§ The Occupational Pensions Board shall not recognise any scheme unless it is satisfied that the employers' contributions to the scheme are at least equal to those that would be payable by the employer to the Reserve Pension Scheme; but the Occupational Pensions Board may authorise such payments to be made at such times as appear to it appropriate.—[Mr. Dell.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
294§ Mr. DellI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I emphasise that we are now talking about occupational pension schemes. I propose that a 2½ per cent. minimum contribution should be written into the Bill as a safety-net provision. Under the reserve scheme this is the employer's contribution. It should be laid down in the Bill that this should be the minimum contribution to an occupational scheme. I do not believe that the Government have good reason to object. It is surely something that they believe will happen anyway. They believe that employers will contribute at least as much as employees to occupational pension schemes. That is their answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) on his tax amendment.
The Government are to ban nominal contributions by employers, at any rate in respect of recognised occupational pension schemes. The Minister said in Committee that the Occupational Pensions Board would refuse recognition to any occupational pensions scheme in respect of which the employer made only a nominal contribution.
For money purchase schemes, the Government have laid down that there should be a 50-50 division of the minimum 5 per cent. contribution. They have not simply stated that the total shall be 5 per cent. They have said that the total shall be a minimum of 5 per cent., and that the employer must pay at least 2½ per cent. They have never explained why, if within the money purchase scheme that minimum is laid down and there is the principle of a 50-50 contribution, the same should not apply as a minimum within other occupational pension schemes.
The sort of scheme that will be offered by respectable insurance companies to employers will probably cost 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent. to meet the minimum conditions, unless there is something special about the age structure of the employer's firm. For example, if there is a heavy weighting of young workers those figures might go down. They might also be changed if very favourable assessments are made, such as I do not believe properly could be made by a respectable insurance company, of bonuses or gains from preservation.
295 If it is true, as I suspect, that such an insurance company would offer employers schemes that would cost that range of percentages—say, 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent.—it is reasonable to lay down, if we take the idea of a 50-50 division, a minimum of 2½ per cent. as the employer's contribution. But—and this is the problem—I believe that unless special protection is written into the Bill some brokers will try to persuade some insurance companies to sell competitive schemes which undercut the reserve pension scheme.
We should remember to whom the schemes will be sold. They will be sold to firms that have resisted 25 years of selling effort by the insurance industry to persuade them to introduce occupational pension schemes. Brokers will be trying to persuade employers who will be attracted by such special offers, wanting simply a means of undercutting the reserve pension scheme.
There are various ways in which the contribution to the reserve pension scheme can be undercut and yet the minimum benefit levels met—for example, by favourable assumptions regarding the age structure and bonuses, by employers paying less than half, or by bonuses accruing to the scheme rather than to the beneficiaries. There is no protection in the Bill in respect of occupational pension schemes to see that bonuses shall accrue to the beneficiaries. That is one disadvantage in the occupational pension scheme provision as compared with the reserve pension scheme, under which we at any rate have the assurance that bonuses will accrue to the beneficiaries. There is no such assurance for occupational pension schemes, where they may accrue to the scheme, thereby reducing the contribution that employers have to make over the years to such schemes which are run by them or for them.
I should like to refer now to an illustration, which is publicly available, of the sort of thing which may happen. I have here a document which was kindly sent to me by the Legal and General Assurance Society Limited—I make no criticism of that company—entitled "L & G Earnings-Related Pension Plan". The document, which presents employers with the Legal and General's offer for meeting 296 the requirements of the Bill, makes no mention whatever of what the employer's contribution to the scheme that it will run for him will be. The only thing it says under the heading "Costing" on page 13 is:
The cost to the employer is expressed as a percentage of his payroll. This enables him to budget in advance. The level of cost depends on the size of benefits, the rate of employees' contributions and their average age and whether the benefits have to be revalued.There is no indication there of what the employer's contribution will be. The company gives an example in which the employee's contribution is 2½ per cent., but does not even give an example of what the employer's contribution might be.I suspect that unless the Bill contains the sort of protection that my new clause is intended to create many employers will take the benefit from bonuses, and that as a result their contributions will be reduced, to the disadvantage of their employees. I believe that there is a need to protect the interests of employees within the occupational pension system.
