Sitting of 20 December 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  LEGAL AID
  Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Attorney-General if he will amend the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, so that no person is granted legal aid in a divorce action without first having the possibility of reconciliation fully investigated.
  Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Attorney-General has finished his case yet?
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): No, Sir. I do not think it would be right to impose such a requirement in the case of assisted persons and not apply it to everyone who wishes to take or defend divorce proceedings. On that aspect of the matter, the hon. and learned Member will no doubt await the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman see the very serious distinction between the case which I have put and the general case? Is it not clearly in the interests of the State, which is giving money in order to afford legal aid, to see that every possible step is taken in regard to reconciliation before legal aid is given?
  The Solicitor-General: I should have thought that it was very important to get reconciliation, wherever that was possible, in any of these cases. What does not seem to be right is the disqualifying of legally-aided persons by that requirement if we do not insist on the same requirement for everybody.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not see that here
  2406
  we can control the matter, whereas in the general case, of course, that cannot be done, except by legislation?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. And learned Gentleman will appreciate that his Question does not deal with who is to investigate the possibility, and the fact is that none of the legal aid committees of the Law Society is qualified to do anything of the kind.
  Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Attorney-General whether the Government will now give effect to his statement on 25th October, 1954, that the passing of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act has strengthened the case for extending legal aid to the county court, by having the provisions of the Act applied accordingly, in view of the fact that the continued failure to do so is causing a hold-up of the trial of actions in the High Court due largely to the absence of legal aid in the county court.
  Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the proposed extension of the jurisdiction of county courts, further consideration can be given to the implementation of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, in respect of county court proceedings.
  The Solicitor-General: I would refer the hon. and learned Member and my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave on 6th December to the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) and to other hon. and right hon. Members.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does not the Solicitor-General agree that that answer was quite inadequate, and will he tell the House whether the proposed extension of legal aid to the county court will cover cases coming under the recent Repairs and Rents Act, as these are the cases which are more important at the present moment than any others, and the House and the country should have a very clear answer on that point?
  The Solicitor-General: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to await the provisions of the Bill which will deal with jurisdiction, and to await the regulations whch will deal with the matter of legal aid.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: May I say, with respect, that the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer appears to be a little evasive? The answer of the Attorney-General was clear that the extension would only deal with matters where they apply in the High Court, and that clearly does not include these rent cases. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman not be a little more explicit as to whether it is proposed to deal with these cases?
  The Solicitor-General: I do not agree that my right hon. and learned Friend's answer said that; it did not. He said:
  "The Government consider that if the jurisdiction of the county court is to be increased, legal aid should be made available far all types of county court proceedings … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535. c. 589.]
  Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Attorney-General, in view of the fact that under the present legal aid system a litigant who is granted legal aid in the courts below is deprived of it on an appeal to the House of Lords even if such litigant is taken there against his will, whether he will take steps to have the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, extended accordingly.
  The Solicitor-General: I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) on 6th December.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does it not appear to the Solicitor-General that it is completely illogical and unjust that a person who has been legally aided in the court below and has concluded his litigation successfully should be deprived of legal aid when he is taken against his will to the highest court of appeal?
  The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that I cannot go further at this stage than the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave on 6th December.

  STATUTE LAW COMMITTEE
  Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the work of the Statute Law Committee since his predecessor's statement of 14th December, 1953.
  The Solicitor-General: As the answer asked for is necessarily rather long, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member, to have a statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:
  I informed the House in my statement on 14th December last year of our intention to begin the big task of consolidating the statute law as to highways. Good progress has been made on that task. Preparation of the necessary Bill has made big demands on the services available but it has been possible to undertake work on four Bills which have been prepared and passed, namely those relating to Pharmacy, the Post Office Savings Bank, Trustee Savings Banks and Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland), and on Bills now in preparation relating to burials and cremation and to sexual offences. Work was done on a Bill for consolidating the Medical Acts, and it was hoped to secure its passage during the last session, but with the principal Act nearly a hundred years old difficulty has been encountered in expressing the statute law in terms appropriate to modern practice.
  Preparation of a Bill to consolidate the Food and Drugs Act was promised in debate on the amending Bill recently passed, and is now in hand. Arrangements for Bills on other subjects of smaller compass have been made and will be pursued as soon as opportunity occurs.
  The principal statutory publications, namely the Index to the Statutes, the Chronological Table and the Guide to Government Orders, will appear in April, earlier than in previous years. It is expected that the other statutory publications will also be issued earlier than last year.

  MORELLE LTD. v. WATERWORTH (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS)
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Attorney-General if the Government will waive arrears of rent at present due to the Crown in respect of properties previously owned by companies incorporated in Eire.
  The Solicitor-General: As my right hon. and learned Friend informed the hon. and gallant Member on 6th December, I expect that the validity of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Morelle Ltd. v. Waterworth will be tested in legal proceedings shortly. One of the questions before the court will be whether rent is payable to the Crown, and I cannot make any statement about this aspect of the matter at present.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the companies operated by Arthur Bertram Waters are not legally entitled to collect

  2409
  the rents and the Crown refuses to collect them, will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that the Crown will not expect all arrears to be paid by the unfortunate tenants, if, as we all hope, the Crown is unsuccessful in its attempt to secure restoration of these properties to Arthur Bertram Waters, the slum racketeer in question?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question postulates the existence of the very right in issue. I hope that I can reassure him as to the speed in this matter by telling him that the Crown, having been invited to appear as amicus curiae in another current action, is going to do so.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (NEWSPAPER)
  Mr. Wiggasked the Attorney-General whether he will take proceedings under the Official Secrets Act against the Editor of the "Daily Mail" for publishing, on Monday, 13th December, 1954, particulars of places where atomic weapons are stored.
  The Solicitor-General: I am having inquiries made.
  Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough, when he has reached a decision, to let me know the results of his inquiry?
  The Solicitor-General: Unless it involves some revelation of material which should not properly be revealed, the answer will be "Yes."
  Mr. Shinwell: If it should disclose something which ought not to have been disclosed in a newspaper, will that not be made public?
  The Solicitor-General: All I am saying, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, is that my right hon. and learned Friend has a quasi-judicial duty to perform, and after inquiries are made he may have to decide whether it is right or not to give a fiat, and I cannot anticipate what it will be proper to reveal of the material placed before him.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Old-Age Pensioners
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the nature of the letter he received about old-age pensions from the Secretary of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations, dated 17th November; how many similar budgets he has since received; and what reply he has sent.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he has received the leaflets sent to him by the secretary of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners Associations since the debate on 16th November in the last session; and what reply he has sent.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): The Federation, in the letter of 17th November, said that some budgets were being sent. Subsequently a parcel of budgets was received: these were acknowledged. No further budgets have come to hand.
    Mr. Dodds: After the Minister's scurrilous attack on the Federation in the debate on 16th November, will he not now, as a gentleman, apologise for such regrettable conduct on that occasion?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. The Federation appealed for 50,000 leaflets to be sent to me. In fact 15 were sent. Later, a bundle containing 2,667 was sent, but of those more than half, 1,524, were old, shop-soiled stock of a previous campaign. [Laughter.]
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that it would have been courteous, if nothing else, to have sent a detailed reply to the secretary referring to these last 2,000 questionnaires that he has received? Will he also realise that if his hon. Friends are not aware of what pensioners think of this sort of laughter from hon. Members opposite, people in the country certainly are?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I cannot agree that any detailed answer was called for. This type of personal budget supplied in

    2411
    this sort of way is absolutely useless as a means of judging whether people are in need or not.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in saying that of thousands of these notices sent out he had received only 15, he deliberately misunderstood the position for the sake of party advantage?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir, that is quite untrue.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is now in a position to state the date upon which old-age pensioners may expect their promised increase in pension.
    Mr. Peake: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 1st December.
    Miss Burton: Is there anything the House can do to get the Minister to realise that these old people cannot wait five months for this help? How does he propose they should pay for their cup of tea now that the price of tea is to be increased? What does he propose they should drink instead of tea?
    Mr. Peake: I should like to correct the hon. Lady. It is not five months but four months from now until the end of April.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the Minister give an assurance that, if between now and the end of April the cost of living goes up and thereby reduces the purchasing power of the increase, he will introduce some additional legislation to remedy that?
    Mr. Peake: The hon. Gentleman will surely by now be aware that we have done something more than is strictly required to restore the 1946 purchasing power of the pension.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the annual cost of raising the modified old-age pension, payable under special conditions governing title to old-age pensions under the Widows, Orphans and Old-Age Contributory Pensions Acts, for persons who have, on retirement from excepted employment, been granted a superannuation allowance, to the full rate payable under the National Insurance
    2412
    Act, 1952, and to that proposed in the National Insurance Bill, 1954, respectively.
    Mr. Peake: I regret that I cannot supply this information, as the number of such pensioners is not known. It is the intention, as on previous occasions, to make a proportionate increase in these modified pensions by regulations under the new Bill.
    Mr, Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recipients of modified pensions who have voluntarily paid contributions for 15 years receive 9s. 6d. less than somebody receives under the 1952 Act after having paid for only five years? Will he look into this and do what he can to rectify the position, because all of these people are over 68 and most are over 70?
    Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that these people, in addition to their insurance pensions, of course have superannuation rights.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) whether he will arrange for old-age pensioners to receive an extra week's pension at Christmas time so that they may be enabled to purchase a few additional items and thus enjoy the seasonal festivities;
    (2) what the cost would be to make a Christmas bonus of 10s. to all old-age pensioners during Christmas week; and whether he will take the necessary action to implement this proposal.
    Mr. Peake: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) on 10th November, a copy of which I arm sending him. The cost of a 10s. bonus would be nearly £2½ million.
    Mr. Lewis: But that reply was made before the recent proposed increase in the price of tea, and prior to our being aware that old-age pensioners would not be getting their increase until next April. In view of the fact that both sides of the House would agree with the idea contained in this Question, would the Minister not agree to provide something, if not a bonus of 10s., then of some nominal amount, such as 5s., or 7s. 6d.?
    Mr. Peake: I do not think that there would be much support from any responsible quarter for the suggestion of using the Insurance Fund to give a Christmas bonus.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what extra amounts were paid to old-age pensioners at Christmas time during the years 1945 to 1950 inclusive.
    Mr. Peake: None, Sir.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Bearing in mind the request made today for a Christmas bonus, was it not very forgetful of the party opposite to omit to make any such provision during the six years when they were in office?
    Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister remind his hon and gallant Friend that in 1945 the amount payable at Christmas was 10s. per week per pensioner?
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, in view of the fact that under the Labour Government rents were not raised and tea was not sent up to double the price?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. As I have said before, I do not think that any responsible person would advocate the use of the Insurance Fund as a means of giving Christmas boxes.

    Widows
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows, at the latest convenient date, are in receipt of the 10s. pension under the National Insurance Acts; and how much it would cost to restore the pension to the 1946 value.
    Mr. Peake: About 165,000 and nearly £2 million. The calculations are based on the Cost-of-Living Index up to 1947 and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.

    Unemployment Benefit (Dismissed Workers)
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what extent his regulations allow men dismissed as a result of the operation of the closed shop principle by agreement between employers and unions to draw unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Peake: I have no power to make special rules for such cases, which would have to be decided by the statutory authorities in the light of all the facts. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, perhaps he would write to me.
    Mr. Page: Is the Minister aware of the agreements between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Transport and General Workers' Union, and between the Manchester Ship Canal and the Transport and General Workers' Union, and of the statements made by officers of that union that if any dockers joined what is called the "blue union," they would be out of a job? Would they receive unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Peake: I would hesitate to express an opinion on this technical matter without full knowledge of the facts.

    War Pensions
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce legislation to subject the Instruments altering rates of war pension to control by Parliament.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I do not consider that there is any need to alter the present arrangements, which have worked very well over the past 30 years. As the hon. Member is aware, it is always possible for the House to discuss the subject of war pensions by arrangements made through the usual channels.
    Mr. Simmons: If the Minister is not prepared to alter the Instruments by which these increases and alterations are made, will he regard it as a point of honour that the House should be given an opportunity to discuss them, because hon. Members were precluded from doing so during the debate on the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. Peake: Certainly. I should not have the slightest objection to a discussion, but a proposal to embody in legislation any improvements in war pensions would have delayed a great many improvements in the war pensions code which we have otherwise been able to make.
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will give an assurance that there will be no hardening of the conditions governing the award of pensions

    2415
    and allowances to war widows and war-disabled pensioners because of the increase in the monetary value of the pensions and allowances; and if he will give a further assurance that his Department will take special action on behalf of all badly-disabled men, especially the ageing veterans of the 1914–18 war, whose disabilities have worsened and now warrant an increased assessment.
    Mr. Peake: As regards the first part of the Question, I readily give the desired assurance. As regards the second part, as the hon. Member knows I am always happy to review sympathetically any case in which it is claimed that the war disablement has worsened.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that this is a friendly Question, inspired by the fact that there is disturbance over the administrative changes in his Ministry whereby most regional officers, trained in the sympathetic appreciation of the problems of the disabled, have been superseded by National Insurance appointees, and that the position of the Deputy-Secretary for War Pensions has been abolished altogether? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this does not mean a hardening of attitude?
    Mr. Peake: I certainly give that assurance, and I go further and tell the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to ensure that the treatment of war pensioners shall be as sympathetic as ever it has been in the past.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance from what date increased war pensions will be payable; and when they will be paid.
    Mr. Peake: As I announced on 1st December, the increased rates of war disability pensions will take effect from the beginning of February. I hope that all these increases will have been put into operation by about the end of March.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that mean that these people will have to wait until the end of March before they get the increases that the Minister promised for the end of February? What is the advantage of having war pensions dealt with by Royal Warrant if they are subject to the same kind of delay as that experienced by all the other people who have to await legislation?
    Mr. Peake: They will not all have to wait until the end of March. Different categories of war pensioners—officers and other ranks, for example—come under different administrative arrangements. There is a very complex system of supplements and allowances, the increases in which have to be operated as well. However, we hope that by the end of March or earlier all war pensioners will get the increase to which they are entitled.

    National Assistance (Ship Repair Dispute)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that during the recent ship repair dispute, recognised officially by 15 trades unions, many of those involved had to apply to the National Assistance Board for financial assistance; that as a result of collections in trade union branches and many factories voluntary grants were made to those in dispute, that the National Assistance Board thereupon deducted from the weekly National Assistance grants amounts equivalent to the sums received by the strikers from these voluntary donations; by what authority under his Regulations this was done; what were the total sums so recovered; and whether he will amend his Regulations to prevent this happening in the future.
    Mr. Peake: The National Assistance Board tells me that in granting Assistance to these strikers it took into account all resources reported to it, other than those it is required by law to disregard. In this the Board was acting under the powers conferred on it by the National Assistance Act and the Regulations made thereunder, and I see no reason to alter the existing provisions. No information is available as to the total amount of any particular kind of resource taken into account.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that many of these strikers live in my constituency, that they were on official strike, and that they resent the fact that, as they pay contributions to the National Insurance Fund the whole time they are working and their colleagues who remained at work in the same industry, and other industries, voluntarily contributed this amount, it should then he deducted by the National Assistance Board? Is not that action unfair?
    Mr. Peake: The Board was acting strictly in accord with paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the Regulations which were passed in this House in 1948.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is the normal practice of the National Assistance Board, under that paragraph, to take into account every casual payment made to a person in receipt of National Assistance; and if that is not the practice, why was it made especially and exceptionally the practice in this case?
    Mr. Peake: Paragraph 9, after setting out the statutory disregards in full, and all the other disregards, says:
    "In computing the available resources of a person there shall be taken into account any resources not particularly mentioned in this part of this Schedule reduced by such amount (if any) as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case."
    That Regulation gives the Board an absolute discretion, and in this case it decided to take these other resources into account in full.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Can the Minister say how many men were affected by this mean and pettifogging action?
    Mr. Peake: No, I cannot say, but I inform the hon. and learned Member that everybody affected by a decision of this sort has a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. One appeal has been made, and the decision of the Board was upheld.

    Prescription Charges (Refunds)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many 1s. prescription charges were refunded during the past year to applicants in receipt of National Assistance.
    Mr. Peake: From 1st October, 1953, to 30th September, 1954, the latest period of 12 months for which complete information is yet available, the National Assistance Board refunded rather more than 9¼ million shilling charges for dispensing of prescriptions. A small number of these refunds were made to persons not receiving a regular weekly National Assistance grant
    Mr. Jeger: As a large number of refunds were made, would not it be admirable if they were made to everybody in receipt of an old-age pension, as there are
    2418
    many cases of hardship among old-age pensioners who are not necessarily in receipt of National Assistance, and this would be a big benefit to them? Will the Minister consider that?
    Mr. Peake: As I said in the answer, a small number of refunds were made to persons not in receipt of National Assistance.
    Mr. Hastings: Is not it a fact that old people who ask for a return of their Is. have to ask for a form at the time when the money is paid in the chemist's shop and then they have to fill in the form and submit it? Is not it true that because of the publicity involved many of them very much resent the procedure?
    Mr. Peake: That is a question of policy which more concerns the Minister of Health than myself. I was only giving to the hon. Member information given to me as to the statistics furnished by the Board.
    Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister take up the matter with his right hon. Friend and discuss whether this could not be extended to all in receipt of old-age pensions?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I do not think that would be a good idea.

    Family Allowances
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when it is his intention to raise the family allowances.
    Mr. Peake: These allowances were raised by 60 per cent. in 1952, and I have no proposals for a further increase in mind.
    Mr. Edelman: Is not it the case that, owing to the sharp rise in the cost of living under the present Government, much of the benefit of the family allowances has been annulled? Will the Minister now take into account this factor of the rise in the cost of living, which has done so much to make useless these allowances?
    Mr. Peake: I am glad to say that the 60 per cent. increase made in 1952 more than covers all the sins of the previous Socialist Government.
    Mr. Gower: Does not my right hon. Friend think that many people would prefer that if surplus money should become available it should be given to people in receipt of National Assistance or to elderly people rather than to those in receipt of family allowances?

    Earnings Rule
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will increase the amounts which a pensioner can earn without suffering any loss of pension.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now consider allowing old-age pensioners to earn more than 40s. without loss of retirement pension.
    Mr. Peake: As hon. Members are aware, the Bill just passed by this House makes no provision for altering the earnings rule, but we can discuss the point when we come to debate the Phillips Report.
    Mr. Fletcher: Cannot the Minister do something about it without waiting for the Phillips Report, because the present rule creates great hardship and a very considerable resentment, and militates against thrift? There is nothing to be said for it. Why wait for the Phillips Report?
    Mr. Peake: As no doubt the hon. Member is aware, the Phillips Report favoured the maintenance of the earnings rule as part of the retirement principle, and also favoured the maintenance of the present level of 40s. Therefore, I suggest that we should be wise to get the views of hon. Members on all sides of the House before we propose any alteration.

    Contributions
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will direct the attention of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, for its consideration, to the fact that, without any additional national expenditure, contributions to the Insurance Fund, in all groups, could be reduced substantially by a redeployment of financial resources connected with insurance contributions.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I understand my hon. Friend has in mind the possibility of certain changes in the law relating to Income Tax. If so, it would not be a matter which could properly be referred to the Committee.
    Miss Ward: Having given an undertaking that the rate of contribution in the lower income groups would be examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good thing if it were examined over a wide field? Will he ask for the co-operation of the Treasury in finding the money so that a substantial reduction may be brought about without adding to our national commitments?
    Mr. Peake: I have no doubt that when it considers the matter the National Insurance Advisory Committee will have in mind the considerations to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Miss Ward: Thank you.

    Non-contributory Pensions
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will refer the case of persons drawing non-contributory pensions for consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in view of the fact that late entrants into the insurance scheme are receiving increased benefits under the new Bill, making their pensions equivalent in purchasing power to the 1946 value.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I do not think it would be appropriate to ask the Committee to consider a matter which has nothing to do with the National Insurance Scheme.
    Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend explain why it is always the thrifty people who get "billed on the head" by all Governments? Is it not time that something was done to help people in the small income groups as well as other people?
    Mr. Peake: I can only repeat what I have said before, that this would not be a suitable subject for consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
    Miss Ward: Yes, but cannot the Minister find some other means of helping them?

  NUCLEAR AND ATOMIC EXPLOSIONS
  Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the increasing evidence of the harm to human, animal, and plant life and the belief that they are the cause of increasingly bad weather all over the world, he will now make representations to the Powers concerned to secure the prohibition of hydrogen bomb tests.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I have nothing to add to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to a similar Question on 2nd November by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson).
  Mr. Collins: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that means that the Government refuse even to make diplomatic representations in this matter? Does he realise further that there is a considerable volume of opinion among atomic scientists that atomic dust is causing great harm to animal, plant and marine life? Does he not feel that people are entitled to expect the Government to do something in peace-time to stop this murder from the skies?
  Mr. Turton: I fully appreciate the points raised by the hon. Member. It is the view of the Government that this matter should be raised through the United Nations, that that is the proper forum. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that on 4th November the United Nations General Assembly recommended that the Disarmament Sub-Committee should be reconvened and discussions resumed in the New Year? That would appear to be the proper opportunity.
  Mr. Collins: Does that mean that the Government hope that there will be no further hydrogen bomb explosions, at least pending the hoped-for development of the four-Power talks early next year?
  Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct our representative to the United Nations to call for the reference of the effect of nuclear explosion upon plant life and food resources, and upon human health to the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation, respectively.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will propose to the United Nations World Health Organisation that it should itself investigate the extent and nature of the detrimental effects on health resulting from military and civil nuclear fission experimentation both in respect of those engaged in the experiments and of the general population.
  Mr. Turton: The answer is, no, Sir, since these are some of the matters that are to be considered by the International Conference of Scientists on Atomic Energy.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Nevertheless, is it not desirable that these subjects should be referred to the United Nations organisation which, in fact, deals with them, particularly as the question of air conditions has been referred to the World Meteorological Office?
  Mr. Turton: No, Sir. There are, I think, in the Library details of the Resolution dealing with this matter, and if hon. Members will refer to them they will see that the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations, including the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation, have been invited to participate in the conference, and to take part in the preparations for it.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: As it seems unlikely that Question No. 55 will now be reached, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether it is not desirable to submit the whole question of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, through the agency of the United Nations, in view of the fact that there is a considerable body of legal opinion which holds that their use is illegal save in the most carefully prescribed circumstances, upon which it seems desirable that the International Court should pronounce?
  Mr. Speaker: It is after Question Time.

  GERMANY

    Arrested Nazis
    Captain Kerbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he intends to publish the White Book, prepared by his Department and translated into German, which was due for

    2423
    publication in August, 1953, setting out his reasons for approving the actions of Her Majesty's then High Commissioner in Germany in ordering the arrest, by British security police, on the night of 15th January, 1953, of Dr. Werner Naumann and his six colleagues on charges of conspiracy and of imperilling the security of the British Occupation Forces in Germany; why the publication of this White Book has been so long delayed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Turton: No such White Book is in existence. If my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting that a White Paper should be published in connection with the Naumann case, my right hon. Friend does not consider that this would serve any useful purpose.

    Admiral Doenitz (Release Date)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date Admiral Doenitz will be released from Spandau Prison.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): September, 1956.
    Mr. Warbey: Can the hon. Gentleman say if there is anything in the Paris Agreement to ensure that this Nazi, when he is released, will not again occupy a position of command in the German armed forces?
    Lord John Hope: The Question is about the date of the release from prison of Admiral Doenitz.

    Armed Forces
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that any convention for the reduction of armaments, whether nuclear or conventional, will involve a reduction in the armed forces to be maintained in Western Germany under the Paris Agreements.
    Mr. Turton: Her Majesty's Government consider that any international disarmament treaty should include provisions covering, among other things, major reductions in all armed forces. It is too soon to give any commitment as to the location of the armed forces remaining when the treaty has been put into effect.

    Rearmament, Eastern Germany
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received about the actual or proposed rearmament of Eastern Germany since the conclusion of the London and Paris Agreements.
    Lord John Hope: The most recent information received about the rearmament of Eastern Germany is set out in Cmd. Paper 9213.
    Mr. Swingler: Has the noble Lord called the attention of the Secretary of State to the proceedings of the recent conference in Moscow, and the declared intention of the East German Government to match Western German rearmament with East German rearmament; and, before this new and dangerous phase of an arms race starts, will he not ask his right hon. Friend to make a supreme effort for a negotiated settlement?
    Lord John Hope: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the recent conference in Moscow. He is also well aware that for some time there have been large forces in Eastern Germany disguised as police units.

  TERRITORIAL WATERS (LIMITS)
  Mr. Pageasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to invite the countries concerned to attend an international conference for consideration of the limits of territorial waters.
  Mr. Turton: The International Law Commission has almost completed its report on the Régime of the Territorial Sea. I think that it would be best to await the report, which should be available for discussion at the next General Assembly, before taking further action in this matter.
  As the House is already aware, fishery disputes are the cause of many of these claims to an excessive breadth of territorial waters. Hon. Members will be glad to learn that agreement was reached in committee last week at the United Nations for a conference to be held in Rome on 18th of April next to discuss the technical side of these fishery problems.
  Mr. Page: While thanking my hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply, may I ask if, when this report is available, his right hon. Friend proposes to take the initiative in calling some sort of discussion or conference to deal with this very important matter?
  Mr. Turton: I think that we had better wait until we receive the report of the International Law Commission.
  Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Can my hon. Friend say by what convention territorial waters are at present defined, if there is any such convention?
  Mr. Turton: No, Sir. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no such convention.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Would not the Minister agree that the claim of Peru to have 200 miles of territorial waters has nothing to do with fishery rights, and is the Minister content to allow claims of that kind to be made without doing something to ensure an international agreement at a very early date?
  Mr. Turton: I think that the hon. Gentleman has some justice in his case. The claim of Peru is not merely to 200 miles of continental shelf, but also to superjacent waters, and it would appear not to be confined to whaling. But I am hoping to answer a Question later on that subject.

  GIBRALTAR (SPANISH CLAIM)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the renewed claim to Gibraltar made by General Franco and widely publicised in the Spanish Press; and what action he proposes to take.
  Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir. The Spaniards have been persistently making claims to Gibraltar since 1714. The Spanish Government know our attitude to these claims, which was made clear in my right hon. Friend's replies to Questions on 24th November.
  Mr. Davies: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recall that in those replies the Foreign Secretary stated that these attacks in the Spanish Press had diminished in recent weeks, and he expressed the hope that the trend would
  2426
  continue? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in actual practice the trend has been reversed, and only recently General Franco stated that a cheque drawn on Gibraltar would be cashed in due course? Is it not time for a protest to be made at the renewal of these attacks?
  Mr. Turton: I think it true to say that the statements in the Spanish Press have decreased in intensity since the last reply, and I think that the observation of my right hon. Friend about the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take care of Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians has had a salutary effect.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would not my hon. Friend invite the party opposite to carry its enlightened patriotism about Gibraltar up the Mediterranean to Cyprus?

