That means that, on retirement, their pension and that of their wives would be less than otherwise, or should they die and leave a widow, her pension and sums paid to dependent children similarly might suffer. The other course of action open to them is that in the first six years of employment they can make up any contribution which they did not pay while they were still students.
The contributions that they are liable to pay as students are at the non-employed rates, which are somewhat different from those which they would pay were they employed. But as soon as they leave the training college or university and take employment they then pay the ordinary employed person's rate of contribution and, if they opt, they can make up retrospectively at the non-employed rate for the period during which they were students.
As long ago as 5th February, 1954, I discussed in the House the question of National Insurance contributions by students. At that time I proposed that the Minister of Education should take cognisance of this in the grants paid to students. I had a reply at some length and with great ingenuity from the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) who, during that period, was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. He pointed out the reasons which convinced him and Her Majesty's Government at that time why an allowance should not be made to students which would enable them to pay these contributions whilst they were still at college.
Only last week the present Minister of Education, in reply to a Question, confirmed that the Ministry was absolutely against making any allowance to students 1082 in their grants which would enable them whilst still studying to pay these contributions. The point was that to exempt them altogether would not be fair to other contributors, and to make an allowance from the Ministry of Education fund would not be fair to the taxpayer.
The Government's attitude, therefore, is that students should make these contributions. An ordinary student is quite unable to do it while at college. Therefore, if he is to make up these contributions and safeguard his position in future or that of his wife and children, he has the option of paying retrospectively during his six years of employment. Included in this amount that he is expected to pay is not merely the contributory part of insurance contribution, but also the health charge, which is what we are discussing on this Amendment. To include this in a retrospective payment seems to me quite illogical and this is the basis of my case on the principle.
The principle of it is that while the man or woman is at college he or she is treated as though the student had contributed as far as the National Health Service is concerned. In other words, the student is fully entitled under the Health Service without question asked. Any treatment that the student may require during his period of study is given. Any medicine or anything else that he may need he obtains on the same terms as anybody else, as though the contributions had been paid.
There is no question, therefore, on the health charges, of any difference being made later, according to whether or not the contributions had been paid. It is on a completely different footing from the insurance part of the payment. The insurance part is, as it were, part of a life-long series of payments which entitles a person in certain circumstances to monetary benefit. It can be reasonably argued, therefore, that it is necessary that these contributions should be paid at some stage or another so that one may be properly, financially and morally, entitled to payment. But this does not apply to the health part, because the person has already had the treatment.
The one-time student is under no legal obligation to make this retrospective 1083 contribution and, therefore, if he chooses not to make it, he can get away with it completely free where the Health Services are concerned. There is no reason why he should not. The law does not say, "You have been having the benefit of the Health Service for the last few years and, therefore, you must pay now."
I shall refer mainly to men, because it is more important to them since they may have dependants who may be affected as well, but let us take the case of the woman at college who gets married immediately she leaves, as happens more and more frequently. She decides not to pay at all the three or four years' contribution while at college. She may have enjoyed the benefit of the Health Service, but she is under no legal obligation whatsoever to make up the health part of the contribution. If she wants to get in her own right insurance benefits, then like anybody else she has to pay the insurance part of it.
One can at least see the logical argument there. But I cannot honestly see that one should say that there is a logical argument for expecting retrospective contributions where the health charges are concerned, particularly as it is completely open to the choice of the individual whether he pays retrospectively or not regardless of whether he has had anything under the Health Service. That is the principle of the matter.
I want now to come to the finances of the matter. I repeat that I shall base my argument mostly on the man's contribution, because it is not quite so important for the woman as for the man. The woman is usually concerned only with her own benefits, whereas it is extremely important that a man should make up in his first six years of employment anything he has missed while a student.
From July next the non-employed rate for a man will be 11 s. 5d. a week. That is the rate at which he will have to pay retrospectively for his student years. If my arithmetic is correct, that comes to £29 13s. 8d. per annum. Therefore, if a person has been studying for three years he has to make up in his first six years of employment roughly £89. Of the £29 per annum which has to be made up at the non-employed rate, seven guineas 1084 represents the health charges. Taken over three years, health charges represent £22 of the £89.
If the man were at college for four years or for three years, and then took teacher training for a year—I want particularly in a moment to refer to teachers—the total amount that has to be made up is about £118, of which about £29 represents the Health Service element. I suggest that these are very considerable sums. As was said when we were discussing the position of married women, earlier, the small contribution that used to be paid was not a matter to worry about, but now it is a quite substantial sum and we really have to take it seriously.
8.30 p.m.
When the young man starts work he has to pay the ordinary insurance contribution like everybody else. I understand that from next July this will amount to 12s. 2d. per week for an employed man. Therefore, he has to pay his 12s. 2d. per week as well as make up what he did not pay during the years when he was a student. According to my reckoning, if the man had been a student for four years his current insurance together with his retrospective payments spread over six years amount together to a total of over £50 a year. If he was only three years in college the total sum comes to a little under £50 a year, but only a matter of 30s. or so. The combined payments that the young man will have to make in his first six years of earning amount to about £50 a year, of which the health part is not the major part, although it is substantial.
In these circumstances, one has to compare what the man has to pay with what he is likely to earn. I have here the scale of salaries for teachers. Teachers form a very large proportion of those who are affected by this provision, because they go to training college or university, or sometimes both. The scale of pay for teachers at present starts at the relatively small figure of £520 a year, and it goes up for someone who has had training by increments of £30 a year, and if one is a graduate one has an additional payment of £90 a year, and if a good honours graduate, another £75. That means that even if one goes to the end of the six years the non-graduate 1085 trained teacher will be getting only £670 a year, the graduate with training but without an honours degree will get £760 and the honours graduate with training will get £835.
If we turn these figures into weekly average earnings to obtain a comparison with average weekly earnings for the country as a whole, it is only the honours graduate with training who, in his fifth year, will exceed the national average. The other teachers, even at the end of their sixth year, will still not have reached the average earnings for men in the country as a whole.