We had a discussion in Committee about whether there should be a benefit test or a contribution test. The Minister emphasised many times that the Government had thought very carefully about the problem and decided that the right test was a benefit and not a contribution test. My first comment is that the value of a benefit test depends on the minimum benefits laid down, and the minimum benefits written into the Bill are very poor. But even with good minimum benefits, higher than those provided in the Bill, it would still be necessary to provide this protection concerning the employer's contribution. There is a need for a contribution test as well, and the test that I suggest is a minimum of 2½ per cent.
I should like to deal with the Government's arguments on this point in so far as I know and understand them. The first is that the protection will be given by trade unions in the course of negotiation. But however well-informed trade unions are to protect their members in the course of such negotiations—and I hope that they do become well-informed on these matters and operate to protect their members' interests—not all workers are represented by trade unions. Indeed, 297 the majority are not, and their interests as well as those of members of trade unions need to be protected.
I entirely agree with the Government that trade unions will want to know what the employer's contribution is, and because of that, and because they will reasonably want to know and perhaps exercise their negotiating power to ensure that they do, that is another reason why the Government might as well concede my case, because I do not believe that trade unions with negotiating power will accept an employer's contribution of less than 2½ per cent.
The Government's second argument, so far as I understand it, is that there is already protection within the Bill. The Minister said in Committee:
Where such representations—for example, from employees to the Occupational Pensions Board—show that the employer is blatantly seeking to put almost all the burden of contributions on to his employees without good reason, the Occupational Pensions Board will have power to withhold recognition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 8th March 1973; c. 833.]Has the House ever heard a more carefully qualified statement:blatantly … almost all … without good reason "?I will say this for the Minister, that at any rate on this point he is saying that there is a contribution test of some kind in the Bill. He is saying that there is a contribution test in that there will be this protection againstblatantly seeking to put almost all the burden … on to his employees".But what is needed is a much firmer form of protection than is provided by the Minister by that statement, or by Clause 50(4)(b), which is its proposed statutory basis. We watched the Minister carefully in Committee when he was reading out those words. They were carefully formulated. We deduced their significance from the care with which they were formulated. They mean that there is precious little protection within the Bill for employees against very low employer contributions.7.45 p.m.
The third argument put forward by the Government was supported by the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. 298 Rhys Williams). Within these occupational pension schemes an employer's liability is unpredictable as to timing and amount. That argument having been put before me, I recognise the fact that an employer's liability is unpredictable as to timing. I meet that argument within the new clause—
the Occupational Pensions Board may authorise such payments to be made at such times as appear to it appropriate.Therefore, I have met the point about timing.I do not accept the argument about amount because in respect of the sort of schemes which we are considering which are primarily minimum benefit schemes for manual workers, there should be minimum contributions.
There is an important attraction in the new clause which could even help to prevent the defeat of the Government's pension strategy. At the moment young people will often see their interests in being in the reserve pension scheme because of the low contribution which they will have to make, and because of the comparable out-turn they will gain after many years of membership of the scheme. Further, it will not carry the social burden of the cross-subsidy to old people. Therefore there will be great pressure, and greater pressure than the Government have estimated, by many members of the community to be in the reserve pension scheme and not the occupational pension scheme. That might even be powerful enough to defeat the Government's whole strategy within the Bill and to render the Bill virtually null and void.
If there were minimum employer contributions, that could slightly alter the balance in favour of occupational pension schemes, thus providing better benefits than those laid down as the minimum benefits within the Bill. Therefore, the new clause has an advantage to the Gov-ment, and it certainly provides a necessary form of protection to employees.
