HC Deb 17 February 1966 vol 724 cc1590-607

The widow's benefit of 20 shillings a week payable by virtue of the Industrial Injuries Act shall be increased to 30 shillings a week.—[Mr. Dean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Temporary Chairman

I think that with that Clause it might be convenient to discuss new Clause No. 5, "Widows.": Without prejudice to any other benefit to which she may be entitled under the National Insurance Act there shall be payable to a widow a pension at the rate of 30 shillings a week.

Mr. Dean

Thank you, Mr. Steele.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

These two Clauses deal with various aspects of widows' benefits, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will agree that it would be wrong to let a Bill of this kind go through without discussing the problem of the no-shilling widow and the 20s. industrial widow. I propose to deal with them separately, because, although we are dealing with similar problems, they are rather different from a legislative point of view.

The object of the second Clause is simply to provide a pension for what we call the no-shilling widows, the 40,000 women who at the moment get no pension. The cost of accepting this proposal would be very small indeed. In fact, it would be so small that it does not enter into the argument.

I do not propose to rest my case on the precise wording of the Clause. There may be argument about the best way of achieving the objective. Indeed, I am one of those who hope that occupational pension schemes will play a growing part in providing benefits for widows, but I am convinced about the basic objective behind the Clause. In my view, widowhood should create the right to a pension. I do not believe that we shall remove the anomalies, and the sense of injustice which exists, until that principle is firmly accepted.

There are two main reasons why I say that. The first is the number of anomalies and the second is the fact that widows have special problems. I recognise that the previous Administration, together with this Administration, have done a good deal to improve the lot of widows. The previous Administration raised widows' benefits, together with other benefits, no less than five times in their period of office. They also introduced a valuable measure of additional help, within the National Insurance Scheme, to widows with children and, also the "flying start", to help those widows without pensions who have difficulty, because of the deficiencies in their contributions record, in getting early employment or sickness benefit. All these were substantial moves by the previous Administration to improve the lot of widows. I readily concede that the present Administration have taken this process further, through the general increase which has been given, but the time has arrived to consider the next step.

I want to refer to the main anomalies. They have been discussed before. Every hon. Member knows that they exist. The first and most obvious one arises from the so-called "50-year rule". A woman who is widowed at the age of 51 has a permanent pension, with no more contributions to pay, whereas a woman who is widowed at the age of 49—although she has a small resettlement benefit, admittedly increased by the Bill—must afterwards earn her living, with no pension but with contributions to pay.

This is one of the stark contrasts which widows outside, comparing their-lot with their next-door neighbour, simply do not understand. It is bound to give rise to a sense of injustice. There may well be two widows in precisely similar circumstances, the only difference being that one was widowed on one side of the 50-year line and the other on the other. Then there is the anomaly of the 30s. widow and the no-shilling widow. If a woman was married before 1948 she is entitled to the 30s. pension whereas if she was married after 1948 she receives no pension at all. That anomaly has been magnified in the minds of widows owing to the fact that the pension was raised from 10s. to 30s. in 1964.

The no-shilling widow, comparing her lot with that of the 30s. widow, naturally cannot see any sense in the difference Why should one have the pension and not the other? The Bill focuses attention on this problem. We have a welcome addition, in the early period of resettlement, but this merely means that the subsequent drop is that much greater. It certainly helps to solve the short-term problem, but it highlights the long-term problem all the more. In the long-term it still leaves the no-shilling widow with nothing.

I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady has had many letters from widows and others drawing her attention to these anomalies. I do not want to labour the point, but I want to quote two examples from correspondence that I have received which illustrate typical reactions on the part of these widows. One reads: Recently it was announced that widows' allowance was to be paid for 26 weeks instead of 13, but nothing was said about anomalies in widows' pensions. I am now 51, having to do a part-time job and care for my mother, aged 86, and for a greater part of the year, for my aunt, aged 84. Thirty shilling widows could be younger and have less responsibility. That is a typical reaction of a no-shilling widow who is obviously carrying a considerable burden of family responsibility, having to look after two aged relatives.

Another typical letter reads: I was left a widow at the age of 49 years, and was informed, 'You must find work'. At 49 this is not easy. Also, where does the Government think the money comes from to pay N.H.I, contributions until the age of 60 to receive a retirement pension? Every hon. Member must have received shoals of letters expressing similar reactions from widows who feel that they are left out of the scheme. I know that the right hon. Lady will say, "Wait for the review." This is the answer that we receive to most of our proposals. Let us hope that our curiosity will be satisfied to some extent next Wednesday, in the debate on the social services in general—

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Braine

indicated dissent.