Therefore, the students who are being asked to repay what they have missed while they were students as well as paying their current insurance contributions will be doing so out of incomes—with the exception of the last two years for the honours graduate—which are lower than the average male earnings in the country. It is quite untrue to say that just because someone has been through training college or university he is in the first six years of earning, whatever may happen afterwards, earning more than the ordinary manual worker. He is not; it simply is not so. The figures make it perfectly clear that it does not follow that because one has been to a training college or university one is necessarily getting a very large sum in the early days of earning.
The important thing is that if a man is to make those retrospective payments they have to be made within the first six years of employment, no matter what his ultimate prospects may be. It is, therefore. exceedingly important that the sums which have to be paid should not be so great as to be a disincentive to the person who has to pay, so that he feels. "This is really just too much for me. I just cannot face this extra payment. I will pay my current contributions, but will not make up what I did not pay while I was at college."
The man may be very much too optimistic about all this. He may not realise fully what damage he may be doing both to his own ultimate comfort in his old age and, more important in some ways, to any widow or dependent children if he should by any chance die through illness or accident at an early age. Therefore, it is exceedingly important that the feeling "I cannot face these big pay- 1086 ments as well as the current contributions" should not prevail.
I suggest, therefore, that, although the portion of the payment which represents the health contribution—which is all that we are really entitled to discuss under the Bill—is not a very large one, it is nevertheless sufficiently substantial possibly to turn the scale for someone who is trying to decide whether or not he should face the payment of the sums which he has failed to pay while a student.
I suggest that the extra £29 or so for a four-year student is a substantial sum for someone earning the relatively small amounts which I suggested they might be earning as teachers or as persons in comparable occupation, and that it might mean that someone was, in whole or in part, sufficiently discouraged not to pay the contributions, possibly with serious effects, especially where widows and orphans are concerned. Teachers do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) knows only too well, have pensions for widows and orphans yet, though those may come. That is a very serious aspect of this matter.
I do not wish to detain the Committee, because I know that the Guillotine falls only too soon, but I have made out a substantial case for the Financial Secretary to answer. There is no logic in the retrospective payment of the portion of the contribution which represents the health charge. Although it is not the major part of the charge, it is nevertheless, sufficiently substantial possibly to deter a student from making the payments on which must depend the future happiness and comfort of himself, and, to an even greater degree, if he is so unfortunate, his widow.
§ Dr. KingMy hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has raised an important point, which she has stated with her usual clarity and ability. In reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I must say that a number of important points have been involved in previous Amendments, but the reason why we have not been able to discuss them all is due to the fact that the Guillotine is hanging over us. The result is that those who support this Amendment will speak very briefly.
1087 I am pleased to speak in this case on behalf of the National Union of Students, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. This is a problem which has always existed for the university student. He works hard; he is an adult; he does not draw wages or salary; he gets a grant which is barely enough to live on, and if that grant is conditional on the means of his parents, and if his parents have more than a certain amount of means, then he does not even get subsistence but must exist on the money his parents provide.
§ Mrs. SlaterIs my hon. Friend also including those students who attend training colleges, especially now that the course for trainee teachers is three years?
§ Dr. KingI did not wish to give any indication that I was not including those at the teacher training colleges. I was talking of all those who take part in full-time further education.
The question a student must ask himself is whether he should pay the National Insurance contribution. He has the option. He is young, and it is a gamble. He may argue that the chances of all the frailties that flesh is heir to coming to him are less than when he is older. In my own experience—and, I am certain, in the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—if something terrible happens to a university student, then he and his parents are very distressed indeed if they have not taken the cover which this great National Insurance Scheme provides. I feel that we should do everything we can to encourage students not to opt out of Insurance benefits but to opt in.
We can use various methods. The best method would be to pay them an adequate maintenance at college so that this contribution would not be a great financial burden. Obviously, we could get rid of the means test, and then they would not have to think about this contribution in terms of whether they are imposing a second National Insurance contribution on their parents. But if I have carried the Committee with me so far, then certainly what we can do is not to add any of the poll tax element to the charges which we are asking the young students to pay.
1088 The Amendment seeks, in one tiny corner, to reduce the flat rate contribution by 7d., so that the university students will be less inclined to opt out of National Insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has pointed out that a student has the option, when he starts work, of buying himself into full benefit. But most students go into the teaching profession, which has an inadequate scale of salaries, with a long time to go before the maximum is reached and the period in which a young man can buy himself in is the very period when his salary is at its lowest and when his commitments as a young married man are heaviest.
This is a problem, especially in this day and age, with its fantastic rents and fantastic burdens on young married persons from the moment they get married. I hope that the Financial Secretary, without conceding any of the great principles he has enunciated at various stages in this Committee—principles which we repudiate—will accept this Amendment. We know his keenness for education, and this would be a contribution to the social health of young students. I therefore support the Amendment with pleasure.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Sir E. BoyleOn one matter all of us in the Committee would like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), and that is on having moved an Amendment on a good Committee issue. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have given some thought to this matter and I agree with the hon. Lady that it involves not merely the Health Service contribution scheme, but the whole question of grants to students and other matters with which I used to be rather more intimately concerned some time ago.
The series of Amendments which we are discussing is designed to relieve from contribution all university students over 18 and those attending technical colleges and not least, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) said, teacher-training colleges. While it would be out of order to go into this matter at length, we should remember that there is a connection here with one of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee on awards to students, which was to the effect that arrangement should be made 1089 for university students to be able to pay contributions during their courses.