§ Sir B. Rhys WilliamsThe right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has done the useful thing of giving the House the opportunity to consider the sort of schemes that can be offered to employers which seem to require much smaller contributions than at present are laid down in the Bill for the reserve scheme. I am told that at least one of the most respected 299 life offices has evolved a scheme which, I assume, passes the recognition test for career earnings—certainly not for final salary or money purchase—which requires contributions from the two sides of only 3½ per cent.
That is not just a fugitive or catchpenny offer, which is likely to be withdrawn as soon as it attracts attention. It has been based on a reasonable expectation of the long-term rate of interest. In the event of the Bills remaining as it stands, I suppose it would be possible for employers who were attracted by such a scheme to negotiate with their employees that they should make a contribution of 1½ per cent. while the employers would pay 2 per cent. In that way they would be able to produce a rock-bottom scheme which would comply with the requirements of the Bill.
§ Mr. O'MalleyWill the hon. Gentleman go back a few sentences? He mentioned a life office which had produced a scheme with 3½ per cent. contributions. I was not clear, and neither were some of my hon. Friends, whether the hon. Gentleman was talking about a total contribution of 3½ per cent. or 3½ per cent. from either side. Will the hon. Gentleman make that clear?
§ Sir B. Rhys WilliamsThe 3½ per cent. is the joint contribution which would then have to be split between the employer and the employees by negotiation. If the Government are successful in persuading the House to restore the tax bias, which was decisively rejected in Committee, it will be possible for employers to negotiate with their employees that they should make a contribution of 2 per cent. or possibly even more. If they are under a private scheme they will be able to get the advantage of the tax concession. In that way, to agree with the employers' proposal to join the private scheme would make it possible for them to suggest to employees that they should pay a 2 per cent. contribution to the private scheme. In that way they would get away with a smaller net loss of immediate spending power than if they were to join the reserve scheme. More than 2 per cent. could be required of employees on that basis. I take 2 per cent. because of the ease of calculation of the example. It would make it possible 300 for the employer to pay only 1½ per cent. to a scheme which would then be approv-able under the terms of the Bill.
I am not qualified as an actuary but it is reasonably fair to expect that a scheme into which is paid rock-bottom contributions will provide only rock-bottom benefits in the end. The Government should not encourage or even allow offers of that kind. They will tempt employers into setting up occupational pension schemes of the kind that will bring the whole occupational pension movement into discredit.
§ Mr. DellDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is now saying substantially undermines the principle in another part of the Bill which previously he has supported, namely, the principle of laying down the type of minimum benefit that the Bill incorporates, the significance of which depends entirely on the rate of inflation and, by implication, on the going rates of interest? If that is so, he is confirming the poverty level of the minimum benefits laid down in respect of occupational pension schemes within the Bill.
§ Sir B. Rhys WilliamsThe problem of inflation, which the right hon. Gentleman now introduces, is one which vexes every kind of pension scheme, whether it is a scheme sponsored by the State, a reserve scheme under State auspices but without any State subsidy, or a private occupational scheme. No one can pretend to be able to say how future inflation will be tackled. All they can do is to try to move into the future with assets large enough to carry them through honestly as best they are able in face of changes in the value of money.
I believe that almost insoluble problems will arise if we accept the new clause as the right hon. Gentleman has proposed it. Of course, he has gone a long way to meeting the point that I made in Committee, that there cannot be, year in and year out, identical contributions from employers. There may be a change in the value of money, which would cause unpredictable changes in the funding of the scheme. For instance, there may be capital gains in the trust from time to time which would make it unnecessary for an employer constantly to put new money into the scheme. On the other hand, there may be capital losses. 301 It is difficult to draw any comparison over a period between reserve scheme contributions, which are of a money purchase character, and the sort of contributions which even the strictest and soundest actuarial assessment would require of an employer who was running a final salary scheme. So, even now, I am not entirely happy with what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
I support the Government's idea that what matter in the end are the benefits which derive from the schemes rather than the way that employers tackle the question of funding. Therefore, I should like to consider this matter from the point of view of possibly including a further overriding benefit test which could be seen to be directly linked to the performance by the employer of some kind of money purchase routine, even though the character of the benefits which eventually emerge is not limited by the money purchase concept.