Mr. Dean

I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) nods his head.

Mr. Braine

My hon. Friend calls me in aid, but I got the impression, from the exchange during Business Questions this afternoon, that there is not the slightest sign of the review materialising by Wednesday. We are not likely to see it for a considerable time to come. I regret that.

Mr. Dean

Perhaps I am being a little more optimistic than my hon. Friend. On Wednesday next we shall see how much progress has been made with this famous review. I hope that the right hon. Lady realises that the more she piles anomaly on anomaly in relation to widows' benefits the greater is the obligation upon her to produce a long-term solution. There are many other anomalies, but I hope that I have said sufficient to remind the Committee of the important ones and of the reactions which they naturally evoke among widows who are getting no pension.

My next point concerns the special responsibilities of widows. At the moment we expect a woman who has been widowed at the age of 49, and who has no dependent children, to go back into the labour market to earn a living and to pay contributions until she is 60. Surely what matters is not so much the age at which a woman becomes a widow as the length of time for which she has been out of the labour market. It will be difficult for her anyway to get back into the labour market when she is 49, or younger, but it will be even more difficult if she has not been working outside the home for many years—if she has spent those years bringing up her family. The comparatively young widow, whose children have grown up, is becoming a fairly common phenomenon.

Under the present arrangements the tendency will be for the proportion of no-shilling widows to increase. We all know that many women now marry before the age of 20. The Government Actuary, in his last quinquennial review of the National Insurance Scheme, estimated that the marriage rate of women aged 20 or under will be 20 per cent. greater in 1973 than this year.

They are marrying younger and are also having their families younger, so the tendency will inevitably be for more women to have grown-up families when they themselves are still comparatively young, and unhappily—because women, for some reason, are tougher than men—many of those will be widows. So the proportion, under present arrangements, of no-shilling widows is likely to increase. The right hon. Lady may say that the woman widowed at the age of 25 does not meet the problems of earning a living to the same extent as the widow of 49. I agree. This is perfectly true. If she will accept the principle of the Amendment and propose a better way of doing it, I shall be content.

She may, equally, say that there are other women who deserve more help, for example, deserted wives, who in some cases are, in effect, in very much the same category as widows. Here again, I shall have no complaint if she can improve on the Clause. The cost, according to the right hon. Lady, of the Clause would be about £3 million, or less than 2d. a side on the weekly contributions. This is a very small additional cost to deal with the problem of the no-shilling widow. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity.

I now turn to the other Clause, which concerns the 20s. industrial widow. This is a similar Amendment to the one proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut-Commander Maydon) in Committee on the 1964 National Insurance Bill on 3rd December, 1964. He argued then that, if it were right to put up the pension of the 10s. National Insurance widow to 30s., it was equally right to increase the 20s. pension for industrial injuries widows and war widows to 30s. After all, industrial injuries widows and war widows are the counterpart of the present 30s. National Insurance widow.

Replying to that debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated that this question and others were being considered by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. He recommended the Committee on that occasion to reject the Amendment on those grounds. I should like to ask whether the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has now reported on this point. If so, what advice has it given and what conclusions have been reached? I hope that we will not be told that this also must wait for the review, because this is another specific example of a case already having been referred to a committee set up to advise the Government on these matters.

However, if the right hon. Lady says that this is unacceptable, why did the Government pick out the 10s. widow for an increase and leave aside the equivalent industrial injuries widow and the war widow? They are as nearly on all-fours as is possible within these separate schemes. I hope that she will tell us. Perhaps she has clear evidence that the industrial injuries and war widows are in less need than the 30s. National Insurance widow and that this was the reason why one was provided for and not the other. I am very doubtful that she has evidence on these lines.

This gives the Government an opportunity to answer these questions on both the 20s. industrial injuries widow and the no-shilling widow within National Insurance.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has referred to the Amendment moved in December, 1964, relating to the industrial injuries widows. On that occasion, I spoke in support of my hon. Friends. I called it a tragic injustice that the 10s. widow had had her pension increased to 30s., whilst the 20s. widow remained in exactly the same position as before. The Parliamentary Secretary replied that the whole problem was part of a fundamental review undertaken by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and we had to leave it at that.

