HC Deb 30 January 1964 vol 688 cc562-77
Mr. Mitchison

I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, at the end to insert: In relation to children over five years of age the figures in columns 3, 4 and 5 of this table shall have effect with the addition to each figure in column 3 of 6s. 6d. and to each figure in columns 4 and 5 of 5s. 0d. and in relation to children over 11 years of age the said figures shall have effect with the further addition to each figure in column 3 of 9s. 6d. and to each figure in columns 4 and 5 of 7s. 6d.".

The Chairman

I think that it would be convenient if, at the same time, we were to discuss the Amendment in Schedule 1, page 7, line 36, at the end to insert: In relation to children over five years of age the last-mentioned figures shall have effect with the addition of 6s. 6d. to the figure in the first column and of 4s. 0d. to the figures in the second and third columns and in relation to children over 11 years of age the said figures shall have effect with the further addition of 9s. 6d. to the figure in the first column and of 5s. 6d. to the figures in the second and third columns".

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

Subsection (1) provides, in effect, that as regards the widow's allowance, the widowed mother's allowance and the child's special allowance, the increase in respect of a child shall, between the figures in the table in the Clause and the family allowances legislation, amount to 37s. 6d. a head. That is quite clearly, and so far as I can see correctly, stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Perhaps I might quote it because the Government are a little quick to misunderstand. It says: Taking account of family allowances the total benefit payable in respect of each child will therefore become 37s. 6d. a week. Though the language of the Clause is a trifle complicated, the effect is really quite a simple one, and one with which in general we would not disagree.

During the Second Reading debate we stated, and we still think, that there is a case for making a change—which I agree at once has not hitherto been made in this legislation—and drawing a distinction between the young child whose maintenance is not nearly so costly and the older child. As the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in the course of winding up the Second Reading debate, this has already been done in the case of National Assistance. No doubt I shall be told there is a profound difference between the two systems, but I wonder whether that is so in the case that we are now considering.

We are here dealing substantially with widows and their children. What are we trying to do in this legislation about these widows? We are trying to make good, in terms of money, the loss of the man who is normally the chief bread-winner of the family. When we do that, we have regard—and, of course, this allowance about children shows this—not only to the widow herself, but to her domestic responsibilities, and in doing that we have a figure for the widow and a figure for the child.

If that is our real object, I can see no logical ground for making the same payment in respect of the cheaper, younger child, as one makes in respect of the dearer, older child. For that reason we are not going to try to cut down the amount which the Government intend to pay for a child, but we propose to add to it in the case of older children. The effect of the Amendment is to make an addition of 6s. 6d. in respect of the first child over 5, and 5s. in respect of the next two, and in respect of children over 11, we make an addition of 9s. 6d. for the first child, and 7s. 6d. for subsequent children.

We are here in a slight difficulty about the rules of order. We cannot propose Amendments to the Family Allowances Act, and no doubt it would have been more logical to try to deal with it in conjunction with that, but we have to take things as they are. We on this side of the Committee may be asked why we have selected these figures. What we are trying to do is to raise a question of principle, the principle being the difference in the cost to the widow of children of different ages, and in no sense do we feel ourselves tied by these figures.

I should like to tell the Committee how we arrived at the figures. Not only was our method a simple one, but it may be that our arithmetic was wrong. However, I do not think that it matters. What we are trying to do is to get this established as a matter of principle, and I think that we would be the first to say that if that were done there ought to be no difficulty, by analogy with other cases, in arriving at an appropriate figure.

I have looked at the figures given by the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading debate. They were from the National Assistance Orders. The lowest figure is 19s. 6d. The next one, for a child over 5, is 23s. There is a higher figure for children over 11, and a still higher one for older children, I think over 16.

What we did was to take the figures that she gave us, because, just as the actual figures are quite sufficient to raise the matter, so the actual ages are sufficient, and we kept to the ones that she had put before the House. She considered that they were sufficient and that was quite good enough for us. Doing that, we took the last figure. We found that there had been an increase of 3s. 6d. on that figure, and we took a proportionate increase on 37s. 6d. Applying that, it is a matter of simple, even if incorrect arithmetic—and I would never wish to vouch for my arithmetic—to do the same thing further on.