The test should be that the scheme will give benefits as good as could have been obtained if a minimum contribution had been given at least equal to that required for the reserve scheme, plus a reasonable formula for protection for changes in money values. There could be a great deal of argument about what constitutes a reasonable formula, but I should like my hon. Friend—I am glad that my right hon. Friend is also present—to consider whether there is something attractive about a scheme which ensures that the beneficiary should not get less under any circumstances than would have been obtained if a money purchase contribution equal to the reserve scheme contribution had been invested in the gilt-edged market. The beneficiary then gets at least the increment which can be obtained in the gilt-edged market either by investing in shares which give over 10 per cent. interest rates or where there is an accrued capital gain to the investor. Though the gilt-edged market may have a bad name in terms of inflation, it exists, and the prices which are obtained by buyers and sellers of Government securities reflect the market's assessment of what genuinely constitutes the long-term rate of interest, plus the rate of interest necessary to compensate for changes in the value of money as seen by the market from day to day.
302 It would not be difficult for an employer to enter into a commitment to guarantee the beneficiaries that their money should grow on the basis that it had been invested in the gilt-edged market. If he should lose his nerve investing in property, equities, or in some other way, he can fall back on investing the money in the gilt-edged market, and he is free of risk, at the same time going along with the market in terms of changes in the value of money. This would be the soundest and simplest way of introducing an underlying dynamism into the occupational pension scheme movement.
I implore my hon. Friend to study this proposal closely. It would give people confidence in occupational pension schemes which they cannot have while there is no certainty that they will be able to tackle inflation even as well as people who are investing in Government stock. I trust that my hon. Friend will give further consideration to that point. For the moment, I do not believe it would be right for the House to accept the precise wording of the new clause.
§ Mr. BoscawenWhile recognising the great knowledge of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and sympathising somewhat with the aims behind the new clause, I cannot see the practical difficulty in overcoming the situation where an employer in a final salary scheme wishes to vary the contributions of employees during their careers. Will he indicate further how this could be done?
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said about the need to tighten up on the benefit tests in these cases rather than fixing on minimum contributions in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. DeanI begin by reminding the House that the tests laid down in the Bill are minimum standards. However, the very fact that all schemes going for recognition must meet these standards will mean that the minimum will be a ppringboard from which schemes will wish to improve their arrangements rather than a pillow on which they can relax. Many schemes already do substantially more in some areas for which standards are being laid down and, in 303 some instances, in all areas than was the case before.
We shall have over 60,000 schemes put, as it were, under a microscope. Indeed, never before will so many schemes have reviewed their arrangements to a deadline to come up to the standards for recognition, if they are not there already. This is an essential background to the standards and to the points made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) in introducing the new clause.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of schemes being offered which would, in effect, undercut the reserve pension scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) quoted an example of a contribution of 3½ per cent. being offered. I think my hon. Friend will agree that if that is the position it will be governed largely by the unusually high rates of interest which now obtain.
The essential point is that we have deliberately gone for a benefit test. We felt that through a benefit test we would be more likely to get the objective we all wished—namely, a minimum level of benefit coming out of the scheme at the end. Whatever the contributions going in may be—clearly they will vary—to achieve recognition a scheme will have to come up to the standard of one of the benefit tests which are being laid down. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. South are asking the Government to change from a benefit to a contribution test.
§ Mr. DeanIn effect, the right hon. Gentleman was saying that there must be a minimum contribution going into the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) made the relevant point that if one is to do that one will make it almost certain that schemes which do not lend themselves to a contribution test now—in other words, schemes formed on any basis other than the money purchase basis—will have to change their arrangements artificially, and against the interests of their members in many instances, to try to fit in with the proposals being put forward. My hon. Friend made this point with particular regard to the final salary scheme.
