§ Section 1 of and the First Schedule to the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961 (which make provision for new supplementation of Workmen's Compensation for post-1923 cases) shall have effect with the omission in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of the said Schedule (which sub-paragraph imposed on a new allowance a limit of the difference between in certain cases two-thirds and in other cases seven-eighths of a weekly loss of earnings and the amount of workmen's compensation) of the words "two-thirds of" and "seven-eighths of".—[Mr. Finch.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Harold Finch (Bedwellty)I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
We are seeking to remove a restriction under the Workmen's Compensation Acts by which an injured person is entitled to only two-thirds of the difference between his pre-accident and post-accident earnings. That means that if a man's pre-accident earnings were £10, and he is now only fit for light work and earns £9, he gets two-thirds of £1–13s. 4d.
8.15 p.m.
I must emphasise that we are dealing with a limited number of men—those who sustained accident or industrial disease prior to 5th July, 1948. Some of those for whom this new Clause would provide suffered their accidents thirty or forty years ago. The matter goes back over a number of years when pre-accident earnings were very low. Two-thirds of these disabled people come from the mining industry. In 1958, there were 24,000 of these partly-disabled men; today, the number has fallen to 12,000.
Most of these are elderly men, who have given their working lives to mining and to other industries at a time when wages were low and when they were faced with periods of trade depression. Time lost because of depression was taken into account in arriving at the average wage on which to base pre-accident earnings, so that a man might find his pre-accident average earnings of £4 reduced to, say, £3 10s. because a number of weeks were held to be lost on account of trade depression.
For the benefit of the Committee, I should give a brief history of the matter. 626 The payments for disablement under the Workmen's Compensation Act differ from those made under the Industrial Injuries Act. This is important. A man who was injured and received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act had his compensation based on the difference in earnings, without any reference to the extent of his disability. Under the Industrial Injuries Act, if a man loses an arm, an eye or a leg, his loss of faculty is assessed; he is given so much for the loss of a limb, and it is a pension for life, irrespective of earnings. Once the medical board or the tribunal has assessed the pension for the loss of a leg or whatever it may be, a man can go and earn more wages, if he is in a position to do so, and, indeed, in many cases men do that. It is a pension for life.
Because the principle under the Workmen's Compensation Act was quite different, there has for long been the anomaly that a man who lost a leg and whose pre-accident earnings were very low, say, £3 a week, received no compensation because the light job which he was able to do thereafter brought him in £5 a week. There was for him no two-thirds of the difference. On the other hand, a skilled collier, for instance, who had been earning fairly high wages but who, as the result of the loss of a finger, could not go back to work as a collier was able to get compensation because his subsequent wages at light work would be rather lower and he would have the benefit of the two-thirds of the difference.
The Committee will appreciate that the relationship between pre-accident and post-accident wages have continued to be very important for these men. Originally, as I have said, the compensation was based on half the difference and, later, it was increased to two-thirds. However, it has never been increased beyond that in spite of the changed conditions in society and the general rise in wages.
There is another limit, a ceiling above which the compensation must not go. Originally, a man's compensation could not exceed £2 10s. Thus, although the two-thirds of the difference might have been more than £2 10s., the actual compensation was restricted to £2 10s. a week. Later on, the Government raised 627 the maximum to £3, and then, at the time of the last debate we had on the subject, last year, the Minister agreed to raise the maximum to £4. But he declined to remove the anomaly of the two-thirds of the difference.
It must be realised that the men who are subject to this anomaly have no chance of getting a proper review of their pre-accident wages. In the early days to which I have referred, wages were low. A skilled collier or some other skilled man would have been earning about £2 10s. or £3 a week. In 1943, when wages had risen, the Government realised that the situation was very unfair because a pre-accident wage of £2 10s. or £3 had become quite unrealistic in the new conditions. They agreed that a disabled man could have his pre-accident wage reviewed if he could show that there had been a change in the rates of pay in the work at which he had been employed.
When this change was put into operation, it was soon found—the courts decided it in interpreting the Act—that for a man to succeed in proving an increase in rates of pay he would have to show, if he had been a collier, that there had been a change in the price list and conditons. If, for instance, the rate had previously been 2s. 6d. for a ton of coal, he would have to show that it was then 3s. 6d. Many men were not in a position to do this.
The trouble is that there have been changed methods of working in many industries. Mining is now highly mechanised. The old pillar and stall method of working has gone. The price list under which some old chap had worked in the 'thirties is no longer in existence. In some cases, it would have no relevance at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) can speak of the great changes which have taken place in the Nottingham coalfield, for example.
The point is that, in claiming a review, a man could not found his claim on changed conditions. The law has decided that changed methods of working do not help him at all. He may know very well that, if he had not sustained his accident, he would now have been working the same seam of coal, by highly 628 mechanised methods, and earning about 18 or £20 a week. For compensation purposes, however, he is restricted to his original wage. If he is on light work now earning £8 or £9 a week, his compensation is confined to the difference between the two, and he gets nothing.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that the review of a man's earnings will be restricted for compensation purposes and, on the other hand, say that they will not budge from the two-thirds. The proper way to tackle the problem is to review pre-accident wages, but, when I and others of my hon. Friends have raised this on many occasions, the Government have said that there would be great difficulty in doing it. By the Amendment, therefore, we seek to abolish the two-thirds proportion. It is a perfectly reasonable proposal. There would be no difficulty. The proportion has already been raised once, from one-half to two-thirds.
I remind the Committee that some of these men are not in employment now, not even light work, and their compensation for partial disablement is based on notional earnings, on what the law would say a man is deemed to be able to earn. The law says that, on medical evidence, a man is capable of doing a sitting-down job and at that job he could earn so much a week, if he had it. His compensation is accordingly based on the different between his pre-accident wage, his non-reviewed wage, and his post-accident wage which is hypothetical.