The substantial point is that we want this different treatment of children brought in on this occasion. We think it an appropriate moment to do it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is primarily a Bill about widows. Broadly speaking, we are dealing with cases of widows with children, and they raise this general question.

I repeat: we had proposed this in our own party pamphlet, but I do not wish to discuss the whole of that now. I merely wish to say that whether or not it was there I should still have thought it right to raise this matter as a separate issue. Again—and I am not sure that this arises directly on the Amendment—we must not be taken to regard these figures as unalterable. We shall not divide on the question of the amount that the Government have taken—37s. 6d.—but every hon. Member would probably agree that there is very little risk of that figure being too high. It may well be too low, even in the case of the youngest and—if I may use the phrase—least expensive child.

Therefore, we feel little doubt that the right way of dealing with the question is to make an addition in the case of the older children. If we were to do the thing in full detail we should probably make another addition at a later age, but we did not want to depart from what the hon. Lady had put before us as a sufficient exposition of National Insurance principles.

The second Amendment is arrived at in the same way, by taking the National Assistance changes in proportion. It is applied to the allowances in respect of children under something that is really rather different—the death benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act as laid down in the First Schedule. We simply felt that if it were right in one case it would be right in another, and with some hesitation—because we thought that we might be told that we had not put down Amendments in a sufficient number of places—we thought that we had better put it down in Schedule 1 as well as Clause 2.

But the substantial point arises on the first Amendment. It is the question whether there should not be a greater allowance for older children than is given in respect of the young ones.

Mr. John McKay (Wallsend)

Usually we are very glad to give a little extra to any of the insurance beneficiaries, but it seems to me that we are overlooking many insured persons, I put down a new Clause—Increase of weekly rates of benefit in respect of children—expecting it to be discussed, to show the remarkable differences which result from the operation of the Bill in the benefits to one section of the insured population as compared with others.

My Amendment is based on information which I have examined and analysed to the best of my ability. As a result of the Government's proposals in respect of widows, bearing in mind that the benefits to be paid to the sick, the unemployed and the injured will stand still, whereas the benefits paid to the sick, the injured and the unemployed, respectively will be 28s, 6d., 23s, 6d, and 13s, below National Assistance, the widows in the respective cases will receive 3s. more than National Assistance—

The Chairman

Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the figures which the hon. Member is now propounding to those included in the Amendment.

Mr. McKay

I am sorry to get out of order, Sir William. I always try to keep in order, but it is sometimes difficult. I want to express certain opinions which are not very popular, and which are not very well understood. I am disappointed that on this occasion the Labour Party has not taken the opportunity of trying to help the injured, the sick and the unemployed.

The Chairman

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member again. I hope that he will keep strictly to the terms of the Amendment that we are now debating. He is straying far too wide.

Mr. McKay

I am sorry. I shall just have to take the Bill and the Amendments as they are. It is rather difficult for anybody to speak against the Amendments.

I hope that the widows will receive the extra money. It will put them in a better position. At the same time, I must express my absolute objection to the attitude that the Labour Party has adopted on this occasion by ignoring all the rest of the beneficiaries under the National Insurance scheme at a time when we are seeking to improve the position of widows to such an extent.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Wood

The point that was in the mind of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) was the fact that the Bill's direct object is to give preference to the children of widowed mothers. I under- stand that the purpose of his proposed new Clause would be to abolish that preference. Since the Government have introduced the Bill to increase the preference given to children of widowed mothers, I do not see how they could be in any sort of agreement with the idea that they should abolish that preference.

I now want to turn to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He said that on this occasion he would not discuss the part of the Labour Party pamphlet which dealt with this subject. I understand that during the course of the afternoon we shall be discussing a good many things in the Labour Party's pamphlet, in various contexts. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the idea of differentiating according to age in connection with children's benefits of this kind represented part of his party's policy.