304 In the money purchase scheme there is no difficulty about requiring a minimum contribution from the employer. That is what we are doing in the alternative money purchase test. But there are many other cases where this does not fit. For example, the employer may be financing back-service credits for his employees and it would be virtually impossible to determine what proportion of his contributions are in respect of currently accruing benefits.
The employer guarantees overall benefits in both the average and final salary schemes. This was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. The employer's contributions are not related to individual employees, so it would again be virtually impossible to apportion them on that basis. Indeed, as the cost of such schemes inevitably varies over the years with changes in interest rates and the age distribution of the scheme's membership, the commitments of the employer are bound to fluctuate as well. In times when the scheme was in surplus it would be futile to require a minimum employer's contribution because it would purchase no further benefits under the scheme. At other times, however, the employer may be required to make good fairly substantial deficits arising, for example, from large salary increases in final salary schemes.
In effect the new clause is saying to the Government that there should be a substantial change in the recognition conditions and a change which would certainly not fit easily into most schemes. Above all, it would not fit easily into the final salary scheme, which is generally regarded, certainly for people whose earnings will rise throughout their working life, as one of the best and most progressive schemes.
Having said that, let me remind the House of the very substantial safeguards which are written into the Bill already concerning employers' liability. In addition to requiring employers to have some legal liability to finance the minimum benefits, we have empowered the board, in Clauses 57 and 60, to require steps to be taken to increase the scheme's resources in order to secure minimum benefits. The responsibility for taking those steps—for example, for balancing the books—will fall on the employer. The board will have power, once recognition 305 has been withdrawn, to sue him for any money which it has ordered him to pay for this purpose.
This provision recognises the employer's true rôle under a benefit test. Any employer seeking recognition under one of these tests will know that, even though his contributions are low at one time, he still has overall responsibility for ensuring that the minimum benefits are paid and can find himself being ordered to pay large sums of money over to the scheme.
Moreover, as I said in Committee— the right hon. Member for Birkenhead also referred to this—if a case arises where an employer attempts to shift almost all the contributions on to his empoyees, they will be able to make representations to the Occupational Pensions Board, which has a discretionary power under Clause 50 to refuse or withdraw recognition in such cases.
Therefore, there are these safeguards with regard to the employers liability. But to do as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is suggesting would substantially change the character of the recognition conditions and, above all, it would make it very difficult for some of the best schemes to fulfil the conditions without substantially changing their character probably against the interests and the pension prospects of the members of those schemes.
§ Mr. O'MalleyOne must recognise that when one is dealing with 60,000 schemes and a multiplicity of types of scheme, an Opposition Member or any back-bench Member moving an amendment or a new clause, as in this case, can always be told that the complexity of the structure which he is seeking to amend means that his amendment will be defective and would cause all kinds of difficulties.
I recognise the validity of the arguments of the hon. Member for Kensing-, ton, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and the Under-Secretary when they discussed the question of final salary schemes. But as I understand the last part of new Clause 5, which says:
but the Occupational Pensions Board may authorise such payments to be made at such times as appear to it appropriate",I should have thought that that would at least deal with the difficulties arising in final salary schemes.
§ Mr. DellThere is an additional point. I regard the final salary scheme as a red herring. There is the additional point that any decent final salary scheme requires an employer's contribution far above 2½ per cent. on average over the period of an employee's working life.
§ Mr. O'MalleyOf course it does. I was coming to the point raised by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Kensington, South.