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council the adoption of a rule prohibiting military commanders in the service of the Organisation from making speeches on matters which should be the subject of political decision without the express approval of the Council in each case.
  Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend does not think it is very practicable to suggest that speeches by our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Commanders should be made subject to clearance by 14 Governments.
  Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very great public concern about the provocative political statements made from time to time by N.A.T.O. commanders—including Field Marshal Montgomery—and will he not make some recommendation to the N.A.T.O. Council which will have the effect of curbing the ambitions of these soldier-politicians?
  Mr. Turton: As my right hon. Friend is not so aware, he will not make such representations.
  Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Are not military commanders in the difficult position of not knowing what subject will be turned into a political subject by hon. Members who seek political kudos?
  Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if British military commanders were under British control they would be subject to a rule by which their public pronouncements would be liable to some sort of limitation? Is the hon. Member informing the House that because they happen to work for N.A.T.O. there is no Governmental control of their public pronouncements—which may be damaging to N.A.T.O. itself?
  Mr. Turton: What I was doing was answering the Question, which suggested that before a speech was made by a N.A.T.O. commander it should be vetted. I was expressing the point of view that that was impracticable. The right hon. Gentleman should put down a Question in relation to the other matter which he raised.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Morocco (United Kingdom Representative's Vote)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegate on the Political Committee of the United Nations voted during the discussion on Moroccan integrity and sovereignty.
    Lord John Hope: The United Kingdom representative voted against the draft resolution, which recommended that further consideration of the item be postponed for the time being.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Foreign Secretary that he should look in a new way at issues arising between Colonies and the United Nations, in view of the fact that when the principle of non-intervention was accepted the colonial issue had not reached the dynamic stage which it has now reached in the changing pattern of world affairs?
    Lord John Hope: The answer is that this vote took place strictly under the rules of the United Nations. It is for that organisation to change its rules, and not for my right hon. Friend to do so.

    South-West Africa
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action the British delegation to the United Nations has taken on the proposal by the Reverend Michael Scott to the Fourth
    2428
    Committee that the Specialised Agencies should assist agricultural, medical, educational and social betterment in South-West Africa.
    Lord John Hope: The Reverend Michael Scott made no proposal on this subject to the Fourth Committee. The question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter again? May I urge him to do so, in the hope that he will find that proposals in this sense actually have been made by the Reverend Michael Scott?
    Lord John Hope: No proposal was made by the Reverend Michael Scott to the Fourth Committee. A resolution embodying a similar proposal was passed by the Assembly on 23rd November, and upon that the United Kingdom delegation abstained from the vote because it was felt that the Resolution was not in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the subject of South-West Africa, given in 1950.

  SUDAN LEGISLATURE (VETOED DEBATE)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the Governor of the Sudan vetoed a discussion in the Legislature on deploring the recent executions and imprisonments in Egypt and the removal from power of General Neguib.
  Mr. Turton: On 7th December, a motion was submitted deploring the death sentences inflicted upon members of the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt and requesting the Government to intervene forthwith for the reduction of the sentences. The Governor-General withheld his consent under Article 99 (5) (c) of the Self-Government Statute on the ground that the motion constituted an unjustifiable interference in the internal affairs of a foreign Government.
  Mr. Brockway: Whilst foreign affairs are still in the sphere of the Governor-General and not in that of the Legislature, is it not desirable, from the point of view of the development of democracy in the Sudan, to allow its Legislature to discuss matters upon the widest possible scale?
  Mr. Turton; The position is that the Governor-General is not a servant of Her Majesty's Government. He is a servant of the co-domini, and he must act strictly in accordance with the Self-Government Statute, under which he has definite powers to forbid certain debates. I think that that is as far as we cart take the matter today.
  Mr. J. Amery: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Governor-General consulted Her Majesty's Government before reaching this decision?
  Mr. Turton: The Governor-General did not consult Her Majesty's Government, nor would it have been proper if he had done so.

  FORMOSA (BRITISH POLICY)
  Mr. A. J. Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government on Formosa.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as regards the cessation of all conflicts between the Government of China and the Chinese Nationalist authorities in Formosa.
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Formosa.
  Mr. Turton: Her Majesty's Government are anxious to see the fighting in this area brought to an end. As my right hon. Friend said, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 8th December, we have urged upon all concerned the dangers of fighting, the importance of lowering tension, and the need to avoid precipitate action.
  Mr. Irvine: Has not Government policy on Formosa—rightly, so far—recognised that there are special circumstances there which affect the question whether an attack by either side would be treated as an act of aggression? Does not the recent speech of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the right hon.
  2430
  Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting), reveal a different outlook upon this matter, and are effective steps being taken to undo the harm which has been done by that speech?
  Mr. Turton: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in a television interview, was being asked some hypothetical questions, and in his reply accurately set out what would be the effect upon the United Nations in such cases.
  Mr. Attlee: But was not the Minister of State led into making quite a wrong suggestion, namely, that if there were an attack upon the United States of America this country would be bound to go to her assistance in any circumstances—whereas the case involved was one of a possible intervention in a civil war? Has not it always been made perfectly clear that the action of the United States in Formosa was not an action of the United Nations, and that this country had no participation in it?
  Mr. Turton: No, Sir. I have before me the text of the statement made by the Minister of State, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he accurately set out the position of the United Nations. If I may trouble the House, I suggest that the matter has been very well set out in a recent edition of the "Christian Science Monitor," which said that my right hon. Friend's comments involved no new commitment whatever, and ended by saying that
  "this tendency to read anything more into Nutting's remarks is regarded here as misleading and inaccurate."
  Mr. Attlee: That may be the view of the "Christian Science Monitor," but the statement was received here with a great deal of dismay in authoritative quarters and in the Press. Surely some statement should be made to correct the implication. Was not there an implication that this country, in circumstances which were not fully discussed, was bound to come to the assistance of the United States in the event of an attack being made upon that country when it was engaged in possible intervention in a civil war in China?
  Mr. Turton: No, Sir. No such statement was made, nor should any implication be drawn from the one that was

  2431
  made. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the questions and replies he will see that my right hon. Friend defined the factual position as to who are members of the United Nations and who are not.
  Sir W. Fletcher: Is my hon. Friend aware, first, that the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, as reported, are clearly in line with, and go no further or less far than, all the statements made in regard to aggressors; and, second, that by a curious piece of double-talk of the Communist order he is accused by the Chinese Government of not caring what happened to our lads in Korea, when that conflict was incited, prolonged, and extended by the Chinese Government?
  Mr. A. Henderson: Did not the Minister of State state that an attack upon Formosa would be an attack upon a member of the United Nations and that this country would therefore be involved, under its obligations under the Charter? Is it not a fact that Formosa has no sovereign status and is not a member of the United Nations and, therefore, that we have no obligation in that event?
  Mr. Turton: The position with regard to Formosa is that Japan has renounced her sovereignty over it, but in our view it has not become part of China. That sets out the actual position.
  Mr. Henderson: Will not the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Do the Government regard Formosa as a member of the United Nations?
  Mr. Turton: I have set out exactly what the Government's view is. It is that Japan has renounced sovereignty over Formosa, which has not yet become part of China.
  Mr. Smithers: Is it not clear that all that my right hon. Friend said was that our obligation would be the obligation of a member of the United Nations? Is it not regrettable that the party opposite should seek to object to that position?
  Mr. Turton: That is the accurate position. What my right hon. Friend said was that the United Nations would have certain obligations to prevent a general conflagration breaking out in the world, and he set that out.
  Mr. Attlee: Surely, the hon. Member would not suggest that, if a member of
  2432
  the United Nations intervened on one side or the other in a civil war, thereupon another member of the United Nations was bound to come to its assistance?
  Mr. Turton: I certainly did not suggest that. What I am suggesting to the House is that any form of aggression is a matter for consideration by the members of the United Nations.
  Mr. McNeil: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps unwittingly, misled opinion in inferring that there was any automatic obligation? What the hon. Gentleman says now is quite different, and, I am sure, is quite acceptable to the House.
  Mr. Turton: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman reads the transcript of the questions and answers by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, he will not fairly come to that conclusion.
  Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. I endeavoured to put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary asking for circulation of the verbatim report of what the right hon. Gentleman said in America. May we now ask the Minister if that verbatim report is, in fact, to be circulated?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order. Could you inform me, Mr. Speaker, why one is not permitted to put down, or have accepted, a Question asking for the verbatim report of a statement of policy made by a Minister overseas?
  Mr. Speaker: I have not seen the Question, but if the hon. Member submits it to me, I will tell him the reason.
  Mr. Warbey: In replying to supplementary questions, the hon. Gentleman quoted from an American newspaper, the "Christian Science Monitor," comments on statements made by the Minister of State. Surely, if he has quoted comments made by that paper, he should circulate the original statement of the Minister of State?
  Mr. Speaker: That does not apply to newspapers.
  Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Did not the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a supplementary question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, say that if my right hon. Friend would read the verbatim report of what the Minister of State said he would see that there was no foundation for the opinion which my right hon. Friend had expressed? Having said that, is not the Minister bound to lay the papers so that we may all read the verbatim report?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not necessary; it is not a document of that sort.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions were given to the British representative in the recent debate in the United Nations General Assembly with regard to British policy in relation to Formosa.
  Mr. Turton: The question of British policy in relation to Formosa did not arise in the course of the recent debates in the United Nations General Assembly.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the misunderstanding that seems to have been created by the hon. Gentleman's replies to previous Questions, will he not now undertake to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the quotations which he made from the "Christian Science Monitor"?
  Mr. Turton: I do not think that arises out of this Question.
  Mr. Younger: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to circulating this verbatim report?
  Mr. Turton: I have no objection at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not do it, then?"] It was a television interview in the United States, but I will certainly look into the matter to see whether that is practicable.
  Mr. McNeil: Surely, the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is such interest, on the part of both friendly and suspicious people, on this subject that it would be to the advantage to the whole House that the verbatim report should be circulated? Why did the hon. Gentleman hesitate to give this undertaking?
  Mr. Turton: It was a fairly long interview, but I will look into it and see in what way hon. Members can best be acquainted with the full details.

  SPANISH NATIONALS (VISA APPLICATIONS)
  Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many applications for visas to visit Britain he has received from Spanish nationals during the past year.
  Mr. Turton: Eight thousand five hundred during the 12 months ended 30th November last.
  Mr. Jeger: In view of the fact that many more visitors from Britain go to Spain than come from Spain to Britain, would it not be a good thing to discourage British visitors from going to Spain until there are reciprocal arrangements and Spaniards are spending their money in this country just as British visitors are spending theirs in Spain?
  Mr. Turton: I do not think that would be a good idea. We want to encourage visits by members of all countries.
  Sir T. Moore: Can my hon. Friend assure applicants that they will receive the same kindly welcome in Britain as British visitors receive in Spain?
  Mr. Turton: Yes. There is also this difference. The cost of a visa here is 22s. 6d., whereas the cost of a Spanish one is 27s.

  VISA FEES
  Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Uruguay to secure reciprocity in the matter of visa charges and the abolition of the thumb print as a means of identification for British citizens visiting Uruguay.
  Mr. Turton: In 1934, and again in 1949, United Kingdom visa fees charged to Uruguayan nationals were raised as a result of increases in Uruguayan fees. A single fee is now being charged for all types of Uruguayan visas, but since this is considerably higher than the fee for United Kingdom visas, the Uruguayan Government are being asked to reduce their fee accordingly.
  Her Majesty's Government asked the Uruguayan Government last year to dispense with the requirement that applicants for Uruguayan visas should attend

  2435
  in person at a Uruguayan Consulate. The acceptance of this request would have eliminated the use of fingerprinting as a means of identification. The Uruguayan Government have so far been unwilling to dispense with this requirement.
  Mr. Hurd: May I take it that we shall continue to make representations to get a more reasonable interpretation of these arrangements?
  Mr. Turton: We intend to pursue this matter further with the Uruguayan Government.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that persons wishing to visit the United States have to submit their thumb prints, or to submit to an even more elaborate system of fingerprints and thumb prints, and will he take up towards the United States the same attitude as he has adopted towards Uruguay?
  Mr. Turton: This Question deals with Uruguay, and not the United States.
  Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the reciprocal reduction of visa charges during the past year.
  Mr. Turton: During the past year, no general discussions have taken place on the reciprocal reduction of visa fees, but arrangements have been made for the mutual abolition of visas for travel between the United Kingdom and the following countries: Austria, Finland, Germany, Portugal and the Saar.
  Mr. Hurd: Can my hon. Friend say if there will be an opportunity in the coming year for wider and more general discussions on the abolition of these visa fees?
  Mr. Turton: I hope so, but I do not know of a definite possibility.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Miss Burton: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Question No. 82 was down to the Prime Minister, but he transferred it, and, as a result, it has not been reached. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has the right to do that, but as the Question deals with the price of tea, which affects a great many people, and as it will now not be
  2436
  reached for six weeks, will you, Sir, permit the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who is in his place, to answer it today?
  Mr. Speaker: I could not allow that.

CYPRUS (DISTURBANCES)
Mr. Dugdale(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has a statement to make on the recent events in Cyprus.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Yes, Sir. I regret that disturbances occurred over the weekend in the towns of Nicosia and Limassol, in the course of which there was some injury to persons and considerable damage to property.
In the course of a general strike called by Communist and Nationalist trade unions on Saturday, disturbances were started, chiefly in these two towns, by secondary school students, who were shortly joined by hooligans. Acts of violence were committed which led to considerable danger to human life and damage to property.
In Nicosia, where a crowd of about 1,000 demonstrators gathered, large numbers of stones and bottles were thrown at the Police, some damage was done to shops and Government property and one British soldier was slightly injured. The police used batons and tear smoke to disperse the crowds. In Limassol, after a crowd estimated at about 2,000 had attacked the police station, surrounded the Commissioner's house and damaged two hotels, injuring the British owner of one, it was clear that the situation had got beyond the control of the police available.
Military support which had been called to the outskirts of the town was then brought in and three shots were eventually fired, wounding three people, one of whom is on the danger list. A party of about 80 Turkish Cypriots marching to attack Greek Cypriots in Nicosia had to be dispersed with tear smoke.
After the crowds had been dispersed in Nicosia and Limassol, bands of hooligans up to 100 strong were going about doing what damage they could, and some looting was reported. On Sunday,

2437
two large crowds had to be dispersed in Nicosia, but no disturbances were reported from the rest of the island, and none has been reported since.
The Governor broadcast on Sunday evening, asking for support from all responsible Cypriots for the measures to control such demonstrations. In particular, he asked Cypriot parents and school teachers to control the schoolboy demonstrators, who were easy dupes of hooligans seeking to promote disorder. Responsible elements of all communities have already expressed their grief at what had happened and have given assurances that they will use their influence to maintain law and order.
I am continuing to keep in the closest touch with the Governor about the situation and the measures he is taking. His message to me two hours ago is that all is absolutely quiet this morning, and he has been able to lift the ban on meetings which he imposed on Saturday.
Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling us that practically the whole of these riots were caused by school children, and, if that is so, can he say whether adequate preparations were, in fact, made, and in particular whether there was an adequate supply of tear gas at Limassol? It appears that tear gas was used with satisfactory results at Nicosia, but that there were no supplies available at Limassol. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that we on this side of the House are profoundly disturbed by the Government's handling of the whole Cyprus policy and think that there should be a full public inquiry both into these disturbances and into the handling during the past two years of the whole Cyprus policy by the Government?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question goes, of course, far beyond the terms of the Question he asked, which was about the affairs in Cyprus. I am glad to say that it seems to me that the handling by the Governor and by the authorities of Cyprus could not have been more excellent under the very difficult conditions in which they found themselves. They acted with promptitude and sense, and we have no intention whatsoever of allowing orderly government in any part of the British Commonwealth to be replaced by government of hooligans or by demonstrations of school children.
Mr. J. Griffiths: While welcoming the news that all is quiet in Cyprus today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will now consider the suggestion previously made by myself and by my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends that, when the situation is calm, the best course to adopt in Cyprus would be to call a meeting of representatives of the communities at which the right hon. Gentleman or another Minister should attend in order to discuss the future, because, otherwise, are we not likely from time to time to be faced with these disorders in Cyprus owing to the offer of a Constitution which no one wants? Is it not time to make a fresh approach to see whether we can reach a better understanding?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that one of the difficulties about people coming forward to co-operate in the new Constitution has been the uncertainty of the situation at U.N.O. Now that the General Assembly has approved the Political Committee's recommendation by 50 votes to nil, with eight abstentions, I think the situation is much clearer if or the get-together of all men and women of good will in Cyprus in order to try to work out a worthwhile Constitution. If hon. Members on both sides of the House, who are profoundly anxious to make Cyprus a contented and prosperous part of the British Commonwealth, will again read the statement I made on 28th October, particularly the last paragraph, I believe that there they will see the signs and opportunities for orderly development.
Mr. Griffiths: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in 1948 an offer of a Constitution was made and refused. Recently, the Government have made another offer, which is not quite so liberal. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see, therefore, that so far the offers of Constitutions have not led to a satisfactory conclusion, and will he reconsider the suggestion made that in these circumstances a round-table conference of members of all the communities to consider the future of Cyprus would be desirable?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor, in whom the Government have the utmost confidence, has let it be known that he would gladly consult the leading personalities of Cyprus, whether Greek or

2439
Turkish, about the working out of a constitutional settlement. That offer remains open. It is really not fair for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the new Constitution would be less liberal than that offered by the Socialist Government in 1948, because, as yet, there have been no talks which enable us to see what form the Constitution should take. As soon as those talks take place, we may be able together to find something thoroughly worth while. Meanwhile, I think we all express the hope that our relations with Greece may once more resume their traditional closeness and cordiality.
Mr. Griffiths: Do I gather that if there are discussions they will not be limited to the precise form of the offer of the Constitution which was made some time ago?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government cannot reopen the question of sovereignty. That has been settled. However, it is quite possible, of course, for a number of important issues to be discussed by the Governor with representatives of the various races who have made Cyprus their home. The question of sovereignty, on which the Government's view has been made quite plain, has, I think, received strong moral backing recently at U.N.O.
Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the action taken, involving, I think, a party of Turkish Cypriots, was taken only in the interest of law and order? Will he further say that in the action they took the Governor and the British troops will be fully supported by this House so long as that action was designed to restore law and order so that proper progress can be made with the Cypriot Constitution?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think most hon. Members will agree that the Turkish community, under considerable provocation by broadcasting, has behaved with commendable restraint. I very much hope that it will continue that practice, despite what happened over the weekend.
Mr. McNeil: Without entering into discussion on the question of sovereignty, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to withdraw his most extraordinary statement?
2440
What the United Nations decided, as they frequently do, was that, under the terms of Article 2 (7) they were not at present entitled to discuss this matter because it was a question of domestic jurisdiction. That was not the United Nations giving any opinion.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All that I said, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, was that we were entitled to claim strong moral backing for the line we have taken.
Mr. McNeil: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. Does he not agree that the United Nations have not given a legal opinion about the present position? The legal position, on the interpretation of the Charter, with which I agree, is that this is a question of domestic jurisdiction. That was not in any way giving any opinion or indication of any moral support in regard to what the future position of Cyprus, or any other territory, might be.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The reasons put forward are shown in the Resolution, which I will not read to the House, because the House already knows it. All I can say is that we are entitled to claim moral backing.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it sufficient to dismiss what has occurred in Cyprus as the action of schoolboys and hooligans? Does it not represent the demand of the great majority of the people of Cyprus for the self-determination which this country has guaranteed in the Atlantic Charter and in many other declarations?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would not in any way limit the people who have made a noise to school children. The fact that the greater proportion of those arrested in Nicosia were Communists shows where much of the responsibility lies. Here again, not for the first time and, no doubt, not for the last, Communists are prepared to put other people in to do work from which they hope to profit.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any evidence of Greek stimulation of these riots? Have we not a right to expect a friendly Power to use its influence to stop acts of violence which will do no good to anybody whatever solution is reached?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it is fair to say that the tone of recent Greek broadcasts has helped to create a mental climate in which trouble is possible. I very much hope that, in view of the United Nations' Resolution, our relations will be restored to a happier basis.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make about the business of the House?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The granting of an interim injunction by a judge of the High Court in the matter of the vires of the Reports issued by the Boundary Commission has undoubtedly raised an issue of constitutional importance. It must not be assumed that Her Majesty's Government accept the view that this is a justiciable matter and not one for Parliament itself. Nevertheless, so far as today's business is concerned, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it will be preferable not to proceed this afternoon with the consideration of the remaining draft Parliamentary Constituencies Orders.
It is proposed therefore, in agreement with the Opposition, to take the debate on the National Assistance draft Regulations, which will be concluded at about seven o'clock tomorrow. Thereafter, tomorrow, we propose to consider the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland, and the draft Industrial Orders.
Mr. Attlee: It would, of course, be entirely improper to proceed with the discussion of these Orders this afternoon, but there are certain questions which must be raised on this matter. The particular point which has now been brought to court was put very forcefully in the debate by my hon. and right hon. Friends, and particularly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). The Minister made no attempt to answer it and the learned Attorney-General did not seem to grasp the point, but merely gave his opinion without arguing it. A very grave constitutional position has now arisen.
2442
Is it not better for the Government now to withdraw the whole of these Orders? What is to be done about the Resolutions that have already passed both Houses? They certainly ought not to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council because, if the court is right, they are based upon a fundamental fallacy and upon a wrong interpretation by the Boundary Commission of its orders. They are just as bad as the Manchester case. What is the intention of the Government? Are those Orders going forward or not? Clearly, they ought not to go forward. What is the intention of the Government with regard to the whole of this matter which, in our view, should be referred back to the Commission so that it might carry out its job under the instructions which it was given?
Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out some of the difficulties which are involved, but I have made a very careful statement about today's business, and I cannot go further into the matter.
Mr. Attlee: Here we have Orders affecting certain constituencies which were brought forward and pushed through this House after practically no consideration. Some have already passed another place, I understand, and may be submitted at any time to Her Majesty in Council. If the court is right and it is ultra vires to have made the Orders now being held over, that is equally true about the Reading, Plymouth and other Orders. We ought to have a statement from the Government that it is not their intention to submit those Orders to Her Majesty in Council.
Mr. Crookshank: I can meet the right hon. Gentleman to this extent. The Government will make a statement on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It is impossible for me to be definite at this moment. I will make a statement as soon as possible. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, pending that statement, no further action will be taken in the way of submitting these Orders to Her Majesty.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. In the new situation which has arisen, Mr. Speaker, might I respectfully repeat to you the point of order which I ventured to put, I think, a day or two ago? You, Sir, are the Chairman of the Boundary

2443
Commission. The Boundary Commission has made certain recommendations. The Government have been asking, and, presumably, may some day again ask, the House of Commons to pass Orders based upon those recommendations. In the course of debate—and now in other places outside—questions have been raised as to whether those recommendations were or were not, in fact, made in accordance with the Statute.
As you, Sir, are the Chairman of the Commission, may I suggest to you, as I suggested before, that the proper course might well be for these matters to be taken back by the Boundary Commission itself in order that you, as Chairman, may consult it to see whether or not the recommendations were made within the statutory powers which the House gave to the Commission?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is right in saying that he has previously raised this point of order on this legal point about the Orders being ultra vires. I then said, as I still believe, that this point about powers was one for the House to take into consideration in passing or rejecting the Orders. I said then that it did not debar the House from going on with the discussions. That is all I said, and I think that that is right.
As regards the Boundary Commission, I have said nothing in the meantime about my own part in it, because I do not wish to influence the debate in any way. The House will realise that, as Chairman of the Commission, I cannot myself take part in all the individual decisions to which the Boundary Commissioners come. I am the only Member of Parliament on the Commission, and it would, I think, be improper for me to intervene so as to influence a decision by those independent gentlemen which might affect the constituency of another hon. Member of this House.
The Boundary Commission having delivered its Report to the Home Secretary, I think that it is now, by the Act, functus officio until the House orders it to do something else. I therefore do not think that the course which the hon. Member suggests is a practicable one.
Mr. Silverman: But is not the Boundary Commission, under the Act, in continuous function? If it had been appointed to do this particular job, and had done the job and made its Report, one could readily follow, if I may say so with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the argument that it was functus officio, could not be recalled, and had no opportunity of doing anything else in the matter at all. But since the Statute laid upon it a continuous obligation to review, without any fixed periods of any kind, does it not follow that it could review now the Report which it has already made? In view of the doubts which have arisen, ought not it to do so?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. I do not take the hon. Member's view.
Mr. Attlee: The Lord Privy Seal said that the Government would make a statement. He obviously could not indicate the time, but, as the House will shortly be rising for the Christmas Adjournment, may I take it that that statement will be made in time for a full discussion by this House? If, at any moment, it were suggested that the Government intended to go on, or even intended to submit the Orders, quite clearly the House must have ample time to discuss the matter. Otherwise, the whole matter might be held over until the House resumes in January. As very important issues are involved here, both constitutional and on the composition of the House, could the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that he will make the statement?
Mr. Crookshank: No one realises more than do the Government how serious are the matters in issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] Hon. Gentlemen must not take it that I am talking in any political sense at all. Very serious issues are raised, and I will make a statement on behalf of the Government as soon as possible. Whether or not it will be desirable to debate it must depend, I should think, upon the nature of the statement, which I cannot foreshadow.
Mr. Attlee: We really should have an assurance that, on such a matter, we shall not get a statement very shortly before the House is due to adjourn. That would not give an opportunity for action to be taken until the House meets again. This is a matter which should be kept in the

2445
hands of the House, with full opportunity for debate before the thing is done—in view both of the issues raised and the fact that the Government seem to have been extraordinarily ill-advised by their Law Officers.
Mr. Bevan: Surely the Government realise that the Opposition has already made a very considerable concession in allowing this day's business to be completely changed, and for something to be brought forward which was not intended to be discussed today. Is it not a fact that last week not only was doubt cast upon the legal validity of the procedure which had been adopted by the Commission, but, on both sides of the House, there was quite considerable feeling that the outcome of the Orders themselves was politically unfair? Even if it now transpires that, on a narrow legal interpretation, the Boundary Commissioners have not misread the rules and that, technically, they are correct, has not such grave suspicion been cast upon the equity of their recommendations that the Government ought not now to proceed to validate any of the Orders at all?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Wigg: May I raise with you, Sir, a matter which concerns back-bench Members? The Government, with the agreement of the Opposition, have moved forward to today the business which was to have been done tomorrow. That seems to be an outrage. Many back-bench Members who might want to speak on the business now coming forward may not be aware of the change. It certainly seems to be a very grave step indeed—if this is to be regarded as a precedent— that the business can be altered on the day that the House meets. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give some guidance for the protection of back-bench Members.
Mr. Bevan: May I, with all respect to the House, press the Government for an answer to my question? I submit respectfully that it is now not merely a question of what the courts will do. It might quite easily happen that the courts—and that may be what the Government are waiting for—will decide that the Commission did not mislead itself in its interpretation of the rules. With all respect to hon. Members in all parts of the House, I submit
2446
that a very much more substantial consideration is that it would be a very grave matter indeed—and might cast doubt upon the outcome of any subsequent election—if the Government proceeded on the basis of these Orders.
May I submit, with all respect, that Mr. Speaker presides over the Commission for one very important constitutional reason, which is to try to give the recommendations of the Commission a non-party, constitutional panoply. If, now, it is held, as it was held the other night on the other side of the House as well as on this, that many of the Orders are entirely inequitable, and unfairly weight the votes of one party against the other, is it desirable, in the light of constitutional history, to proceed with the Orders in that way? If that be the case, it will seriously undermine the authority of the House.
Mr. Crookshank: I was not, of course, intending any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but I had said that I did not feel it right to go beyond the statement which I had already made and to go into those other issues. I hope, therefore, that he, and the House, will excuse me doing so.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should take such a view of the proposed business. It was put down for the earlier part of tomorrow, and it will still be taken in the earlier part of tomorrow. I had hoped that bringing it forward to today would give an opportunity for far more hon. Members to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, as I happen to know that a great number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate on National Assistance scales.
Mr. Wigg: I see the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making, but would he be good enough to give an assurance that what he has done will not be regarded as a precedent?
Mr. Crookshank: It has been done with the agreement of the Opposition and it does not prejudice hon. Members who were not expecting to catch Mr. Speaker's eye until tomorrow. There will be time tomorrow in which, no doubt, they might be called. The extension will give an opportunity for many more hon. Members to speak on a matter of great public importance.
Mr. Ede: When did the Government know that application had been made for this writ? Did they know when the discussion on the Manchester Order was going on in the House that the matter would be raised in the courts within a very few hours?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir.
Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind two points? Whatever the position which arises as the result of the making of the interim injunction, unless this matter goes to the highest court in the land and unless all the contested issues, by agreement, are decided by the highest court in the land, it will still remain open for any citizen to challenge the validity of any of these Orders even after the election has been held. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Undoubtedly, yes. The whole point which is raised is whether the Orders can validly be made at all under the provisions of the Statute, and if they cannot, they remain invalid whether the Royal Assent is given or not. Secondly, we have to bear in mind that this is perhaps the most serious constitutional crisis which has occurred since the reign of Queen Anne. [Laughter.] I cannot understand why hon. Members are treating this matter so frivolously.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member.
Mr. Hale: I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that this is a much graver constitutional crisis, because for the first time in our Parliamentary history the courts have provisionally—and for the moment it is only provisionally—asserted the right to interfere at the point when both Houses of Parliament have passed a Measure, when although the formal consent of the Privy Council has technically to be obtained, we are in the position in which the Royal Assent has to be given. We are, therefore, bringing the matter of the veto of the Crown into question in the courts,
2448
challenging a decision made by both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that those matters will be borne in mind.
Mr. Silverman: I wondered whether I might have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House another question on business.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. This statement on business concerns only today's business. We have heard the statement. We have the assurance that the Government will do nothing further until a further statement is made. I think that that should content the House. I do not think we can carry the matter any further.
Mr. Snow: On a point of order. I address you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as a member of the Commission in question. Is it not right that the Leader of the House should be kept informed that up to the moment at least one county council and, I believe, two—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to make it clear that as Chairman of the Boundary Commission, a duty which the House imposed on me by Statute, I am not in a position to answer any points of order.