It will be just as well if I remind the Committee once again exactly how matters now stand, because that is highly relevant to the subject of the debate. The position is that a student who spends three years at a college and does not pay contributions would have his single rate of retirement pension reduced by about 2s. if he otherwise had a complete contribution record. I quite realise that the effect on a widow's pension can be more severe. I take the slightly extreme case of a man who dies at about 35 and where the result might be a diminution in his widow's pension of about 10s. a week, although the children's allowances would not be diminished at all.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East fairly said, after leaving college or training college, the student can later make up his contribution record at any time during the next six years of his working life. The hon. Lady was slightly inaccurate in one respect, for the student needs only to average 50 contributions a year and need not pay 52, so that at most he would have to pay 150 times 11s. 5d., which is the non-employment rate after 3rd July, and that comes to £85 12s. 6d. over the six years.
§ Mrs. WhiteSurely the average of 50 is over this entire contribution life, so that unless he pays the 52 contributions a year over the time he is at university, if at any time later, either because he goes abroad or for some other reason, he falls behind, he would have nothing in hand.
§ Sir E. BoyleThe hon. Lady is quite right. Over the contribution life as a whole he has to average 50 a year, but that figure of 50 does not apply only to the six years. There is no reason why he should put himself in a better position necessarily by paying the 52 contributions a year during the time when he is having to pay a double contribution. That was the only point I was seeking to make.
We have always realised—and this is part and parcel of the whole scheme—that, for reasons connected with his assessment and the relative advantage of money in his pocket now compared with more money in his retirement pension later on, the student has to choose what he is to do. Whether he decides after 1090 leaving college to make up the contributions, entitling himself to a slightly higher retirement pension and his wife to a possibly more secure position, has always been recognised as a choice essential to the scheme.
I do not want to make too much of this, but the Amendment deals simply with 7d. out of a total of 11s. 5d., and I find it hard to believe that 7d. out of 11s. 5d. would turn the scale in many cases.
§ Mrs. WhiteI am arguing about the entire health element in the contribution which a student is expected to pay, but, for reasons of order, one is not able to put forward Amendments to that end.
§ Sir E. BoyleI appreciate that. It is important when considering the position which faces a student who has left college to have regard to the magnitude of the sums concerned.
There are two issues here; the issue of principle, and the issue of whether our present arrangements, in financial terms, are fair to students. I have more sympathy with the hon. Lady's first point than with the second. On the issue of principle, I was glad that the hon. Lady, in what I thought was a very reasoned and moderate speech, did not take the point that there was an anomaly in putting a student who chose to pay contributions at a disadvantage. The hon. Lady put the other point, which is fairer, that there is rather an anomaly in that there is an uncovenanted advantage to the student who has used the Health Service while he has been at university or training college and then chooses not to pay contributions. Not simply from the point of view of a Treasury Minister concerned to get more money into the Treasury, but looking at it in terms of what the ordinary man thinks of as fair and just, I agree that it is the greater anomaly.
On the other hand, and I think that the hon. Lady will probably agree—and this is a point I made to my hon. Friend who showed that he had considerable sympathy with this case—it would be administratively very difficult to collect the National Health Service contribution on its own from students who choose not to pay the Insurance contribution. Although the National Health Service does a different job from the rest of 1091 the total Insurance contribution, the one is part of an insurance scheme and the other, as we have agreed again and again—whether one calls it a tax or not is to some extent a matter of semantics—I have never disputed is money which the Exchequer is gathering in to help the financing of a particular service. I have never disputed that, as I think the Committee will agree, and therefore the Health Service contribution performs a different task from the rest of the Insurance contribution.
It is only fair to remember that we have never had the practice at any time, though the Health Service contribution is now a separate legal entity, of collecting it separately from the rest of the Insurance contribution. I think that it would be extremely difficult administratively to do that. That would be my answer to the hon. Lady on the point of principle. She is right in saying that there is an anomaly here. Ministers did consider this carefully when we first brought in the Health Service contribution as a separate legal entity in 1957, but I think that administratively it would be extremely difficult to collect the National Health Service contribution on its own.
§ Mrs. WhiteI appreciate that. Would there be any serious difficulty in waiving that contribution for those who are paying retrospectively? All one has to say is: "All you need pay in the six years of employment before this retrospective payment is a stamp of such-and-such value which covers your insurance contribution". Surely that would not present any administrative difficulty?
§ Sir E. BoyleThat was the next point to which I was coming. I think that there would be real difficulty about waiving this part of the contribution for everybody; in other words saying: "During the next six years you must make up your Insurance contribution so that you shall be able to earn the pension to which you would then become entitled, and so that your wife may be secure from the point of view of a widow's pension if you die early. You must make up the Insurance part of the contribution if we let you off the National Health Service part".
The obvious objection to it is precisely the point which the hon. Lady 1092 made, namely, that all students can use the Health Service during their time as students. If one went as far as the hon. Lady suggests, the obvious conclusion would be that students during their period as students should not have the benefits of the Health Service.
I want to put two other relevant considerations to the Committee. First, I understand the hon. Lady's point about the pay of teachers during the first few years. I think the hon. Lady will agree that there has been a substantial improvement during the last ten years in the starting scale for the pay of teachers, but it is true that throughout most of these debates in the Committee we have for the most part been considering manual workers and wage-earners earning higher pay than they did at one time. The hon. Lady was right to make us think of lower paid salary earners in this connection. On the other hand, it is fair to say that a very high proportion of those being educated at our universities or colleges of advanced technology, or teachers' training colleges, as a result of the education they receive—in a large measure at public expense—are in many cases able to start earning larger salaries than otherwise they would be able to do. I think it would be unreasonable to treat them better than other people of the same age who did not have the advantage of further education.
Although in a sense we are here dealing with a new problem, in another sense we are not. It is true that the National Health Service contribution had no separate legal existence before 1957, but, of course, this problem did not start in 1957. As we have said so often—I hardly like to face the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and say it again—an element of the National Insurance contribution was alloted to the Health Service from the first. I am sorry to make this point again, but in this context I think it is relevant. Here we are not dealing with a problem which began for the first time four years ago. There was no attempt between 1948 and 1957 to reduce the National Insurance contribution paid by students to allow for that, or to maintain that they ought not to be asked to make such a notional contribution to the Health Service. The conditions of liability for the element in the pre-1957 insurance allotted to the 1093 Health Service are the same as the conditions for the post-1957 National Health Service contribution.