The basic reason for the new clause is that salesmen working for insurance companies and life offices will be travelling all over the country with competitive rates to try to take over the business which would otherwise be the business of the reserve pension scheme. From their narrow point of view, what better way to do that than by being able to say that they will provide an occupational pension scheme which will satisfy the minimum criteria and which will cost the employee less than it would cost him if he were making payments into the reserve pension scheme? Indeed, the hon. Member for Kensington, South mentioned what he described as a respectable life office issuing proposals where, for a total of a 3½ per cent. contribution, a rock bottom scheme could be set up which would avoid the obligation to join the reserve pension scheme.
This is the nub of the issue. It is intolerable. It is no good the Undersecretary saying that the Government have decided to go for a benefit test rather than for a contribution test. The attitude of the trade unions, which is absolutely right, is that during a given period an employer should not only be building up accrued rights for his employees but should also be making, in the form of deferred pay, clearly defined contributions towards the future pensions of those employees. Therefore, although in the Bill benefit tests are laid down, I see no reason why the Government should not impose a contribution test of the kind envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead—if not by the new clause, certainly by regulations.
As the Under-Secretary said, there are safeguards in the Bill. If an employer shifts liability for contributions on to the employees to an unreasonable extent, the employees can make representations 307 to the board. But, as has been said, firstly it is certainly not all work people who are organised into trade unions and have the benefit of the kind of professional expertise and assistance that will be required in that kind of circumstance.
Therefore, as the Under-Secretary has not been able to accept the broad principle of the new clause, and as he has given no indication that he would attempt to alleviate the misgivings expressed on both sides of the House, which he could have done by saying that regulations would be issued to deal with the problems raised by my right hon. Friend, we on the Opposition benches should vote for new Clause 5. In so doing we shall be reflecting the attitude of the vast bulk of work people in Britain and the trade unions representing many of them, who not only want to know the benefits payable but would also want to be assured that their employers were making at least the minimum kind of contributions of 2½ per cent. which are set out in the reserve pension scheme.
If we allow the Bill to go through unamended so that there is no minimum contribution obligation on employers setting up this minimum type of occupational pension scheme, there will not only be great dissatisfaction but also abuse of the system. The hon. Member for Kensington, South has already demonstrated by the example he has given that that abuse or attempts to introduce that kind of abuse have begun.
For those reasons I hope that the House will accept the new clause.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. DellThe debate has shown precisely how fragile, from every point of view, is the Government's strategy for pensions. The Minister said that the minimum benefits laid down in the scheme are minima. They are that, I suppose, by definition. He says they are a springboard, not a pillow. Does he not realise that the springboard is descending under him, that it is sinking into the waters? The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) adduced the example of how, given the current rate of inflation, one respectable insurance company has decided that it could pay these benefits at 3½ per cent. total contribution. He demonstrated that there 308 is no springboard, but a lift going downwards.
I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognises that this has always been the weakness of the benefit test which the Government have laid down. It is a benefit test the significance of which depends on nothing other than the rate of inflation. As the rate of inflation increases—and even at the present rate it is high enough to achieve this result—the significance of this benefit test over the years will decline. Evidently, in the view of one insurance company, it has already declined so much that this benefit test can be made on the basis of a 3½ per cent. contribution
That is the fact the Government must face, and when the hon. Member for Kensington, Souh suggests that a better and different benefit test should therefore be written into the Bill he is absolutely right, because these tests have already disappeared from any reasonable sight. They are becoming worse and worse as inflation proceeds, and if inflation grows worse it can be done not for 3½ per cent., not for 3 per cent., but for less. That alone is justification for what the hon. Member for Kensington, South said—that if there are to be benefit tests, a far better benefit test than is laid down here is needed within this Bill.
But even if we have these benefit tests, that does not meet the point because it still does not provide the necessary protection for employees against an employer deciding, as the Government admit an employer can quite properly decide under the Bill, to have a contribution which is less than half the total contribution made in respect of a particular contribution scheme. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) asked how this would be calculated. If one has 2½ per cent. over the period of a person's employment and if one satisfies the Occupational Pensions Board that this minimum requirement is being met at the appropriate times, if one is making a big payment at one time and compensating for other payments not made earlier, that is fine. I leave it to the Occupational Pensions Board to decide on the appropriateness of the timing of the contribution. If the Government or the hon. Gentleman have a better way of dealing with it, I shall be perfectly happy to accept anything that will safeguard employees in this respect.