I have, perhaps, more information than my hon. Friend, because the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to write to me in December to tell me that the Advisory Council had reported and that its report was not very encouraging for the 20s. widows. The majority of reports said that there was no evidence of hardship to a degree calling for an immediate remedy; that the 20s. widow could not be compared with the 10s. widow as she was not in the same condition. Of course she is not: she is in very much worse condition than the 10s. widow as regards her loss. In consequence, the Council made no recommendation. In view of the fact that it had been informed that the whole subject was due for a comprehensive review by the Government, the Council thought it inappropriate to make any recommendations.

However, three members of the Council made a contrary recommendation. They said that they were not satisfied that there was no evidence of hardship among these people. They thought that there was a strong case for comparing the 10s. widow and the 20s. widow, in that, if the 10s. widow has her pension raised to 30s., the 20s. widow is entitled to feel that her case should be considered at the same time.

But the net result is that the 20s. widow has been told once again to wait for another fundamental review. I described this as being unfair 14 months ago, and I still describe it as unfair. It is no less unfair always to be fobbed off with the story that a fundamental review is proceeding. This is what is happening to the 20s. widow. She should have had her pension increased to at least 30s. in the Bill we discussed 14 months ago, and now we are told that she can no longer hope to get it even this year. It will still have to wait for one more fundamental review. I hope that the Minister will look more kindly on this case on this occasion and will accept the new Clause.

6.30 p.m.

Miss Herbison

I will deal with new Clause No. 4 first. This applies to the 20s. industrial injuries widow. There is a difference between the 20s. industrial widow's pension and what was formerly the 10s. widow's pension. The latter had what was known as a reserved right—a right which a widow had under the old Contributory Pensions Acts passed before 1948. The Government decided to continue that right in 1948. When the Government considered the treatment of the industrial widow, it had been decided that the lump sums of the Workmen's Compensation Scheme should play no part in industrial injuries benefits. Under the old compensation Acts there had been lump sum payments for a deceased man's dependants.

It was decided at that time to give a weekly payment of 20s., as was given to the young childless war widow. Since 1948, that 20s. has not been increased. The 10s. pension was increased to 30s. because that was a reserved right carried over from the legislation passed before 1948, but it was not increased until 12 months ago, as the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) pointed out. It was increased from 10s. to 30s.—in other Words, something was done to try to make their pension equivalent in terms of purchasing power to what it had been in 1948.

Some of the 20s. industrial injuries widows had this same reserved right from the old cases. At the beginning of 1966 there were 2,360 of what are known as "20s. industrial injuries widows." Of those, 1,400 had their 20s. pension raised to 30s. That was done because they enjoyed that reserved right under the pre-1948 legislation.

I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have raised this matter. In my constituency there is much heavy industry. It contained a great many collieries. Because of that there are a large number of what are called "industrial widows" there—particuarly the widows of men who lost their lives in the mines. Among these widows are some who are included in the figure of 2,360. Because of the interest of my hon. Friends and I in these widows, we raised this matter on many occasions when we were in opposition. As a result of the pressure we placed on the then Government, it was decided to refer this matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) told us the result of that reference.

We felt that it was right and courteous that hon. Members who had shown an interest in this matter should be given the information about the Council's conclusion as quickly as possible. When the Council had looked at the matter, the majority view of the Council was that, since a searching inquiry into the needs of and provision for widows was going on, it would be wrong for the Council at that time to take the matter any further. However, the majority said that once the inquiry was completed the Council would be willing to reconsider the matter afresh. I accepted that majority view, and that is where the position stands at present.

New Clause No. 5 does not cover a great number of widows, although it does cover a greater number of widows than the Clause dealing with 20s. industrial injuries widows. The hon. Member for Somerset, North suggested that we had created further anomalies. I do not agree. I am sure that he will be fair enough to agree that in raising the benefit of the 10s. widow we did not create an anomaly since the 10s. pension was there and the no-shilling widow already existed. I agree that it is an anomaly, but increasing the pension from 10s. to 30s. did not create an anomaly.

Perhaps we have been responsible for getting rid of at least one other anomaly. The hon. Member for Somerset, North put his case for the Clauses clearly and reasonably and I agree that there are many anomalies in the treatment of widows. Consider, for example, the earnings rule. If a widow went out to work the earnings rule applied to her pension. However, if she had an income from a private source and did not go out to work, there was no reduction in her pension. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee made representations to the previous government to abolish that anomaly. By abolishing the earnings rule for widows and widowed mothers the present Government have got rid of one anomaly—and getting rid of one from a number of anomalies must be something worth while.