BILL PRESENTED
  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to make provision for the reorganisation, development and regulation of crofting in the crofting counties of Scotland; to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production on crofts and the making of grants and loans towards the provision of houses and buildings for crofters, cottars and others of like economic status; to re-enact the provisions "of the Landholders Acts with respect to cottars; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. James Stuart; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Henry Brooke, and Mr. Snadden; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE
4.5 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
I have looked up previous debates on National Assistance Regulations and I find that the opening speech has usually been short and only an exposition of the Regulations. In view of what has happened in the last half-hour, and the number of hon. Members on all sides—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It has happened once or twice recently that when an hon. Member is addressing the House, from either side, there has been a good deal of noise through hon. Members leaving the Chamber. If hon. Members wish to leave the Chamber they should do so quietly, for it is not fair to an hon. Member addressing the House that his speech should be interrupted in this way.
Mr. Marples: I looked up the precedents of various hon. Members who have moved National Assistance regulations in the past and I find that their speeches have generally been very short and in the nature of an exposition rather than of an argument. I therefore propose to make a brief explanation of the Regulations which the Government now ask the House to approve. During the debate no doubt many and varied points will be raised, especially now that more time has been allotted for the debate and, in replying, my right hon. Friend will deal with those points.
These draft Regulations, if approved, will amend the principal Regulations. By the principal Regulations I mean the original Regulations passed in 1948, plus the various Amendments made to them subsequently.
The number of people affected by these Regulations is quite substantial. The National Assistance Board pay about 1½ million to 1¾ million allowances, but an allowance may cover more than one person and the estimate—and it is only an estimate—is that these changes will improve the position of about 2½ million
2450
people, which is a substantial proportion of the population.
The National Assistance Board Regulations provide for two things—a weekly sum of money and then an amount for rent. These Regulations increase these weekly sums of money. There are two scales for the sums paid by the National Assistance Board—an ordinary scale and a special scale. The special scale covers the blind and certain persons suffering from tuberculosis. The increases which are proposed under the draft Regulations are the fourth set of increases since 1948. The figure in 1948 for a single person was 24s; in 1950, it was 26s.; in 1951, 30s.; in 1952, 35s.; and in 1955 it is proposed that it shall be 37s. 6d.
The present increases proposed by these Regulations over the scales now operative are as follows: 4s. for a married couple and 2s. 6d. for a single householder. The rate for a married couple will be increased from 59s. to 63s. and that for a single person from 35s. to 37s. 6d.
I have spoken of the ordinary scales and not of the special scales, and I now come to the special scales which deal with blind persons and those suffering from tuberculosis. Here, we propose to give a greater increase than in the case of the ordinary scales. The rate for the married couple will be increased from 77s. to 82s., which is an increase of 5s., compared with a 4s. increase in the ordinary scale. For a single person on the special scale the increase will be from 53s. to 56s. 6d., which is an increase of 3s. 6d., as against an increase of 2s. 6d. for the ordinary scales.
There has always been a differential between the ordinary scale and the special scale. In 1951, the special scale was 15s. more than the ordinary scale. In 1952, the differential was 18s. and under the proposed Regulations the differential in favour of the blind and certain tuberculous persons will be 19s.
In both scales, there are appropriate increases for persons in other age groups, such as children. I want to make clear that neither scale rate includes rent. I should like to give one or two examples to show what would happen in the case of a married couple paying a certain rent and a married couple with children paying a certain rent. A married couple, paying 15s. rent, would get 78s. a week,

2451
which is payment at the rate of £202 16s. per annum. I say "at the rate of" because National Assistance is payable weekly, and we all hope that no one will be on National Assistance for a whole year. A single person living alone, paying 12s. 6d. rent, would get 50s., a rate of £130 a year.
I have worked out, for my own interest, what would happen if a married man had a number of children and was unfortunate enough to be on National Assistance for a year. A married man with a wife and three children, aged 12, eight and three, paying 12s. rent, who was unfortunate enough to be on National Assistance for a year, would have his need assessed under these proposals at the rate of £308 2s. per annum.
These Regulations cover rates only and not conditions. Neither do they cover any other provisions of the principal Regulations. In particular, they do not affect the general discretionary power given to the Board's officers to adjust the allowances to meet special circumstances.
This general discretionary power has been used more frequently in the last year than ever before in the history of the National Assistance Board. During each of the last three years, the allowances have increased in scale and have cost the Exchequer more money. I will give an example. In November, 1953, there were 574,000 cases, and the average allowance given in each case was 5s.—an average is misleading, I know—but it was 5s.—and the total cost to the Exchequer was £7,600,000. In 1952, taking one week in that year, there were 530,000 cases, compared with 574,000 cases in 1953, and the amount to the Exchequer was £6,830,000.
Mr. William Keenan: Is that based on a full year?
Mr. Marples: I have taken the same week and tried to find out the number of cases which received this supplementary assistance, and then worked it out at the annual rate, making what is, I think, a fair comparison. There were 574,000 cases in 1953 and the cost to the Exchequer for the whole year was £7,600,000. In 1952, there were 530,000 cases which cost the Exchequer £6,830,000 and, in 1951, there were
2452
490,000 allowances, which cost the Exchequer £5,770,000.
I make this point because it shows that the Board's officers are using this discretionary power—I will not say more generously—but to a greater extent now than in the past. I am not saying that that is wrong; I am sure that it is right that they should do so. But I am saying that by doing so, they are imposing on the Exchequer a larger burden.
I have dealt so far with people who receive benefits under the National Assistance scales, but there are certain classes of persons to whom the scale rates are not applicable or are inappropriate. They will not benefit directly from the improvements in the scales. I refer, in the first place, to persons living in accommodation provided by the local authorities under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948. They are given such an allowance as will enable them to pay the minimum charge prescribed by the Minister of Health in England and Wales or the Secretary of State in Scotland. They also get a weekly sum, similarly prescribed by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as being necessary for personal requirements. That is the first class of cases which these scale rates will not benefit.
The second class of case which will not benefit is composed of persons paying an inclusive sum for board and lodging in homes for old people and the like not under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948. There, since the scale rates which we propose exclude rent, they would, generally speaking, not be adequate to meet the inclusive charge in the case of people living in homes and similar places. They may have personal commitments and requirements, and the Board's officers have discretion to decide what they would pay.
The third class of persons who will not benefit by these scale rates are persons in hospital. The reason is, of course, that as they are in hospital they are maintained free of charge. They do not need an allowance for board and lodging, but they do need a small sum for personal requirements and perhaps for outside commitments, and, here again, the Board's officers have discretion in the payment which they make.
Mr. Hector Hughes: The Minister has referred to the exercise of discretion. As the beneficiaries under that discretion will not be of any class subject to any scale, will there be any guiding principles by which the discretion is to be exercised, and have these beneficiaries any assurance of continuity or equality of treatment under the exercise of the discretion?
Mr. Marples: The discretion really applies to what is paid by the National Assistance Board, regarding their personal requirements and outside commitments. In the case of a hospital, board and lodging is paid for by the hospital. It is, therefore, a question of their personal requirements.
I speak from memory, but I think the exercise of this discretion is guided by the Ministry of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland: if the Minister of Health makes his regulations laying down that the present 6s. 6d. a week is increased to 7s. 6d. that would be one of the rules taken into account by the Board's officers. Therefore, I would say that the discretion depends to some extent on the regulations made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged for that ruling. The Minister will see, no doubt, that unless a very clear guiding principle is laid down the exercise of discretion might result in unfairness or inequalities.
Mr. Marples: Discretion really means that the man on the spot has fairly wide latitude in making up his mind, having regard to particular circumstances. If he were given a guiding principle which is too rigid and he applies it too rigidly, that means that he has no discretion but has to conform to the rigid rules laid down at the centre. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the Board's officers have been very reasonable in exercising their discretion.
The next point concerns the question of timing. These Regulations will take effect as from Monday, 7th February, 1955. I want to say a word or two about the pensioners because I believe that this will be a point raised in the course of the debate today and tomorrow until 7 o'clock. Over one million out of 1¼ million allowances are given to people in
2454
receipt of retirement pensions or other National Insurance benefits. In April, the pensioners will get an increased pension as of right, and there will be no test at all as to their needs or means. Those pensioners on National Assistance will get an increase in assistance in February. Those not on Assistance get their increase in pensions in April. That means that those who are in need will get help first.
Those who are drawing National Insurance benefits and who get Assistance will get their increase in February. The other National Insurance benefits will go up in April and their Assistance will be adjusted accordingly on that date. That, of course, is what has always happened in the past, whichever party has been in power. When pensions and insurance benefits do go up in April, it will mean that some people will no longer require assistance, and those who still require assistance will get no more income at that stage but will, of course, retain the benefit of the increase which they had in February.
Now I come to the question of administration. The great majority of the 1¾ million regular weekly allowances issued by the Board are paid by means of books of orders which are cashed at post offices. Every allowance in payment will have to be reviewed in order to give effect to the Assistance increases, and nearly 1¼ million will have to be further adjusted to take account of the changes in pensions and benefit rates. The Board's officers, therefore, face a fairly heavy task during the next two months. During the first five months of 1955 they will have to make about 3 million reassessments of allowances which, I think hon. Members will agree, is a formidable task.
On the basis of the number of allowances in payment at the end of October, the increases in Assistance now proposed will cost about £14 million in a full year. On the other hand, the cost of Assistance will later be reduced—that is, in April—by a considerably greater amount as a result of the increases in pensions and insurance benefits.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the expected saving to the National Assistance Board after the payment of the increased insurance benefits?
Mr. Marples: I could not say offhand. I think the figure was given by my right hon. Friend in answer to a Question the other day. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that that question has been asked several times in different ways by his hon. Friends and that the answer is on record.
I hope the House will approve these Regulations, for this reason. This is a more generous provision than we have ever had before. When we make comparisons, they can be made with many things. Comparisons can be made with what we would like to give people who are in need. They can be made with what we have given in the past, and they can be made with what economists think is possible fox the national economy to sustain. But compared with what has happened in the past, they are the most generous benefits of all time.
With that brief explanation, I hope the House will agree to approve these Regulations. Of one thing I am certain, and that is that hon. Members will have many aspects of National Assistance to raise, but I want to stress that this draft Order is not concerned with conditions. It is, like the National Insurance Bill, on which we have spent so much time in the last few weeks, connected purely with rates. For that reason I have not dealt with conditions, for they are outside the scope of the Regulations.
Mr. James Griffiths: Not of the debate.
Mr. Marples: No, I did not say the debate. I said, "outside the scope of Regulations."
Hon. Members can raise many points dealing with the conditions with which I do not think it would be right or proper for the opening speaker to deal. I have, therefore, confined my remarks solely to what is the Regulations and I have dealt with the rates. As they are the most generous that we have yet, I hope the House will agree to them. I also express the hope that the debate will be wide and varied, so that my right hon. Friend who will reply tomorrow will have many questions to which I am sure he will give satisfactory answers.
4.24 p.m.
Mr. Ness Edwards: The Parliamentary Secretary opened the debate in a manner which seemed to suggest that the Regulations ought not to
2456
cause very much fire, but I am afraid that he will be rather disappointed. He has taken these Regulations as a matter of course. He has summed up the matter by saying that 2½ million people will be better off. He then went on to tell us that they will be either 2s. or 2s. 6d. better off. He seemed to regard that as being quite adequate in the circumstances of the day. I was comparing in my mind his very quiet and restrained speech with the speech which was made at West Derby. Here was the most "stupendous alteration" in the field of social insurance.
Dr. Edith Summerskill:"Wait till you see it."
Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, "Wait till you see it." Today, we are seeing it. The Minister of Defence blew himself up and promised all sorts of things, and even the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, on Saturday evening, did not show undue modesty in his broadcast. It has been left to the Parliamentary Secretary today to reduce the Government's "stupendous effort" to a very common place contribution.
I think we have had four debates this year on this matter, and that there have been two Motions of censure. Let us go back to what was said at West Derby by the Minister of Defence. He said:
"When you see the details of our proposals you will be satisfied that we have given a fair deal to these deserving people"—
Mr. Kenneth Thompson: What deserving people?
Mr. Ness Edwards: Let me conclude the quotation—
"… who suffered more than any other section from the damage six years of Socialism inflicted on our economy."
Mr. J. N. Browne: That was with reference to pensions and not to the National Assistance Board, which is not a Ministerial responsibility.
Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman will read the fullest report that I have been able to get—that was in the "Daily Telegraph"—he will find that the Minister of Defence was talking about the plight of the elderly people, without any distinction at all. But the people about whom we are talking today are also pensioners. We are to see how

2457
they have been treated. The right hon. Gentleman gave a promissory note to buy votes at West Derby.
Mr. Browne: Disgraceful.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, it was disgraceful. He promised something to these deserving people. Today, the Parliamentary Secretary has "blown the gaff." He said that they are to get either 2s. or 2s. 6d.
Mr. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a promissory note to buy votes at West Derby. The" Daily Herald" of 15th November said:
"… only victory for Labour there on Thursday will make it certain that the pension is raised quickly."
Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman's party got the votes, but we will see how his party is honouring the promissory notes. We will see whether the new pension rates exist. We will see whether the cheques are "dud" ones or not.
Let me refer to the debate on the Motion of censure on 16th November. There, we had a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), he said:
"It may reasonably be asked why we did not take emergency action last summer, so that we could have increased pensions before Christmas off this year. Of course, if decency and humanity had demanded emergency action, then it would have been forthcoming without hesitation, as it was forthcoming in 1952 as soon as we took office."
Then he said—this is most significant:
"But there really is no evidence at all of hardship which could not be avoided by recourse to the National Assistance Board."
The right hon. Gentleman said that on 16th November. Did he know that at that time the National Assistance Board was considering bringing in revised rates? Was this a hint to the Board that the scales were adequate to meet hardship? The Board, apparently, was never informed—if one is to believe its memorandum—of what the increases in insurance benefits were to be. But it appeared on 16th November that the right hon. Gentleman himself thought that for 2½ million people hardship could be avoided on these scales.
Apparently, his view of the 16,000 was that there was no hardship which
2458
could not be met by Assistance Board scales. Exactly 10 days later the Board brought in the proposed Regulations to increase the scales in order to deal with hardship. That, surely, is a strange situation.
Also in that debate, the Minister of Defence—who was put up as he always is to make a performance when there is very little substance in debate—said:
"We know now that any cheques drawn in favour of the pensioners will be genuine cheques and will be met."
He talked of the fast improving economy of the country and went on to say:
"… our national finances have improved. Our production is rising, we are earning more, we are saving more and we are spending more."
Then he went on:
"We know now that any cheques drawn in favour of the pensioners will be genuine cheques and will be met."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1954; Vol. 533. c 241–338.]
Today, we are to see how the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance deals with hardship. We are also to see whether the West Derby promissory notes are genuine or whether the cheques are "dud" ones. It will be part of my job to prove that they are, and I hope that I shall do so before I sit down.
The Parliamentary Secretary rightly said that more than 2½ million are covered by these Regulations. They are people drawing supplementation in one form or another, and there are 1,735,000 cases. Many of these cases represent more than one individual; in some cases three, four, or five individuals. Of the categories, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are 395,000 children, 1½ million old people—I take the figure in the Report, 1,400,000—and 252,000 sick, disabled, or injured persons in that 2½ million. We have to remember that under these Regulations we are dealing with the poorest people of the country. We are dealing with people who are judged to be the most needy. To the extent of more than 250,000 we are dealing with sick and injured people. These people have little defence and, very largely, they are those with the smallest resources.
The hon. Gentleman said that if these Regulations are passed they will come into operation on 7th February and that the further insurance benefits will come into operation on 21st April. I believe that some are to come into operation in

2459
May. I am not sure about that. I thought we would have a little more information about when all the rates are to come into operation and whether a date has yet been decided. This Father Christmas is three or four months late. I thought we might have been told when the sickness benefit rates were to come into operation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information about that when he replies to the debate.
I will take three typical cases to see how this matter will operate. When the announcements were made newspapers came out with great headlines saying, "Eleven shillings for a couple, 7s. 6d. for the single man." Those were the increases which far too many elderly people were led to expect as a result of the presentation given in the Press. Equally, right hon. and hon. Members opposite gave priority in their speeches to the 7s. 6d. and the 11s., but it was fairly obvious in subsequent debates that some of them did not know anything at all about the 2s. 6d. or the 2s.
These three types of case will, roughly, cover 70 per cent, of the cases which come under the Assistance Board. A man and his wife paying 10s. a week rent with no resources other than the pension at present get 54s. old-age pension and 15s. supplementary pension. The total income is 69s. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) will correct me if my arithmetic is not correct. Under these Regulations, on 7th February the needs scale will go up to 63s., but this couple will still get the present pension of 54s. and will get a new supplementary pension of 19s. making a total weekly income of 73s. In other words, they will be 4s. a week better off in the first week of February than they are now.
These are the benefits about which the Minister of Defence blew himself up and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance expressed so much pride on Saturday evening. In the week ending 25th April the pension is to go up from 54s. to 65s. and the supplementary pension is to come down to 8s., so that they will have a total income of 73s.
I hope that these figures are accepted. As compared with 7th February, the 11s. promissory note turns out to be fraudulent. The cheque of 11s. in April is
2460
found, in February, to be not worth a penny. All these old people, under the National Assistance Board, will get new books in April. They will go to the Post Office with one book giving them 11s. and another book taking 11s. away. Is that the way to treat these deserving people?
Mr. Raymond Gower: Has that not happened every time the basic rate of pensions has gone up without a recommendation by the National Assistance Board for an increase in assistance?
Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has been in the House long enough to know that things are not quite so simple as that. Although he might find precedents, he will never find precedents so large as this, especially in view of the boasting of hon. Members opposite about this greatest extension in the field of social insurance.
Much of this has been misunderstood throughout the country. Take the case of a widow or widower living alone and paying 6s. rent. His or her only resources are the old-age pension, and 6s. rent is not an uncommon figure, because half the house is perhaps let to lodgers or as apartments to help with the rent. I am taking simply a normal case. This widow or widower now gets 32s. 6d. old-age pension and 8s. 6d. supplementary pension, giving a total income of £2 1s.
In the week of 7th February, the scale will go up and this pensioner will still get 32s. 6d. old-age pension, but 11s. supplementary pension. In other words, the supplementary pension will increase by 2s. 6d. In the week of 25th April, however, this widow or widower will get a 7s. 6d. increase in the basic pension, and will think, "This is all right. I have another 7s. 6d." But what happens? The widow or widower will get the new £2 old-age pension, but the supplementary pension will be cut from 11s. to 3s. 6d., and in comparison with the February rates the increase is not worth a penny. Is the cheque a "dud" or not? Is the promissory note to be honoured?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: No answer.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Let me take a third typical case. I am trying to be fair

2461
to what the Assistance Board is doing, and in making this analysis I am not shooting any stones at the Board's administration.
My third case is that of a widow of a man who has been killed in industry. Today, this widow gets 37s., and if she pays a rent of 12s., which is a typical figure for a mining valley cottage, although often the rent is higher, there will be a 10s. supplementary pension. In February, under the Regulations, the widow's position will be changed and she will get 12s. 6d. supplementary pension; so that whereas she now gets 47s., she will then get 49s. 6d.
In April—I do not know on what date, because I have not been told—this widow will get a 7s. 6d. increase in basic pension to the new figure of 44s. 6d., but all of this will be taken from her supplementary pension and she will get a new supplementary pension of 4s. 6d. Her income in April, therefore, will be exactly the same as in February, although she will have had a 7s. 6d. increase.
I ask hon. Members on both sides who are interested in the disabled soldiers to apply this reasoning to them also. A disabled soldier now gets his 54s. retirement pension. I assume that he gets 22s. war pension, and a supplementary pension of 13s., making a total of 89s. In April, after going through all this rigmarole, he will get an 11s. increase in retirement pension and a 5s. increase in his war pension, but he will be only 4s. better off. That is the benefit to him of the cheque for 16s. When he comes to present his promissory note, it will be worth only 4s. This is not fair play for these deserving people, and I cannot understand how the Minister of Pensions can justify this sort of playing about with the needs of the old people and of the sick and the wounded. If ever there was a cynical indifference to their needs, this is it.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the increased cost as a result of the scale increases will be roughly £14 million a year; that is the estimate given by the Assistance Board. But I have not yet seen the Board's estimate of the savings. The hon. Gentleman is so familiar with it, apparently, that he does not have the figure with him. I should like to know precisely what the Assistance Board
2462
thinks it will save as a result of this major operation.
If an increase in the scales of 2s. 6d. for single persons and 4s. 6d. for married couples will result in an extra £14 million outlay, surely the bringing in of reductions of 7s. 6d. and 11s. attributable to additional resources must result in a saving of about £30 million.
It looks to me as though the Assistance Board will have its burden reduced by roughly two to three times the cost of the scale increases. On the whole operation, therefore, the new scales will result in a saving through the Assistance Board of £16 million a year, or sufficient to have doubled the present increase in the scales without costing the Government another penny.
The position is worse than that when we take the overall picture. How does this biggest and boldest operation in the pensions field work out financially? It works out in this way: that the cost of the new insurance benefit rates falling on the Exchequer is £25 million, according to the Minister of Pensions. I was rather surprised the other night to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury say, when reading his brief, that it was £21 million. I do not care whether it is £21 million or £25 million, but the hon. Gentleman is supposed to know his business. Yet that was the figure he gave from his brief and he stuck to it. Under the National Assistance Regulations, on the poorest and the weakest the Assistance Board saves a net amount of £16 million, and toward the cost of this boldest operation in the field of social insurance the workers will pay nearly £50 million a year more in contributions.
The Exchequer will pay £5 million if we take the figures of the Financial Secretary, or £9 million if we take the figures of the Minister of Pensions, while the workers will pay nearly £50 million. And the Tories boast about the help they are giving to the needy and deserving. What they have done is to shift the burden from the Exchequer on to the shoulders of the men in industry, many of whom are being called upon to pay more for pensions for some people than the money they themselves earn.
The Minister of Pensions said, in his broadcast, that he hated to see deserving people having to go to get help. I almost took out my handkerchief. Who is