309 This whole point about a final salary scheme is a total red herring. A good final salary scheme requires very large contributions from employers. We are talking here about 3½ per cent. I mentioned 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent.—more modest figures than the hon. Member for Kensington, South indicated. But a final salary scheme cannot be run on percentages of that kind. The sort of final salary scheme that is now becoming normal in our society requires a contribution of 10 per cent., 12 per cent., or even more. For that sort of scheme the 2½ per cent. I lay down in my new clause will be greatly exceeded. The whole concept of a minimum employers' contribution is irrelevant because the employer guarantees within the scheme certain minimum benefits which make necessary very large contributions. The minimum benefits are protected from the rate of inflation because they are related to final salaries. For these final
§ salary schemes we do not need it. Where we need it is within the sort of scheme based on minimum benefits the significance of which depreciates year by year with the rate of inflation.
§ The hon. Gentleman has just not begun to meet the case for a minimum employers' contribution. If he had said that he would do something about the minimum benefit, that would at any rate have consoled me a bit. But completely to ignore the problem which not only I but his hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South have posed as to what is happening to this Bill before the eyes of the Government day by day is totally unacceptable. Therefore I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in dividing in support of the new clause.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 190.
311| Division No. 123.] | AYES | [8.19 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Faulds, Andrew | McElhone, Frank |
| Archer, Peler (Rowley Regis) | Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. | McGuire, Michael |
| Ashton, Joe | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Machin, George |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston) | Mackie, John |
| Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Mackintosh, John P. |
| Baxter, William | Foot, Michael | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) |
| Beaney, Alan | Ford, Ben | McNamara, J. Kevin |
| Bishop, E. S. | Forrester, John | Marks, Kenneth |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Galpern, Sir Myer | Marsden, F. |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Gilbert, Dr. John | Marshall, Dr. Edmund |
| Booth, Albert | Gourlay, Harry | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Meacher, Michael |
| Broughton, Sir Alfred | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert |
| Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Mendelson, John |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Millan, Bruce |
| Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury) | Hardy, Peter | Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon, ltchen) |
| Buchan, Norman | Harper, Joseph | Molloy, William |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Heifer, Eric S. | Morris, Alfred (Wythanshawe) |
| Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Moyle, Roland |
| Cant, R. B. | Huckfield, Leslie | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Oakes, Gordon |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Ogden, Eric |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | O'Halloran,Michael |
| Clark, David (Coine Valley) | Hunter Adam | O'Malley, Brian |
| Cohen, Staniey | Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Orbach, Maurice |
| Conlan, Bernard | Janner Greville | Oswald, Thomas |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Jenkins Hugh(Putney) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | John Brynmor | Pardoe, John |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Parker,John (Degenham) |
| Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) | Jones Barry (Flint E) | Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jones.'Rt.Hn.Sir ElwynW.Ham.S.) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Davidson, Arthur | Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) | Perry, Ernest G. |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Judd, Frank | Prescott, John |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Kaufman, Gerald | Probert, Arthur |
| Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund | Kelley, Richard | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) |
| Doig, Peter | Kinnock, Neil | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) | Lamond, James | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon) |
| Dunn, James A. | Leonard, Dick | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lipton, Marcus | Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor) |
| Eadie, Alex | Lomas, Kenneth | Rose, Paul B. |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Loughlin, Charles | Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) |
| Ellis, Tom | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| English, Michael | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Ewing, Harry | McBride, Neil | Sillars, James |
| Silverman, Julius | Tomney, Frank | while, James (Glasgow, Pollok) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Tope, Graham | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Small, William | Torney, Tom | Whitlock, William |