The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that his purpose is to give to the children under 5 the same rates as the Government propose in the Bill; to children between 5 and 11 higher rates, and to children over 11 higher rates still. When I studied the figures, particularly in conjunction with those in the other Amendment to the First Schedule, I found them rather queer. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, as always, is extremely modest about his arithmetical powers. I do not think we should be conducting an effective debate if we discussed details, so I will address myself to the principle which I think was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

I understand that he has chosen the steps 5 and 11 because of the similar steps in the National Assistance scale rates. As he so often does, he has anticipated some of the excellent arguments which I shall put forward. He predicted that I should probably draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is individual circumstances which matter in respect of National Assistance. That is why there exist different rates for children of different ages.

I will not joint issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman on the question of the possibility of introducing differential rates of this kind into the National Insurance scheme. It would be possible to do so. The reason it has not been done in the past, and why I do not think it should be done in the present, or in the future, is that the National Insurance scheme, unlike National Assistance, has to deal with broad categories of people and to try to meet the usual, average situation.

It would certainly be possible to make the structure of National Insurance even more complicated than it is, which would be the effect of accepting this Amendment—and it would be an effect repeated many times elsewhere throughout the insurance scheme. I suggest that this would be inappropriate to the insurance scheme. One thing it would inevitably do would be to send up the administrative costs. Apart from the slightly queer arithmetic of the Amendment, I think that I must point out that, however the hon. and learned Gentleman did his sums, he would be subject to the criticism that the amounts he proposes for children, certainly above the ages of 5 and 11, are disproportionate when compared with other insurance benefits.

To take one figure in the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes 53s. 6d. for the eldest child if he or she is over the age of 11. This 53s. 6d. compares with a rate of 41s. 6d. which we pay for an adult dependant. It compares also with the rate of 38s. 6d. which is the unemployment or sickness benefit rate for boys and girls under 18. It compares with 46s. which is the personal unemployment or sickness benefit for married women. In my opinion, these kinds of increases would be very much out of proportion with the purpose which they are intended to fulfil.

As I understand that some remarks by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the National Assistance scales form the basis for the proposals of the Opposition in these Amendments, I think it worth while pointing out that up to the age of 18 the rates proposed by the Bill are all higher than the National Assistance scales. We find, and I think we shall continue to find, that the Opposition is making the most of the opportunity today to put forward a number of very generous proposals.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not find any reason to disagree when I say that the lavish approach of the Opposition this afternoon, as an Opposition, is not, so far as I have read my back copies of HANSARD, matched by their generosity when in office. Since 1951 Conservative Governments have increased the real value of allowances for the children of widowed mothers including family allowances by these proportions: 157 per cent. for the first child—that is a real value increase—and 243 per cent. for the second and third children.

During the last 12 years, and in this Bill, for the reasons I have given, rather than make differential improvements for different ages we have had as our objective the making of substantial improvements for widows' children of all ages. We believe that to be the better way to deal with this problem. In view of the increases which have been made, the increases which will be added under the provisions of the Bill, and the distinction, which I have tried to point out, which exists between what I believe should be the primary purposes of a National Assistance scheme and a National Insurance scheme, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

Far be it from me to take away any crumb of comfort with which the Government may console themselves over what they have done about social insurance. We shall not only argue about the increases in benefits, but also about the distribution of the contributions between the State and the contributor. However, that is a matter for the hustings and not for this Committee.

I wish to ask a question about what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier. He referred to the way in which we have so far provided for child allowances by family allowances and the varying provisions under the National Insurance legislation. But, as the Minister will know, we are about the only country which does not provide for an age rate in the social insurance part of National Assistance.

There is nothing remarkable about such an idea. Most of the social insurance schemes of European countries and others have been framed and have come into operation since our own. In most cases we were in advance of other countries regarding family allowances, except France, where the family allowance was not provided for social service purposes but as part of the population policy.

Most other countries have made provisions for such schemes. Canada provides so much for the first child and so much for the second, with an age scale of, I think, 5, 10 and 14. I am certain that this is done in countries on the Continent. The Minister seemed to suggest that it was impossible to have an age scale for such allowances in any social insurance scheme. But it is not impossible. It may or may not be desirable. But most countries work such schemes and find that it is possible, and there are strong arguments in favour of them.