2463
stopped from going to the National Assistance Board to get help by this stupendous operation? Has the Minister saved anybody from going there? Are the old-age pensioners now relieved of the obligation to go to the Assistance Board? I would say that 95 per cent, of the people who go to the Assistance Board today will, if they are alive then, go to the Board next April. Has the right hon. Gentleman stopped one from going there? If he has stopped one, perhaps he will explain what category of person he has saved from going to the Board by this operation.
The Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt to justify the size of this increase in the scale. Why did he not do so? Is there no justification for it? Why did the hon. Gentleman let it go by default. Surely it is the responsibility of the Minister to explain the reasons for the size of the improvement and to attempt to justify it. He has done nothing of the kind. I suppose he takes the attitude that this is a matter for the Board itself, but I should have thought he would have compared this increase with other increases.
The Minister quoted the number of increases, but he should have gone a little further. In 1950, when the Interim Index of Retail Prices went up six points, we had increases of 3s. 6d. and 2s. In 1951, with an increase of 11 points in the Index, there were increases of 6s. 6d. and 4s. In 1952, with an increase of 10 points, there were increases of 9s. and 5s. Now, with an increase of nine points, we get a proposal for 4s. 6d. and 2s. 6d. It is the smallest proportional increase in relation to the increased cost of living in the history of the National Assistance Board. Why? There has been no attempt to justify the size of the increase in relation to the rise in the cost of living.
Mr. J. N. Browne: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that the previous increase to 35s. went further and went faster than the cost of living went up? Surely we must take the two together, and not the last one in isolation.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I presume, therefore, that we should join this one to the previous three increases? Where do we draw the line? After all, old-age pensioners do not live on statistics on comparison with the remotest past. What
2464
they are looking at is what they are getting today and what they will get tomorrow, as the hon. Gentleman himself said when he quoted the letter from an elderly lady in Glasgow. I wonder what kind of a letter she would write him if she was one of the 2½ million? It would be one, probably, that the hon. Gentleman would not quote in this House.
I say that the whole structure of National Insurance and the coping stone of these National Assistance Regulations has been the biggest piece of political trickery in this field which I have seen since I have been in the House. Talk about electioneering tactics; this is electioneering tactics. Talk about the cheques that were to be real cheques; the cheques are "dud" cheques. The West Derby promissory notes will turn out in April of next year to be "dud" notes, fraudulent notes, which ought never to have been submitted to the people of this country.
4.57. p.m.
Mr. J. N. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has done very well in making bricks without straw. He knows just as well as I know the injustice of some of the points he was making. I do not think either side of the House wants to make a point about electioneering, but since the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that, he will remember that the pension remained exactly the same throughout the life of the Labour Government and was only partially increased when they went to the country in 1951.
The right hon. Gentleman is not clear about the difference between National Assistance and National Insurance, and, by confusing the two, he has made a case that cannot stand up when examined. Until today we have been considering National Insurance; National Assistance is an altogether different issue and has to be treated as such. For example, the right hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions as saying that there was no evidence of hardship which could not be dealt with by recourse to the National Assistance Board. Then the right hon. Gentleman complained that the National Assistance rates went up shortly afterwards. As he knows perfectly well, my right hon. Friend was referring there to the case for National Insurance.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I know the hon. Gentleman can read as well as write, so surely he can read the quotation, which was as follows:
"But there really is no evidence at all of hardship which could not be avoided by recourse to the National Assistance Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1954; Vol. 533, c. 241.]
The Minister was obviously referring to the National Assistance Board provision as being adequate to meet hardship. If he did not mean that, he meant nothing at all.
Mr. Browne: That is all right, but what does the right hon. Gentleman expect? Does he expect the Government to wait until there is proved evidence of hardship before the National Assistance scales are raised—because that is what he is suggesting. It is for the Board and not the Minister to do this. I am sure that everyone, on both sides of the House, trusts the National Assistance Board to look after those for whom it is responsible.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to quote examples. I was able to check his examples extremely well, because all but one were in the "Daily Herald" this morning. So there is nothing very original in his speech. He referred to a "fraudulent 11s. promissory note." That is the sort of phrase one reads in the "Daily Herald" and hears elsewhere, which should be answered. This was a promissory note for 11s. as a right, without a means test. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the case of someone being given 7s. 6d. and yet being no better off. But that person will be getting 7s. 6d. as a right and can now leave the National Assistance Board. Surely that is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Does the hon. Member think that an old-age pensioner who is given one book containing an 11s. increase and another book containing a 7s. decrease regards that as decent treatment and as honouring the pledge?
Mr. Browne: In my experience, in my area, with old-age pensioners on National Assistance, the answer to that question is that they understand it. I found no difficulty when the 2s. 6d. increase was made. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in my part of the world the majority understand it, and those who do not, quickly have it explained to them
2466
by those who do. I think that in the areas of some of my hon. Friends, as well as of some hon. Members opposite, it is not understood.
The article which the right hon. Gentleman wrote in the "Daily Herald" formed the basis of his speech. That is very handy. I have done the same thing myself. In the article he gave three examples of the benefit of increased pensions to those drawing higher rates of National Assistance. I would say, first of all, that one of his figures is wrong. He wrote:
"After all this juggling to keep the books straight,' how much better off will the two-and-a-quarter million people be? Perhaps 2s. a week, perhaps 4s."
Mr. Ness Edwards: A clerical error.
Mr. Browne: I had hoped that I could say that it was a clerical error, but the right hon. Gentleman in his speech said:"2s. or 2s. 6d." The difference is 6d.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Previously I asked the hon. Member whether he could read. I now ask whether he can count. After all, 4s. for two people is 2s. each. The figure is 2s. 6d. for a single person and 4s. for the couple.
Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Member. I made my first point and I withdraw my second point. But 6d., in this clerical error, is a lot of money.
Mr. William Ross: A cup of tea.
Mr. Browne: I sat through four days of a previous debate listening to hon. Members opposite explain what terrible things the Government were doing about Id. a week. We cannot so lightly brush off the effect of the 2s. 6d. increase. Those hon. Members who brush it off do not realise that a 7 per cent, increase is quite important and that people who get 2s. 6d. more will appreciate it.
What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that he does not like what are the inescapable consequences of the present system. We have both National Insurance and National Assistance. It may be that we do not like it, but we are stuck with it and there is nothing we can do about it. I should like to read to the House the last paragraph of the right hon. Gentleman's article, because it is a gem:
"These examples are typical of the result of the implementation of the Tory Government

2467
promises. This is the Tories' idea of a fair deal for the 2¼ million people who come under the Assistance Board Regulations. Anyone concerned with the well-being of the aged people of Britain cannot give approval to this bit of intended electioneering by the Tory Party."
What does the right hon. Gentleman want to do? He wants us to believe that this arrangement, which is the inescapable consequence of the law as it stands, is very unsatisfactory to the pensioners, and then he pretends at the same time that this is a piece of electioneering. He is talking about National Insurance again, not about the National Assistance. I ask him this: he has criticised us for nearly half-an-hour, but what is his alternative? I know that the Opposition say, "It is not up to us to give an alternative"; but there must be an alternative, and I must try to think what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. Perhaps he wants the National Assistance Board rates to exceed a reasonable subsistence allowance. In that event, he must consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country as a whole. We believe, as do any right hon. and hon. Members who have been in contact with their constituencies, that the rates are good now.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The hon. Member should realise that these scales will have to go up a great deal more than what is proposed at present before they become too high in relation to present subsistence costs. The hon. Member seems to want some figures to consider. Will he tell us why he is not pressing his own Government to increase the National Assistance scales this time to an amount equal to the increase in the basic pension?
Mr. Browne: What I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying is the second point which I was about to make: does he want National Assistance to run hand in hand with pensions all the time? If he does, that is a policy, it is the inescapable result of what he is suggesting. But is it what the House wants and what the country wants? Surely the obligation under National Assistance is to give a reasonable subsistence rate—which means that we do not wait until people are starving or hardship is proved before it is increased but which gives enough and no more than a reasonable amount. But the responsibility of
2468
National Insurance is to give the old people a share in the country's prosperity, and we do not want to put a limit on National Insurance.
Mr. Tom Brown: We want a fair share.
Mr. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman made this point in his speech; he said there was enough saving to have double the proposed increase in the scale. What he was suggesting was that pensions and National Assistance would have the same basic level. According to the way in which he is thinking we shall never get the National Assistance figures down or the number of people on National Assistance. I am sure that is not what the nation wants. The National Assistance Board does its job in a wonderful way and we hope it will continue to do so, but surely we want people to be given money as a right and not to have to go through a means test, which is the only alternative suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
The other possibility is the reverse situation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting an increase in National Assistance without being very keen on increasing the pensions. I do not think he would suggest that. But apart from the alternatives which I have outlined, no intelligent suggestion has been made from the benches opposite. I do not agree with the alternative that, as a matter of policy, the National Assistance scale should be the same as the National Insurance scale.
The truth is, of course, that these changes will to some extent reduce the number of people who have to go to the National Assistance Board—and that is something at which we all ought to aim. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1946, when the National Insurance pension was 26s., the National Assistance rate was only £1, so that we still have some way to go with National Insurance. It is far better to try to keep people off National Assistance and to increase National Insurance benefits than to do anything to keep people on National Assistance.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman cite a single case which will be removed from National Assistance as a result of these changes?
Mr. Browne: Subject to correction, the right hen. Gentleman himself cited a case of a lady receiving 7s. 6d. and being no better off. Unquestionably there will be cases which will come off National Assistance, but we will leave the facts to the Board's report. The point is that this is the sixth rise since 1946. The 2s. 6d. will be very welcome indeed. Things were getting a little tight and the Board acted properly and correctly. The present National Assistance Board rates are not at subsistence level, but slightly above subsistence level, as everybody who knows anything about it already knows. It is no good hon. Members saying "Tut-tut." It is absolutely true.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: It is nonsense.
Mr. J. N. Browne: It is not nonsense. People are not as well off on National Assistance as we should like to see them, but at least today they have better purchasing power than ever before and that is something of which we can be proud. The country's problem is not National Assistance; it is National Insurance. I have no hesitation whatever in welcoming these Regulations and asking the House to pass them.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. James Carmichael: I was surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne). Some years ago he made great play from the Opposition benches with a widow's budget and with an old couple's budget. I was expecting that, having made some inquiries in his own constituency among old people, he would today have quoted the cost of living and an old person's budget. But he made no reference to them. He is quite satisfied that old people are above the subsistence level. What does he regard as a subsistence level?
Mr. J. N. Browne: It is a level which I for one would have nothing to do with; but technically subsistence level is only enough to keep body and soul together, plus rent. None of us wants to see that.
Mr. Carmichael: His only concern in this great age is to keep old people on a poverty level.
Mr. Browne: No, something better.
Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member wants to keep them at a poverty level.
I want to raise three points, shortly to deal with the Regulations, with the scales and with some observations about the Treasury. The Regulations have always disturbed me. At no time whatever are we allowed to amend the scales. When National Assistance came into operation, we were told it was a great advance on the conduct of the local authorities.
In many parts of the country people were subject to a very small scale, but not in the great industrial centres where they had a reasonable scale. If a local authority came forward with a new scale, it could be amended as one desired. Even in this House when the Finance Bill is introduced, if anybody is uneasy about Purchase Tax, we can apply to amend it. We are here dealing with the lives of the poorest people in the community, but we are not allowed to amend one single scale.
I want to deal with one point of the Regulations touching upon subsistence level. To get clothing from the Assistance Board is a bit tighter now than a few years ago, because, with all due respect to the present Board, the former Chairman knew the poverty of the common people better than anyone else on the Board.
Mr. Browne: In fairness to the past Chairman, he is still acting on the Board and co-operating with the present Chairman. We still have the benefit of his wise advice.
Mr. Carmichael: Yes, but he has been considerably demoted. I do not say this in any disparaging way, but the present Chairman was put there by the present Government to economise the scale.
Mr. K. Thompson: No.
Mr. Carmichael: I will prove it as I go along.
"Exceptional needs" are the two most shocking words in the Regulations. I know from my own experience in the Bridgeton area that the officers there are exceptional people. They are tolerant and broad minded. But I have been at offices in many parts of Glasgow where I have asked why people have been refused clothing grants. I have been told by the officials that an old fellow's jacket

2471
will last a bit longer and that the shoes he is wearing are not yet finished. When we abolished the Poor Law, I thought we abolished the most abnoxious word associated with Poor Law—destitution. When competent people who have had an education draw up a report and say that a jacket can last a little longer, it is evidence that they know it is in a very bad state when they say that it will last only a little longer.
The Government should bring in a Bill to give us an opportunity of amending the scales from time to time instead of the House having to accept or reject the Regulations. I know something about this problem, because I was on public assistance for 17 years. Prior to that I was a minor official in the Glasgow parish council. We did not give scales and ask the old people, or the sick, to purchase their clothing from those scales. Every year we spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in Glasgow clothing the people, and we used money outside those scales.
Mr. Browne: Does the hon. Member realise that whereas Glasgow people are prepared to accept help in kind, in other towns, such as Liverpool, they would be very insulted indeed at an offer that Glasgow people were glad to accept, namely, that clothing should be provided?
Mr. Carmichael: Does the hon. Member say that people with a meagre scale, living in rags and in deep poverty, would not accept decent clothing?
Mr. Browne: It is true.
Mr. Carmichael: If those are the facts regarding Liverpool, I still maintain the conditions of the Glasgow people under public assistance 20 years ago are far better than under National Assistance today. The hon. Member is inferring that they were less dignified than the people of Liverpool.
Mr. Browne: Not at all.
Mr. Carmichael: What then is the justification for the interruption?
Mr. Browne: I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Glasgow and how good were the arrangements. But the National Assistance Board has to see things on a national and not a local scale, and that is one of the difficulties of giving emoluments in kind.
Mr. Carmichael: I was a Member on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill. That was one of the unfortunate things. Some people recalled the old Poor Law days, the giving in kind. They thought in terms of margarine tickets. Though people were given the full scale, it was impossible to provide for clothing and the other necessities of life.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some cases the National Assistance Board is referring people in need of clothing to the Women's Voluntary Service? They have to select secondhand clothing, and if they fail to do so the grants are withdrawn.
Mr. Ellis Smith: That is scandalous, if it is true.
Mr. Carmichael: I have often thought that Scotland is pretty far in advance of England. They would not dare to attempt that kind of thing in Glasgow, not only because of hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies in this House, but because the ordinary decent people in Glasgow would rebel against it.
From the Regulations there is a strong case to be made for re-examining the whole approach to National Assistance. It is the Poor Law in operation again. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) people have to go to charity organisations. That is the Poor Law again, and hon. Members argue about a means test—
Mr. Browne: I do not believe all this.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) was bad enough when he was standing up.
Mr. Carmichael: By February the National Assistance scales will go up to 63s. The last time there was an increase was in June, 1952, two years ago. Is any hon. Member prepared to suggest that the cost of living can be measured by that 4s.? The insurance scale will be 65s. for a couple and 63s. for those on National Assistance. A single person will receive 37s. 6d. He has an increase of 2s. 6d.—and the hon. Member for Govan says they are very proud and happy to get that 2s. 6d. It will be 40s. under the National Insurance.
For as long as I can remember the public assistance scales in Scotland were always ahead of unemployment benefit.

2473
Even in the bad old days, when there were a great number of unemployed in Glasgow receiving the full unemployment benefit, they could get an augmentation from public assistance. It is true that there was a means test, but there were hundreds on the rolls. This is the first time—apart from the period in 1940 when we were transferring to the new National Insurance scheme when there was a slight gap—that public assistance and National Assistance has not been ahead of National Insurance.
Mr. K. Thompson: It is not.
Mr. Carmichael: I am not addressing myself directly to the hon. Member, but I think I have given him enough already—
Mr. Browne: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member again, but let us get the facts right. National Assistance was below pensions, from 1946, 1948 and 1950, and only drew level in 1951.
Mr. Carmichael: Yes, I said that.
Mr. Ross: He was not listening.
Mr. Carmichael: The whole purpose of National Assistance was to augment incomes that were too low. This is the first time there has had to be a cut. If I am correct, the only people who will suffer are the sick, and those little shopkeepers in old age who have not been in business sufficiently long to obtain insurance.
In the White Paper on the Regulations the Minister states:
"For existing cases the increases in assistance now proposed would cost about £14 million in a full year."
That is in February, if there is no other alteration in the scaling. But by April, the National Insurance at least will wipe out a great percentage of the people at present receiving National Assistance. The Minister ends the paragraph by saying that there will be a saving, through National Assistance,
"… but the sum cannot toe estimated until the amounts by which the pensions etc. are to be increased are decided."
In other words, the Minister did not publish this White Paper without having a good idea of the actual saving. He knew the increase he was giving to the pensioners; the number of people who will be taken off National Assistance and
2474
the millions of pounds which will be saved by the Treasury.
During the last two years the Treasury has been pressing every Minister associated with the social services. A few weeks ago I put a Question to the Minister of Health and to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking the amount of money paid privately for prescriptions. The total sum is in the region of £8 million for the year 1953–54. That is a saving to the Treasury. Having listened to the debate on National Insurance, I think in the main the contributors are the only people paying for the increased contribution. The amount paid by the Government is not in keeping with previous allocations. The same thing applies to National Assistance.
There again millions will be saved. It is the old story, that they are gradually cutting into the Welfare State.
Mr. K. Thompson: No.
Mr. Carmichael: Yes. There is a saving of £8 million from the Health Service, probably £9 million in this financial year. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) there will be a saving of millions because of the encroachment on National Insurance.
Yesterday I read something in the Press about the Royal Yacht. It has already cost over £3 million to build. It is going to cross from this side of the Atlantic to the other, which will mean the expenditure of further thousands of pounds. It will pick up the essential passenger on the other side of the Atlantic. The whole thing will cost millions of pounds. Two weeks ago the Estimates Committee made a statement referring to the expenditure incurred abroad by the Foreign Office.
Apparently it is all right to spend hundreds and thousands of pounds upon cocktail parties, but when we consider giving a few shillings to the destitute and the poor, hon. Members opposite adopt the attitude that the poor will always be with us. If it is possible by legislation to keep the poor with us we can depend upon the Conservative Government to do it. I hope that the hon. Member for Govan will go to his own constituency and tell the people there they ought to be proud of him and happy to know they are getting half-a-crown extra after two years during which the cost of living has continually increased.
5.31 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I wish to preface my remarks with a few words of congratulation and compliment to the National Assistance Board. It is very easy for hon. Members on either side of the House to indulge in facile blackguarding of political parties, and it is not very difficult to write defamatory newspaper articles about the motive of one's opponents, but I think that most hon. Members, and all people who are engaged in public life, in however modest a sphere, recognise that the work done by the officers of the National Assistance Board and the spirit in which it is done merit the highest praise and commendation from us all.
There cannot be a Member of this House, or of a public authority, or voluntary organisation, who has not had experience of the broad and generous humanity, timely understanding and gentle sympathy with which the officers of the National Assistance Board handle the day-to-day material which makes up their life's work. We are all indebted to them for the way in which they do that job. It is easy to cite cases of seeming hardship. It is quite easy to cite cases where National Assistance Board officers—I think without impropriety—may have directed an applicant to take advantage of some of the other resources available to those in need.
There is nothing wrong in the efforts of the Women's Voluntary Services to help those in need. There is nothing improper in somebody who needs something taking advantage of some provision which is made to meet that need. There is nothing wrong about voluntary effort, from wherever it comes and whatever need it is designed to meet.
Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend will remember the invaluable help that was given by the W.V.S. during the time of the floods.
Mr. Carmichael: No reference has been made by hon. Members on this side of the House to the work of the W.V.S. Our point was that the officers of the National Assistance Board have told applicants to go to the W.V.S. without dealing with the cases themselves.
Mr. Thompson: I was hoping to be allowed to get to that part of the matter without too much delay. If it is true that
2476
the statutory provision against poverty and destitution is withheld, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), because there may be another form of relief for need, I suggest that that represents a departure from the intention of the House. I believe that our intention is that need of that kind should be met by statutory provision, and that other relief should be supplementary to it. In my experience within my constituency and the wider area of the City of Liverpool, I have never met the type of case to which the hon. Member for Shettleston has referred.
Mr. Carmichael: It is Bridgeton, not Shettleston.
Mr. Thompson: I am obliged. So great is my admiration of all the hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies that I tend to carry their names in a jumble in my mind.
Mr. H. Wilson Mr. H. Wilson rose—
Mr. Thompson: My admiration does not necessarily extend to hon. Members representing constituencies in and around Liverpool.
Mr. Wilson: I wonder if the hon. Member would come back from Scotland to his own area of Liverpool, and say whether he has seen the report of some medical practitioners in Liverpool, which says that in the very recent past there were 39 cases of people suffering from illness and malnutrition due to lack of sufficient money. These medical practitioners found that anyone spending less than 12s. 6d. a week on food was suffering from malnutrition.
Mr. Thompson: Yes. I was coming to the question of the payments made for the ordinary run of need among those who find it necessary to go to the National Assistance Board for assistance to meet that need.
We must remember that the regulations with which we are concerned are entirely separate from the National Insurance pensions provisions which we were debating two or three days ago. We are now dealing with what I hope I may refer to without offending anyone as the residual need, after all the calculable risks and hazards of normal life have been accounted for so far as it lies within human ingenuity to do so.

2477
We are dealing with those whose need is outside the ordinary insurance arrangements which we have been able to make for the hazards of industrial life, the approach of old age, normal sickness, and so on. Here we are dealing with a set of cases which can vary as between every one of a thousand, and produce the kind of situation to which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has just referred, where there can be real need, in the sense that there is not enough food available out of this small payment to provide the necessary standard of life to maintain good health. But there is nothing original about this. It is not the first time that this situation has occurred. It is not the first time that its presence has been recognised.
The National Assistance Board, apart from its rent allowances, basic payments, and casual payments for clothes which may be needed from time to time, has authority, delegated to it by this House, to meet special need by discretionary payments. Discretionary payments have been made, and will continue to be made, on as generous a scale as is necessary to relieve that special need. In those circumstances there should be no need for any person in this land to find himself unable to buy the necessary amount of food to maintain himself in physical good health.
We are all aware that some people do not like to go to the Assistance Board, and there ought to go out from this House an assurance to all those who are in need—whatever the cause of their need and whatever their state of mind—that if their resources are so limited that they cannot maintain themselves in good health, in decent accommodation, and properly clad, they should go to the National Assistance Board and seek to have their resources supplemented by a discretionary payment, or by some similar means.
The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), who opened the attack upon these Regulations, made great play about what he considered to be the political motives behind the action of Her Majesty's Ministers in framing them. Here was the Minister of Defence, and my right hon. Friend the; Minister of Pensions, making all sorts of promises about what the Tory Party and the Government were going to do. Here was West Derby, dragged again into the
2478
forum of pension debates, which has been carried on as a serial story both upon the Floor of this House and elsewhere for too long a time.
Here were all sorts of political motives being imputed to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and those of us who support them as to what we were really trying to do in introducing increases in pensions and in the scales of National Assistance. It seems to me Chat this party has been more careful in endeavouring to avoid the political charges that have been made against us than have our predecessors at any time, so much so that it seems to me that there is very little political kudos for this party in these increases in pensions and in supplementary payments by the National Assistance Board that we are now making.
It lies ill in the mouth of a leading speaker from the Opposition Front Bench to charge the Government with having a wicked object in mind in introducing these new proposals, both in regard to the pensions provisions which we discussed a few days ago, and the National Assistance payments increases which we are now debating. Indeed, we have endeavoured throughout to avoid that.
That criticism, from a party which so arranged matters that, when they did manage after a very long time to come to the relief of the old-age pensioners, or some of them, the new pensions books dropped through their letter boxes coincidental with the arrival of the election addresses of the Labour candidates in the 1951 election, seems to me to be a most extraordinary acrobatic feat of reasoning. We have tried to avoid that.
The right hon. Gentleman made a great deal of play about the fact that not only had we made promises, as he said with political objectives, but we had failed to carry them out. He said that the promissory notes or cheques which we had issued were without value, and he quoted a number of cases which showed that one of the effects of raising statutory pensions payments is that when those who have been drawing assistance in supplementation of their pensions go along for supplementary payments some time later, they will find that the supplement has been reduced because the pension had earlier been increased.

2479
What is new about that? Where did this great principle emanate from? This is no wicked Tory device to take the crumbs out of the mouths of those who need supplementary payments. This is written into the law of the land, and we are not responsible for it. We have to apply the legislation as we find it, and surely the right hon. Gentleman is on entirely improper ground in suggesting, as he clearly did, that this was simply a device of the Conservative Party to secure some political fame on the one hand without having to find any of the resources to meet the need on the other.
Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman went further in his intellectual gymnastics. He endeavoured to prove that, when somebody goes in February next for an increase in these assistance payments and actually draws an increase according to the new Regulations, he will find later, in April, when he comes to draw his increased pension, that the total that was promised will no longer be added to what he will be drawing in April. The truth of the matter is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that the first part of the increase in the National Assistance payments was given two years ago, when assistance payments for the first time were placed ahead of insurance payments in size. From then on, assistance payments were larger in size than insurance payments.
Secondly, by providing the first of the increases for the poorest of all and those whose need is greatest at the earliest date, that is to say, in February, we do not do them an injury, but instead confer a benefit. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, being perfectly well aware of this, ought at any rate to have added that to the explanation which he gave of the so-called wicked and tortuous workings of the Tory mind.
The people about whom we are speaking today are not only poor people, but very often quite simple, ordinary people who are not in possession of the detailed knowledge of regulations which some hon. Members of this House command. They are not able to see all the details of debates that take place in this House, and are not able to avail themselves of detailed knowledge of the working of the laws of this country. It is, therefore, entirely improper that hon. and right hon.
2480
Gentlemen opposite should so abuse their position to take advantage of that fact and to cause these people to believe that they are being "sold down the river," to use a colloquialism, by those who are responsible for their welfare.
From the insurance Regulations which we introduced a little while ago, and again in respect of the assistance Regulations now before us, we are entitled to say that where need exists in this country, it shall be met, and shall be met on as generous a scale as possible. I believe that this House will have no difficulty in supporting the Regulations that are now before us.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Ellis Smith: These new scales of National Assistance are a further contribution towards Britain's retreat from the acceptance of freedom from want. The retreat started with devaluation, and it has taken many forms in the British economy, in administration and in regulations, since the day of devaluation. The effects of this retreat, it is true, are felt only by a very small number of our people.
They are mainly the fixed income group—the old-age pensioners, the unemployed, the sick, the injured workers, and especially those who have to apply for National Assistance. Continued full employment is covering the full effects of the retreat, which, as a result, have not yet shown themselves to the extent which they will do. Full employment can be maintained in a prison.
At least 150 hon. Members of this House—a large number have said that they feel uneasy and very concerned about these scales—have put down a Motion on the Order Paper. A similar Motion was placed on the Order Paper in July, indicating the seriousness of the position of the people about whom we are speaking tonight. This Motion appeals to the Government to withdraw these scales and Regulations, and asks them to consult the National Assistance Board in order to reconsider the proposals at present before us. I am convinced that, if this House had been full, this uneasiness would have reflected itself, and I am hoping that there is still time for the Minister to say that he will withdraw these scales in order to give further consideration to them.

2481
The present Prime Minister, speaking on 16th May, 1947, said this:
"We seek to establish a minimum standard of life and labour below which no one who is prepared to meet the obligations of good citizenship should be allowed to fall."
I want to ask the Minister if he will answer that when he replies to the debate. Does he consider that these scales fulfil the promise made to the people of this country by the Prime Minister in that speech?
I propose to quote a number of extracts from a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. J. T. Hall) on 19th March last. It is a change to be able to quote from speeches made by people who have a long history in particular areas within the working-class movement. They have firsthand experience and great knowledge of the people for whom we are speaking tonight as a result of years of work on their behalf. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West is one of these people.
In the debate on 19th March, hon. Members on both sides of the House pooled their ideas and experiences about the present position. It is greatly to the credit of hon. Members that, as a result of that pooling of experiences and knowledge, the Minister accepted the Motion then before the House. There was complete unanimity, and the Minister gave an undertaking that the Government would really consider what had been said during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) also made his contribution, as did other hon. Members with similar great experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West said:
"I honestly believe that this section of the Community is having a harder struggle to live than it has had for the past 20 years. … I was a member of the county Public Assistance committee and in those days before the war we allowed 30s. 9d. a week for a couple on Public Assistance with a 5s. addition for rent. This scale operated from 1934 onwards until the war years … The scale of 30s. 9d. before the war was better than the 59s. at present received by a person under National Assistance… Before the war the average wage rate was £2 4s. and now it is £7 5s., so that wage rates have advanced by about 300 per cent. Out the other hand, comparing present day figures with the old Poor Law system, which catered for nearly all the old age pensioners before the war, we find that their subsistance allowance has increased by only 100 per cent. … I believe that the Government have made the position much worse by the
2482
reduction of food subsidies and the abolition of price control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 821–2.]
I have purposely quoted extracts from that speech, because, in my view, it is time that this movement in particular had regard to those who have built it up and who know what the people are going through—what they are thinking, and what their needs are—and who reflect those things in this House. Those of us who knew the Poor Law system with its criminal administration can never forget it.
I can never forget meeting, in 1931, a man in Longton who had lost a leg in the First World War. He told me how he had been treated by the Northrop brothers in Longton, who in those days administered the Poor Law. I was so indignant that I sat among the applicants, having tried to hide my identity, and watched what was taking place. I saw enough to enable me to approach the officials with confidence, because what the man had told me was confirmed by what I had seen with my own eyes.
It was against that background that we welcomed the introduction of the National Assistance scheme, with its new scales, its new disregards—I hope that hon. Members will emphasise the importance of the disregards—the sympathetic administration and the courtesy of the officials of the National Assistance Board. We were delighted when we received concrete evidence of the great change which had been brought about.
The National Assistance Board, especially in the great industrial areas, had built up a good name among the people, but that is now beginning to change. These scales will accelerate that change. It is because of that knowledge that I was forced to take action as soon as I saw the proposed scales being introduced.
Some of us are active members of trades councils, of federations, and of regional areas where regular conferences are held in connection with this matter, and at which we are able to hear the views of men like my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West. There are others who are as able as any of us, but who have not yet had an opportunity of playing their part in this House.