| Spearing, Nigel | Tuck, Raphael | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Spriggs, Leslie | Urwin, T. W. | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Stallard, A. W. | Varley, Eric G. | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Steel, David | Wainwright, Edwin | Woof, Robert |
| Stonehouse, Ht. Hn. John | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) | |
| Strang, Gavin | Watkins, David | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. |
| Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley | Weitzman, David | Mr. Donald Colman and |
| Thomas.Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.) | Wellbeloved, James | Mr. J. D. Concannon. |
| Tinn, James | ||
| NOES | ||
| Adley Robert | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Powell, Rt. Hn... Enoch |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Hannam, John (Exeter) | Prm, Rt. Hn. Francis |
| Awdry, Daniel | Havers, Sir Michael | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Hawkins, Paul | Raison, Timothy |
| Batsford, Brian | Hayhoe, Barney | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Holland, Philip | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter |
| Benyon, W. | Holt, Miss Mary | Redmond, Robert |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Hordern, Peter | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) |
| Bilfen, John | Hornby, Richard | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Biggs-Davlson. John | Hornsby-Smlth.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Hunt, John | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) |
| Body, Richard | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Boscawen, Hn. Robert | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Rost, Peter |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Jamas, David | Royle, Anthony |
| Bowden, Andrew | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Simeons, Charles |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Kelletl-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N&M) | Kershaw, Anthony | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Buck, Antony | King Evelyn (Dorset S.) | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mlngton) |
| Butler, dam (Bosworth) | Kinsey J. R. | Soref- Harold |
| Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray ft Nairn) | Knox David | Speed, Keith |
| Carlisle, Mark | Lament Norman | Spence, John |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Lane, David | Sproat, lain |
| Chapman, Sydney | Langford-Holt Sir John | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) |
| Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher | Le Marchant, Spencer | Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| Churchill, W. S. | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Sluttaford, Dr. Tom |
| Clark, William (Surrey, E.) | Longden Sir Gilbert | Sutclifte, John |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Loveridge, John | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Luce, R. N. | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Cooke, Robert | MacArihur, Ian | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Cooper, A. E. | McLaren, Martin | Tebbit, Norman |
| Cordle, John | Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham) | Temple, John M. |
| Cormack, Patrick | McNalr-Wilson, Michael | Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret |
| Critchley, Julian | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) | Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) |
| Crowder, F. P. | Madel, David | Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-GeivJack | Maude, Angus | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Dean, Paul | Mawby, Ray | Tilney, John |
| Deedes, Rt.Hn. W. F. | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Trafford, Dr. Anthony |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Miscampbell, Norman | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Dykes, Hugh | Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) | Turton Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| Edwards Nicholas Pembroke) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | vickers, Dame Joan |
| Elliott, R. W. (N' c' tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | Molyneaux, James | Waddington, David |
| Eyre, Reginald | Monks, Mrs. Connie | Walder, David (Clilheroe) |
| Farr, John | Monro, Hector | Wall, Patrick |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | Montgomery, Fergus | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Fisher, Nigel (Surblton) | More, Jasper | Warren, Kenneth |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. | Wealherill, Bernard |
| Fortescue, Tim | Morrison, Charles | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Fowler, Norman | Mudd, David | White,Roger (Gravesend) |
| Fox, Marcus | Murton, Oscar | Wiggln, Jerry |
| Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St fford & Stone) | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Fry, Peter | Neave, Airey | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher |
| Glyn, Dr. Alan | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Gower, Raymond | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Worsley, Marcus |
| Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) | Owen, idris (Stockport, N.) | Younger, Hn. George |
| Gray, Hamish | Page, John (Harrow, W.) | |
| Green, Alan | Parkinson, Cecil | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grylls, Michael | Perclval, Ian | Mr. Michael Jopling and |
| Gummer, J. Selwyn | Pike, Miss Mervyn | Mr. Victor Goodhew |
| Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Pink, R. Bonner |
§ Question accordingly negatived.