The hon. Member for Somerset, North went on to speak about the divisions which could take place. I agree, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that once one states a definite age—of, say, 50 years—one must have some people aged less than 50, but even worse, people under that age by only an hour. That problem has always caused us great concern.

I have explained the rights of the 20s. widow and I will not repeat the arguments I then outlined in connection with the rights of the 10s. widow, whose pension was increased to 30s. I agree with all the examples that have been given. One cannot represent any constituency without realising the anomalies that exist. These anomalies have, unfortunately, been with us for a very long time. We have tried in the Bill to do a little for widows, even for those who will become no-shilling widows. I am not ashamed to again say that until the review has been completed there will continue to be no-shilling widows. At least, by increasing the period from 13 weeks to 26 we are giving a longer period for these women to settle down.

The age of 50 has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Somerset, North was right to draw attention to the fact that women marry earlier and, perhaps because they are tougher—I do not know—they live longer, so we have many younger widows. He was worried about what happened to those widows when their families cease to be dependent while the widow is still young and the widows have to go out to work. In 1956 the age for such widows was raised from 40 years to 50. In 1948, the age was 40. I give that just as an example of the various movements that have taken place in this branch of pensions.

The hon. Member referred to a letter mentioning a widow looking after an aged parent. It is not only widows and their position that concern us—and they do concern us. We have the spinster who sometimes go out to work. Some of the most tragic cases in my constituency have concerned the spinster who goes home to look after ailing parents, is not able to pay the contribution, and who sometimes uses the savings she has made from her work for her own old age to care for her aged parents. It is just another of the many anomalies—

Mr. Dean

The right hon. Lady will remember that I said that there were other categories of women who were equally deserving—small categories. I should be very happy if she would bring forward an Amendment to include other categories whom she thinks are in need of this help.

Miss Herbison

The hon. Member is quite right. He spoke of the deserted wife. We have the deserted wife, and the divorced wife, and the kind of woman of whom I was speaking. It all shows the very great need there is to get rid of anomalies and examine the subject thoroughly, as we are doing.

One cannot find an easy solution overnight. On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may be able to give some information, but I can assure the Committee that he will not be able to say what conclusions we have come to. This debate has shown, as all our debates have shown, that this is one of many matters where we will have to start from scratch. I have tried to make it clear that these matters caused me great concern long before I was a Minister—the dividing line at 50, the no-shilling widow, and all the others. These problems I am certain we shall be able to solve when the complete review is brought before the House.

Mr. Braine

Before the Minister resumes her seat, I would point out that she has made an extremely important admission. It would now appear that her right hon. Friend will not be in a position at the outset of our debate on Wednesday on the Welfare State to make any pronouncement about the review. I make no complaint about that—except that it underlines what I said earlier about the unwisdom, perhaps, of having the debate before the review is published—but can she give the Committee any kind of indication as to when this review will be published?

Miss Herbison

I am very surprised that the hon. Member should think that I have made an important admission. He will see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that we have been questioned on this subject time and again in the House, and have shown that, for some of the reasons I have just given, this review is not something that can be done quickly. I have, therefore, made no important admission at all. As I said earlier, on the question of welfare provision generally, my right hon. Friend will say much of interest to the House.

Mr. Braine

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, I am not complaining that the review is taking a long time; this may well be evidence that a very thorough job is being done. I am asking her to give us some general indication as to when this review—which is germane to all our discussions on the Bill today, and even more germane to the discussions we shall have on Wednesday—will be completed. The Government must have some idea when it will be presented.

Miss Herbison

No, I could not give any date at all. As I said earlier, we are not waiting until the review is complete before moving in certain ways. This Bill is an example. In our general review we considered this question of earnings-related benefit, and brought forward our provisions when we were ready. It is possible that when we have completed our work on different parts of the review we shall come forward again, as we have now come forward with this completed part. In other words, we have no intention of holding back until the review is completed. Again, I could say something of the work I have been doing on the question of old people. We have no intention of waiting for a complete review before coming forward with, perhaps, some further proposals there.