For these reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. the hon. Lady was on a perfectly fair point of principle, but I believe there would be administrative difficulties about collecting the contribution on its own; and seeing that all students are able to use the Health Service, I do not think it would be right that those students who wished to draw a full pension should pay for six years after leaving college but be excused the payment of the National Health Service contribution.
On the money side, I appreciate the point the hon. Lady has made and I think she was right to draw our attention to the problems of the lower salary earners. One has to remember that as a result of their college education many will start in better paid jobs than otherwise would be the case. This is not a new problem which started in 1957. With those considerations in mind. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)That was a most astounding speech from the Financial Secretary. He congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) on her clear statement of principle. He even elaborated it to show how sound it is. Then, because the principle is hard to apply and because the Government and the Civil Service would have to do a little work to bring it into full effect, we must alter the principle which the hon. Gentleman so belauded. It was not a speech worthy of the hon. Gentleman. The main point seems to be, as was proved by my hon. Friend, that any woman who marries a prospective teacher is very foolish. That is the real deduction to draw from the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
The Financial Secretary fails to realise that the comparison made by my hon. Friend between the teaching profession and manual workers merely proves that the boasted improvement in the salary scales of teachers has not altered the position of the teacher in the social scale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) was contemporary with me as a pupil teacher in the late years of the nineteenth century. He will know that in 1908, for the first 1094 time, I was a candidate at an urban council election. The members of the council said, "Now that we have a teacher as a candidate we shall not be troubled as much about raising the election funds."
One had to find £15 in those days to be a successful candidate in an urban council election in my area. One could spend £10 and lose. People interested in municipal politics of those days know how true that is. I suggested that we should all put our weekly wages down on a slip of paper and hand it to the chairman to read. My pay was 35s. a week and I was the poorest man in the room.
That, as my hon. Friend has proved, is still the position in this profession, on which the future of the country now depends more than ever before. The fact that, once again, we have the principles on which we should pay lauded, and it is pointed out that for a Tory Government it is too hard to stand by a principle, although it makes a good Tory speech, does not meet the problem.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithI do not want to make a speech, but to ask the Minister two questions. He made it clear that he and other Ministers have given consideration to this matter. The first question is how many are likely to be involved? The second question, seeing that he is so sympathetic, is this: will he, between now and Report stage, consider doing what is done in other circumstances in which the card is franked? If there are not too many involved, why cannot their cards franked in circumstances of this kind?
§ Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North-West)I do not want to keep the Committee for long, but I have followed these discussions with great interest and I hope that the Financial Secretary will not mind if I do not particularly take his side on this Amendment.
I do not often agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), but, listening to her tonight, I thought that she put her case extremely ably and clearly. I think that all hon. Members who are present fully appreciate that. Obviously, she had gone into it with very great care and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) 1095 added more facts from his personal experience. The Minister will not, I hope, think unkindly of me if I say that he can argue the hind leg off a donkey on any occasion, but he gave the impression to me and, I think, to many colleagues, that he was very much in sympathy with the case put on this problem tonight.
I sincerely hope, even if my hon. Friend cannot address the Committee on this particular aspect, he will find some answer to it in due course, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). There cannot be a great amount of money involved, but this is a real problem for students. As hon. Members, most of us come into contact with a large number of students and we find that they are up against difficulties. Hon. Members are constantly trying to assist in getting more and more of them to take up the teaching profession. Those of us keenly interested in our constituencies want more and more people to come into the teaching profession.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady particularly centred her remarks on the problems of young teachers who, having gone to tremendous lengths in their studies and treated them as a vocation, find, at the end of the first part of the main road, that they come out poorly in comparison with those who have gone into commerce, and also manual workers, although I speak with no disrespect to them.
With all the opportunities that are open to young people today in business, commerce and in every walk of life, it is a hard job to encourage them to take up the teaching profession. I feel that this Amendment pinpoints the problem, so that we see what we are up against. There is no doubt that by this additional charge we shall be adding to the problems of young students, and I sincerely hope that the Minister, in conjunction with his Treasury colleagues, will in due course, although perhaps not on this particular case, find a solution to it.
If the Financial Secretary will be good enough to note the feeling in the Committee tonight—and I appreciate that the argument has not been put from any party point of view, or with the use of any strong words, or feelings 1096 other than the facts arouse—I think that he would do a lot to encourage students, because this is a real porblem for them. It cannot be that the administrative problem cannot be overcome. We all know, both in business and in the Government, that answers to almost every type of problem can be found, and it cannot be because of administrative difficulty that this problem could not be overcome.
§ Mr. HoughtonI am bound to remind the Committee that at half-past nine o'clock the absurd Guillotine will fall on this debate. It really is ridiculous that we should be in the middle of a useful and constructive debate of this kind, and that in a few minutes' time it must abruptly be brought to an end. After that, we go on for another two hours which are allotted to a discussion of the Second Schedule. This is not the way to do the business of this Committee. However, the House of Commons has so decided.
We are on this side of the Committee very disappointed that the Financial Secretary had nothing more encouraging to say about this Amendment. From some remarks he made earlier, when we were spending some time dividing on several Amendments dealing with the rates of contributions, he expressed the hope that we could get on to this Amendment, where there was a substantial point to be put. That substantial point has been admirably and clearly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). She has shown how, when we begin to build one thing on another, the ultimate result makes the present arrangements regarding students and their contributions absurd.
It is quite true, as the Financial Secretary says, that this is not in a sense a new problem. It started as a small one, and I am glad that the origins of the Health Service element in the National Insurance contributions are defined by the Financial Secretary in terms more acceptable to me. They are that there was a portion of the National Insurance contribution—an element, as he described it—allotted to the Health Service.