2483
However, they are playing their part in the localities, in the local organisations, and in the trade union branches, and when ones hears them relating their experiences, one cannot help but be concerned when proposals of this character are put before us.
Here is an indication of the contrast. The new Chairman of the National Assistance Board was noted in this House for his advocacy of economy. Every right hon. and hon. Member knows that to be true. That traditional policy of the Tory Party is now being applied at the expense of the people for whom we are appealing, by way of new interpretations, the tightening up of administration, and by no addition being made to the disregards, in spite of the change in values.
My wife said to me last night, "Whatever you do, stress that for all you are worth." She is in touch with the local people in the shops, in the guilds, and in the various movements with which she is connected. It is because we can see this traditional policy again being applied to the working classes in particular, and especially to the poorer sections, that we are bound to speak in this way.
Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson, who is the present Chairman of the National Assistance Board, was a colleague of mine and the hon. Member for Ilford, North. He is not able tonight to defend himself against what I might call the unwarranted charge which the hon. Member levels against him. Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson served the people of Ilford faithfully for many years, and to such an extent that when he ceased to be their Member in this House the citizens of Ilford made him a freeman of the borough in recognition of the great services which he had rendered to all sections of the people.
Mr. Ellis Smith: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman holds the new Chairman of the National Assistance Board in such high regard, and if he was a colleague of his, then I do not resent his interjection at all Indeed, I am glad that he has made it. I remember Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson sitting on the benches opposite, and I remember the group with which he was associated. If anyone attacks me because of my political opinions, I do not blame them. They are
2484
entitled to do that. This is a democracy and we are all entitled to state our views and to speak according to our experience.
I know that it is very difficult to separate an attack on an individual from an attack on his policy, and, therefore, I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make allowances in that respect. Let me assure him that from my knowledge of Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson, I got the impression that he was a straightforward man of great integrity. But he differed from me fundamentally in his political outlook and in dealing with the people, and it is from that basis that I am now speaking.
I must say that I was surprised when an hon. Friend of mine, in an interjection a few minutes ago, said that in London—and this was substantiated by other hon. Friends of mine from other parts of the country—applicants are now being referred to the W.V.S. I hope that is not true, but if it is, then it is further concrete evidence in support of what I am saying.
The Poor Law standard in this country was disgraceful, with the exception of areas like Poplar, Durham, and South Wales, and, to a less extent, Blackpool. We welcomed the improvements that were made up to 1952 on those low standards. I shall produce figures showing the comparative values of the gross national product from 1946 to 1953. This was 71 per cent. higher in 1953 than it was in 1946. The consumer price level had risen by 46 per cent. in the same period.
On the other hand, the pension level—this is what many hon. Members and people in the country tend to forget—did not keep pace with that change. The poorest of the poor are entitled to share in the increased national income and the improvement of standards. It is the industrial areas which, in the main, help to increase the national income. People who are suffering through no fault of their own ought to share in that increase.
In 1953, the percentage increase over the 1946 figure for Poor Law relief for a married couple was only 68·6. For a child of five it was only 46·7. The average for the whole of the applicants shows that the increase over the terribly low standard of 1946 was only 68·7 per cent. I have details of the internal purchasing power of the £ from 1946 to 1954. It is

2485
necessary to get the facts on record when we are considering these very low scales.
Taking the figure of the Consumer Price Index for 1946 as 100, the value of the figure for 1954 is 146. In 1948, the gross national product was £10,250 million. In 1953 it was £14,796 million. The Monthly Digest of Statistics shows how the cost of all that the people need is going up, although people who need National Assistance are kept to these low scales.
The proposed scales mean a worsening of conditions in relation to the national income. I have before me the budgets of a number of people, taken on 4th September, 1954. If any hon. Member doubts them, he can see them here, item by item. Here is evidence of the necessity for increasing the scales if we are to do justice to the people about whom I am speaking. All the statistical evidence proves that these scales are far too low.
A married couple on the ordinary scale receive £2 19s. 0d. at present, plus rent allowance. Under the new scale they will get an increase of 4s., making the total £3 3s. 0d. According to the "Economist," which is not sympathetic to those of us on this side of the House, especially to those of us who take a working-class view of things, this scale should be at least £4 per week, plus rent allowance.
These scales should have been raised months ago, as most reasonable people would agree, which means that the poorest of the people have been robbed of many pounds during the past few months. If a calculation is made which allows for the increase to which I have referred in the national output, the national income, and the cost of living, the very minimum of this scale should be £3 15s. 0d. for a married couple, plus rent. The "Economist" goes even further than I do, in saying that it should be £4 plus rent.
In 1944, the assistance for a child of five years of age was 7s. 6d. In 1955, if we pass these scales, the figure will only be 12s., despite all that that means in these days, when the mothers of the country are taking care of the children land have a greater pride in them than ever before in our history, and despite the enormous change in money values since 1944.
2486
The tragic aspect of the lives of our people is that if they depend on insurance benefits they can manage for a few weeks. Many have limited resources, like savings, and may manage for a few Months. Some may be able to exist on trade union benefits. Above all, they have hope, because they look forward to a job. When they have exhausted their insurance rights and have little left, they begin to lose hope and slowly their energy is sapped. Many of them have young families.
I have a letter here from one of the finest men that it has been my privilege to be friendly with. Through unfortunate circumstances he has been unemployed. He is living in an area in which it is difficult to obtain a job. He relates the circumstances in which he is living. He has young children, who are as good as anybody else's children. They go to school, and the mother wants to see them nicely shod and clothed. At Christmas time they are entitled to toys, like anybody else's children. In many homes there will be a sorry time if we pass these scales. There will be a worse time in these homes because of the changes that are occurring.
People may become sick. Only those who have been through that kind of experience know what it means, especially if they have had a serious sickness. They become convalescent, and all the time their resources are going, and the position at home is worsening. This applies equally to those who suffer from industrial injury or disease. Those who have no resources left apply for National Assistance, and we need to have scales that give more assistance and not less, as is being proposed today. Is any hon. Gentleman prepared to get up and, in answer to what I have said, say that the scales proposed in these Regulations are adequate to do justice to the people for whom I am speaking?
What is the explanation of the point which I am now going to put to the Minister? The increase in these National Assistance scales comes into operation on 7th February next year. The increases in the insurance benefits come into operation during April, and it is hoped that they will be fully paid by the end of May. The resulting adjustments will continue for weeks. Does the Minister think

2487
it good policy to put people in such uncertainty, and to create the friction which is inevitable as a result of increases first and then reductions? Will any applicants have reduced payments after having received increases? If so, will the Minister, in his reply, give us examples?
Widespread sympathy with the people about whom I am speaking has led to all kinds of proposals being made. Some are being put into operation in one area but not in another. That leads to differentiation in treatment of the kind of which complaint has already been made. In some areas there are suggestions for free travel, for cheap travel, for free milk, and assistance of that kind. That indicates the worsening position of these people. The assistance scales should be sufficient to allow them to live as decently as their fellows, and should apply, not in one area only, but in all.
Many of us would have voted tonight against these proposals, but, as a result of democratic discussion, our party decided by a majority of two to one that it would not be in the interests of the people to do that. Tonight I am reminded of one of the greatest men I knew. He used to speak in this House time after time, and in spite of his long-held and definite views—which differed so much from those of many people—he was always listened to with respect when he spoke. I refer to the late George Lansbury.
By his attitude in Poplar he taught us the kind of thing we should do. Gradually, he brought about a recognition that the time had arrived when people should not be humiliated by having to go cap in hand to the Poor Law administrators, but should be able to apply for National Assistance benefit as of right, based on their insurance record, and that, when that was exhausted, they should still be entitled to go with head erect for further assistance, and be treated courteously by every administrator. It was because of that developing public consciousness that, in 1946, 1947, and 1948, the Government were able to put through proposals which won the admiration of the world.
The foundations of the structure then built are now gradually being sapped. It is because of our recognition of that that many of us are speaking as we are doing tonight. We believe it to be the best attitude to induce all hon. Members, even
2488
if they support these proposals now, to think of them later so that further proposals may be introduced as soon as possible, and so that the foundations now being sapped may be rebuilt.
Twice within my lifetime we have had all kinds of promises. Between the two wars I saw one promise after another being broken. After the last war we hoped that the promises would really be kept. For a few years they were kept, but we now begin to see a change. While there is yet time, let the House be worthy of its history and call a halt to this present process, so that our people may receive the treatment which they so justly deserve.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Richard Fort: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) covered such a wide field that I find it a little difficult to take up many of his points. I found his statistical argument about the inadequacy of the present proposals a little difficult to follow, because the bases on which the statistics were quoted seemed to vary very considerably. Admittedly, it is a field in which it is difficult to find uniform statistics, but, even so, I found him a little unconvincing.
Mr. Ellis Smith: They were all taken from official sources.
Mr. Fort: Statistics, even from official sources, are often compiled on very different bases, as the hon. Member, with his long experience, knows.
I was even more surprised to find him quoting from the "Economist" which, in this matter, has an outlook that I am very far from sharing. It takes the emphatic view that more of the money which we give from insurance or National Assistance should go to the very poorest, defined presumably by a means test, and then it does not define what it means by poverty.
When we discuss the whole problem of National Assistance the real difficulty is to lay down exactly what we mean by poverty. A feature of the Report of the National Assistance Board—and I should like to join with those who praise that institution; certainly, in my own area, it is staffed by fine, sympathetic men and women—is that it shows the large amount of capital represented by the disregards before the means test

2489
comes into effect. Indeed, in the Phillips Report, the amount of disregards is referred to as over £30 million.
The problem of what poverty is was brought home to me by a letter I received recently from a constituent. He puts, in a very easily understood form, just what poverty means. He writes of
"… the anomaly of the present means test which puts one's assessed capital at 5 per cent. or 10 per cent, per annum, irrespective of what it is producing. I am 80 years of age, and cannot draw any pension on account of my assessed capital which does not yield anything like 5 per cent. I have not been an insured person as I was self-employed, and when the voluntary Act came into operation I was over age …
My capital is mostly in … Farm which is let to my son in law and does not yield me much more than £1 a week and at present it requires a lot of money spent on it to bring it up to date, and yet, if I sell it, it will deprive my daughter and her husband of their living and I could not sell it without vacant possession. We had, when my wife was living, a pension of £2 a week between us and she left nothing, and my income is less than it was then."
I know that constituent quite well. He was a farmer and he put his savings into a farm. His life savings are invested in it. He cannot lay his hands on a penny of his capital, for the reasons which he so graphically describes, and yet, by the operation of the means test he is prevented from getting a non-contributory pension. It seems to me, and perhaps to other hon. Gentlemen, that my constituent is, in fact, in a condition of poverty a great deal worse than that of many who are able to draw National Assistance.
What the solution is I do not know. I have one or two points on non-contributory pensions which I hope my right hon. Friend will deal with when he comes to reply. As I say, the example which I have given—and I am sure hon. Members will have similar, if not identical, examples—indicates that the question we must always ask ourselves is, "What is poverty? How can we best help those who are in a condition of poverty?"
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions about noncontributory pensions. Most people who might benefit from them are over 70 years old, and are clearly at an age when they cannot improve their situation very much. As the number of people concerned is relatively few, would it cost very much to reduce the rate of interest taken for the disregards from 5 per cent.
2490
or 10 per cent. to which my constituent refers, to one which would at least be nearer the ordinary return on money, and perhaps even slightly below.
The other point I wish to raise is this. There are, if I remember rightly, no more non-contributory pensions being granted after 1961. As the treatment of interest under the National Assistance means test is much more severe than it is under the non-contributory pensions means test, what is to be the position, after 1961, of people who would have been able to draw the non-contributory pension but who will, in fact, be unable to do so because of its lapsing, and yet will be even further away from drawing National Assitance because of the operation of the interest clauses?
It seems to me that there is always liable to be a considerable number of people who are poor in the way that my constituent is poor. When we come to consider, as I hope we shall next year, this whole problem of providing for old age, I hope that we shall consider some arrangement like the non-contributory pension arrangement—I do not suggest identical with it—to help people who at present, unlike my constituent, are able to draw it but who, because of the operation of the interest clauses, are unable to draw National Assistance.
Hon. Members who have such detailed knowledge of poverty should constantly turn their attention, not to scoring political points and collecting a few votes at by-elections and General Elections, but to ascertaining the difficulties and working out the best way of helping people—often only quite small groups of them—who are in real need because they fall between the classes provided for in the different Regulations. That should be our object here.
I was very pleased indeed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) rebuking, very justly, those who made what were, no doubt, politically profitable but really very cheap sneers about these Regulations. The Regulations will not revolutionise the problem of poverty in this country, but no one who knows anything about this problem can deny that although they are modest, these provisions are a real step in the right direction towards helping to remove poverty, a cause which we all have at heart.
6.24 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sure that the country, if not this House, will be astonished to read some of the speeches which have been made from the Conservative benches. To me they seem anomalous, unrealistic and almost fantastically remote from the conditions of the poor. As I listened to them, I wondered what kind of constituents those speakers have. Are there no poor in their constituencies? Are there no old-age pensioners? Is there no rise in the cost of living? To listen to their speeches, one would think that that was the kind of fairyland in which they dwell.
Worse still, their speeches showed no realisation of the economic facts of life today. Indeed, they showed little human kindness and no indication that they know how the poor live To them a 2s. 6d. rise seems a generous sum. I wonder what they would do with 2s. 6d. Would they "blow" it in half an hour? Would it go in a small quantity of petrol, or a cigar, or a dinner in town? Half a crown to them is a very small sum, but the poor must eke it out as best they can.
The true picture was suggested by a remarkable phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), "Full employment can be maintained in a prison." That thought suggested to me that the poor are in a prison. They are in an economic and social prison, and we on this side want to release them from that prison into the comparative freedom of the Welfare State which is being nibbled and whittled away by the present Government.
A moment or two ago my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South spoke of the officials of the National Assistance Board. No officials of any board or any Government Department can do good in the exigencies of the situation in which we find ourselves unless we empower them to do so, and that is one reason why it is of the utmost importance that we should scrutinise these Regulations and the legislation related to them.
These Regulations have been put forward as a great improvement in the standard of life of the poor. They do not represent a great improvement in
2492
the standard of life of the poor. I regret to say that the Government, both in this House and in the country, have beaten the drum about this matter, no doubt in expectation of the General Election next year. But I warn them that they will not deceive old-age pensioners, any more than they have succeeded in deceiving either this House or the country by the boundary jerrymandering. That, of course, is not relevant, and I cannot discuss it, but it is an indication of the kind of General Electioneering spirit which seems to be getting into the veins of the Government not only in that sphere but in this.
It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary made a most unhappy and uninspiring speech in opening this debate. These Regulations follow other speeches which have been made in this House and outside. But there is a great contrast between their speeches in the country and their speeches in the House. The first are the speeches of Pecksniff and the others are the speeches of Scrooge. In the country the Government have spoken optimistically, hopefully and colourfully about the wonderful improvement which they will make in the lives of the poor. Their speeches were full of promises, of adjectives, of colour and of indications of better lives for the people, but in the House those speeches have been watered down. They have spoken in undertones, almost apologetic, because they know that in the House they have to stand up to criticism which they will not meet in the country.
This miserable rumbling is like the mountain in labour which brought forth a mouse. The ungenerous inadequacy of these Regulations is emphasised by the spectacular rise in the cost of living about which the people outside all know. The colourless and meagre character of these Regulations will not deceive the people. I warn the Government in their own interests, if I may offer a word of advice to them, that the poor people of the country realise the inadequacies of these Regulations because they are guided not by speeches, not by tenners, fivers or even pound notes, but by the stark facts of the poverty which stare them in the face.
They will ask, why are these increases so poor, so miserable and so meagre? Above all, they will ask, why are these

2493
increases to be postponed? Why must we wait until after Christmas? Why, when the sum is so small, roust it he postponed for months? That is the kind of question which the people will ask.
Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. and learned Member is criticising the Government for the inadequacy of the increases. Does he level his criticism at my right hon. Friend or at the National Assistance Board?
Mr. Hughes: That kind of tu quoque cuts no ice. We are dealing with the facts of the situation as we find them and it is not a fair criticism for any hon. Member to talk about other conditions and other circumstances. Let us deal with these regulations and not try to drag in matters which do not help forward the argument.
Let us consider a concrete case. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), who is apparently making merry about this very grave matter, read a letter to illustrate what the poor have to face. They have to face increased costs of food, rent, transport and clothes; all these have increased since the Government came into power. Dare anyone on the benches opposite say that the increases which are embodied in these Regulations are at all comparable with the increases in the cost of living since this Government came into power?
Mr. Browne Mr. Browne rose—
Mr. Hughes: I have given way to the hon. Member once and I must tell him this: I did not interrupt him in the course of his speech, or anybody else, and I have noticed that those who barrack others and who seek to interrupt others are those who make that their form of self-expression in the House. Interruption appears to be their form of self-expression. I have given way once to the hon. Member and I beg him not to try to carve up my few remarks by persistently jumping up like a jack-in-the-box. I apologise to him, because when I said "jack-in-the-box" I forgot that his Christian name is Jack, which is indeed a very good name. I hope that I have made amende honorable to the hon. Member.
Now to resume my interrupted argument: What is half-a-crown? It is 30 pieces of copper which, spread over seven days, amount to about 4d. a day. What
2494
is 4d. a day in these days? It is just the bus fare which an old-age pensioner would have to pay once a week in order to go to the pensions office where he will receive his pension.
This is all out of proportion, and I beg the House and the Government to look at these matters in the proper perspective and to realise the environment in which the poor and the old-age pensioners live today. They read in the papers of vast sums being spent on civic and municipal decorations. They learn of vast sums being spent on yachts to go either full or empty across the Atlantic. They learn of expensive trips abroad and various other large sums which come out of the national Exchequer. I do not decry these things, because they add colour and beauty to life, but they are part of the environment of life today and in which the old-age pensioners live. These are some of the things which the Government and hon. Members opposite should take into account when making their excuses and saying that the nation cannot afford to give the old-age pensioners more than they are given in these Regulations.
Someone has truly said that the old-age pensioners do not live on statistics. No; they live mainly on thin tea, which is getting thinner and more expensive every day. They live on bread, for which they find it difficult to get butter and often impossible to get jam. The Government have spent much time and effort on undermining the Welfare State, on de-nationalising industries. They might have laid that aside in order to do good for the old-age pensioners. It looks very much as though the Government are very improperly using the needs of the poor for electioneering purposes.
If this is a bait to catch the old-age pensioner's vote, I can tell the Government—I who know the old-age pensioners very well and who visit them in their clubs and meeting houses—that they are too intelligent to be caught by that kind of bait. I can tell the Government that they are underestimating the intelligence of the poor. They forget that the old-age pensioners are citizens who are very close to the facts of life. They forget that the old-age pensioners, although they may not be working now, were the workers and the wealth producers of yesterday. In my submission they are just as much entitled

2495
to fair access to the necessaries and, indeed, to the luxuries of life as when they were producing those things.
I beg the Government not to forget these things. I beg hon. Members opposite not to treat lightly the needs and the lives of the poor. The poor and the old-age pensioners work all their lives, they produce national wealth, they give their blood and tears and sweat. They have climbed to the summit of their lives and now, when facing the setting sun, I think it not right that they should be treated in this mean and ungenerous way.
Mean and ungenerous I say; when we look at the provisions of Regulation 2 (1, c) they are horrifying in their gradations and cynicism. Ages are set out basing a calculation as to how much a human being eats at a particular age. There is the age of 21 and over and they get so much, 18 to 21 get less, 16 to 18 less, 11 to 16 less, five to 11 still less and under five less still. The blind and the tuberculous are mentioned. It would be difficult to find anything more cynical in its gradation than Regulation 2 (1, c).
The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) made a clever and, in my view, thoroughly unrealistic speech, which I imagine he will find very difficult to explain to some who go to his meetings in Govan. He spent a considerable time saying that 2s. 6d. will be very welcome indeed. I suggest there is a great disparity between the value of 2s. 6d. to him and 2s. 6d. to the poor people of this country. He spent a great deal of time in raising mathematical difficulties of an ungenerous kind in order to show that the amount could not be greater.
He should remember that these poor people built big houses but do not live in them, have made fine clothes but do not wear them; produced luscious food which they cannot afford to buy and eat. They made great motor cars but do not own them nor drive in them.
I do ask hon. Members and the Government to realise the meanness and un-generosity of these Regulations and to look at this great nation and its circumstances in their true environment. I wanted to say a word in criticism of some of the other speeches made today. I have devoted my observations entirely to criticism because I think criticism is
2496
called for. I hope it is constructive criticism which will induce the Government to hang their heads in shame, take back these Regulations, sneak out and think again in order to introduce more generous regulations more fit for the circumstances in which the poor of today live.
6.44 p.m.
Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I do not claim any special knowledge in the field of National Assistance and pensions, a subject of which I know many hon. and right hon. Members have made a great study. My division, however, is an industrial one and I suppose I have as many problems of this nature to deal with as most hon. Members have.
My first comment is in connection with the Chairman of the National Assistance Board. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is not in his place. I think the statement he made concerning Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson was unjustified and certainly not in accord with the experience this House had of Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson. For very long he was an honoured Member of this House. I should like hon. Members opposite to understand that in Ilford, the North division of which he represented from 1935, he was highly esteemed and respected by all sections of the community, and earned the respect of his Labour opponents.
I have already mentioned that the town honoured him by making him a freeman of the borough. That is an honour not lightly bestowed, and Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson was the only Member of Parliament to whom such an honour has been given by the town of Ilford. I should like to feel that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have the same confidence in Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson to conduct himself as Chairman of the National Assistance Board with that impartiality which we on this side of the House always felt we could rely on the previous Chairman of the Board showing.
I wish to refer to a speech made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) when the National Assistance Act received its Third Reading in this House. In closing his speech, he said:
"I think it would be inappropriate to wish the National Assistance Board an active future. Our hope on this side of the House, …"

2497
that is, the Labour Government—
"and probably on all sides of the House, is that the extensions of insurance, and eventually a rising level of prosperity for all, will in the long run leave it with little to do. But, for some time to come it is likely to remain responsible for providing, in whole or in part, the maintenance of more than a million people, and we trust that in this Bill we have supplied the right statutory background to enable it to do its work in a way we should all expect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 715–6.]
I am not criticising that.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), whom I see in his place, stated on 24th November, 1947, that the purpose of the Bill was to take people out of Public Assistance. At another stage of the debate he said that the Labour Government intended to hold the cost of living steady at its then level of 31 per cent. above the figure for September, 1939. By 1951, when the right hon. Member and his Friends no longer had the authority for looking after the affairs of this country, the cost of living had risen to nearly 70 per cent. about that figure. I do not think that the Labour Government could claim that their intention of holding the cost of living steady at 31 per cent. above that figure was fulfilled.
Many speeches which we have heard today from hon. Members opposite were very different in tone from speeches made when they were on this side of the House. Many of the speeches to which we have listened tonight have been frankly electioneering. Here is a lemon which the Labour Party have said, "We will squeeze until even the pips give up their oil. Christmas is approaching, a time for sentimentality. We can get into the hearts of the old-age pensioners and make them feel that the Labour Party is looking after them."
I would remind hon. and right hon. Members opposite that during the time they were in power the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) was asked for several years if she would give a Christmas bonus to old-age pensioners, but she replied, "I have no power to do anything like that." When further pressed about the hardships of old-age pensioners, she said, on 12th March, 1951:
"any person in difficulties can apply to the National Assistance Board for supplementary help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1051.]
2498
That was typical of the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they were responsible for the affairs of this country, but who now are sitting in Opposition.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance gave precisely the same reply last week? Does he also regard him as cynical?
Squadron Leader Cooper: The point which I am making is that people in need can apply to the National Assistance Board for supplementation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the point."] We have always said that that should be so, and that is the purpose of National Assistance. Today, we have been hearing cries from the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) that we are whittling away the whole fabric of the social services.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I put the point quite simply to the hon. and gallant Member. He referred to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) about a Christmas or winter addition. The present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions only last week gave precisely the same reply about a Christmas or winter addition. Does the hon. and gallant Member still think that that was a cynical indifference to the needs of the old-age pensioners?
Squadron Leader Cooper: I do not criticise the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West for making that statement. What I am criticising, and why I criticise hon. and right hon. Members opposite, is that they said one thing when in office and something entirely different when they are in opposition.
There are, of course, some hon. and right hon. Members opposite who from time to time demonstrate to the world their proper feelings, and what they really think. The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), for example, writes a column in the "Sunday Pictorial," in which, on 7th November, 1954, he said:
"while prices, profits and wages all soared under the Labour Government, the standard of