The consequence of all this is that men are being treated very unfairly, and my hon. Friends and I, particularly those of us who represent mining areas, are seriously concerned. These men have given a lifetime to industry. They have derived no advantage from changes in conditions of working. They can claim nothing as a result of mechanisation. Yet they know that, if they had been able to carry on their work in present conditions they could have been earning a comparatively high wage, or, on the other hand, if their average pre-accident wages were to be assessed in the same way, according to modern conditions, they could be drawing quite high partial compensation. But, as I explained, the 629 law does not allow it. The compensation is tied to their low pre-accident earnings which, as everyone knows, are quite out of keeping with conditions in mining and many other industries now.
Seeing that for the moment we are not in a position to make a proper review of his pre-accident wages, we therefore propose by this new Clause to abolish the two-thirds limit and to say to this fellow, "Never mind; you have lost to some extent, but we will make it up to you by giving you the whole of the difference". In other words, if there was a difference of £1 between his pre-accident and post-accident wages, he would be paid £1. However, we should have to say to him, "Under the last Act, you cannot receive more than £4 a week". This proposal would involve only a limited liability. The number of the men concerned is declining year by year. In addition, many of these men could not come within the Act as it is.
I therefore ask the Minister to consider this case and to agree with the proposed new Clause. The Industrial Injuries Fund is well able to bear the small additional payment to these men who have devoted their lives to industry. Under the Industrial Injuries Act this is not such a difficult matter. If a man is unfit to return to his old work and is on a light job he can be paid a special hardship allowance. If the difference between his pre-accident and post-accident wages is £2 6s. a week, he gets the whole of the difference if the circumstances warrant it. Are we asking too much by saying that the men affected by this new Clause should be given the full difference?
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Bernard Taylor (Mansfield)When speaking of the partial compensation cases during the Second Reading debate last week I said:
I am sure that something could be done, and I am convinced that something should be done for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 1127.]Because my hon. Friends and myself believe that with conviction and are profoundly sincere in it, we have tabled this proposed new Clause in the hope that the Minister will give consideration to the men we are discussing.I know that so much has been said about these cases that it is very difficult to find anything new to say, but we 630 on this side who represent many men affected by the two-thirds limit feel that we are under an obligation to continue to press their cases in this Chamber. We hope by argument and persuasion to prove to the Minister and the Committee that in tabling this new Clause we have been prompted only by the desire to obtain simple elementary justice for these men who appear to have been forgotten.
Who are these people? In the light of what has been done for other workmen's compensation cases, I think that we can truthfully describe them as the "left-overs". They are the residual victims of the old workmen's compensation legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said, many of them have had no increase in their benefits for many years. In fact, there has been no basic alteration in the status of many of these men since the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1943. It is true that in recent times the totally disabled men who come within the workmen's compensation scheme have had some increase in benefits, which we appreciate and welcome. Other cases who receive benefits under the scheme, including the pneumoconiotics, have also received increases under recent legislation. It should be emphasised that some partial compensation cases have quite recently received benefits, beginning in 1961. However, there are many men who come within the operation of this two-thirds limit and who have not received any increase at all.
Let us take as an example the person whose partial compensation was settled, say, 20 years ago. That is not a preposterous proposition. Unless one of two things has happened—that is, unless there has been a decline in his post-accident earnings or there has been a successful review of his pre-accident earnings—he is still on the same payment of 10s. a week as he was, perhaps, twenty or more years ago.
Over the years, that type of person has witnessed an increase in wages and in living standards. He has seen increases in social benefits, in war pensions, sickness benefit unemployment benefit and benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act—all except one, and that is for the 20s. 0d. widow. I take this opportunity 631 Of saying how pleased I am that the step announced last week by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has been taken. In spite of all these advances, however, this man whose compensation was fixed many years ago is still getting 10s. 0d. a week. What is that worth today when we compare present values with those of 20 years ago?
Since Second Reading, I have been looking at some interesting figures relating to the mining industry. Leaving aside the latents, who are another problem, there are in mining alone slightly more than 12,000 partial compensation cases. About one-third of them are receiving maximum compensation for partial incapacity, but two-thirds of them are receiving less than the maximum amount of compensation. By no stretch of the imagination can they ever hope to reach the ceiling of two-thirds difference between their pre- and post-accident earnings.
Of those 12,000 partial compensation cases who are the victims of the two-thirds ceiling to which the Amendment refers, nearly 7,000 are unemployed. I wonder why they are unemployed, particularly in areas like mine, where the volume of unemployment is tow? In the main, it is because of the nature of the disability. That is a factor which the Minister should take into consideration.
There is one other point which I wish to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty spoke about it, but I should like to reinforce his argument. These partial compensation cases fall between two stools. The formula that is used when these partial compensation cases are reviewed, instead of being related to the level of earnings in the job in which a man was employed before his accident, is based upon rates of remuneration. Our experience is that whilst some reviews are successful, many are not, but even in successful cases, because the formula is related to rates of remuneration and not to the level of earnings, the beneficiaries do not get much out of it. In addition to looking at the question of the two-thirds, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might, perhaps, give us an idea whether it is in the Minister's mind to look at Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1943.
632 I hope that the Minister will make a sympathetic approach to this issue. I should like to hear him announce tonight that he has come to the conclusion that the ceiling of two-thirds between pre- and post-accident earnings will be removed. Whilst it would not wholly solve the problem of all the partially disabled under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it would go a long way to help. For that reason, I am privileged, proud and pleased to support the Amendment.
§ Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)I support this proposal and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having put down such a worthy new Clause. It is almost the least that we could ask for. There is really nothing in the suggestion when we make a comparison between those whom it will help, if the Government accept it, and those suffering today under the old Workmen's Compensation Act. Nevertheless, it is a worthy proposal, and I hope that the Government will do something about it.
When the Beveridge Plan was first issued, the basis behind the thoughts of Sir William Beveridge was that nothing ought to be done in connection with workmen's compensation which would bring those men under the benefits that would come from the recommendations of the Beveridge scheme. If that is true and the 1946 Act was based on those recommendations—and I think that they had a very influential part in how that Act was framed by the Labour Government of the day—we are not carrying out what the Beveridge Plan recommended to the country. These partial compensation men, with two-thirds maximum of the difference between their post-accident earnings and pre-accident earnings, are suffering a penalty that we ought not to tolerate today.