The Minister provides a strong argument in the Bill. He has raised the age to 19 and I hope he realises what that means. He is providing an allowance in respect of an age beyond which a contributor to the National Insurance scheme is considered to be an adult. It is the first time that has been done.

It fell to me to fix the age at which a contributor to the National Insurance scheme should become an adult. Whether in law or in the general practice this is the age I provided the age at which a contributor and beneficiary under the scheme became an adult should be 21. That is accepted in common law and in election law, but it was desirable to have the same provision in this field as in the industrial injuries scheme. To treat a workman who had injuries as being less than an adult at 18 would create all kinds of problems. So the age was fixed at 18. The question is, does one regard a child of 19 as exactly the same as one of 5, 6, or 10? We have to look at this problem within the context of our social insurance scheme just as we do in relation to the National Assistance scheme.

I am not clear whether the Minister thinks it undesirable to do this. The impression I formed, and if my impression was wrong he may correct it, was that he was arguing that it was impossible to have a social insurance scheme with age-scaled rates for children and dependants. That is not so because we are. I think, in the minority of countries which retain a flat rate for children. Most countries have gone on to the age scale.

Mr. Wood

I specifically said that it would be possible to do so, but I thought, for reasons I gave, that it would be undesirable.

Mr. Mitchison

We are told that one of the difficulties in this matter is that this generally is an insurance scheme. This phrase is used again and again by the Government when they think that in it they will find some refuge from a proposition which is put to them. It is very inapt in this case. The whole basis of what I put to the Minister was that the foundation for this payment ought to be the loss suffered by the widow, the loss of the earning power of her husband in relation to her liabilities, of which obviously the children are the largest liability.

The fundamental basis of insurance surely is that we cover people against the loss they may suffer. That is exactly what we are trying to do here. Our whole case is that a different loss is suffered according to the age of the child because older children cost more than younger ones. If the Minister regards this as an insurance scheme, surely he ought to accept our proposal. He ought to do something more about it. It has been suggested that all these questions of widows' benefits depend largely on the incidence of that loss in practice—the way in which it comes and is borne. It has been suggested in connection with the earnings rule that there should be a proper investigation of this kind of thing. That has never been done. That being so, whatever other evidence the Minister puts up, it is incorrect to say that it cannot be done because this is the form of an insurance scheme.

Next, we are told that it is impracticable; that it would complicate matters too much. In relation to the other point we have been discussing, we were told that it has not so far proved possible to improve upon it—"it" being the present arrangement. There has to be a point at which this can be fixed without far-reaching consequences to the structure of both schemes. There ought to be a little hole in the Dispatch Box. Every time a Minister of Pensions and National Insurance says that a thing is too complicated he should be reminded of that little hole and put a penny through it into the Box. Thereby there would be a useful contribution to public funds.

5.15 p.m.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), has pointed out that a number of countries actually follow the practice that we propose. One cannot accept the proposition that there is any grave or serious difficulty about it. Fundamentally, what we have to do is to meet a human need which we all recognise—the widows' loss. We are entitled to give the widow slightly preferential treatment over the other people because there is an element of compensation in this.

I purposely put these figures on a somewhat artificial basis. I thought I made clear. I took the National Assistance scales because they give a rough guide, but I would be the first to agree that when we are considering a question of this sort we need to have not only the sort of inquiry which has been recommended to the Ministry—but which so far as I know has never been carried out, an inquiry into what happens to widows—but also a very careful examination of other legislation to remove inconsistencies so far as we can. This is not a case in which the inconsistencies should be removed by reducing the amount payable in respect of children.

I am not in the least shocked by the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. He said that Conservative Governments have done very well in this matter because they have increased the benefits. It would be out of order to go into that at great length, but, obviously, there are two other things to be considered. One is what they have done by way of increasing contributions and the fall in the Exchequer contribution. The other is that when this kind of thing has been considered the Advisory Committee has looked at the increase in earnings.

That is the right figure because what the widow has lost is the earnings of her husband. That is a far better basis for comparison than the retail price index, which over-simplifies the whole question. I remain completely unconvinced that in principle a change of this kind is not required. I also remain unconvinced that it is impracticable. I am even more unconvinced that there is anything wrong about it. On the contrary, I think it is right. Therefore, I hope my hon. and right hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby in support of this proposal.