2499
living of our people went down. They were cheated even of the modest slice of the national cake which they had been promised."
I do not know what the hon. Member for Coventry, East got for writing that, but he got a lot more for writing that article than the poor people got from the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) when he was Minister of Pensions.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Since the hon. and gallant Member has all these quotations, would he like to quote what he promised about the cost of living in his Election address?
Mr. Keenan: He has forgotten that.
Squadron Leader Cooper: No, I have not forgotten what I said in my Election address. I can go to the people of Ilford, South at the next General Election, and I can show that in the three years during which we have been responsible for the Government of the country the cost of living has risen by less than 10 per cent. I can also show that the right hon. Member for Llanelly said that the Labour Government would hold the cost of living at 31 per cent. above its former level but that in a similar period of three years he let it rise to nearly 80 per cent.
Mr. Griffiths: Has the hon. and gallant Member forgotten what he said himself? Did not he and his leaders in 1951 say that they would mend the hole in people's pockets, that they would stop the cost of living from rising and would not cut the food subsidies? Did they not promise us all those things?
Squadron Leader Cooper: The right hon. Member, who recently visited my constituency to open a Labour bazaar, no doubt found that occasion prosperous; but the Labour Party does not feel that it has much opportunity there, because it has recently dismissed its agent, but that is by the way.
So far as subsidies are concerned, I have always said in Ilford that I have been, and still am, opposed to food subsidies. I think that they are entirely the wrong way in which to help people. That is simply answering the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I have nothing to worry about in that direction at Ilford. Under the present Government, wages have risen faster than prices—that cannot be denied; all the statistics show it to be
2500
so. Neither can it be denied that under this Government, prosperity is higher than ever in the history of the country. We are building more houses, production is higher, far more food is being consumed—
Mr. Ross: Read the Regulations.
Mr. Speaker: I am a little doubtful as to what all this has to do with the Regulations. The hon. and gallant Member might use these points in a general argument upon the cost of living, but I do not know how the question of housing is relevant to the Regulations.
Mr. Griffiths: I thought that the hon. and gallant Member would quote from his 1951 Election address.
Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about that. We should keep to the Regulations as far as we can.
Squadron Leader Cooper: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that these facts had some bearing upon the Regulations, especially following the arguments put forward from the other side of the House that we are undermining the present system of social services, and that by virtue of our policy people are not able to buy all the things which they need. I am simply submitting arguments which, I hope, rebut the position taken up by the Labour Party.
Mr. Speaker: It was the reference to housing that brought me to my feet. I do not know that housing has much to do with these Regulations.
Squadron Leader Cooper: Even old people live in houses, Mr. Speaker, and we have built many more houses. By virtue of slum clearance schemes, we have done more in three years to provide for the old people and those in need than did the Labour Party when they were responsible for the country's affairs for six years. However, I will not pursue that point further.
We on this side of the House, in the manner in which we have looked after the old people, have nothing whatever of which to be ashamed. In fact, we have a record of which we can feel very proud indeed. I remind hon. Members opposite that the figures which we have before us are provided not by the Government, but by an independent, impartial body, the National Assistance Board. Surely,

2501
the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) knows that. Surely, he knows that the Minister cannot alter the Regulations; he can only send them back. The Regulations are produced having regard to all the facts.
Mr. Ness Edwards: All right, send them back.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman says that we should send the Regulations back.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Hear, hear.
Squadron Leader Cooper: If the right hon. Gentleman had been Minister, would he have sent the Regulations back?
Mr. Ness Edwards Mr. Ness Edwards indicated assent.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The question is purely academic. It is very easy for the right hon. Gentleman, with his tongue in his cheek, and without any sense of responsibility, to say that he would have sent them back. He knows perfectly well that had he been sitting on the Government Front Bench tonight, he would have been defending the Regulations in precisely the same way as my right hon. Friend is doing.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. William Keenan: There appears to have been quite a lot of misunderstanding of the Regulations. Hon. Members opposite, apparently, are not very clear about them. My complaint against the Regulations which are designed to give only 4s. to a married couple who are in receipt of National Assistance is that they are inadequate.
One of my hon. Friends has explained that we shall not vote against the Regulations because, if we did so, we should be accused of opposing this miserable amount by which the National Assistance scales are being increased. That is my only justification for not voting against them, and it explains the position of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side.
I believe that very soon the Minister will have to do something to make amends for the great blunder and mistake he is making. I am not prepared to agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) that the question is not one for the Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman is to let the Chairman and the National Asistance Board decide what
2502
is to be the position of the million people who are dependent upon the National Assistance Board, there is something wrong with the Minister, because his is the responsibility.
I do not share the point of view expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ilford, South. I agree with some of the criticism of the Chairman of the National Assistance Board made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I remember the attitude of Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson when he was in this House. He was a nice chap, he was never offensive to anybody, but his political outlook and the manner in which he acted here did not fit him for that position.
The Minister must accept the responsibility for these changes. There is a difference between what is being done under these Regulations and what was done a week ago for the other pensioners, some of whom are affected by these increases. They are getting 11s. for a couple—7s. 6d. and 3s. 6d.—whereas the scale for the poorest section of our community is to be 2s. 6d. for a single person and 4s. for a couple.
One thing that worries me is that the Minister is repeating the mistakes which have been made so often before. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will remember my criticism of the scale of National Assistance which we are now altering, which was that a couple were 5s. better off than those receiving contributory pensions. That created enormous difficulties and, if I may offer the Minister advice, I would urge him to make the scales the same, as that would create less confusion. As it is, the Minister will have the same difficulty as there was three or four years ago when the new scale of National Assistance came into being more than two months before the others. There were then half a million who asked for National Assistance, but now there are considerably more contributory pensioners who do so. When the scales of the contributory pensions were increased, with an adjustment of National Assistance, many of those people thought wrongly that they were robbed of 6s. 6d. because of the way the scales were adjusted. That is why the scales should rise together.
What will happen now? On some date in February there will be an increase of 4s. for a couple and 2s. 6d. for a single

2503
person living alone. That is not very generous, although it is true that a rent allowance can be given in addition to the 35s. or 37s. 6d. The majority of those applying for National Assistance are either receiving National Health Insurance or unemployment benefit or they are contributory pensioners receiving a rent allowance. They will all be re-assessed in April and many of them will get no advance then.
The present scale of National Assistance is 59s. for a couple whereas the contributory pension is 54s. This means that for the last three years the National Assistance scale, which is applied to everyone who can prove need, has been 5s. better than the contributory pension, the unemployment benefit or the National Health Insurance rate. Now, the Minister is stupidly, if not maliciously, altering the scale for National Assistance so that, instead of being 5s. more, it will be 2s. less, which is a difference of 7s. comparing like with like.
Mr. Browne: I follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but the difficulty is that everyone drawing National Assistance does not draw the scale but draws an average of 14s. more in supplement, so that the basic National Assistance scale does not affect the issue.
Mr. Keenan: Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not know that if a person receiving a contributory pension or National Health Insurance in any form goes to the National Assistance Board, he immediately gets the National Assistance scale applied.
Mr. Browne: Plus rent.
Mr. Keenan: Yes, but in April, when the full effect of the two changes is in operation, he will have applied to him a scale which will be 2s. less than the present one; whereas it is now 5s. more, it will be 2s. less, which is a difference of 7s.
We all feel aggrieved about this deplorable thing, and the Minister must look at it again. If he does not do so, the confusion will continue. I shall not cover the background, as that has already been done by other speakers. We are dealing here with the poorer section of our community and we are not availing ourselves of the opportunity of helping them because the 4s. contained in these Regulations is ridiculous.
2504
The Minister has suggested that the Government have been generous and considerate and have recognised the increase in the cost of living—for which, however, they continue to deny that they are responsible. The fact remains that since 1952, when there was an increase in the National Assistance scales, as well as in the National Health scales, the party opposite have been in power and prices have gone up. So, since the justification for these increases is the rise in the cost of living, the Government cannot deny their responsibility.
This 4s. is totally inadequate to meet the need of the class of persons we are considering today. Their present standard of living is not very generous, so no one living on National Assistance is having a good time. Indeed, these people have to go without many things which we would consider necessities.
With all due respect to the Chairman of the Board, during the last couple of years I have observed a tightening up in the National Assistance administration. I am prepared to pay tribute, generally speaking, to the different situation today compared with what it was when I was concerned with Public Assistance and the old Boards of Guardians; but there has definitely been a tightening up. I certainly pay tribute to the different atmosphere these days, but I still have to complain about some people employed by the Board because of their manner when interviewing people. I have had to make representations because of that in recent months, and so there is still something to be done.
The Minister ought to take note of what has been said today and should consider what the changed scales will actually mean. The Government are not being as generous as they ought to be to the most deserving in the community. The Minister ought to be able to recognise as easily as we do that the 4s. is inadequate, and he should be prepared in a month or two's time to make the increase comparable to that in the case of the pensions.
7.11 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I agree with a lot that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) has said. I want to make one or two remarks in the context of what the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said in

2505
his broadcast at the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government could do something really substantial now, because, among other things, they had been uncommonly successful in restoring national solvency and increasing national prosperity. The implication was that, because the nation was doing so very well, much could be done for the very poor people about whom we are now talking.
I take that remark by the Minister and couple it with the remark made earlier by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne). Let me make it clear here and now that I will not give way to the hon. Member. He has already made half a dozen speeches in the form of interventions. He said he was satisfied that we had now provided a level of subsistence for people on National Assistance, and when he was asked to define what he meant by "subsistence," he replied "sufficient to keep body and soul together."
Therefore, what the Government are, in effect, telling the country now is that, largely due to the Government's policy, we have enormous prosperity and are able to keep the bodies and souls of 1¼ million people together, and that we ought to be very happy about it.
Mr. J. N. Browne: Quite wrong.
Mr. Hamilton: We have roughly 2½ million people on National Assistance. I do not think that anyone in the country can be satisfied while one in 20 of the population is subject to a means test in the year 1954.
In another place some time ago, Lord Beveridge remarked that at the outset of the National Insurance Scheme there were about 500,000 people on public assistance. That was about one in 100. If we accept that the position today is one in 20, it means a five-fold increase in the number of people on National Assistance since the introduction of this Scheme. There has been a steady increase in the number of people seeking National Assistance over the years. The biggest increase was in 1952, when more than 200,000 additional persons applied, and that surely indicates the inadequacy of the scale. Whatever the solution may be, none of us can be complacent about this state of affairs.
2506
The Minister supplied me with some figures in answer to a Question on 8th December. I asked for the total number of pensioners in certain years since the end of the war, and for the total amount paid to them in the form of pensions and in the form of National Assistance. The figures were startling, showing certain things about which we cannot help feeling disturbed.
In 1949, the first full year of operation of the Act, the proportion of the income of pensioners represented by National Assistance was roughly 5·8 per cent. The figure has increased steadily year after year. In 1950 it was 7·7; in 1951, 8·3; in 1952, 9·9; and in 1953, 10·6. Consequently, the proportion of the income of old people derived purely from National Assistance, and, therefore, based on a means test, is continually rising.
An important factor in this connection is the rise in the cost of living. The Government cannot escape responsibility for it, and I would point out that there were adverse conditions in the world market when the Labour Government were in office, whereas the terms of trade have been in favour of the Conservative Government. On that score, the defence of the Labour Government is much sounder than that of the Conservative Government.
I asked the Minister, at Question Time today, whether, if the cost of living rose between now and when the increases come into effect in April, he would introduce amending legislation to take account of that fact. This seems to me to strike at the very root of the problem that we are considering. It is no use seeking a solution to the problem merely by giving 2s. 6d. here, 4s. there, and an add 1s. or so elsewhere, if we are not prepared to adopt policies to stabilise or reduce the cost of living.
It is not much good putting 2s. 6d. into the pockets of an old-age pensioner if he finds that he has to pay an extra 3s. for his tea during the week. It must be remembered that food prices play a much more prominent part in the budgets of the old-age pensioners than in those of other people.
The hon. Member for Govan talked about rents. We ought not to drag the subject of rent increases into the debate, but it is relevant to our argument. The

2507
Government have already introduced two Measures, one of which will increase the rents of council house tenants by reducing subsidies, and the other will affect those who do not happen to live in council houses.
I appreciate that the argument from the other side of House is that if the rents of those who are on National Assistance rise, the increase will be met by National Assistance. The other people will get the full increase in the pension, 7s. 6d. in the case of a single person and 11s. for a couple, but they will have to pay the rent increase. In either case the rent increases will have the effect of reducing the standard of living of those concerned.
Earlier this afternoon the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the National Assistance scales would come into effect in Ferbruary; and, therefore, those who were in the greatest need would receive help first. But what are they to do between now and February? Would the Minister be prepared to live on the National Assistance scales on which some of these people will have to endure for the next two months? That is the simple test. The hon. Member for Govan talked about keeping body and soul together. I would love to put him on these National Assistance scales for a year. I doubt if he would survive. There would be a by-election in Govan long before that.
I wish to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale about the dangerous psychological effect of giving something to people in February and taking it away again at the end of April. I know it can be said that that is as it has always been, but that is no reason for continuing the practice. While this Scheme is evolving we are discovering mistakes and anomalies of one kind or another, and it is time that that anomaly was remedied. The only solution is to make the increases in National Assistance and the increases in National Insurance at the same time.
Mr. J. N. Browne: And make the people wait?
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Govan sits there muttering—
Mr. Browne: Well, the hon. Member will not let me ask a question.
Dr. H. Morgan: Get up and say what you have to say.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Govan has already made about a dozen interruptions, apart from the silly little speech which he made, and I do not think that we ought to tolerate his muttering while he is sitting down.
I was referring to the psychological effect of giving these people an increase in February and taking it away in April—
Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me—
Mr. Hamilton: Not at all.
I put this point seriously to the Minister. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) spoke about the disregards. It will be admitted that there has been a considerable change in the cost of living and in the purchasing power of money since the end of the war. Yet there has been no substantial change in the disregards. I wonder if the Minister would consider making representations to the National Assistance Board to examine these disregards to see if it can take that factor into account when framing these Regulations?
It has been pointed out to the Minister that hon. Members on this side of the House will not divide the House on the question of these scales, for the simple reason that we are conscious of the way in which such an action can be distorted by the Government and by the Conservative Press. We never oppose an increase, but we believe that these increases are completely inadequate. For anyone to suggest, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Govan, that we should be satisfied to keep body and soul together in this year of grace 1954 is a reflection on the Tory Party and the Tory Government.
7.23 p.m.
Mr. Tom Brown: Whatever may be said subsequently in this debate, one thing which has already been stated is unchallengeable and undeniable—it was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards)—that these Regulations will affect the poorest of the poor. To whom do these Regulations apply? It is well that we should examine the situation and discover who

2509
are the recipients of this so-called boundless generosity on the part of the Government.
Altogether there are six categories. The supplementation of the non-contributory old-age pensions is one section, and they amount to 143,521. The retirement pensions or contributory old-age pensions total 948,893; the widow's or widowed mother's allowance, or widow's pension, 91,370; sickness benefit, 105,190; industrial injury or disablement benefit, 1,688; those in receipt of unemployment benefit and forced to go to the National Assistance Board, 23,120. I mention these figures to show that it is the poorest of the poor on whose behalf we are pleading.
I am not implying that the Government are unsympathetic to these people. I have discovered that the administration is sympathetically inclined. But when I go round to the various area offices in my constituency, as I do from time to time, I discover that many of the officers, whom we call investigating officers, would do infinitely more than they are doing now if the Regulations permitted. That is one of the facts which I wish to emphasise to the Minister. These officers have to work rigidly to the Regulations, and time and again they have told me that some of the cases with which they have to deal are so tragic that they wish they could do more. I do not condemn either the Chairman or the Board but I wish to put a definite question to the Minister, which he in turn may wish to put to the Chairman of the Assistance Board; or the right hon. Gentleman may even be able to answer it during this debate.
Within the last 12 months there has been a tightening up in the application of the Regulations. There is not so much generosity over what we call "rounding off"—the Minister knows what I mean—the twopences and threepences in borderline cases. Is it true that a private or confidential circular was sent out by the Assistance Board, or possibly by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, telling area officers and investigating officers what to do and how to do it?
That is a very pointed question I am putting to the Minister. If that is not so, I shall be delighted. But if I am correct I think he ought to tell the truth to hon. Members and to the people who have to look after these cases. Then we shall
2510
know exactly where we stand and who is responsible. I know that different people make different approaches. Our make-up and temperaments are different. But I am as convinced now as I was many weeks ago that something is creating a different atmosphere and that the approach now is different from a few years ago. I know that the Minister cannot be blamed for that, and I am not blaming him. But if such a circular has been sent out, he bears the responsibility.
We have never really faced up to the question of supplementation and subsistence. We must adopt what I described last week as a realistic approach to the problem. There has been too much guesswork about the proper rates of supplementary assistance. Since 1948 there have been four increases. First, the figure stood at 24s. Then another 2s. was added, and then 4s., making a total of 30s. Then it rose to 35s., and it is now 37s. 6d. What is the basis upon which these allowances are calculated? Is a scientific or an economic approach made to the problem? I should like to know how the latest increase of 2s. 6d. was arrived at. Is it just guesswork or a case of saying that the people will be satisfied with 2s. 6d. because of the increase in the basis pension? Public conscience must be awakened to the fact that this or some other Government will have to approach the question of supplementation from a realistic point of view.
In the case of disregards, I want to ask the National Assistance Board, through the medium of Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, why the disregards have been disregarded. The disregards allowed under the National Assistance scales since 1948 have never been changed. Last week we were concerned with improving disability pensions and the rates for compensation for loss of faculties, and many increases were agreed upon in the Measure that was then passed. But when these people receive their increases, they will be worse off because of the fact that the disregards have remained unchanged.
I want to get these figures on the record because we shall have to consider them at a subsequent date. At the moment, the disregards are limited to 20s., as they were in 1948. In the case of sick pay from friendly societies or trade

2511
unions, the first 10s. 6d. a week is disregarded. In the case of workmen's compensation, disability pensions, disablement benefits, civilian injury benefits and maternity allowances, the first 20s. is disregarded. The rates of these benefits have been increased. Is there to be no change in the disregards? It will be manifestly unfair if we increase these rates of benefit but do not change the disregards, especially those concerning injured workmen. I know that there are not very many, but whether there be one or one million, the injured workmen and the poor people should be treated with justice, humanity and honesty. I hope that the Minister will ask the National Assistance Board to apply its mind to the question of raising these disregards.
A great deal of play has been made about lifting this subject out of the realm of politics, but every time we talk about lifting a great human problem out of the realm of politics we seem to go further into it. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), who is always sympathetically inclined towards the old people, said that he wished he could keep politics out of it. I wonder whether he read or heard the speech the Minister made on the wireless on Saturday night. The Minister did not attempt to lift the subject out of politics. He thrust it further into the political arena. This always was and always will be a great human problem, and it ought to be approached with sympathy, understanding and generosity.
These Regulations are not adequate for the section of the community they are designed to help. I do not know why on this occasion the increases are 2s. 6d. or 5s. less than they were before. Previously, the increases went beyond the basic rate. On this occasion they are below it. There must be some reason for that.
The question of timing is also a very disturbing one. The Government are increasing the supplementary pensions or allowances on 7th February, and the basic Pension rates on 25th April. Everybody who goes to the National Assistance Board has to prove that he is in dire need before he gets the brass, as they say in Lancashire. I wonder if the Minister appreciates what will be the psychological effect upon these people when they get
2512
the increase of 4s. and 2s. 6d. on 7th February and then, when the basic pension is increased On 25th April, the allowance which they have already cherished for a few weeks is reduced? Is that fair, honest or straight-forward to the poorest of the poor?
There should be an entirely different conception of the needs of the poor. Hitherto they have been denied elementary justice; they have been satisfied with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. We are now told that everything is flourishing and prospering; that the standard of living has gone up, and that everybody is able to buy what he needs and put away a bit for a rainy day. But these poor people are denied the ordinary amenities and comforts of life.
If the Minister were to examine a recent survey which was made by a very eminent society connected with Oxford University he would find that the rates now before the House, generous and magnificent as he and the Government think they are, fall at least 7d. below what the survey has decided is sufficient to keep body and soul together. Have we reached that stage in this country when we are advancing the argument that these people have sufficient to keep body and soul together? Surely we have travelled a long way from that? Surely these people ought to enjoy a few amenities of life, and who is the Minister that he should deny them? I am reminded of the quotation from the old Book, which is not as often quoted here as it should be—
"Woe unto them that lay field unto field, till there be no place,"
and I would add—
"Woe unto them that grind the faces of the poor for the yellow dust they called gold."
That is what the Government are putting forward in order to save something. At whose expense? At the expense of those people who have given their best to industry, commerce and in the vocations in Which their lot had fallen. I repeat with emphasis what I have said before. To me, life is a wonderful thing. It is wonderful to live, to stand on this fair earth beneath the radiant heaven, possessed of life, with its great possibilities and with its lofty ideals. Every man who has served his day and generation, whatever his calling may be, should have an opportunity of attaining the best attainable life—both for the human body

2513
and the human spirit—but men and women cannot attain that life to which they are entitled on the miserable amount contained in these regulations.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. Will Owen: The issue before the House was clearly set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), and the House should, at this stage, note the emphasis which he placed upon the change in the Regulations that are now being debated. It has been repeated several times in the course of this debate that these Regulations impose an additional burden upon the poorest of the poor.
We want to draw the attention of the Minister to the nature of these Regulations, not wholly upon humanitarian grounds, but on the basis of the contrast between the general prevailing economic circumstances in Britain today and the position of this section of the community, numbering about 2¼ million people, who are unable to share this assumed prosperity with other members of the community. The question repeatedly arises as to why it is that, in the second half of the 20th Century, we have to make this appeal to those who have power to use the power they possess in order that they may share the affluence of a prosperous age with a section of the community unable to assist themselves.
I know that some hon. Members can recall the appeals made in this House in days gone by, when the urge was to challenge the limitations of the old Poor Law, and when we were asking that these limitations should be removed and that humanity should be permitted to share in the general march of social progress. Happily the harshness of the old Poor Law is gone, and the contribution made by the Labour Party, when in power, was mainly responsible for the changes that have been brought about.
It seems to me that the Regulations now before us well justify the appeal made by hon. Members from this side of the House to the Minister concerned to reconsider the proposals he has made, in the interests of the people concerned. The evidence submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) can be supplemented, I suggest, almost indefinitely from the experience of hon. Members
2514
representing other constituencies throughout the land. In my own humble experience, I have learned that, in contact with people in my own constituency, one is faced with a challenging appeal made in simple terms, suggesting that these people are not able to meet the requirements of the means of life in these days because of the limitation of their income in relation to prevailing prices.
Is it wrong that we should ask that, in the light of the prosperity prevailing throughout Britain today, these people should be given a little more consideration? Is it wrong that we should ask that, in the light of the increased cost of living, these people should receive some further consideration? Surely no one today honestly contends that a Measure which increases assistance payment by between 2s. 6d. and 4s. can be claimed to be adequate to meet the requirements of these days, especially—and I hope hon. Members opposite will bear this in mind—as we are discussing this matter almost on Christmas Eve, with the knowledge at the hack of our minds of the message which that festive occasion recalls.
I want to remind the House of the appeal which I made in my maiden speech a few weeks ago—an appeal that the Minister would apply some degree of humanitarianism in the framing of this Measure so that some additional encouragement and hope could be given to these people before Christmas Day this year. I am sadly disappointed, and I know that many people in my constituency will be disappointed. I know that there are 2¼ million people in receipt of assistance who will be disappointed. This is a matter which should at least have melted the heart of the Minister and caused him to do something of substance, something much more effective than what he has now submitted to the House.
One further point. We find that the Regulations now submitted are to be applied initially in February next year. The increase then granted will create a degree of pleasure in the homes of those receiving it, but when April comes, and the consequent reduction in the National Assistance contribution is made, these people will feel very aggrieved and hurt.
I believe that in the not too distant future the House will have to review the

2515
whole question of assistance, grants and pension rates. I am firmly of the opinion that it is only by the application of the broad humanitarian principle of meeting the needs of those unable to help themselves in a manner that places the basic rate at a figure that will meet the requirements of life, that we shall avoid this constant machinery of supplementation, with all its anxiety and potential hardship.
I do not complain about those who administer the law. The officers in the various localities who carry out the statutes determined by Parliament do so, I believe, with the maximum of humanitarian motive and interest. Unfortunately, they all too frequently come up against the harsh limitations of the law. The purpose of our appeal tonight is the removal of the harshness of that administration by ensuring a degree of flexibility in the law itself.
I hope that the appeal made by my right hon. Friend, an appeal which must have aroused some degree of emotion and interest among those concerned with this problem, will be taken to heart. While recognising the limitations of the Regulations now before us, is it too late to improve what is now proposed in order that between this date and February, the most harsh and difficult part of the year, the needs of the people affected can to some extent be met?
7.53 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: One of my most outstanding impressions of the debate so far has been the suggestion of lightheartedness and offhandedness on the part of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in submitting these Regulations to the House. I should have thought that in dealing with a matter of such importance to so many people there might have been an attempt to justify the actual scales.
Having regard to the fact that everyone in the country is concerned about the cost of living—and particularly at this time of the year—one would have thought that in announcing that among the poorest section of the community a single person was to receive 37s. 6d. a week, and a married couple 63s. a week, the Minister would have tried to relate those figures to actuality. But never a word did we
2516
hear from him regarding the basis of those scales.
However, it has been a grand debate. We have had two beautiful speeches from two diehard Tories. The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) told us that we on this side of the House were only interested in this matter because we were electioneering and because Christmas was the time of sentimentality. Some people used to think that we in Scotland did not look forward with any great seriousness to Christmas, but I should be very surprised if one Englishman in a hundred would agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's definition of Christmas. I should have thought that there ought to be some element of Christianity towards both Christmas and this problem.
Let us leave the Englishman and go to the pseudo-Englishman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne). It is enough to make the shades of old Neil Maclean haunt this House to be told that it was only right that these people should be kept down to just enough to keep body and soul together Those were the hon. Gentleman's own words.
When, last week, we increased the National Insurance retirement pensions, we gave to the people concerned a share of the increased national prosperity. We are not doing that in this case. What we are giving them is just enough to keep body and soul together. I wonder what kind of a body and what kind of a soul they are going to have on these rates.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Govan—I gather that he is not a Scotsman, although he represents a Scottish constituency—will be attending some Burns' suppers around 25th January. If he does, I hope that he will address himself to some words that Robert Burns put into the mouth of Beelzebub when he wrote of the treatment given to certain Highlanders by a Highland marquess, words very much in line with the old Tory Party attitude towards the poor. They were:
"They an' be d—d! what right hae they
To meat or sleep, or light o' day!
Far less to riches, pow'r, or freedom,
But what your lordship likes to gie them?"
What is the justification for these scales? I think it is to be found in the past speeches of the Minister himself. Throughout the past year the right hon.