I think that the Government are afraid of tackling the problem from which these men are suffering because they are afraid that it will be extended into the whole field of workmen's compensation. Why should the Government be afraid? If it is an injustice today to leave men who have been injured in industry in a worse off condition, with payments which are below social security rates and benefits, the Government ought to do something for these men.
633 When I think about cases of which I know at the present time and of how men have been injured in the industry that I worked in, and who are today receiving no benefits whatsoever, or are being prevented from receiving the maximum, I wonder what kind of justice that is. Are we really thinking about those people who have suffered or just contemplating that in so far as their numbers are dwindling each year they will eventually be erased from the memories of us all, and therefore we need do nothing about it but simply wait?
8.45 p.m.
I know the case of a haulage truckman who lost a leg below the knee in 1930. He never even had the opportunity to draw compensation except for the period of time when he was not working. If that accident happened today he could claim damages under the 1948 Act. There are, indeed, various things that he could have done which would probably have given him some money as recompense. He has been able to get none, however.
There are numerous cases like his. There are men who have lost legs or arms, fingers or eyes but who, because their wages were below even the average for those days of £2 10s. a week and because the time that they worked was only short, were unable to get compensation. I do not want to draw tears to the eyes of hon. Members by talking about the kinds of cases we know in the coal industry, but I hope that the Government will look into this because the provision we suggest in this Clause would be the least of many things that they could do for workmen's compensation.
If we have any feeling of justice, of sympathy, for these men we should do something for them. I hope that the whole gamut of workmen's compensation will have the attention of the Government and that they will ensure that the real intention of the Beveridge Plan, which the country accepted with open arms when it was published, is carried out in its entirety and that justice is done to these men.
Another class badly affected is those men who worked in the mines during the war and suffered injury. They receive little or no benefit today. A man selected for the mines by ballot instead 634 of going into the Armed Forces could be one of these men receiving no benefit for a serious injury because his wages today are equivalent to the wages he earned at the time. But he would have been on a lower wage then because of inexperience, for he would not go to the coal face until he had spent time—usually six months—on other work. It may be that he would have preferred to serve in the Forces but he had to go into the pits instead.
Then there were the Bevin boys, the volunteers who went into the mines instead of going to war and who could have been involved in accidents. There were men who were brought from other industries, ex-miners who were compelled to return to the pits, men who were too old to be called up and who were sent back to the mines where they were later injured.
These are among the people who are not getting justice and fair play. I hope that the Government will take our appeal on their behalf seriously. If they do, they will not only accept our proposals, but will look into the whole problem of workmen's compensation and bring the benefits of these men into line with those which they would have received if their accidents had occurred after 5th July, 1948.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsI pay tribute to the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). They have raised this issue at every opportunity on every Bill of this kind which has come forward in recent years. I congratulate them upon the tenacity with which they have fought for these men. I know that their work and their fight have been warmly appreciated by the men of every industry, particularly the coal miners, and I hope that they succeed. If they do not succeed tonight, I hope that they will do so in the course of this year.
I have a personal reason for supporting the proposal. I am very proud of the industrial injuries scheme and deeply conscious of the fact that in many ways it was our biggest experiment in social insurance, our biggest venture and our biggest success. It is interesting after the many years during which it has been in operation that only very few 635 now suggest that we should depart from its basic principles. This is not to say that there are not many improvements which could be made, nor that there are not anomalies. But we have heard no one suggest that we should go back to the old system which was regulated by wages, not even at a time when earnings are high and when there is full employment. We can he proud of having found a way generally acceptable to both sides of industry and to the country as a whole.
I shall not go over all the history, but I want to explain that one of the things which I very much wanted to do was to find a way by which all the old cases, those occurring before 5th July, 1948, could be brought within the new legislation. At the time I felt that as the old cases were the responsibility of the employers and the insurance companies, I ought not to take them over without a contribution from the employers and insurance companies. I thought that otherwise I would be unfair to the fund. They had a responsibility placed on them by Parliament and I thought that they ought to make a contribution. We tried, but failed, to reach a settlement.
That was one problem and the other was trying to equate an injury assessed under the old workmen's compensation provisions with the provisions of the new benefits. That raised all kinds of problems, but I wish that it could have been done. What has been done in recent years—including what has been done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite—has been to use the funds available under the Industrial Injuries Act to meet these hard cases. There are now very few left, only 12,000.
What would it cost to implement the new Clause? Would it be more than £1 million a year? If it is, this is something about which we need not bother the Treasury. We can meet this without a penny from the Treasury. While these discussions have been taking place I have had a look at the latest report issued by the Government Actuary on the Industrial Injuries Fund. It makes interesting reading, and because of what it says I should like to leave the matter under discussion to be decided by the free vote of the Committee. The money in this Fund has been provided by 636 employers and employees, and hon. Members should realise that this Fund is different from the National Insurance Fund.
During the year 1961–62, employers and employees contributed £57 million to that Fund, while the Exchequer contributed only £11 million. That means that workmen and employers contributed £5 for every £1 contributed by the Exchequer. It has not only been able to meet its commitments year by year, but has been able to build up a reserve, and during the year 1961–62 totalled £12 million income from investments, which was more than the Exchequer contributed. The money to meet the commitment under the proposed new Clause could be provided out of the interest on investments. At the end of 1961–62 the Fund had a balance of £288 million, and during that year money in the Fund increased by £16 million. That money was contributed by employers, employees, and the Government, and I am sure that not a single worker would wish to vote against the new Clause. I go further and say that I am sure that the bulk of employers would not vote against it either.
The Industrial Injuries Act, which I had the privilege of piloting through the House, has been a money saver for the employers, because under that Act both workmen and the State make contributions, whereas under the old Workmen's Compensation legislation the financial burden rested entirely on the employers and the insurance companies that covered them. A number of hon. Members—though not many of them are present at the moment—are associated with employers and employers associations and I am sure they would agree that no employer would wish to vote against the new Clause.