Mr. McKay

I want particularly to deal with the question of widowed mothers on this occasion and to remain in order. I have made a number of analyses of this particular subject and I did not expect to be out of order when I spoke about them. It is difficult to remain in order, but I shall say my few words as near as possible in order as I can be and yet try to give a clear indication of how good the proposals of the Government are. If we can make them better we should do so. When we talk about these things and analyse them properly we do not merely say how good or how bad they are.

I want to suggest what the Bill will do in respect of widowed mothers. I take the example of a widow with three children. She has £3 7s. 6d. and, for the three children, £5 12s. 6d., making an income of £9 under the Bill. All of us want the income of National Insurance beneficiaries, whoever they are, to be raised above the National Assistance level. If that same widow with three children were on National Assistance she would receive £3 3s. 6d. and, taking the highest rates, 28s. for the first child, 23s. for the second child, and 19s. 6d. for the third child. In all the cases I have attempted to analyse, I have taken the same figures for children and the same figure for rent.

When I speak about National Assistance I emphasise that I am not talking about the money scale. I am talking about the total National Assistance paid, including the rent. I have taken the rent at 25s. in all these cases. Therefore, under National Assistance this widow would receive £7 19s. The widow receiving benefits under the Bill would

have a balance of 21s. above National Assistance plus the rent.

On the same analogy, a widow with four children would receive £3 3s. 6d., 28s. for the first child, 23s. for the second, 23s. for the third, and 19s. 6d. for the fourth, plus 25s. for the rent. This is under National Assistance. A widow in her position receiving benefits under the Bill would receive £10 17s. 6d., thus having a balance over and above the National Assistance scale of 35s. 6d.

Hon. Members who have followed me will immediately see where these analyses lead. One can go further and compare these figures with benefits received by people under insurance who receive less than the National Assistance rate. One must take the 35s. 6d. by which the widow with four children is better off under the Bill than a widow on National Assistance and add to it the amount by which a sick insured man with the same family is under the scale—say, 20s. or 30s. It is necessary to do this sum to arrive at the economic advantage of one over the other.

I am absolutely in favour of the proposals, but I want to make it clear that I am astonished and almost disgusted at the difference between the position of one person and the position of another person under the same insurance scheme. The numbers in one category are ten times as great as the numbers in the other. It would take a great deal of money to put into effect my proposal of 37s. 6d. for every child; it would probably cost about £90 million more. However, it would be worth it, to put people who are sick, injured or unemployed—after all, there are ten times as many of these as there are of people in the other category—above the scale. There would then be some satisfaction in the insurance scheme. I hope that my proposal will be implemented soon after the General Election by the Labour Party when it is in office.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 158, Noes 205.