2517
Gentleman has shown concern about the growing number of people on National Assistance. He told us on Saturday night how their numbers had doubled during certain selected years, and he spoke about the failure of the Labour Government to cope with the situation. Let us look at what has happened since 1951 to the number of people on National Assistance. In June, 1951, there were 1,390,000 in receipt of National Assistance. By June, 1953, the number had gone up to 1,698,000, an increase of over 300,000, and by June, 1954, there were 1,768,000 cases, a further increase of 69,000. The figure has changed little since then.
Since this Government have been in power, the number of actual cases of people on National Assistance—not the actual number of people dependent on it—has risen by over 370,000. More than a third of a million more people in this country are so poor in these days of wonderful Tory prosperity that they have to go on to National Assistance in order to keep body and soul together.
Now and again we hear about the proud achievements of the great geniuses that line the benches opposite. The criterion of poverty in the country is National Assistance. The number of people getting National Assistance is now more than it has ever been in the history of that institution.
Mr. Gower: Is not the hon. Gentleman a little less than fair? Does he not concede that the rate of increase recently in the number of people on Assistance has been less than at any time?
Mr. Ross: I am not talking about the rate of increase but about the actual number of people on Assistance.
The hon. Member and his party were going to stop all this. When climbing a mountain one does not climb the last bit at the same rate as the first bit. This is one of the great achievements of the Tory Party; they have managed to keep on going up and up. There is a greater number of people on National Assistance. This fact has been vexing the Minister. We are told that the scales have nothing to do with the Minister but are the concern of the National Assistance Board. Has the Treasury no interest in the millions of pounds that are being spent in this way?
2518
What is happening about these Regulations is not unrelated to what has happened over the National Insurance rate of benefit. The Treasury was prepared to accept the pensions proposal, which looked so generous, but which comes from the contributions of the workers and employers, provided that the National Assistance scales were below those of National Insurance. Remember that the present Minister lifted the assistance scales above the insurance scales. He put them 2s. 6d. above; now they are 2s. 6d. below. The result will eventually be a considerable saving on National Assistance.
Taking National Insurance with National Assistance, as one of my hon. Friends has so admirably demonstrated, we see that the Government's great contribution to what was hailed by the Minister as a great measure of social reform is £9 million. I cannot see any change at all; indeed, we were told that there was no change. These scales are in no way related to the cost of living, to subsistence or to anything other than the cost to the Treasury. The inadequate assistance scales have to be below the insurance scales, so that inevitably a number of people will find themselves without supplementary pensions, and the number of people on National Assistance will fall.
We are wrong in talking about a pensions scale. I have taken the figures for 30th September. They show that the total number of cases on National Assistance is 1,764,000. It is broken up in this way: supplements to retirement pensions, 983,000—in Scotland the figure is about 78,000 pensioners out of 480,000 pensioners—and about one in five old-age pensioners getting a supplement to sickness benefit—113,000.
The people on National Assistance are not all old. There are some whose sickness benefit is inadequate. They are generally young, and are sometimes men with families. They are expected to live on rates like 37s. 6d. for a single man and £3 3s. for a couple. At a time of sickness, a man needs more and not less than he gets when employed. The whole thing is crazy. There are 93,000 widows, many of them the 10s. widows for whom we pleaded last week. There are 24,000 unemployed, 321,000 non-contributory old-age pensioners, and supplements numbering 158,000. Included in the people dependent upon these scales in Britain

2519
are 46,000 blind people. They are getting another 1s. on the differential. Their increase will be 4s. 6d.
Relating them to all that has happened since 1952, it is little wonder that the right hon. Gentleman has never sought to justify these scales in any comparison with reality. The cost of living has gone up since January, 1952, by more than 8 per cent. Why should we take the cost-of-living index, which relates to about 250 different items? The people living at the National Assistance level, and who are keeping body and soul together, are not buying those 250 items.
About 70 per cent. of what they spend goes on food. Take sugar, margarine, butter, and tea. The price of food has risen nearly 18 per cent., but tea and sugar prices alone have risen by nearer 50 per cent. than 40 per cent. These are the actual things to which we ought to relate the question of National Assistance.
I do not think the Minister will get as many people off National Assistance by these scales as he hopes to do. A pensioner who came to see me recently, and who does not draw a supplementary pension, showed me his rent book to prove that his rent is going up by £6 8s. a year as the result of the Repairs and Rent (Scotland) Act. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows something about that. That is a very pleasant gift for old-age pensioners living in tenements in Kilmarnock.
This man will pay an extra £6 8s. for two rooms and a kitchen without bathroom. It means that old-age pensioners and other people who are similarly placed will be forced to apply for National Assistance. That is a considerable achievement by this Government. I am surprised that at this time of the year the Government have proclaimed this achievement as a triumph of generosity. There is no generosity in it at all. Fundamentally, it is one of the meanest things the Government have ever done. The hon. Member for Govan was down on his knees on behalf of the poor people in the Govan tenements who were particularly hard hit.
I trust that on this side of the House we have a better appreciation of the hopes, aspirations, needs, and just rights of the ordinary people in our country. We know about these matters because
2520
we were brought up among the ordinary people. I can remember 1918–20, when my father was on a parish council, and when it was the victory to get 6d. for a man. It was as grudgingly given as is this 2s. 6d. today.
We have to accept this slight increase. It is not enough. I hope that the day will not be far distant when we shall be able to give decent social justice. It will be real social reform and not piece-by-piece amelioration. It will be real social reform for the people of this country.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was less than fair in many parts of his speech, though with some parts of it I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will be in agreement. The hon. Member tended to over-simplify what is now before the House.
I welcome these Regulations because they are in the right direction, but I cannot on the face of it—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—quite understand how these particular amounts were assessed. It is very strange for the hon. Member to slate the Minister when he himself now refers to things like increased expenses at Christmas time. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred also to increased rents. I can well recall—and it is quite as legitimate for me to refer to this as it is for him to refer to that—that three or four years ago the cost of living was certainly not stationary. I can recall that it was common at that time to read in the daily Press of a certain council putting up its rent. Indeed, it happened quite often and regularly in South Wales.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: Often and regularly?
Mr. Gower: Quite often and regularly in different areas.
I can recall no special grant being made at that time to those particular people who did not qualify for a rent allowance. Similarly, I recall many times when no particular concession by the way of a lump sum payment was made to enable people to live more generously at Christmas.
Mr. Ross: When I spoke of rents, I spoke about an Act of Parliament which was passed in this House, after being

2521
introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland and voted for by the hon. Gentleman himself. We never voted in regard to local councils in Wales.
Mr. Gower: If rents were put up by a local council, I assume that it was done under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Rent increases have been applied to council houses just as they have been to private dwellings. A lot of these people with whom we are now concerned live in council houses and were repeatedy affected by such increases after the war. To make a political point of this character is quite unjustified.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock attacks my hon. Friend, but, whether the hon. Member likes it or not, these increases—and, like him, I cannot understand how they are assessed—have been assessed by an independent body which was instituted in its present form by the hon. Member's own Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said that he was not attacking the National Assistance Board administration. He gave several examples by way of tribute to its work, but he was attacking the recommendations of the Board, and so was the hon. Member.
Hon. Members opposite do not attack the bodies, they do not attack the Boundary Commissioners or the National Assistance Board, but in each case attack the recommendations of the independent bodies which they, themselves, set up. One party sets up a body—whether the Boundary Commission or a National Assistance Board. The other party then takes office, and, having taken office, honourably prepares to observe the conditions laid down and to abide by the recommendations of these impartial bodies. Then, for some reason, the Opposition—
Mr. Ness Edwards: I wonder if the hon. Member does not realise that the recommendations have to come here in the form of draft Regulations to receive consideration by the House. We are not committed to accepting them. But the main criticism is that the Government did not disclose to the Assistance Board the increases taking place in insurance benefits. Had the Assistance Board realised that that was the Government's assessment of the share of the increased
2522
productivity that should go to the old people, it is quite likely that the Assistance Board would have put forward entirely different recommendations.
Mr. Gower: That is a legitimate statement, and rather different from what we heard at the beginning of this debate. It is, at least in this case, the recommendation of this particular body.
I am not sure how these particular scales are arrived at. I should like to know more about it because, on the face of it, it does seem that now there is a case for a rather larger increase. [Interruption.] I said "on the face of it"—but it is not for hon. Gentlemen opposite to attack my hon. Friend violently—
Mr. Manuel: Why not?
Mr. Gower: It is not for hon. Members opposite to attack him violently, because he has tendered the considered recommendations of a body which should know more about the matter than we do. We must remember that, whether we like it or not, just as the Boundary Commissioners know more about the actual state of the constituencies than we do, having made a special study of the problem, so, similarly, I would assume that the Chairman and officers of the National Assistance Board really know more about the detailed needs of the people than we do. [Interruption.] But I admit that their recommendations are somewhat at conflict with what the hon. Member feels and what I myself feel. I should like to know more about how these scales are assessed.
Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is bringing forward the most curious argument that, because these recommendations have been submitted, it is the duty of the Government to sponsor them. That is quite wrong. He will realise that that is so immediately I say that if the Royal Commission on Wales had recommended home rule for Wales he would have voted against it, and so would his own Front Bench.
Mr. Gower: I merely submit that we should not lightly turn aside the recommendations of a body which should have more detailed knowledge than we have.
I am trying to be fair about this. There is a case in the near future for some special index for these old people. While we can obtain very valuable information

2523
about the general standard of living and the cost of living, there may be a case for collating information in greater detail than we possess at present about the peculiar needs of people in advanced age, and people who are in receipt of assistance in supplementation of their pensions.
I should like my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to address himself to the problem of how special nourishment allowances and allowances of that sort are assessed. There is a case for a more generous assessment in regard to some of these special allowances. In some cases I have found that the Board has been very good, but I have had other cases where the assessment has been less than generous.
Another thing which I have not been quite able to solve is how it is that, in some cases, the Board has been prepared to pay for, say, a pair of shoes or some necessary clothing, yet in other cases have merely referred the applicant to an organisation such as the W.V.S. Why is there this difference between two applicants?
Mr. Ness Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us from his own experience whether the Assistance Board in his own constituency has really done this?
Mr. Gower: Either in or out of my constituency I have learned a good deal about this. I have had a case in my own constituency where a flat payment of, say, £2 has been allowed for the purchase of a pair of shoes.
Mrs. Alice Cullen: They are expected to last for four years.
Mr. Gower: At the time the payment was authorised there was no such condition that the shoes were expected to last for any specified time. My constituent merely established his need for a pair of shoes and the payment was then authorised. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly, I believe that I have had in my own constituency one case where a person has been referred to a voluntary organisation for some clothing; and there have been references in the debate to that sort of thing happening in Scotland.
Mr. James McInnes: Not in Scotland but in Acton. I should like the hon. Gentleman to be a
2524
little more specific on the point which he is making with regard to the Assistance Board directing people to other charitable organisations. I rather imagined from his observations that this sort of thing existed on a wholesale scale. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the W.V.S. in particular, and I gathered that other organisations were involved as well.
Mr. Gower: No. I think I recall how that arose. It was said by an hon. Member today that a person had been referred to the W.V.S. That was expressly stated. I personally have only had cases in which payments have been authorised for the purchase of clothing. Reference was made to that particular point earlier in the debate.
Mr. McInnes: I must pursue this point. I think the House will agree that the hon. Member indicated specifically that he had an example in his own division.
Mr. Gower: Yes, I believe I have had one in my own division, but I am certain, too, that the matter has been referred to here today. Generally, the cases in my own constituency had been cases of payments.
Be that as it may, I should like my hon. Friend to consider whether in many cases this question of these special allowances could be approached more generously. I have referred to payments for shoes, and sometimes there are payments to meet outstanding bills. Some of these cases are the most hard of all. These are the people in the most desperate need; otherwise these payments would not be authorised. There is scope here for a full debate in the near future on the administration of the work of the Board.
Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman seems to be attacking the Board pretty violently.
Mr. Gower: I am certainly not attacking it, but it would be better perhaps if in future we could confer greater powers on the Board, because at present it is obviously limited in what it can do. I am certainly not attacking it. I think it does all that it is able to do, but we should consider whether we can increase its powers.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not think the powers of the Board arise on these Regulations.
Mr. Gower: Generally, I am somewhat in sympathy with some more moderate criticisms of these amounts; I should like to know more about how these figures are arrived at. But it is not for hon. Members opposite to try to combine this matter with pensions, and attack the policy of the Government for that reason.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Why not?
Mr. Gower: For this reason. Assume that the National Assistance Board had authorised an increase in payments of 6s. for a married couple and 4s. for a single person. The right hon. Gentleman would still say that this is bogus because at a certain date these people will find that the increase will be revoked in April.
Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is surely making a bad point here. All that would happen would be that if the 6s. increase were given in the scale, any subsequent increase in the benefit would have no value.
Mr. Gower: Precisely. Even if this increase were exactly equal to the amount of increase in the National Insurance pension, the person in receipt of National Assistance would still feel aggrieved on a certain date in April, because he would find that his pension would be reduced by the amount by which his National Assistance had been increased in February. He would wonder why he had been placed in this position, while the man next door who was not in receipt of National Assistance had received a flat increase in pension. That is the inevitable result of these two schemes.
Rev. Llywelyn Williams: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the present National Assistance scales are higher than the basic retirement pension?
Mr. Gower: The position will still arise, as it did when the last increases took place, whereby a person in receipt of the pension and not of National Assistance will receive the full benefit of any increase in the National Insurance pension, while the person already on National Assistance will find that that increase in the pension rate is reduced by the amount he receives from National Assistance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) said, that position has to be explained.
Mr. Ross: Do not quote him.
Mr. Gower: I think I am entitled to refer to a remark that he made which was appropriate to the matter under discussion. A person on National Assistance cannot expect to benefit to the full extent of the pension as his neighbour who is merely in receipt of the pension. That is the result of these two forms of benefit, and it is unworthy to attack any Administration merely because that happens to be an inevitable result of what was set up when the relevant Act was passed under the last Government.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Assistance Board was set up in 1934?
Mr. Gower: Yes, but the National Insurance Acts were passed and the National Assistance Board was re-established in its present form by the party opposite. Indeed, I think they are entitled to a lot of credit for that fact. But to blame hon. Members on this side for some of the results of the form in which that legislation was passed and the form in which the Board was re-organised is somewhat unworthy.
As soon as legislation for introducing pensions was announced, I knew that a number of people would be disappointed. I well remember saying at a meeting before this legislation was announced that some people would necessarily be disappointed. That has always been the case. I forecast that those who were in receipt of National Assistance would be in this category.
As we are all aware, the National Assistance increases which took place in 1952 were on a far more generous scale—I think the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will agree—than the increase in National Insurance pensions at that time. I believe that to some extent the query which has been in the minds of hon. Members opposite and which has been echoed by me is explained by the fact that the increases in the National Assistance rates were so much more generous, and this fact has modified the increases which have been recommended on this occasion. That is the only conclusion I can reach.
We can regard this increase not, as hon. Members opposite suggest, as something bad but as something essentially good. It is an increase; it is a step in

2527
the right direction. We must remember that it is within the power of the National Assistance Board to recomemnd further increases at any time. I am open to correction on that, but I believe that the Board can recommend such increases at any time.
If it is true, as the right hon. Member for Caerphilly suggested, that the Board recommended these scales in ignorance of the amounts by which the pensions were to be increased, we can only infer that very shortly it may re-examine its scales in the light of the new pensions. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Board had erroneously set these scales because it was ignorant of the amount by which the Government were likely to increase the pensions. Now the Board is not ignorant and it is within its power to make a further increase in recommended grants. If the right hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, the Board will now reconsider these scales in the light of the pension rates.
Mr. George Brown: Is that a promise?
Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Member not aware that in its own memorandum the National Assistance Board disclaimed any knowledge of the increased pensions?
Mr. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement on those lines and accused the Government of not divulging the information to the Board. If all this argument be true—and he appears to have great faith in it—it is obvious that the National Assistance Board may very soon come forward with a reassessment based upon the general increase in the pensions. To that extent we may be able sooner rather than later to pass other regulations in the present form. I sincerely hope so, because I believe that these are among the most deserving of our people.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is the only Member who has so far spoken from the benches opposite to show any signs of having a heart. Generally speaking, I think his heart is in the right place, and I have wondered for some time why he does not cross the Floor of the House—
Mr. G. Brown: Heaven forbid.
Mr. Houghton: —and let us rationalise his emotions and try to get his social policy straight. He certainly will not do so as long as he remains where he is.
The hon. Member says that this is not bad but is good. Anything better is good, even if it is not good enough, and the main complaint from these benches is that the improvement in the National Assistance scales does not go far enough. That is the substance of our complaint. There is no doubt that this is a great human problem, and I believe, indeed I hope, that it will trouble the conscience of the nation more as time goes on, because I believe that very soon it will be necessary to resolve a fundamental dilemma in our social policy; and it is about that subject that I wish to detain the House for a few moments.
Some people say that National Assistance should play a larger part in our general scheme of social security and some say that it should play a smaller part; and that, I submit to the House, is the question upon which it will be necessary for both political parties in the near future to declare their policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) quoted from the "Economist," but, with great respect, he did not reveal to the House where the "Economist" wanted to take him.
What the "Economist" said, in its issue of 11th December, was this:
"The extravagance of the Government's present proposals does not lie in the rates of benefit themselves, but in the fact that they are to be given to so many millions of people who do not need them."
That was the comment of the "Economist" on the improved benefits under the National Insurance Bill. It went on to say—and here I hope I have the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South:
"If so many millions of money were not to be handed to people in much less need, it would be easily possible to raise these rates to, say, £2 10s. and £4 a week plus rent …"
which were the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend.
But look at the price which the "Economist" was asking my hon. Friend to pay for this increase to £2 10s. for a single person and to £4 for a married couple. I am sure that my hon. Friend,

2529
and certainly none of my other hon. Friends, will associate themselves with the approach of the "Economist" to this problem of increasing National Assistance scales at the expense of adequate National Insurance benefits.
That again brings us to the fundamental problem. The part which National Assistance has been playing in our general scheme of social security has steadily increased from the beginning. Yet Beveridge hoped and expected that National Assistance would play a diminishing part in social security; it would be the net which would catch those who fell through the floor of National Insurance benefits and had to be given special succour to prevent destitution or hardship.
In October, 1946, only 15½ per cent. of retirement pensioners received assistance from the National Assistance Board. That rose in 1950 and 1951. By the time the Labour Government left office the percentage increase in the number of retirement pensioners in receipt of National Assistance had risen by nearly 2½ per cent., a total of 18 per cent., which was an increase of approximately 2½ per cent. over the figure for October, 1946. The present Government came to office in 1951, and since then the proportion on National Assistance has continued to rise.
During the period of office of the present Government the percentage of retirement pensioners on National Assistance has risen by double the increase during the period of the Labour Government. In September, 1954, the percentage was getting on for 22½. During the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said that he was pleased to report a slight recession in the numbers having to seek National Assistance. But there is certainly little sign as yet that the large part which National Assistance now plays in our social security system is going to diminish.
I was disappointed that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not say something more about this problem and the attitude of the Government towards it. It can be argued that the increase in National Insurance benefits by more than the proposed increase in National Assistance scales will reduce the amount of National Assistance which the National Insurance beneficiaries will need. That
2530
is true, although it is unlikely to reduce the numbers of those who will have to seek National Assistance by anything more than a small fraction of those now getting it.
I declare my faith in this matter. I believe that the Socialist conception of social security is to move towards more adequate benefits as of right. Whether they are financed by contributions, whether by a social security tax of a graduated character, whether wholly and exclusively out of the Exchequer, I am not at the moment disposed to argue. My faith is in the object of social security, which surely must be for bigger and better benefits as of right.
The reason why we stand for adequate benefits as of right is that it is not enough to relieve poverty; we wish to eliminate poverty, and at the same time obviate the humiliations of being poor. If they do not understand that, hon. and right hon. Members opposite will not appreciate what we want to achieve. Whether the means test is under the National Assistance Board or under a public assistance committee, it is still a means test. It is regarded by other beneficiaries as a penalty on their thrift.
Those who have to seek National Assistance are made to feel poor. There cannot be a healthy society if a large section of it, although it can get relief for its poverty, is made to go through the humiliations of being poor. If that is our purpose, of course it follows that we wish to move further towards an adequate subsistence National Insurance benefit which will reduce substantially the need to go through the National Assistance Board.
We cannot, perhaps, hope to eliminate entirely the exceptional need which arises in particular cases. It would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible economically, to raise the level of the National Insurance benefits so high that none would ever need to go to the National Assistance Board; but we certainly want to get much further along that road than we appear to be getting so far.
Another thing that needs to be said is that both political parties will surely soon have to say where they go from here. Up to now, I think it is right to say, both political parties have contented themselves by giving pledges to restore 1946 values. I say that that is

2531
not enough. After all, many people who are falling back on National Insurance benefits in adversity at the present time have been accustomed to standards which have been built up on the higher wages of recent years.
If the wage earner and the salary earner are to have an increasing share in the national cake, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's hopeful forecast that our standard of life can be doubled in the next 25 years proves to be true, the question is, Whose standard of life is to be doubled, and whose is not? Surely, in all these things, all sections of the community should move in harmony. Increases should be given in the standard of life of those who are on social security payments, as well as to those who are still in employment.
As I asked in the Second Reading debate on the National Insurance Bill, what improvements in 1946 standards do we contemplate in regard both to National Insurance benefits and National Assistance scales? Are we referring back for our base-line to 1938 or 1912, when people did not have even wireless licences? Is no wireless licence to be included in a subsistence payment now? Is there not, indeed, to be a continuation of the enjoyment of television for those who in their wage-earning days are able to afford television and who wish to continue to enjoy it as part of the amenities of life when they retire? Certainly, some new thinking on standards will have to be undertaken.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) posed the old question, what is poverty? I suppose poverty is like pain—it is hard to define, but one knows when one feels it. Poverty is not an abstract and standard thing; it is a relative thing. Those who retire, those who go on sickness benefit, or are unemployed, are entitled to see some reflection in their social security payments of contemporary standards of life around them, and which they themselves enjoy when in full employment. Nothing has been said about this. The Minister has not yet spoken, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has done so. I hope that we shall hear something more about the policy of the Government towards National Assistance in the scheme of social security.
2532
One can understand how foxed people become about National Insurance benefits on the one hand and National Assistance scales on the other when they are subject to a varying relationship. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) said that National Assistance is quite different from National Insurance. So it is in theory, and it may be, for all I know, that the National Assistance Board does not disclose a single figure of what is in its mind before it makes recommendations to the Minister.
However, I should be very surprised if it is done that way. We all know of the informalities of Government administration, and it would surprise me greatly if the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing when it comes to relate, as it must for the purpose of discussion in this House, what is proposed about National Insurance benefits and what is proposed at the same time about National Assistance scales.
The hon. Member for Barry drew attention to the fluctuating relationship between National Insurance and National Assistance benefits. There is no doubt that this causes a good deal of misunderstanding. Moreover, it increases our doubt as to where the Government are going. In 1951, the National Assistance scale, exclusive of rent, and the National Insurance benefit, were the same. In 1952, the present Government pushed the National Assistance scale 2s. 6d. above the National Insurance benefit—35s. was the National Assistance scale, exclusive of rent, for a single person householder, and 32s. 6d. was the National Insurance benefit for the single person.
Now the Minister has reversed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out. Instead of the National Assistance scale being 2s. 6d. above the National Insurance benefit, it is 2s. 6d. below—37s. 6d. is the National Assistance scale, exclusive of rent, and 40s. is the new National Insurance benefit for a single person. There is bound to be dissatisfaction. On one occasion the National Assistance beneficiaries receive a proportionately higher benefit than they do on another, and it is becoming urgently necessary, while the great issues on future insurance policy are under discussion, to establish some kind of standing relationship between the

2533
National Assistance scales and the National Insurance benefits. I will explain why.
For this purpose the National Assistance Board is the rate-fixer. That is the body charged with the responsibility of recommending scales of National Assistance suitable to meet the requirements of those who go to it, either without resources or with inadequate resources, for a reasonable maintenance standard. So the National Assistance Board is the body which, in its recommendations to the Government, should say what the National Assistance scale should be, and should explain fully what is proposed.
Then it is imperative that the National Insurance benefit should be related to it so that we no longer have a varying relationship between National Insurance and National Assistance. For instance, it would have been better understood if the National Assistance scale were to be 40s. for a single person, tallying with the National Insurance benefit, rent being excluded in the case of National Assistance. I do not say that that would have met all the requirements of those who seek National Assistance, but if the National Insurance benefit were put high enough to provide reasonable subsistence, exclusive of rent and special requirements, we should find that the part which National Assistance would have to play in social security payments would begin to go down.
At all events, that seems to be a practical suggestion to overcome what has happened in the past when the National Assistance and National Insurance scales have not moved in harmony. I am sure that until that is done we shall have recurring complaints because those receiving National Assistance believe that they are unfairly treated in relation to those who receive improvements in National Insurance benefits.
Some declaration of policy by the Government is badly needed. The trouble about the Conservative Party is that it works on a purely empirical basis. It is content just to titivate the principles and benefits provided in a social security scheme which was a grand conception when first devised. However, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing of these things in his broadcast on Saturday. He was content just to explain to his listeners that he had not wasted any time
2534
since 15th November, and he was anxious to show that he really stood for benefits as of right.
He gave the impression that he hated to think that worthy citizens were having to seek National Assistance when the intentions of the National Insurance scheme were that they should have adequate benefits as of right. The right hon. Gentleman has not done anything about it; he has merely said that that is what he believes. There is no declaration of policy here which will enable us to see where the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are going.
I conclude by pleading once more for some really deep thinking on the problem of where our social security scheme is going from here. It will not be enough merely to continue talking of restoring the 1946 standards in a period of expanding prosperity and production, and in the face of the dividends which are now being yielded as the result of the foresight and planning of the Labour Government from 1946 to 1951. In those conditions, surely the nation will expect some greater conception of social security than a return to 1946 standards, which were, in turn, 1938 standards polished up to meet the new conditions after the war.
We embark on a new epoch in our social system. We must have new horizons, and fresh standards, in what we seek to provide for our people. If we claim to be the most civilised country in the world and boast that we have a social security scheme unparalleled elsewhere, surely we must eliminate poverty and at the same time remove all the conditions of being poor, which arouse bitter memories and give rise to strong criticism of the inadequacy of the proposals before the House.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. C. J. M. Alport: The House always listens with great interest and respect to the contributions of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on the subject of social policy generally. There was a great deal in his speech with which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree. There were, however, some parts of his speech with which I—and I think other hon. Members on this side of the House—could not agree. He produced the old canard that the Conservative Party works only on an empirical basis,

2535
that its attitude to social affairs and social policy is to adjust the machinery of social security to meet the immediate problems. Up to a point, that is inevitably the task of any Government, Conservative or Socialist.
But behind the whole of our approach to social policy is surely as much logic and careful thought as lie behind that of the party opposite. After all—and it would have been generous if the hon. Member for Sowerby had admitted the fact—we shared, during the time of the Coalition Government in the blueprinting of the whole structure of social security as it exists today. Whatever defects and whatever successes there may be for the existing scheme, it is—and I think it right so to regard it—a social security structure created not only by the two great parties, but by the Liberal Party, which in its time also made a great contribution to it. I do not think that the hon. Member is right in saying that we approach this matter in a purely empirical fashion.
He said that his own party were determined to hold out new horizons to the people of this country. Are those the rather shadowy and cloudy horizons contained in "Challenge to Britain," or is this some new policy about which we heard yesterday in a speech from the right hon. Gentleman who was Attorney-General and President of the Board of Trade in the last Government? If that be the sort of horizons held out, I think that there may be new horizons before the party opposite; but at present they seem shadowy indeed.
I do not think that hon. Members on this side would disagree that the National Insurance element in social security should play a far bigger part than National Assistance in the maintenance of the standard of living in this country. We have, in fact, done a great deal during the past three years to ensure that that principle accepted by this side of the House is carried out.
As I understand it, the main reason for ensuring that National Insurance rates are higher than National Assistance rates, with a small margin of difference, is precisely to ensure that the National Insurance field is a far greater one than that which must necessarily be covered by the National Assistance machinery. I should
2536
have thought that that is what we have in fact done. The Government have put into practice precisely the principle which was neglected by the Socialist Party during the formative years of National Insurance and the National Assistance scheme.
I would go further and say that I am quite certain that it is unrealistic for the hon. Member for Sowerby, and other hon. Gentlemen opposite, to suppose that it would ever be possible to eliminate the National Assistance element completely from social security. After all, with what are we faced?
Mr. Ellis Smith: Nobody suggested that.
Mr. Alport: I understood the hon. Member for Sowerby to be suggesting that. At any rate, that was the end for which he wished to work—to try to make National Insurance so comprehensive that the need for National Assistance would gradually disappear.
Mr. Houghton: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I made it clear that the abolition of the need for National Assistance was too much to hope for, too much to write into a National Insurance scheme.
Mr. Alport: I would fully agree with the hon. Member, and I think that generally the House would agree. His aim, apparently, is to reduce the necessity for National Assistance to the minimum compatible with our general policy of social security.
We must be quite clear that the minimum can never be as small as we should wish, provided that, at the same time, we wish to see a gradually rising standard of living and wages for the working population. It is clear that this form of operation—which we are undertaking for the second time during the lifetime of this Government and which was undertaken on two occasions during the lifetime of the previous Government—of raising the floor of social security a little higher in order to compensate for the increase in the standard of living enjoyed by the working population, will always take place at intervals of two, three, four or five years, provided that the standard of living of the working population rises, as we hope it will continue to do for the next 25 years.