The men involved are mainly in the mining industry, for two reasons: First, because of the nature of the industry itself. The work is extremely dangerous. Secondly, because before the war the industry was in the doldrums. Wages were low, unemployment was high, and short-time working was rampant.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) remembers the famous Dowlais case. It had the effect of leading to a terrific wangle of earnings. Hundreds 637 of people—miners as well as others—were denied even partial compensation because of the relationship of the earnings rule to the short time worked in the mines. I venture to make a guess that this would not cost more than £1 million a year. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the figure is. We can surely afford £1 million a year from a fund which is accruing at the rate of £16 million a year, and now has £288 million in it.
This £288 million would now have been well over £300 million; indeed, it would have been getting on for £330 million, and interest would have been accruing at the rate of £18 million a year, if the Government had not reduced contributions from employers and workers by 1d. a week. I protested at the time and said that it was a great mistake. No workmen would have missed a penny. No employers or workmen have gained from that decision. It would have been far better to use those pennies to improve the situation.
My hon. Friends have shown a great deal of tenacity and ingenuity in finding a way in which to bring some partial redress to the grievance felt by these men, and I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Clause. I hope that he will also accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend that he should consider the whole problem of these few hundred left-overs. The least we can do is to support the Clause, and I hope that we shall hear the Minister say that he accepts it.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Joseph Harper (Pontefract)I know that everything that has been said by my hon. and right hon. Friends today has been said many times before in the past fifteen or sixteen years, but I offer no apology in supporting the Clause. Amendments of this description have been supported over the years in an effort to bring some measure of justice and satisfaction to those people who happen to have been unfortunate enough to be injured when the Workmen's Compensation Act was in operation.
When I worked in the coal industry, we arrived at many an agreement with the Coal Board, but no sooner was the ink dry upon the paper than we found that we had different interpretations of 638 the agreement, and we had to have an interpretation of the interpretations. Funnily enough, we then found that we had to have a clarification of the interpretation of the interpretations of the agreement. When I entered Parliament I thought that I had finished with all that, but every time I listen to my hon. Friends discussing various Acts I find that more anomalies have been created by them than ever existed in the agreements arrived at between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Here we are trying to iron out some of those anomalies.
I speak primarily as a representative of the mining industry, but this Clause will benefit not only the miners but workers in other heavy industries—steel and iron—and even agricultural workers. I cannot understand why a person who was injured at one time and is dealt with under one Act should receive worse treatment than his counterpart who was injured at any time and is covered by another Act.
I am sorry that the Minister has had to leave. I appreciate that he must leave sometimes. He has sat in his place and has had to bear the heat and burden of the day. But prior to his present position he was fortunate to be Minister of Power. Furthermore, he and his family before him have had an intimate connection with the mining industry. He does not need to read it from any books, or carry out any research on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman has gained his knowledge first-hand and in a practical way. He and his family have had to pay out some of this compensation and so they know all about it.
Some people who are drawing compensation have been penalised twice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) reminded the Committee that there were people whose cases had not been properly reviewed. They were injured at a time when there was work in the pits on only three or four days a week, or less, and the wages paid were atrocious. When wages improved, the question of partial compensation did not apply. In 1961 10s. was put on to the maximum and a further 20s. has been added. We are pleased to accept these scraps. In this situation we are like Lazarus and glad to accept any scraps. But the number affected was infinitesimal 639 because there are only a handful of people receiving the maximum payment. Far more are getting 5s., 7s. 6d., 10s. and so on.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us how much it cost the Government to raise the maximum. There is also a category of people who are latent compensation cases and they suffer a greater hardship even than those about whom we have been talking. The best thing is to strip all the verbiage from this legislation. Let us get down to earth and discuss the matter in a way which everyone can understand.
Recently a man came to see me and told me that when he was 19 years of age—back in the bad old days—he lost a leg. He was a big, strapping man and he said that at the time of his accident he was a haulage hand. He told me that he did not receive a penny by way of compensation. Today a man suffering a similar accident would receive the industrial injuries benefit. He would be paid according to how much of the stump of his leg was left. This is a grisly subject, but we all know what we are talking about. If there were five inches of the stump left the victim would receive 70 per cent. of 115s. partial disablement benefit which is £4 0s. 6d. Now there is an extra contribution amounting to 26s. 10d. giving a total of £5 7s. 4d.
The man who came to see me told me that but for his accident he would have been engaged in contract work in the same way as his three brothers, and so he has been penalised twice. He has to face life with no compensation and is able to do only a light job. Everyone who works in industry knows that a light work means "light" money. I do not say that things have not improved in industry. There have been enormous improvements. But there are always hardship cases of the kind to which I have referred.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of what I have said. I do not suppose it will bear much fruit, but we are always trying and if we fail this time we shall come back in twelve months because we from the mining industry feel deeply about this. One has to work in the industry to know about this problem. We see powerful 640 men who have been injured and who could have earned good money in this mechanised age of automation. The present situation makes it doubly hard for them. I know there are difficulties about accepting this new Clause, but, given the right spirit, the Government could make a start in the right direction by adopting it.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon)This new Clause affects workmen's compensation for partial incapacity. It would affect only those men who sustained injury by accident or industrial disease between 1st January 1924 and 4th July 1948.
The intention of the Clause is to increase the supplementary allowances which were given under the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961, and the National Insurance Act, 1963. The Act of 1961 gave a maximum supplement of 10s. a week to men who had already reached maximum compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Last year's Act increased the maximum supplement to 30s., but again it was only for those who had reached maximum compensation under the 1943 Act. The maximum compensation under the 1943 Act was 40s. for a single man and 50s. for a married man.
These supplements were based on the normal workmen's compensation rules. They provided two-thirds of the loss of earnings less the amount that the man was already receiving as workmen's compensation, this extra provision being subject to a maximum of 30s. The new Clause would enable full loss of earnings to count for the supplement, but again subject to the 30s. maximum. I think we can dismiss the seven-eighths rule, which applies to men with children, as none of those children will be eligible after July this year. When I say that we can dismiss the rule, I do not mean that in any derogatory manner, but the problem is so small that I do not think we need consider it here.
9.15 p.m.