Division No. 12.] AYES [5.26 p.m.
Albu, Austen Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Boardman, H.
Allaun, Frank (Sa ford, E.) Benn, Anthony Wedgwood Bottomley, R. Hon. A. G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Barnett, Guy Benson, Sir George Boyden, James
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Blackburn, F. Bradley, Tom
Beaney, Alan Blyton, William Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Brockway, A. Fenner Holman, Percy Padley, W. E.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Houghton, Douglas Paget, R. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Howie, W. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Callaghan, James Hoy, James H. Pavitt, Laurence
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Peart, Frederick
Chapman, Donald Hunter, A. E. Popplewell, Ernest
Cliffe, Michael Hynd, H. (Accrington) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Collick, Percy Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Probert, Arthur
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Randall, Harry
Cronin, John Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Redhead, E. C.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Dalyell, Tam Jeger, George Reynolds, G. W.
Darling, George Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Rhodes, H.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kelley, Richard Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Diamond, John Kenyon, Clifford Ross, William
Doig, Peter Ledger, Ron Silkin, John
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Snow, Julian
Edelman, Maurice Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Sorensen, R. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lipton, Marcus Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Loughlin, Charles Spriggs, Leslie
Evans, Albert Lubbock, Eric Steele, Thomas
Finch, Harold Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Fitch, Alan MacColl, James Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McKay, John (Wallsend) Symonds, J. B.
Galpern, Sir Myer Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Taverne, D.
Ginsburg, David McLeavy, Frank Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon, P. C. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Gourlay, Harry Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thornton, Ernest
Greenwood, Anthony Manuel, Archie Thorpe, Jeremy
Grey, Charles Mapp, Charles Tomney, Frank
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Marsh, Richard Wainwright, Edwin
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mayhew, Christopher Warbey, William
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Mendelson, J. J. Weitzman, David
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Millan, Bruce White, Mrs. Eirene
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Milne, Edward Wilkins, W. A.
Hannan, William Mitchison, G. R. Willey, Frederick
Harper, Joseph Monslow, Walter Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hart, Mrs. Judith Moody, A. S. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Hayman, F. H. Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Woof, Robert
Healey, Denis Moyle, Arthur Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) O'Malley, B. K.
Herbison, Miss Margaret Oram, A. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Oswald, Thomas Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Hilton, A. V. Owen, Will Mr. Lawson.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Farr, John
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Finlay, Graeme
Allason, James Cary, Sir Robert Fisher, Nigel
Anderson, D. C. Channon, H. P. G. Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Arbuthnot, Sir John Chataway, Christopher Freeth, Denzil
Ashton, Sir Hubert Chichester-Clark, R. Gammans, Lady
Atkins, Humphrey Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Gardner, Edward
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Gibson-Watt, David
Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony Cleaver, Leonard Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Barlow, Sir John Cole, Norman Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Barter, John Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Goodhart, Philip
Batsford, Brian Cordle, John Goodhew, Victor
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Corfield, F. V. Grant-Ferris, R.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Costain, A. P. Green, Alan
Berkeley, Humphry Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Gresham Cooke, R.
Biffen, John Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Crawley, Aidan Gurden, Harold
Bishop, Sir Patrick Cunningham, Sir Knox Hall, John (Wycombe)
Black, Sir Cyril Dance, James Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Bossom, Hon. Clive d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Bourne, Arton, A. Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Box, Donald Digby, Simon Wingfield Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Braine, Bernard Doughty, Charles Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Brewis, John Drayson, G. B. Hastings, Stephen
Bromley, Davenport Lt.-Col. Sir Walter du Cann, Edward Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Eden, Sir John Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hendry, Forbes
Bryan, Paul Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hiley, Joseph
Buck, Antony Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Errington, Sir Eric Hirst, Geoffrey
Burden, F. A. Farey-Jones, F. W. Hocking, Phillip N.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin Marten, Neil Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Holland, Philip Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hollingworth, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Speir, Rupert
Hopkins, Alan Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Stainton, Keith
Hornby, R. P. Mills, Stratton Stanley, Hon. Richard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Miscampbell, Norman Stodart, J. A.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Montgomery, Fergus Studholme, Sir Henry
Hughes-Young, Michael More, Jasper (Ludlow) Summers, Sir Spencer
Hutchison, Michael Clark Morgan, William Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Morrison, John Taylor, Frank (M'cla'st'r, Moss Side)
Jackson, John Neave, Airey Teeling, Sir William
James, David Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Osborn, John (Hallam) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Page, Graham (Crosby) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith Page, John (Harrow, West) Turner, Colin
Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Partridge, E. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Kerby, Capt. Henry Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Vane, W. M. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Peel, John Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony Percival, Ian Walker, Peter
Kirk, Peter Peyton, John Wall, Patrick
Lagden, Godfrey Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Ward, Dame Irene
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Pitt, Dame Edith Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Lilley, F. J. P. Pounder, Rafton Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Lindsay, Sir Martin Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Litchfield, Capt. John Prior, J. M. L. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Wise, A. R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Longden, Gilbert Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.) Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Loveys, Walter H. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Woodhouse, C. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Ridsdale, Julian Woodnutt, Mark
McAdden, Sir Stephen Roots, William Woollam, John
MacArthur, Ian Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Russell, Sir Ronald
MacLeod, Sir J. (Ross & Cromarty) Scott-Hopkins, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maginnis, John E. Shaw, M. Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.
Marshall, Sir Douglas Skeet, T. H. H.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.