I therefore think that from all that has been said over this period it has been made perfectly clear that some aspects of the review will take a considerable time. I might add that on this side we are not in the least worried about the debate on Wednesday. Just as I am glad that these Amendments and new Clauses have been tabled, because they have given both sides an opportunity to highlight some of the sores that still remain in our social security system, so I hope that Wednesday's debate may further highlight these matters.

6.45 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward

Before the right hon. Lady sits down, I would point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) was quite right in stating that she had made an important admission. If I recollect correctly, I myself asked the Leader of the House this afternoon whether the result of the review would be available on Wednesday—and I think that I asked the Prime Minister the same question the other day. The answer was neither "Yes" nor "No". I can honestly say that we were—or, at least, I was—expecting that we would have an important speech relating to the review, but the right hon. Lady now says—and I am very glad that she is so honest about it—that we are not to have any explanation of the review.

That being so, my hon. Friend was right in saying that the Minister had made an important admission. We now know where we are. We realise that the debate on Wednesday will be an interim debate. I appreciate the length of time necessary for a review like this, but ever since the party opposite won the General Election groups of us have been pressing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about provision of special allowances for spinsters and widows looking after aged parents, and it is very disappointing to know that we cannot look forward to anything like that. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for putting us in the picture, and telling us that this will not be the subject of the review but merely an interim step.

Mr. Allason

The Minister told us that only 960 were concerned under new Clause No. 4. I calculate that the cost would be only £20,000 a year. I should have thought the Insurance Fund could stand that. Could the right hon. Lady not be a little more generous to these people? She has not made a case against the new Clause.

I appreciate that behind this argument lies the fact that war widows also at 20s. and slightly higher rates would tend to run in line. Nevertheless, the problem is not a very big one and I ask the right hon. Lady to look at it again. She gave an excuse that the pension of the 10s. widow went up to 30s. because of cost of living but the pension of the 20s. widow because it was considered by the Review Board falls as a result of the Board giving a divided report. The right hon. Lady should make up her own mind. I ask her to be compassionate on this occasion.

Mr. Dean

Although I appreciate the careful way in which the right hon. Lady has dealt with this point, I am exceedingly disappointed. So far as concerns the 20s. industrial widow, it appears that we are now to have a review of a review. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has reported. Some reported that there is a very strong case for increasing the amount to 30s. while others said the opposite. Surely this is a case in which the right hon. Lady, having received advice from a body set up to help her with these problems, should make up her mind. Why should we have a review reviewing a review?

On the question of the no-shilling widow the right hon. Lady made the point that new anomalies were being created. It is certainly the case that every time we make a move on widows' benefits those left out feel a sense of injustice all the greater. When the pension of the 10s. widow was put up to 30s. the no-shilling widow naturally said, "Why is nothing done for me?" Although I very much welcome the way in which short-term problems have been dealt with in this Bill, none the less the no-shilling widow will ask, "Why more for them and nothing for me?". The obligation is on the right hon. Lady, particularly in this essentially long-term problem, to bring forward a solution urgently. It does not cut any ice with these widows to tell them, "You must wait for the review". The more we deal with short-term problems and leave aside the long-term problems, the more we shall get into difficulties. For these reasons I am very disappointed with the right hon. Lady's reply.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan)

Having listened to some of the views expressed by hon. Members opposite, I hope that we are not to be pressurised into making concessions when no concessions are needed. We have heard emotional phrases about widows, about doing something to assist the 10s. widow and as to whether it is justified to help the no-shilling widow. It would be more practical to say what we mean when we talk about assisting a no-shilling widow. There, surely, we are thinking of a woman who, unfortunately, has lost her husband but who is of an age when it is not unreasonable to expect her to make a contribution in her own interests and in the interests of society. I think we are doing harm to a woman under 50 if we encourage the belief that it is desirable for her to sit at home and receive a pension.

Mr. Dean

Surely that is not the case. The hon. Member appears to be saying that it is perfectly simple for a woman widowed at the age of 49, who has spent the last 20 years bringing up children, to go out and get a job.

Mr. Brown

I must put that intervention down to language difficulty and suggest that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) did not understand what I was saying. Of course I recognise that there is a problem in widowhood. Because I think I have more understanding of the problem, I suggest that we should look at it with less emotion and with a more practical and common sense approach. There will always be a dividing line. The hon. Member suggested that because a woman is widowed, willy-nilly she should be entitled to a pension. No one else accepts that and hon. Members opposite, when they were in Government, did not accept it. I think they were quite right in that.