Having dealt with the problem, what has been done in the past and what hon. Members opposite want done, I turn to the comments which they have made. From listening to the debate one 641 gathers that the large majority of these men are colliers and although this is true, I was very glad that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) said that other industries are also concerned.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) referred to low pre-accident wages, which obviously acted to the disadvantage of men who suffered accidents when wages were low and when there was much short-time working. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) mentioned this problem and said how difficult he had found it to be when the Industrial Injuries Act was being drafted. It is a most insoluble problem. In 1943, when the new Workmen's Compensation Act was passing through the House, an Amendment to that Act was withdrawn because the Government gave an undertaking that they would then, in the middle of the war, examine possibilities of devising a method to assess fairly the earning power of workmen who had been on short time at the date of their injury.
It is common knowledge that no fair formula could be found. There was the difficulty of men on day work, shift workers, piece-rate workers, dockers, and building workers whose hours of work were badly affected by weather conditions. The best that could be done was to make an attempt to recalculate pre-accident earnings at present-day rates. That is where we get the formula of rates of remuneration, which we must all admit is a rather unsatisfactory way of facing the difficulty.
Obviously some did well and some did not so well under these conditions. The problem was recognised as not easily soluble but, in fact, as almost insoluble. I must ask hon. Members opposite this question. Would it be right, as they seem to suggest in the Clause, to spend money indiscriminately on all the partials to compensate hard cases which we are unable to identify? We were unable to identify those cases in 1943 and it is all the more difficult to identify them 21 years later in 1964.
§ Mr. FinchI do not understand the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. We are not attempting to discriminate. We are asking for the abolition of the two-thirds rule, The hon. Gentleman has referred, as we did, to recalculating the pre- 642 accident wages at present-day rates. We merely say that a man's pre-accident wages can be reviewed by taking the present earnings of a man in the grade he was in. I do not see the difficulty. The Parliamentary Secretary is making heavy weather of it.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonI do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened to what I have told the Committee. An attempt was made to remedy this on an undertaking given by the Government in 1943. It was found insoluble then and it would seem even more insoluble today, 21 years later. What the proposal does, as I will show, is to distribute money, by the abolition of the two-thirds rule, indiscriminately and most unfairly among partially disabled men.
§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)Surely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is not referring to the Committee of 1943 which, after all, was considering this matter before the National Insurance Act was contemplated, drafted or passed. We are now considering a situation in which coal-mining workers have had full employment since 1945. They are working five, five and a half, and even six days a week. Nearly all the people in the early cases had at the most the chance of three days' work a week at ten bob a day. If the wages are adjusted for three days a week one does not bring them into the picture in comparable conditions.
Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is not just a question of changed conditions. Only a very limited number of cases succeeded. We are doing nothing for the sufferers from industrial disease and disablement who lost their cases and who had no right of retrial—which is at least one of the best things about the present Act.
When the hon. and gallant Gentleman uses the word "indiscriminately" I am sure that he really does not want to use that word. Will he think about that word a little further, and realise that we are talking about people who have suffered disablement for many years and who have had miserable rates of compensation? When one talks about 643 discriminating in cases of very grave hardship, one should not split hairs and try to talk about them in terms of being grave or graver.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonI am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention, but what I mean by indiscriminately—and I do not withdraw the word—is that this extra money, if the two-thirds rule were abolished, would be spread over all these cases, whether or not they were the sort of hardship cases we have in mind. That would be a very indiscriminate expenditure of Government money and would create far more anomalies than it set out to abolish.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonI have given way many times already. I would like to complete this part of my speech and then the hon. Member for Bedwellty can speak again, when I will attempt to answer him.
This problem has been discussed between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. The N.C.B. does not accept that a man employed on piece work 20 or 30 years ago would be able nowadays to enjoy the earnings of a young man engaged in present conditions on piecework. This, the Board contends, is a matter of fact rather than a matter of law—which would not be evaded by amending Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1943.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsThe Parliamentary Secretary said something about consulting the National Coal Board. Presumably he consulted the N.C.B. about the Workmen's Compensation Act. We do not propose to touch that Act. Did the hon. Gentleman consult the N.C.B. about this proposed new Clause? I would be surprised—indeed, I would be shocked—if the N.C.B. advised him to reject it.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonThe right hon. Gentleman is trying to misrepresent me. Of course the National Coal Board was not consulted about the proposed new Clause. What I have been saying is that the Board had talks about this old problem of short-time working.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonIf the hon. Member for Bedwellty will contain himself we will get on a little faster.
§ Mr. HaleOn a point of order. Before we get on a little faster, I should like to know from where the Parliamentary Secretary is quoting. Is he quoting from memory or from a document? If there has been a document setting out these figures and conclusions by the N.C.B., on working conditions and so on—
§ The ChairmanOrder. That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order.
§ Mr. HaleWith respect, Sir William, if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary quotes from a document which is relevant to the debate, then it should be laid on the Table. I submit that that is a part of the established rules of the House. It is true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not said that he is quoting from a document, but he has said, in effect, that he is quoting from a communication. My point of order is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should say whether the communication was a telephone message or a decision of the N.C.B. If he is quoting from a document should it not be laid upon the Table?
§ The ChairmanI did not hear any quotation that compelled a document to be laid upon the Table.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonI think that I understood correctly what the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) said which was that, because of this two-thirds rule, large numbers of men cannot receive any benefit. If I have misunderstood him and he wishes it, I will gladly give way to him.
§ Mr. B. TaylorI intended to convey that those who were under the ceiling of 50s. because of the operation of the two-thirds rule could not participate in the 1961 and 1963 supplements.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonThat is absolutely correct, because those two supplements only come into operation when men reach the ceiling. I apologise for misunderstanding the hon. Member. He added that 7,000 of these 645 men in the mining industry are at present unemployed, but he should remember that, of those, three-quarters are now over 65.
The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) spoke of the "ballotees" and the "Bevin boys", who did such excellent work in the pits during the war, but it is very unlikely that there would have been many or long periods of short-time working for those men, so it is unlikely that their wages would be greatly depressed at the time of accident.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) paid a tribute to the Government for our action in recent months and years. As he says, we can identify 12,000 of these men but, beyond that, there is a very much larger number of "latents" whom we cannot identify, and that adds to the problem. He asked what the cost of accepting the Amendment would be; it would cost £400,000 per annum and, of that sum, £250,000 would go to "partials" who are on less than the maximum. He also returned to his former hobby-horse of the 1d. reduction in the Industrial Injuries contribution, but I do not think we need go over that argument again.