That, I believe, correctly describes what was done in 1946, but it is very different indeed from what has been done since 1957 with a separate National Health Service contribution. However, it began 1097 like that, and the arrangements for students to pay their National Insurance contribution, either while still undergoing an educational course or afterwards, were made when the National Insurance contribution stood by itself, and when it was much smaller than it is now.
But the Government came along to rivet a National Health Service contribution to the National Insurance contribution, and in the following year they rivet another. Now, for the third time, they rivet another one, so that the Health Service contribution is now a substantial addition to a growing National Insurance contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East pointed out, when one comes to pay the lot retrospectively in the first six years of employment, the total sum is substantial.
The Financial Secretary spoke of administrative problems. I see none. There should be no difficulty in subtracting from the total amount the National Health Service contribution element when asking the student for the amount he should retrospectively pay to square his account for the National Insurance Scheme. That is not at all insuperable.
What the Financial Secretary is really relying on is the fact that we have put the Health Service contribution on the National Insurance contribution—the two go together. Whether we pay them currently or retrospectively or do not pay them at all, they are always together. That is really his point, and in no case have we been able to separate the one from the other. But even when there is a strong case for separation, as there is here, the hon. Gentleman still feels that he cannot unscrew the Health Service contribution from being a fixture of the National Insurance contribution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has said, as we are discussing the additional Health Service contribution in this Bill, that is all that we can try to get rid of in this discussion, although my hon. Friend was arguing cogently and forcefully that relief to be given to these students for the whole Health Service contribution—the amount that started in 1957 and was added to in 1958, as well as the present proposed addition.
The whole position of students under the combined scheme now needs to be 1098 reviewed, having regard to the dimensions of the combined contribution that is now being imposed on these students currently or retrospectively. They have not increased wages out of which to pay their combined contribution during their period of extended education. All that is now being said about encouraging young people to stay at school, encouraging parents to allow their children to stay on at school, the need for education, the need for more technicians, the need for making ourselves the most intelligent and skilled community in the world—all these sound hollow exhortations when we also say, "We will tax you all the way along, and if you do not pay as you earn we shall demand it retrospectively, otherwise we shall 'take the micky' out of your widow or reduce your retirement pension when the time comes."
That is not the way to treat our educated youth. We should be encouraging them by all means in our power to undergo these courses of education. Their brains have to be turned to the national account. As we have 50 million people in Britain maintaining this high standard of life and being promised that it will be doubled in twenty-five years, and all we have to do that with is our skill and our coal—those are about the only natural resources we have—we are bound to express great disappointment with the Financial Secretary's reply.
We beg him to ask the Government to reconsider the whole matter; and to give some assurance at a later stage that the Government have it under review and cannot go on piling up contribution on contribution and expect the conventional arrangements regarding students to be tolerated without protest. There are further increases to come under the National Insurance Scheme—four further increases of 5d. each—and if my prediction is worth anything, as I am sure that it is in this context, there will be more Health Service contribution as well. In those circumstances, we really must challenge what the Government are doing in this connection, and I hope that the Committee will register its disapproval with the Financial Secretary.
§ Mr. WeitzmanIn his desperate effort to find an answer to the very able argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), the Financial Secretary said that as a result 1099 of the Government having spent the money the person who emerged with better prospects was in a better position. I understand that the person who emerges from a training college after that money has been spent receives £520 a year. She ought to have been a shorthand-typist at £12 a week.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Sir E. BoyleI recognise that in view of the timetable the Committee wish fairly soon to reach a conclusion on the Amendment, but I should like to make one or two comments. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) should bear in mind that there has never been a time when applications for our teacher-training colleges were in such great numbers; and, because of the expansion of the programme, the applicants have a chance of finding places.
§ Sir Myer Galpern (Glasgow, Shettleston)What about Scotland?
§ Sir E. BoyleI am not referring to Scotland.
§ Mr. WillisOn a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister in charge of a Bill applying to the United Kingdom to inform the Committee that he is not worrying about Scotland?
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas)That is not a point of order.
§ Sir E. BoyleI had a fairly lively reception some years ago from the National Union of Students when I spoke at the time of the General Grant Order, and I am only too well aware from what has been said that after this debate I should probably get an even livelier reception.
I make no complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) was unable to agree with me. He has attended many of our debates, he is a very good listener and he makes less noise than my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who normally sits on the other side of the Gangway.
§
I will not say that the Government will not review the matter, because I am sure that not only my right hon. Friend the Chancellor but also my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will take full note of the views which have been expressed; but I want to be fair to the Committee about this. As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education gave an Answer in the House on 2nd March in which he said:
National Insurance contributions are not compulsory for students, and grants were never intended to cover them. Arrangements already exist for students if they wish to make up, during their first six years in employment contributions which they did not pay while at college."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1736.]
The hon. Lady said that that Answer seemed to imply that it was unlikely that there would be a major change of policy in the near future. In an interjection, made while sitting down, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) suggested that if the Government were to announce any change of policy, this would obviously be the occasion for it. In an Amendment of this importance I will not give an answer about promising to consider it, because it is the Government's job to have considered it before the Amendment was put down. It would be humbug of the type which bores me in the House when Ministers talk about considering things when it is clear from some fairly important piece of policy that the Government have decided what they intend to do and what they will not do.
§ We have had a useful debate on an important subject. The Government feel that they must stick to the policy which they have followed in a sense ever since the Health Service scheme was introduced. I cannot promise any change of policy, but my right hon. Friends will take full note of the views expressed.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 239.