If we examine the best interests of women who are widowed we find that the biggest step forward has been the introduction of the 26 weeks instead of 13 weeks benefit period. That was the biggest single improvement made by any Government for a long time. Surely hon. Members will not argue that giving someone a 30s. a week pension solves all that person's economic problems. Of course it does not. That is a purely emotional approach. My only reason for intervening is to say that I hope my right hon. Friend will not be carried away and assume that there is great strength of opinion which suggests that pensions should be paid without proper examination of the problem.

Sir K. Joseph

I do not think that anyone in this Committee believes that the right hon. Lady is in danger of being carried away by anyone. The difficulty which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) faces is that the right hon. Lady, I am sure, herself believes in the justice of these proposals. I wrote down what she said: "Until the review is completed there will continue to be no-shilling widows". There were two implications to be drawn from that. The first was that the review will almost certainly provide something for no-shilling widows. The second was that the right hon. Lady is greedy for virtue and wants everything to come from the review, and wants her right hon. Friend to have all the credit.

Here is something which is unambiguous, useful and helpful. The 30s. a week is a useful supplement for a woman who, as my hon. Friends in very cogent speeches have said, may not be able to return quickly to the labour

force. She may have been out of action for work outside the home for many years. My hon. Friends and I are very disappointed that the Government do not see fit to take this step now. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the Committee.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 104, Noes 114.

Division No. 30.] AYES [6.59 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Grant, Anthony Murton, Oscar
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Grant-Ferris, R. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Gresham Cooke, R. Onslow, Cranley
Balniel, Lord Grieve, Percy Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Batsford, Brian Griffiths, Peter (Smethwlck) Peel, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Gurden, Harold Prior, J. M. L.
Bessell, Peter Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Pym, Francis
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Black, Sir Cyril Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Blaker, Peter Hawkins, Paul Roots, William
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J. Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Scott-Hopkins, James
Braine, Bernard Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Sharpies, Richard
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hordern, Peter Sinclair, Sir George
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn, Dame P. Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswlck)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Bryan, Paul Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Bullus, Sir Eric Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Studholme, Sir Henry
Burden, F. A. Kilfedder, James A. Summers, Sir Spencer
Buxton, Ronald King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Kirk, Peter Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Lagden, Godfrey Teeling, Sir William
Cooke, Robert Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, s.)
Cooper, A. E. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Corfield, F. V. Longden, Gilbert Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Lubbock, Eric van Straubenzee, W. R.
Curran, Charles McAdden, Sir Stephen Ward, Dame Irene
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr) MacArthur, Ian Weatherill, Bernard
Dean, Paul Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Webster, David
Eden, Sir John McLaren, Martin Whitelaw, William
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Wilson, Geeoffrey (Truro)
Eyre, Reginald Mawby, Ray Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) Mitchell, David Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Monro, Hector
Glover, Sir Douglas Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Goodhew, Victor Mr. More and Mr. Younger.
NOES
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Delargy, Hugh Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Atkinson, Norman Dell, Edmund Howie, W.
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Hoy, James
Bence, Cyril Driberg, Tom Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Bishop, E. S. Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Boston, Terence Floud, Bernard Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.) Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Ford, Ben Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury) Freeson, Reginald Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.) Grey, Charles Kelley, Richard
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) MacDermot, Niall
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mclnnes, James
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hamilton, William (West Fife) McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Chapman, Donald Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.) McLeavy, Frank
Conlan, Bernard Hannan, William Manuel, Archie
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Harper, Joseph Mason, Roy
cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank Hart, Mrs. Judith Mellish, Robert
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S. Hazell, Bert Mendelson, J. J.
Darling, George Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Mikardo, Ian
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Holman, Percy Molloy, William
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Monslow, Walter
Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Small, William
Murray, Albert Pentland, Norman Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Newens, Stan Perry, Ernest G. Stones, William
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.) Prentice, R. E. Tomney, Frank
Norwood, Christopher Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Urwin, T. W.
Ogden, Eric Redhead, Edward Wainwright, Edwin
O'Malley, Brian Reynolds, G. W. Wallace, George
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.) Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras. N.) Warbey, William
Orme, Stanley Ross, Rt. Hn. William Weitzman, David
Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Palmer, Arthur Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.) Zilliacus. K.
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.) Silkin, John (Deptford)
Parker, John Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Pavitt, Laurence Skeffington, Arthur Mr. Lawson and Mrs. Slater.