The purpose of this Amendment is very far removed from the purpose of the Bill, which concerns widows with children. Many men on workmen's compensation never contributed to the Industrial Injuries Fund so as to justify drawing benefit from it, but they should be relieved of genuine hardship, as we all recognise. Those who have not reached the maximum under the Workmen's Compensation Acts—that is to say, 40s. for the single man and 50s. for the married man—have their remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. When they reach the maximum, they qualify for the supplementary allowance to a maximum of 30s., and supplements are paid only to those who reach the maximum under the former Act.
If, therefore, there is hardship, it must be amongst men who reached the workmen's compensation maximum and are getting the maximum supplement under the 1963 Act—those, in fact, with loss of earnings of about £5 5s. a week, or more—but the Amendment would do absolutely nothing for them. It would give the most benefit to the man whose 646 loss of earnings happened to be the arbitrary figure of £3 10s. I am here talking of single men; the figures for the married men with 50s. benefit would be slightly different. The man with a loss of earnings of between 1s. and 30s. would get the same benefit from this Amendment as would the man whose loss of earnings was between £4 10s. and £5 5s. I think that hon. Members opposite now realise what I mean by discrimination, for this would be unfair discrimination between one man and another. It would be very rough justice indeed.
The present rules, within the limits which I have tried to outline, do work fairly. If a man's loss of earnings qualifies him for maximum workmen's compensation, he is automatically eligible for the supplementary allowance. If the loss of earnings is not big enough to qualify for the maximum rate of workmen's compensation, then there is a remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Acts through the courts or outside, should the man's disability worsen. There is, therefore, no kind of hardship which can be properly compensated from the Industrial Injuries Fund in this way.
§ Mr. B. TaylorThe effect of the two-thirds does apply in regard to the supplement. If a man is on the maximum of 50s. and that is two-thirds of the difference between his pre-accident and post-accident earnings, he would not get any supplement at all, neither the 10s. of 1961 nor the 20s. of 1963. It is only to bring him up to the two-thirds of the difference between pre and post-accident earnings.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonI think that either I am misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman or he is wrong. Under the 1943 Act, a man is allowed two-thirds of his loss of earnings. May we consider a single man with a maximum of 40s. because the calculations are much easier? He is allowed two-thirds of his loss of earnings up to a maximum of 40s. If he reaches that maximum and two-thirds of his loss of earnings has not been reached, he then comes into the category for supplementary allowance, by which he will get his 30s. less the workmen's compensation which he has received under the 1943 Act.
§ Mr. B. TaylorLet me put a case. Let us suppose that the two-thirds difference between pre-accident and post-accident earnings is 46s. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, he can only get 40s. because that is the maximum. What I am saying is that he would not get the 30s. supplement; he would only get the 6s. which would bring him up to two-thirds of the difference.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonThat is perfectly correct. That is the way it works, and I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, he put it in another way. However, that does not alter the fact that, if we were persuaded to do what the Amendment is intended to do, it would work most unfairly, with the results I have already given.
§ Mr. HaleI shall not keep the Committee long, but I want to make a brief comment on the speech which the Joint Parliamenetary Secretary has just made, which—I do not wish to be discourteous—I thought was deplorable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was replying on behalf of the Government to a new Clause put down by my hon. Friends, with some ingenuity, to call attention to a grievance within the ambit of a Bill which called for considerable ingenuity in the drafting. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "First, you are asking me to be absolutely indiscriminate. Second, you are asking me to discriminate between hard cases and cases not so hard and give the benefit to some but not to others".
Then comes an astonishing disclosure, astonishing not because of its content but because of its indiscretion in disclosing a general reaction to our social services which one hears so often. The Parliamentary Secretary says, "These people did not contribute to the Fund. What right have they to expect anything?". We could say the same about war pensioners. These men went down the pit, risking life and limb to work. I accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's correction, of course, that we are speaking not only about men in the pits but about workers in the cotton mills as well. I have referred to coal mining only because the debate has proceeded on that basis, led with great ability by my hon. Friends from mining constituencies which have probably the 648 highest proportion of the cases affected. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that we must remember the cotton mills too, and then he says that he went to see the National Coal Board about it to find out what its view was. Apparently, no one suggested that an approach should be made to employers of other kinds.
I have lived in amity with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for many years and 'I have always had great respect for him. There was an occasion on which I ventured to criticise him, namely, when he relieved employers of the burden of contribution under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and said that the State would take it over. Now, we have the Parliamentary Secretary saying that, since the State has taken the burden over, we must remember that these men did not contribute the 3d. a week towards the cost of the insurance, although, economically speaking, they did because their wages were based on what was left after the insurance contribution had been paid.
It is shocking to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that we should remember that these men did not pay anything in 1923 out of their 30s. since they were not permitted to do so. I do not believe that he would go to a Conservative Party Conference and use that argument in respect of war pensioners. Those unfortunate enough to survive the war crippled, bleeding or broken were not permitted to pay money into a fund to move the cost of war pensions, and the public conscience would not have permitted them to do so.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonPerhaps the hon. Member will let me remind him precisely of what I said, because I have a note of it here. When he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that it is not very different from this. I said that many men on workmen's compensation had never contributed to the Industrial Injuries Fund. To justify benefits from that Fund there must be relief from genuine hardship.
§ Mr. HaleI was coming to that point. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling attention to it.
Let me turn to what is called the academic or technical objection. My 649 right hon. and hon. Friends have drafted a new Clause in which it is proposed that the money should come from the Fund because no other way of dealing with the matter was possible within the terms of the Bill. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows that, and therefore he should not try to mislead the Committee. He knows that if we want to raise this matter at all under the terms of Parliamentary order we must say that the money must come out of the National Insurance Fund. We cannot say that it must come from the Exchequer, because that would not be in order.