1103| Division No.101.] | AYES | [9.19 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Beaney, Alan | Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) |
| Albu, Austen | Benson, Sir George | Bowles, Frank |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Blackburn, F. | Boyden, James |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Blyton, William | Brockway, A. Fenner |
| Awbery, Stan | Boardman, H. | Brown, Alan (Tottenham) |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) | Bulter, Herbert (Hackeny, C.) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Randall, Harry |
| Chapman, Donald | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Rankin, John |
| Cliffe, Michael | Janner, Sir Barnett | Redhead, E. C. |
| Collick, Percy | Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Reid, William |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Cronin, John | Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Crosland, Anthony | Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Grossman, R. H. S. | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Ross, William |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Kelley, Richard | Short, Edward |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Kenyon, Clifford | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | King, Dr. Horace | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Deer, George | Lawson, George | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | Ledger, Ron | Snow, Julian |
| Delargy, Hugh | Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Dempsey, James | Lipton, Marcus | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Dodds, Norman | Logan, David | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Driberg, Tom | Loughlin, Charles | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | MacColl, James | Stones, William |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nees (Caerphilly) | Mackie, John | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Swain, Thomas |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Evans, Albert | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderafield, E.) | Sylvester, George |
| Finch, Harold | Manuel, A. C. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Fitch, Alan | Mason, Roy | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mellish, R. J. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Millan, Bruce | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Forman, J. C. | Milne, Edward J. | Thornton, Ernest |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mitchison, G. R. | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Monslow, Walter | Timmons, John |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) | Moody, A. S. | Tomney, Frank |
| Ginsburg, David | Morris, John | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Gourlay, Harry | Mort, D. L. | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Moyle, Arthur | Warbey, William |
| Grey, Charles | Mulley, Frederick | Watkins, Tudor |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Neal, Harold | Weitzman, David |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Grimond, J. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Collie Valley) | Oliver, G. H. | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Oswald, Thomas | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Hannan, William | Owen, Will | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Padley, W. E. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Paget, R. T. | Williams, Ll. (Abertillery) |
| Healey, Denis | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Herbison, Miss Margaret | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Hewitson, Capt. M. | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Hilton, A. V. | Peart, Frederick | Woof, Robert |
| Holman, Percy | Pentland, Norman | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Holt, Arthur | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Houghton, Douglas | Probert, Arthur | |
| Hoy, James H. | Proctor, W. T. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry | Dr. Broughton and Mr. Irving. |
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, W. T. | Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Deedes, W. F. |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Burden, F. A. | de Ferranti, Basil |
| Allason, James | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Digby, Simon Wingfield |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden) | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. |
| Barber, Anthony | Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | du Cann, Edward |
| Barlow, Sir John | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Duthie, Sir William |
| Barter, John | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Eden, John |
| Batsford, Brian | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Emery, Peter |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Cary, Sir Robert | Farey-Jones, F. W. |
| Bell, Ronald | Chichester-Clark, R. | Farr, John |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Fell, Anthony |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Finlay, Graeme |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Fisher, Nigel |
| Bidgood, John C. | Cleaver, Leonard | Forrest, George |
| Bingham, R. M. | Cole, Norman | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Freeth, Denzil |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Cordle, John | Gammans, Lady |
| Bossom, Clive | Corfield, F. V. | Gardner, Edward |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Costain, A. P. | Gibson-Watt, David |
| Box, Donald | Coulson, J. M. | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Craddock, Sir Beresford | Godber, J. B. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Crowder, F. P. | Goodhart, Philip |
| Braine, Bernard | Cunningham, Knox | Goodhew, Victor |
| Brewis, John | Curran, Charles | Gough, Frederick |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Currie, G. B. H. | Gower, Raymond |
| Brooman-White, R. | Dance, James | Grant, Rt. Hon. William |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | d'Avigdor-Goadsmad, Sir Henry | Green, Alan |
| Grimston, Sir Robert | Loveys, Walter H. | Renton, David |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | McLaren, Martin | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Russell, Ronald |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Seymour, Leslie |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Mclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Sharples, Richard |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | McLean, Nell (Inverness) | Shaw, M. |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Shepherd, William |
| Hastings, Stephen | McMaster, Stanley R. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Hay, John | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Maddan, Martin | Smith, Dudiey (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Maginnis, John E. | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Hendry, Forbes | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Marshall, Douglas | Speir, Rupert |
| Hiley, Joseph | Marten, Neil | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Hobson, John | Mawby, Ray | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Holland, Philip | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Hollingworth, John | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Hornby, R. P. | Mills, Stratton | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Teat) | Montgomery, Fergus | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | More, Jasper (Ludlow | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | Morgan, William | Temple, John M. |
| Hulbert, Sir Norman | Nabarro, Gerald | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Hurd, Sir Anthony | Heave, Airey | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Nugent, Sir Richard | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Jackson, John | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| James, David | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Jennings, J. C. | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Turner, Colin |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Page, John (Harrow, West) | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackleg) | Page, Graham (Crosby) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Joseph, Sir Keith | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Peel, John | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Percival, Ian | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Kerby, Capt. Henry | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Watts, James |
| Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Pilkington, Sir Richard | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Kimball, Marcus | Pitman, I. J. | Whitelaw, William |
| Kitson, Timothy | Pitt, Miss Edith | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Lambton, Viscount | Pott, Percivall | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Wise, A. R. |
| Langford-Holt, J. | Prior, J. M. L. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Leavey, J. A. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Leburn, Gilmour | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Quennell, Miss J. M. | Worsley, Marcus |
| Lilley, F. J. P. | Rawlinson, Peter | |
| Lindsay, Martin | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Linstead, Sir Hugh | Rees, Hugh | Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Noble. |
| Lengden, Gilbert | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
Mr. HaughtonI beg to move, in page 3, line 25, column 2, to leave out "2s. 10d." and to insert "2s. 3d.".
This Amendment relates to non-employed men between the ages of 18
§ and 65 and proposes to reduce the increase proposed in the Schedule.
§ Question put, That "2s. 10d." stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 178.