§ Mr. WainwrightBut is it not true that many of these men have paid into the Industrial Injuries Fund? If these men are partial compensation cases they are probably working now. Those who have been working since 5th July, 1948 and who, due to an old accident, are receiving partial compensation have obviously contributed towards the fund.
§ Mr. HaleThat is true. I was talking largely in terms of 1926, 1927 or 1928 and of the older cases to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made his final unfortunate reference.
§ Mr. B. TaylorDoes my hon. Friend realise that of the 12,000 partial compensation cases more than 5,000 are at work now and are contributing to the fund?
§ Mr. HaleCertainly. I make the same reply that I made before. I was trying to concentrate my remarks on those people receiving compensation who suffer the maximum hardship from the present method of computing the supplements.
I was about to say that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made what I thought was his other unfortunate reference when he said, "We have consulted the National Coal Board and it has advised us that the men who were injured or diseased in 1926 or 1927 would not, almost 40 years later, be earning on piece work comparable figures, making adjustments to allow for the variation in wage rates over the period". In 1926 the mining industry was not the industry that it is today. I speak from personal experience of the Midlands. I was then dealing with lads of 15 years of age doing the job of pit ponies.
§ Mr. HarperDoes my hon. Friend realise that we had nine months "holiday" in 1926?
§ Mr. HaleI realise that in 1926 there was the mining lock-out. Over the whole of the area which we are considering, and certainly in Leicestershire, pits were being closed down permanently. Those which remained open were working, if they were lucky, for three days a week and the maximum wages of the men were 10s. Do not let us hesitate about the figures.
However, the jobs were not the same. We were not talking about mechanised mines with conveyor belts or even the more modern methods of transport. I was dealing with lads of 15 years of age who were "tramming", dragging loaded tubs and doing the job of pit ponies—because pit ponies can come expensive. What is the good of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary saying that a lad of 15 years of age who was "tramming" in 1926 would not be a highly skilled loader-operator at a mechanised face in 1964? This is a tragic way of considering the matter.
9.45 p.m.
There was a day, even while I have been a Member of Parliament, when in courtesy to the House of Commons Ministers would say, "We appreciate that, hon. Members not having the benefit of expert legal assistance, there may be some mistake in the drafting. But we understand the objects of the Clause, and if we are to accept it, we will amend it so that it suits the case. If it may not be appropriate for the money to come from the National Insurance Fund, we shall see that this piffling little payment, relatively speaking"—I never thought that the day would come when I would talk about £400,000 a year as a piffling little payment, but we have cases which are sub judice which add up to scores of millions of money in respect of which no check appears to have been made. What Shakespeare called our "sumless treasury"—and he was referring to the sea—appears much more to apply to Whitehall. Very few sums have been computed.
If the Government are saying that they could do substantial justice to a 651 much suffering section of the community for £400,000 a year, which would be reduced year by year, and rapidly, because, unhappily, people who got this benefit would be dying off, after the sums which we have had to deal with are not the Government prepared to say that here is an opportunity of doing belated justice for some? Even if they cannot do justice for those who are dead, those who failed, those who for some technicality lost their case or the many who lost it because medical opinion in those days was different from medical opinion today, or for those who failed to establish a claim for diseases like silicosis or miner's nystagmus because of a conflict of medical opinion, we can, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly says, do tardy justice to a small section of the community for this small sum. Cannot the Minister at least say that he will consider our proposal and hope to come back and say that suggestions can be made which would do justice, even if it is necessary to introduce a minor measure of discrimination to satisfy the difficulties to which he has referred?
§ Miss HerbisonIn his reply, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary took us right back to 1943, when we had the Workmen's Compensation Act, and said that at the time of the review no fair formula could be found to deal with the type of cases which we have been discussing under the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman showed clearly that he recognised that amongst the cases covered by the Amendment there is real hardship—he has not denied it—but what does he do about it? He accepts that there is real hardship, but he tells us that since those cases of real hardship cannot be isolated from those which he considers not to be suffering real hardship, he will do nothing whatever for those who are suffering hardship. That is a wrong attitude for any Minister in the Government to take.
To back up his case, the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that outside the cases covered by our Amendment there are worse cases. What have the Government been doing for 12 years? If they realise that there are much worse 652 cases than those covered by our Amendment—
§ Mr. B. TaylorAnd so there are.
§ Miss HerbisonOf course there are—no Minister should come to the Box after his Government have been in power for 12 years to support his case for not accepting the Amendment on the ground that there are other cases outside it in which the hardship is much worse.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary brought forward the statement about the National Coal Board and the attempt to make a comparison of wages. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has shown clearly that the Coal Board could not possibly answer what the Minister asked. Nobody in that position could possibly answer it. That does not mean that the Coal Board was against anything being done for the cases covered by the Amendment or for the harder cases which are not covered by it. The Board gave the answers to the specific questions asked by the Minister. The Board was not asked what it would do if it had the chance to help these people. I hope that this makes the position of the Coal Board perfectly clear.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that money from the Industrial Injuries Fund could be used only for the relief of genuine hardship. He stated that it is a fund to which these people will not have contributed. I take grave exception to that statement because, again, that Fund has been raided—that is the only word one can use in the context of the Minister's speech—to help old pneumoconiotic cases and many other different types. The Minister used that as an argument to prevent justice being done to people who are suffering real hardship. As he cannot isolate them, he will do nothing.
§ Lieut.-Commander MaydonDoes the hon. Lady contend, therefore, that the old pneumoconiosis cases are not cases of real hardship—
§ Miss HerbisonOf course they are.
§ Lieut.-Commander Maydon—and that it is raiding the Fund to do justice by those cases which can be identified as opposed to those cases which cannot?
§ Miss HerbisonI do not contend that at all. I was referring to the fact that many of these people might have been said not to have contributed to it. My objection is that because the Minister tells us he cannot isolate the cases of real hardship, he will not do anything to help these cases.