1107| Division No. 102.] | AYES | [9.26 p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Bishop, F. P. | Campbell, Gorden (Moray &Nairn) |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Black, Sir Cyril | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) |
| Allason, James | Bossom, Clive | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Bourne-Arton, A. | Cary, Sir Robert |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Box, Donald | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) |
| Barber, Anthony | Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Boyle, Sir Edward | Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.) |
| Barter, John | Braine, Bernard | Cleaver, Leonard |
| Batsford, Brian | Brewis, John | Cole, Norman |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter | Cooper-Key, Sir Neill |
| Bell, Donald | Brooman-White, R. | Cordle, John |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Corfield, F. V. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &Fhm) | Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Costain, A. P. |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Burden, F. A. | Coulson, J. M. |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Craddock, Sir Beresford |
| Bidgood, John C. | Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Crowder, F. P. |
| Bingham, R.M. | Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | Cunnigham, Knox |
| Curran, Charles | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Joseph, Sir Keith | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Dance, James | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John |
| Deedes, W. F. | Kerby, Capt. Henry | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| de Ferranti, Basil | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Kimball, Marcus | Ramsden, James |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Kitson, Timothy | Rawlinson, Peter |
| du Cann, Edward | Lambton, Viscount | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Duthie, Sir William | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Rees, Hugh |
| Eden, John | Langford-Holt, J. | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Leavey, J. A. | Renton, David |
| Emery, Peter | Leburn, Gilmour | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Farr, John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Roots, William |
| Fell, Anthony | Lilley, F. J. P. | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Finlay, Graeme | Lindsay, Martin | Russell, Ronald |
| Fisher, Nigel | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Seymour, Leslie |
| Forrest, George | Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) | Sharples, Richard |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Longden, Gilbert | Shaw, M. |
| Freeth, Denzil | Loveys, Walter H. | Shepherd, William |
| Gammans, Lady | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Gardner, Edward | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | McLaren, Martin | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Godber, J. B. | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Goodhart, Philip | Mutely, Rt. Hon. John | Speir, Rupert |
| Goodhew, Victor | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Gough, Frederick | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Gower, Raymond | MacLeod, John (Rose & Cromarty) | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William | McMaster, Stanley R. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Green, Alan | Maddan, Martin | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Grimston, Sir Robert | Maginnis, John E. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maitland, Sir John | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Marshall, Douglas | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Marten, Neil | Temple, John M. |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Mawby, Ray | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Hastings, Stephen | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Hay, John | Mills, Stratton | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Montgomery, Fergus | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Hendry, Forbes | Morgan, William | Turner, Colin |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Nabarro, Gerald | Tweedamuir, Lady |
| Hiley, Joseph | Heave, Airey | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Noble, Michael | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Nugent, Sir Richard | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Hopson, John | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Holland, Philip | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Hollingworth, John | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | Watts, James |
| Hornby, R. P. | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Whitelaw, William |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Page, John (Harrow, West) | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Hulbert, Sir Norman | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | Wise, A. R. |
| Hurd, Sir Anthony | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Peel. John | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Percival, Ian | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Jackson, John | Pilkington, Sir Richard | Worsley, Marcus |
| James, David | Pitman, I. J. | |
| Jennings, J. C. | Pitt, Miss Edith | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Pott, Percivall | Mr. Chichester-Clark and |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Mr. J. E. B. Hill. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Brockway, A. Fenner | Davies, Harold (Leek) |
| Albu, Austen | Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Deer, George |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | de Freitas, Geoffrey |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Delargy, Hugh |
| Awbery, Stan | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Dempsey, James |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Chapman, Donald | Dodds, Norman |
| Beaney, Alan | Cliffe, Michael | Driberg, Tom |
| Benson, Sir George | Collick, Percy | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John |
| Blackburn, F. | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Ede, Rt. Hon. C. |
| Blyton, William | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) |
| Boardman, H. | Cronin, John | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) | Crosland, Anthony | Edwards, Walter (Stepney) |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Grossman, R. H. S. | Evans, Albert |
| Bowles, Frank | Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Finch, Harold |
| Boyden, James | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Fitch, Alan |
| Fletcher, Eric | Logan, David | Ross, William |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Loughlin, Charles | Short, Edward |
| Forman, J. C. | MacColl, James | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Mackie, John | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) | MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Snow, Julian |
| Ginsburg, David | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Manuel, A. C. | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Grey, Charles | Mason, Roy | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) | Millan, Bruce | Stones, William |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | Milne, Edward J. | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Grimond, J. | Mitchison, G. R. | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Monslow, Walter | Swain, Thomas |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Moody, A. S. | Swingler, Stephen |
| Hannan, William | Morris, John | Sylvester, George |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Mort, D. L. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Moyle, Arthur | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Healey, Denis | Mulley, Frederick | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) | Neal, Harold | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Herbison, Miss Margaret | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Hewitson, Capt. M. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Thorpe, Jeremey |
| Hilton, A. V. | Oliver, G. H. | Timmons, John |
| Holman, Percy | Oswald, Thomas | Tomney, Frank |
| Holt, Arthur | Owen, Will | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Houghton, Douglas | Padley, W. E. | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Hoy, James H. | Paget, R. T. | Warbey, William |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Weitzman, David |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Janner, Sir Barnett | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Peart, Frederick | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Pentland, Norman | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield) | Probert, Arthur | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Proctor, W. T. | Williams, Ll. (Abertillery) |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Kelley, Richard | Randall, Harry | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Kenyon, Clifford | Rankin, John | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Redhead. E. C. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| King, Dr. Horace | Reid, William | Woof, Robert |
| Lawson, George | Reynolds, G. W. | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Ledger, Ron | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | |
| Lipton, Marcus | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Irving and Mr. Ifor Davies. |
§ It being after half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [6th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour.
1108§ Question put, That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill:
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 176.