The Minister has told us that if our Amendment were accepted, a sum of £400,000 per annum would be involved. That £400,000 would cover the real cases of hardship that the Minister cannot isolate and give perhaps a little extra to those whom he thinks are not suffering hardship. Would there be anything desperately wrong in doing that? Most of these men, injured in heavy industry, deserve to get the justice that this Clause would give them.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary took up the point made by one of my hon. Friends who said that 7,000 of this small number were unemployed. The hon. Gentleman thought he had a smart answer by saying that three-quarters of that 7,000 unemployed were over 65. We are thus, in the main, talking about older people. How many of them are over 60? Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this will be a dwindling responsibility year by year? If he had any feelings, as we from the mining and other heavy industrial areas have about these people, he would have been ready to accept the Clause at once. Since the Government will not accept the Clause, we shall divide the Committee in the knowledge that it will not be many months before we have a Minister acting on behalf of a Government who will give justice to these people.
§ Mr. FinchWe understand from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that there is £288 million in the Industrial Injuries Fund. We are told that this Clause would cost £400,000. There is, therefore, no financial ground on which he can rest his argument.
Earlier, I reminded the Committee of the difference between the pre-and post-accident
§ accident wages under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, including supplementation, and that the workman is entitled to two-thirds of the difference. I quoted a case where the difference was £1 but where the man was receiving only 13s. 4d. He should be receiving the full £1 In support of my contention, I said that these men had never been able to obtain an adequate review of their pre-accident wages. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary admitted that, but said that there were immense difficulties. He recalled that a committee had found great difficulty in adequately reviewing pre-accident wages. If we accept that, it means that these men are forever tied to low pre-accident wages.
§ In these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to say that, out of the £288 million in the Fund, these men should have £400,000. Their number is declining year by year until, in a few years' time, few will be left. Would not the Minister consider increasing the difference to say, seven-eighths at least. It is seven-eighths today for a married man with children, but these men had their accidents many years ago and no children are now involved.
§ Let the Government give a few shillings to these older men who had their accidents so many years ago and have not had the advantage of changing rates of wages and who today are crippled and will never work again. He has £288 million in the Fund. All we ask for is £400,000 a year for a dwindling number of men.
§ Mr. B. TaylorThis problem has not been tackled by the Government, and time is not on our side. Wiith the passage of time the hand of death will have removed the problem, and history will record that it was not very creditable to us that we did not do justice to these unfortunate people.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 108, Noes 161
657| Division No. 15.] | AYES | [9.59 p.m. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Blyton, William | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) |
| Barnett, Guy | Boardman, H. | Carmichael, Neil |
| Beaney, Alan | Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Castle, Mrs. Barbara |
| Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.) | Cliffe, Michael |
| Blackburn, F. | Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Cronin, John |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Hynd, John (Attercliffe) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hilt) | Price, J. T. (Westhougton) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Janner, Sir Barnett | Probert, Arthur |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Randall, Harry |
| Diamond, John | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Redhead, E. C. |
| Doig, Peter | Kelley, Richard | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Kenyon, Clifford | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Ledger, Ron | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Evans, Albert | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Finch, Harold | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) |
| Fitch, Alan | Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Ross, William |
| Fletcher, Eric | Loughlin, Charles | Silkin, John |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Lubbock, Eric | Snow, Julian |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | MacColl, James | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Ginsburg, David | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Grey, Charles | Manuel, Archie | Steele, Thomas |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Mapp, Charles | Stonehouse, John |
| Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) | Mayhew, Christopher | Symonds, J. B. |
| Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Mendelson, J. J. | Taverne, D. |
| Hannan, William | Millan, Bruce | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Harper, Joseph | Milne, Edward | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Mitchison, G. R. | Thornton, Ernest |
| Herbison, Miss Margaret | Morris, Charles (Openshaw) | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Morris, John | Warbey, William |
| Holman, Percy | O'Malley, B. K. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Houghton, Douglas | Oram, A. E. | Willey, Frederick |
| Hoy, James H. | Oswald, Thomas | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Owen, Will | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Padley, W. E. | |
| Hunter, A. E. | Paget, R. T. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Pavitt, Laurence | Mr. Charles A. Howell and |
| Mr. Ifor Davies. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Finlay, Graeme | Marten, Neil |
| Allason, James | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon) |
| Anderson, D. C. | Freeth, Denzil | Mawby, Ray |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Gibson-Watt, David | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) | Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C. |
| Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Mills, Stratton |
| Barlow, Sir John | Goodhew, Victor | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Barter, John | Gough, Frederick | More, Jasper (Ludlow) |
| Batsford, Brian | Grant-Ferris, R. | Morgan, William |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Gresham Cooke, R. | Neave, Airy |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Grosvenor, Lord Robert | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie |
| Biffen, John | Gurden, Harold | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) |
| Bishop, Sir Patrick | Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Partridge, E. |
| Box, Donald | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Braine, Bernard | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Peel, John |
| Brewis, John | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Percival, Ian |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Riley, Joseph | Pitman, Sir James |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Pounder, Rafton |
| Bryan, Paul | Hirst, Geoffrey | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch |
| Holland, Philip | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | |
| Buck, Antony | Hollingworth, John | Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Hopkins, Alan | Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.) |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Hornby, R. P. | Rid[...]dale, Julian |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) | Roberto, Sir Peter (Heeley) |
| Chataway, Christopher | Hughes-Young, Michael | Roots, William |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Sharples, Richard |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Shaw, M. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Shepherd, William |
| Cole, Norman | Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Stainton, Keith |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Stodart, J. A. |
| Costain, A. P. | Kershaw, Anthony | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Courtney, Cdr. Anthony | Lagden, Godfrey | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Curran, Charles | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) |
| Dance, James | Lilley, F. J. P. | Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) |
| Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. | Litchfield, Capt. John | Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) | Teeling, Sir William |
| Eden, Sir John | Longden Gilbert | Thatcher Mrs. Margaret |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Loveys, Walter H. | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Errington, Sir Eric | McLaren, Martin | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Macley, Rt. Hon. John | Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon |
| Farr, John | Marshall, Sir Douglas | Turner, Colin |
| van Straubenzee, W. R. | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard |
| Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Walder, David | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) | Yates, William (The Wrekin) |
| Walker, Peter | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) | |
| Wall, Patrick | Wise, A. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Ward, Dame Irene | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick | Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Pym. |
§ it being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
§ Committee report Progress.