1111| Division No. 103.] | AYES | [9.40 p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Brooman-White, R. | Dance, James |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Browne, Percy (Torrington) | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry |
| Allason, James | Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Deedes, W. F. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Burden, F. A. | de Ferranti, Basil |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Digby, Simon Wingfield |
| Barber, Anthony | Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M |
| Barlow, Sir John | Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) | du Cann, Edward |
| Barter, John | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Duthie, Sir William |
| Botsford, Brian | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Eden, John |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) |
| Bell, Ronald | Cary, Sir Robert | Emery, Peter |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Chichester-Clark, R. | Farey-Jones, F. W. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Farr, John |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Fell, Anthony |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Finlay, Graeme |
| Bidgood, John C. | Cleaver Leonard | Fisher, Nigel |
| Bingham, R. M. | Cole, Norman | Forrest George |
| Bishop, F. P. | Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Foster, John |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Cordle, John | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Bossom, Clive | Corfield, F. V. | Freeth, Denzil |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Costain, A. P. | Gammons, Lady |
| Box, Donald | Coulson, J. M. | Gardner, Edward |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John | Craddock, Sir Beresford | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Crowder, F. P. | Godber, J. B. |
| Brains, Bernard | Cunningham, Knox | Goodhart, Philip |
| Brawls, John | Curran, Charles | Goodhew, Victor |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Currie, G. B. H. | Gough, Frederick |
| Gower, Raymond | Loveys, Waiter H. | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby | Renton, David |
| Green, Alan | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Grimston, Sir Robert | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Robson Brown, Sir William |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | McLaren, Martin | Roots, William |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Russell, Ronald |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.) | Seymour, Leslie |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Sharples, Richard |
| Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Shaw, M. |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | McMaster, Stanley R. | Shepherd, William |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn |
| Hastings, Stephen | Maddan, Martin | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Hay, John | Maginnis, John E. | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Maitland, Sir John | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Hendry, Forbes | Marshall, Douglas | Speir, Rupert |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Marten, Neil | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Hiley, Joseph | Matthews Gordon (Meriden) | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Mawby, Ray | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Hobson, John | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Holland, Philip | Maydon, Lt.1Cmdr. S. L. C. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Hollingworth, John | Mills, Stratton | Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) |
| Hornby, R. P. | Montgomery, Fergus | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Howard, John (Southampton, Test) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Morgan, William | Temple, John M. |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | Nabarro, Gerald | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Hulbert, Sir Norman | Heave, Airey | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Hurd, Sir Anthony | Noble, Michael | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Hutchison. Michael Clark | Nugent, Sir Richard | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Jackson, John | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| James, David | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Jennings, J. C. | Osborne, Cyril (Louth) | Turner, Colin |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Page, John (Harrow, West) | Tweedemuir, Lady |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Page, Graham (Crosby) | van Strauhenzee, W. R. |
| Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Joseph, Sir Keith | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Peel, John | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Percival, Ian | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Kerby, Capt. Henry | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Watts, James |
| Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Pilkington, Capt. Sir Richard | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Kimball, Marcus | Pitman, I. J. | Whitelaw, William |
| Kitson, Timothy | Pitt, Miss Edith | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Lambton, Viscount | Pott, Percivall | |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Langford-Holt, J. | Price, David (Eastielgh) | Wise, A. R. |
| Leavey, J. A. | Prior, J. M. L. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Leburn, Gilmour | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Profumo, Rt. Hon. John | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Lilley, F. J. P. | Quennell, Miss J. M. | Woreley, Marcus |
| Lindsay, Martin | Ramsden, James | |
| Linstead, Sir Hugh | Rawlinson, Peter | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | Mr. Gibson-Watt and |
| Longden, Gilbert | Rees, Hugh | Mr. J. E. B. Hill. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) |
| Albu, Austen | Crosland, Anthony | Ginsburg, David |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Crossman, R. H. S. | Gourtay, Harry |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Greenwood, Anthony |
| Awbery, Stan | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Grey, Charles |
| Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) |
| Beaney, Alan | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Griffiths, W. (Exchange) |
| Benson, Sir George | Deer, George | Grimond, J. |
| Blackburn, F. | Delargy, Hugh | Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Blyton, William | Dempsey, James | Hamilton, William (West Fife) |
| Boardman, H. | Dodds, Norman | Hannan, William |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) | Driberg, Tom | Hart, Mrs. Judith |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Hayman, F. H. |
| Bowles, Frank | Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | Healey, Denis |
| Boyden, James | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Herbison, Miss Margaret |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Evans, Albert | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Finch, Harold | Hilton, A. V. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Fitch, Alan | Holman, Percy |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Fletcher, Eric | Holt, Arthur |
| Chapman, Donald | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Houghton, Douglas |
| Cliffe, Michael | Forman, J. C. | Hoy, James H. |
| Collick, Percy | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) |
| Corbel, Mrs. Freda | Galpern, Sir Myer | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Strachey, Rt. Hon. John |
| Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke on-Trent, C.) |
| Janner, Sir Barnett | Oliver, G. H. | Swain, Thomas |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Oswald, Thomas | Swingler, Stephen |
| Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Owen, Will | Sylvester, George |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Palley, W. E. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Paget, R. T. | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Kelley, Richard | Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Kenyon, Clifford | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Peart, Frederick | Timmons, John |
| King, Dr. Horace | Pentland, Norman | Tomney, Frank |
| Ledger, Ron | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Probert, Arthur | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Lipton, Marcus | Proctor, W. T. | Warbey, William |
| Loughlin, Charles | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry | Watkins, Tudor |
| MacColl, James | Randall, Harry | Weitzman, David |
| McKay, John (Wallsend) | Rankin, John | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Mackie, John | Redhead, E. C. | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Reid, William | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Mallalleu, E. L. (Bragg) | Reynolds, G. W. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E.) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Manuel, A. C. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Mason, Roy | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Williams, Ll. (Abertillery) |
| Mellish, R J. | Ross, William | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Millan, Bruce | Short, Edward | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Milne, Edward J. | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Mitchlson, G. R. | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Monslow, Walter | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) | Woof, Robert |
| Moody, A. S. | Snow, Julian | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Morris, John | Sorensen, R. W. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Mort, D. L. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | |
| Moyle, Arthur | Spriggs, Leslie | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mulley, Frederick | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) | Mr. Cronin and Mr. Lawson. |
| Neal, Harold | Stones, William |