2537
That means that unless there is some means of tying National Assistance and National Insurance to a standard of living index there will aways be a period in which the relative standard of living of those who are dependent directly upon National Assistance will lag a little behind that of the working population. It is therefore essential that we should not decry National Assistance—as the hon. Member for Sowerby was inclined to do—because it performs an essential function in pushing up the standard of living for those at the minimum level, in order to enable them to keep up with the rising standard of living of the rest of the population until some action by this House raises the level of all those concerned.
Mr. T. Brown: Would not the hon. Member agree that the gap between the highest and the lowest level is far too great, having regard to the prosperity of the country?
Mr. Alport: I am always grateful to the hon. Member for his tributes to the work of the Conservative Government during the last three years. It may well be that there are arguments in favour of increasing the height at which the safety net is put, but we should be careful to make certain that we have our feet firmly upon the present ground of economic prosperity before we ask too much, of hope for too much, from the future. Any person who was judicious and prudent would take that view, as the Government clearly have upon this occasion.
It is a great pity that hon. Members opposite are inclined to decry the contribution made to the whole system of social security by voluntary societies of various sorts. It has been my experience—and I do not claim that it is greater than any other private Member of Parliament—that with the best will in the world a State system of National Assistance cannot be made sufficiently flexible to meet all the intimate needs of those who fall upon hard times. Time and time again I have found that it is necessary to appeal to a certain voluntary society which has greater freedom of action in the disposal of its funds—I do not say greater imagination because I do not think it is true—than the National Assistance Board can ever give to any of its officers.
2538
I believe that there is now an increasing rather than diminishing need for voluntary organisations to supplement the social security system in its National Assistance guise. I was therefore greatly concerned with the attitude of the hon. Member for Sowerby, who gave the impression that he wished to see—and that it was Socialist policy to see—all the functions relative to maintaining and improving the standard of living of those at the lowest levels concentrated in the hands of the State. I hope that I am not misinterpreting his remarks. My view is that there is still a very definite place, and a very important place, in the whole of this sphere for various voluntary societies which can help the individual case which falls outside of the scope of National Assistance.
Mr. Ellis Smith: It was my privilege to serve for a long time on Committees which prepared evidence to put before the Beveridge Commission, and one of the important aims of the Beveridge Report was to eliminate the need for charities, and that was the reason why so much stress was put upon National Assistance in the case of those people who have exhausted their insurance rights.
Mr. Alport: I quite agree, and I know that that is a point of view which is perfectly properly held by hon. Members opposite. I am merely stating my own view that that principle of the Beveridge Report, which was to attempt to eliminate what is called private charity, was in fact a step in the wrong direction. It is my view that it is an admirable thing for community life that there should be organisations for providing help from private people for those in need, and I also think that the machinery of Government of a great national organisation is not sufficiently sensitive and flexible to meet the very intimate and varying needs of all individuals who fall into want.
Many tributes have been paid by hon. Members in this House to the National Assistance officers in their constituencies. Despite that, and I know perfectly well that the greatest care is taken by these officers in all parts of the country in trying to render the pattern and policy of the National Assistance Board sufficiently flexible for the purpose of meeting these needs, they are not entirely sufficient.

2539
Although I know that this point of view is not popular on either side of the House, I think it has some merit in it. It strikes me that, in many of the cases which I come across, the need is not for money so much as for assistance in the special basic requirements of a household. I am thinking particularly of the case of coal. I have always thought that our forefathers, when they arranged their form of National Assistance and social security in the various almshouse trusts all over the country, were extraordinarily wise and humane in giving each person a house, a small money allowance, and fuel, thus providing that old people particularly, whatever else they might not have had, knew that during a cold winter they would at least have a ton of coal.
Although it may not be easier from an administrative point of view, and although in many ways there may be objections to giving assistance in kind, it is my feeling that many of the old people, facing a winter with the knowledge that their money allowance may not be quite so much, but with the certainty that there would be in their cellars half-a-ton of coal, or a hundredweight of coal per week or something of that sort, would face that winter with a great deal better heart than they can at the present time.
I think there may be other forms of assistance in kind of that sort which could be rendered through the Assistance Board to those in need, and in lieu of money payments, because it would be in accordance with tradition, and, What is more, it would be a great consolation and help, particularly to old people.
I am quite certain that, although it is the job and the duty of the Opposition to make additional demands on the Government on behalf of the particular section of the community concerned, at the same time, no one in this House or in this country would deny that, during this last period of debate on legislation which we are considering, this Government has not only shown a wise head in dealing with these social problems but also a sensitive and generous heart. I feel that hon. Members opposite, had they been on this side, at this time and been able to introduce and support regulations of this sort, would have been very contented indeed to have that opportunity.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I have listened with close attention to the very honest speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), and, before I go on to mention one or two of the points on which I profoundly disagree with him, may I begin by mentioning one point on which I think we are both agreed? It has been very noticeable that in the only two speeches which we have had from the benches opposite for many hours, the hon. Members concerned have indicated their belief that the 2s. 6d. increase in the present scales is inadequate. In fact, they have supported the point of view that has been expressed from this side of the House.
Mr. Alport: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will not find that I said that it is inadequate. All I said was that the time may come when we can do better than we are doing at the moment, but that at the moment the increase seems to be a very generous one.
Mr. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman was more cautious than his hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), although I think that I detected in both speeches a certain dissatisfaction with the proposals before us. However, I am sorry if I am to be deprived of the single point of agreement which I thought I had with the hon. Gentleman opposite, because, when he pleads for the encouragement of charitable voluntary organisations for dealing with this matter of National Assistance, that is where I must part company with him.
We on this side of the House do not deprecate the role of the voluntary spirit, but the whole experience of the past 150 years has shown that in many ways the charitable organisations' method of dealing with people in need has been unsatisfactory, and sometimes even objectionable. I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong when he bases his case on the belief that these voluntary charitable organisations have a flexibility and an imagination that is lacking in State National Assistance.
All it amounts to is that in present circumstances these voluntary charitable organisations have surplus funds over and above the statutory scales laid down for the National Assistance Board. If we

2541
were able to be more generous with our National Assistance scales, and with other social provisions, then there would be more scope for the officers of the National Assistance Board to show even greater imagination and willingness than they do at present. I join with the hon. Gentleman and with other hon. Members in paying tribute to our local National Assistance Board officers, who, I have always found, do their best to meet the human needs presented to them.
The other point on which I wish to join issue with the hon. Gentleman is his reference to the contribution which the Conservative Party has made to the policy of social security and the development of these National Assistance provisions. I do not for a moment deny the genuineness of the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters, but I really get tired of the suggestion that the Conservative Party, as a political body, has over a long period shown a great interest in the social security of the nation.
We have, perhaps, had one of the best illustrations of that this evening. While Member after Member has got up from this side of the House, only two have got up from the benches opposite. Indeed, there are now more hon. Members opposite present than at any time this evening. Yet this is the final chapter of what the Minister called a matter of major social importance. The first was the increase in pensions.
I have always regarded the policy of the Conservative Party in this way: many of its members have a genuine interest in increasing social provision, but as a party they have not been very active.
My party, during its period of office in the Government, forcibly converted the Conservatives to an active interest in these matters, but during the lifetime of the present Government the Conservative Party has gone about these things in such a way as to perpetuate and accentuate the inequalities and privileges that exist in our present society, in so far as it can do it without running into serious political danger. The Conservatives are a party of privilege and unfair shares. I would not have believed it possible for a Conservative Government to carry on this policy of inequality within the narrow economic limits of the old-age pensions, but that is exactly what they have done.
2542
I am not asking hon. Gentlemen to take the word of a perjudiced individual like myself. Some mention has been made in this debate of an article in the "Economist" last week about pensions and National Assistance but I do not think the words used in that article have yet been quoted. The "Economist" said:
"How much politics has weighed in the decision, and how little human compassion, is demonstrated by the fact that the better off pensioners get an increase of 7s. 6d. a week, while the poorest of them, those who are in real need, get an increase of only 2s. 6d. a week. There are three times as many voters in the former class as in the latter."
The "Economist" went on to say:
"It is precisely those cases of hardship that the new Pensions Bill will do least to relieve."
For the pensioners who have nothing but the pension to live on, the amount was described as
"mean enough, in all conscience."
That is the kind of proposition that has been put before us.
Under the proposed National Assistance scale the poorest of the poor, the pensioner who is hardest hit, will be treated worst. Goodness knows, 7s. 6d. is little enough to give the ordinary old-age pensioner for any sort of decent existence, but even within these narrow proposals the Government are creating iniquitous inequalities.
Mr. Alport: If the hon. Gentleman accepts one half of the "Economist" article he must also accept the other part. Therefore, I assume that he agrees with the whole thing.
Mr. Thomson: I have drawn attention to the article, and I am not concealing any of it, but it has already been pretty thoroughly discussed and I do not want to duplicate what has been said. I thought that if I referred to this argument as coming from the "Economist" it would carry more force than from a person like myself.
One of the best speeches has come from my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who drew attention to the dilemma that both sides of the House face in the sphere of social policy on the whole question of the relationship between National Assistance and National Insurance.
Mr. Ellis Smith: It is not a dilemma. If hon. Members will read the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which investigated the matter they will see evidence from the Trades Union Congress and other experienced organisations, and will find that the Beveridge Report fully worked out all that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance. I was, myself, about to remind the House that the hon. Member for Sowerby pointed out that this is a matter not incapable of solution. A number of hon. Members opposite have also drawn attention to the conflict that exists between National Assistance and insurance.
The dilemma can only be resolved by a decent level of benefit. One hon. Member opposite earlier quoted what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) when, as a member of the Government dealing with social insurance, he expressed the hope that we would be able greatly to reduce the incidence of National Assistance. The hon. Member opposite seemed to think that because we, on this side, ask for an increase of the scales, we are contradicting what my hon. Friend said. We are doing nothing of the sort.
We want to see National Assistance relegated to its proper rôle, which is to deal with these people who, for one reason or another do not get adequate benefits as of right. Meanwhile, it is important that National Assistance scales should be of an adequate level of subsistence. It is disgraceful for the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) to suggest that the proposed National Assistance scales are sufficient to keep body and soul together.
I hope that the Minister will explain, when he winds up the debate tomorrow, exactly how this 2s. 6d. was arrived at. Is it based on cost of living figures at arrived at in consultation with the Government? It is very important to know that. On this side of the House there are very deep suspicions that there has been a change in atmosphere and outlook at the National Assistance Board. I do not, myself, make any sort of charge against, or attack on, the new Chairman of the Board. In my personal dealings with him on behalf of constituents I have always found him courteous
2544
and considerate. But in spite of platitudes from the opposite side of the House this is, of course, a matter of polities.
It is a matter of politics when a Labour Chairman is taken from the chair of the Assistance Board and a Conservative Chairman is put in his place. It is significant that in the first Report under the new chairmanship, four out of 28 pages are devoted to what is called the problem of
"… the shirker as well as the weedy type of man who wants work but cannot be persuaded that a course of re-establishment would help him to get it."
That phraseology awakens echoes in our minds. In some way it is the phraseology of the thirties.
The Report goes on:
"Some men seem willing to undergo repeated imprisonment rather than relinquish a life of idleness; of the prosecutions in 1953, three were second prosecutions of the same man during the year, and one was a third prosecution. Nevertheless, repeated prosecution does sometimes succeed."
The Report adds:
"The increase compared with 1952 in the number of successful prosecutions for persistent idling is not an indication that idling is more rife but reflects the greater amount of time which officers have been able to give to the laborious task of building up evidence to establish that an offence has been committed."
Let me say at once that I am completely against the workshy person, the person who is willing to consume in the community but is unwilling to produce. I am against him, whether he is at one end of the social scale or the other; whether standing on a street corner in Dundee passing betting slips, or standing in a more exalted fashion in a grey top hat at Ascot doing his betting in the paddock.
It is instructive to compare the present Report with that of the former Chairman. In that Report this problem is properly dealt with, and it points out the real proportions of the problem. It is pointed out that in a community of about 140,000 there might be about 20 who have it in their power to get back to work but are unwilling to do so. I adduce that evidence to confirm our suspicions that there has been a change in the atmosphere in the National Assistance Board, and that we now have a Conservative rather than a Socialist atmosphere. If the Minister can disprove this, nobody will be more

2545
glad than my hon. Friends and I, but we should like to know exactly where this 2s. 6d. increase comes from.
I spent a short time this morning doing a little Christmas shopping, and hon. Members opposite will be interested to know that in the shops in London there was a great air of prosperity. There was a great deal of evidence that many people are doing very well. We are all glad about national prosperity, though we pay due tribute to the fact that it is caused by world conditions rather than by any of the policies of hon. Members opposite.
Returning, in the tube, I found myself, I think at South Kensington Underground Station, standing beside a poster which said that a poodle could be given a full shampoo and beauty treatment for only 12s. 6d. The sum of 12s. 6d. is about one-third of the total weekly benefit under these National Assistance scales. It represents five weeks' value of the increase that has been offered, in a community which is so prosperous. But the prosperity is unequally shared.
We are living in a society where people own shares the value of which have risen by 80 per cent. in the lifetime of the present Government. I do not know whether any hon. Members present own tea shares. The price of tea is getting more and more out of the reach of the very kind of people who will be given these rates which we are asked tonight to pass.
The hon. Member for Barry said that while he did not think the scales were sufficient, he was prepared to accept them because they went in the right direction. He rather reminded me of a person who is swimming a river for his life. When the rope is thrown to him, he is pulled along for a little in the right direction, and then the rope is taken away. It is all very well to go in the right direction, but what is important is to go far enough in the right direction.
If there were a Parliamentary means of extending the scope of these scales and increasing their value, we on this side of the House would use it. As there are no Parliamentary means to do so, we must accept this proposal without a division, but not without a protest.
9.28 p.m.
Miss Irene Ward: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) should have
2546
said what he did about the Chairman of the National Assistance Board. I am not going to retaliate by making an attack on the former Chairman of the Assistance Board. In fact, I am going to say some thing rather nice about him. I think I am right in saying that his period of office had come to an end and that therefore he retired on that basis. It was not a case of a Socialist chairman being dismissed and a Conservative chairman being substituted.
Mr. Manuel: He was.
Miss Ward: I have listened to practically every speech that has been made tonight, and I remember one hon. Member pointing out that the former Chairman of the Board is still a member of it. I happen to have been in the House with him and I know that Mr. Buchanan was a very popular Member of this House. Everybody respected him because he had a great knowledge of the subject on which he spoke. I lost my seat in the House in the 1945 Election, but that did not prevent me from feeling very pleased that a man of such wide experience had been chosen as Chairman of the National Assistance Board.
My recollection is that at the time—and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can correct me if I am wrong—Mr. Buchanan was asked whether he would like to be Minister of National Insurance. He immediately inquired of the Labour Government whether they intended at once to raise old-age pensions, and when he was told that they did not, he said he did not wish to be Minister. [Laughter.] That is a great tribute to him, because he supported his beliefs. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but I like sincerity, from whichever side of the House it comes. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Lady is telling a story."] It is not a story; it happens to be true.
If I may go one stage further—
Mr. McInnes: One step is enough for me.
Miss Ward: I would point out that Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson is just as sincere in the line that he takes. He is very experienced, and if any of the imputations made against him by hon. Members opposite were well-founded, I should be very surprised to see Mr. Buchanan serving on the Board with him.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I made no imputations against the Chairman of the National Assistance Board. I paid personal tribute to his courtesy and consideration. What I said was that the National Assistance Board was affected by the political complexion of the Government of the day and that it was of political significance that a Socialist Chairman had been removed and a Conservative Chairman put in his place. That was all I said, and I should like to put it on record that I made no personal attack upon the Chairman of the National Assistance Board. I willingly pay tribute to his experience and his humanity.
Miss Ward: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has repeated exactly what I said he said.
The hon. Member followed up his argument by attacking the Conservative Party for what he considered to be its lack of interest in the social well-being and welfare of the people of this country. I do not intend to answer him because our record stands for the world to see, and it has been a first-class record. We have done a great deal for the welfare of the people. We have not only made our plans and talked about our plans, but, when we have been in power, we have been able to find the money with which to finance our plans, and that is one of the greatest contributions to the well-being and welfare of the people.
I have listened with very great interest to what right hon. and hon. Members have said about the National Assistance Board. I intend now to turn to my pet hobby-horse. Many Members on both sides of the House talk in general terms about those who have to seek National Assistance, but there are some people who do not have as many champions in the House, and they are the people in receipt of non-contributory pensions who have to seek the help of the National Assistance Board. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) said about these people, and I fully concur in the views which he expressed. These people on non-contributory pensions have to seek National Assistance to supplement the small sums on which they have to live, and I observe that their pensions have not been increased since 1946.
I see a great deal of the more unfortunate sections of the community, for I
2548
go about a great deal and many of them come to consult me on personal problems. Non-contributory pensioners seeking the assistance of the National Assistance Board are also entitled to consideration both from a Conservative Government and from hon. Members opposite. The pension was increased in 1946 with the introduction of the National Insurance Act. Although the Socialist Government were in power until the General Election in 1951, nothing further was done to help these people. I think I am entitled to say that, although a great number of speeches have been made today, no attention was paid to this very deserving section of the community, and it is about them that I want to say a word or two.
First, I wish to join with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have commented on the good work done by the National Assistance Board through its officials. We all know that a considerable number of people hesitate to go to the Board for assistance when, in fact, they are entitled to it. I have been very pleased to find that if one writes to Sir Geoffrey Hutchison and, through him, to the regional offices of the Board suggesting that welfare officers should go to the homes of individuals who are nervous about seeking assistance, very often a friendly chat and explanation of the policy behind National Assistance may result. That policy is that if people are in need assistance is theirs by right.
I do not see why it should not be considered theirs by right because it does not come within a National Insurance scheme. It is fit and proper that we should do what we can for those in need. When National Assistance Board officers call at the homes of some of these people and have a friendly chat with them, it is encouraging to them. It makes all the difference to their views about the Board. Officers who have visited people about whom I have written have been very successful. That has been a real benefit to those who subsequently have drawn assistance from the Board.
I am extremely disappointed that nothing has been done for the very deserving section of the community, the non-contributory pensioner. I am coming to the conclusion—I say this with great hesitancy—that it is better to have nothing, for then one may get more pension, than it is to have been thrifty in a

2549
small way because circumstances have enabled one to save, when one is considered "nobody's child." I am sorry to put this on the record again, but after long experience in the House of Commons I find that we have to repeat things about 20 times before they register.
I am a firm believer in continuing a battle because, in the long run, justice always triumphs. In a large number of small battles I have engaged, or have watched other people engage, they have all been won in the long run. So I shall put this on record again, although I have no doubt that the Minister will not be very pleased with me. That does not worry me one little bit.
Two years ago—[Interruption]. I see that my right hon. Friend is leaving his place. If he were to leave at this moment, I should simply have to put it in writing; but I am glad that he appears to be remaining. Last year, at Margate, my constituency of Tynemouth, supported by the whole of the Conservative Party in the northern area, sent up a resolution asking for the appointment of a committee to inquire what could be done for the small income groups. When I speak of the small income groups, I talk about those in receipt of non-contributory pensions. That section of the community did valiant and noble work for the country before we were faced with the devastating Second World War.
In reply to the resolution, the Conservative Party put up my right hon. Friend the Minister, with his charming manner. Everybody thinks that he is very charming and approachable, and has a great understanding of the problem, so he was asked to speak and to turn down my constituency's resolution. Of course, he did it in such a way as to indicate that there was no need to set up a committee and that he could do everything that was necessary without one. That was over 12 months ago, and I am still waiting for action. There is not the slightest doubt that action was promised.
At the annual meeting of the Northern Regional Conservative Party last May—and this confounds the argument of hon. Members opposite, who say that the Conservative Party never interests itself in social welfare—we drew attention to my right hon. Friend's promise at Margate, sent it up to the Chairman of the Conservative Party, and asked for a progress
2550
report. When we came to discuss the National Insurance Bill last week, I expected to find that something had been done to assist the non-contributory pensioner.
I understood—and I supported it fully—that one of the ideas in increasing the pensions from the National Insurance Fund was to take people off National Assistance and to put them on to the Fund, so that they were entitled to a pension through the Fund and not through the Assistance Board. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if it is desired to take people off National Assistance and to put them into a scheme which provides them with an income on which to live, we ought to be able to do something for the noncontributory pensioners on exactly the same basis.
That is why I am still waiting for action, and I hope I shall not have to wait very much longer. It is not quite the close season for the Budget, and so I can make my argument now. My right hon. Friend will not be able to say tomorrow that he cannot give an answer because we have approached the close season. I am hoping that he will have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see what can be done for these small income groups.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will support me when I say that we are engaged in a fairly stiff battle with some of the Communists in this country. It is most important that people who help at all levels to suppress Communism and support democracy should have a place in the democratic system. I am thinking of some of the railway annuitants who are in the non-contributory pensions group.
Mr. Speaker: I have been in some doubt about the speech of the hon. Lady for some time, especially when she talked about non-contributory pensions. I thought she was arguing that, if their lot were improved, the call on National Assistance would be lessened. However, it is a very tenuous connection, but when she goes as far as railway annuitants she is outside the scope of the Regulations.
Miss Ward: Naturally I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. If, however, you were to ask my right hon. Friend

2551
to supply you with a list of people drawing non-contributory pensions who are covered by these regulations because they are mentioned in the National Assistance Regulations; if you asked him to submit a list of those people who have to go to the Board, I think you would find that among them would be a large number of annuitants from the old railway companies.
I have gone into this matter carefully, Mr. Speaker, because it is close to my heart, and I think you would find that I would be in order. However, I promise not to go much further except to say to my right hon. Friend that it is in the interests of the democratic system that these people should be fairly done by. I ask him to look at these cases from the point of view that first-class men and women working in industry and putting forth their best for the community, should be fairly done by. I do not think that this non-contributory group have been fairly done by up to date. They certainly were not fairly done by by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they can be if my right hon. Friend will spend a little more time looking at their case.
I hope I have persuaded my right hon. Friend that there is a case for these noncontributory pensioners. By 1961 there will not be any pensions of this kind granted. These people come strictly within the definition of the small income groups, and therefore I hope that before long some action will be taken on their behalf.
9.48 p.m.
Dr. Horace King: I share the sympathy expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), not only in this debate but in many others, for all kinds of people on low incomes who have not yet been aided by the various patterns of State help. It would not be right to follow her into detailed arguments in this debate, except to say that the virtue of these Regulations, and indeed of National Assistance itself, is that it picks up hard cases of the kind which she has mentioned, and saves them from the poverty that would exist but for its establishment.
I hope that on some other occasion we shall be able to discuss the cause which is so dear to the heart of the hon. Lady; but, as she never hesitates to wave a
2552
loyal party flag, and since one could detect from time to time minor party asperities in her speech, it is only fair that anyone from this side should follow the waving of the blue flag by waving the red flag for a moment.
Miss Ward: Would the hon. Gentleman forgive if I warn him to be rather careful, because red is the Tory colour north of the Tees.
Dr. King: This is a delightful example of what a crazy, muddling country ours is. When I say "red flag" I mean the Socialist flag.
It is only fair to point out to those who have hugged to themselves the record of the Tory Party in respect of pensions and National Assistance during the last three years that the first time in British history that comparatively decent rates of National Assistance were paid to our poorest people was when the Labour Government took office after the war.
Unlike many of my hon. Friends, I agree to some extent with one thing, that was said by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). He spoke of the need, on top of all that we do in the form of National Assistance, for voluntary aid. He said, rightly, there was no need, because we were building up a great State service, for everyone to let the wellsprings of charity in their hearts dry up. What many of us object to is professional charity and charity-mongering; but whatever we do, either by the National Assistance scales or by any other part of our Welfare State, there is still plenty of room for help to old people, blind people, and crippled people, and for extra voluntary service in our hospitals, and that is help which kindly individuals are glad to give.
I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has taken part in the debate. I regard him as a kind of perpetual unofficial Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I doubt whether any back bencher on either side of the House has served more constantly and ably the cause of the underdog. My hon. Friend pinpointed the heart of the issue, as he usually does when he contributes to a debate. We have yet to decide the final relationship between National Insurance on the one hand and National Assistance on the

2553
other. I hope the day will come when the purpose of National Assistance will be merely to provide help for those who slip through the meshes of the protecting net of National Insurance, no matter how carefully we spread it.
The Government are singularly unfortunate in the support which they have had from their side of the House during the debate. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) practically gave us the case that we are trying to make. He began by almost saying that we should automatically accept everything that the National Assistance Board says to us about rates. That is an alarming attitude. We set up professional boards—the hon. Member mentioned the Boundary Commission and the National Assistance Board—but we set them up merely to do a piece of research work, and the final examination and the final decision rest upon this House.
Parliament is supreme, and the Government—not the Chairman of the Board—are responsible for the National Assistance rates. One would only add to the assurances already given to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth that any references to the Chairman of the Board from this side of the House have by no means been personal, and that any criticism of the Board has been political and certainly not personal.
But the hon. Member for Barry then confessed that he was troubled about the new scale proposed by the Board. He wanted to know how the figure had been arrived at. He praised only faintly the Government's proposals, and showed some of the anxiety that is in the minds of most of my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) troubled me somewhat by his references to the behaviour of National Assistance officials. I hope it is not true that there is a hardening of the attitude of any of the National Assistance officers or offices throughout the country. It is certainly not true in Southampton. There we have built up a generous and humane pattern of assistance, doing everything possible for people in distress, and sometimes achieving what is almost the impossible.
If there should be anything in the charge which has been hinted al by hon. Members on this side of the House, that there is a hardening of attitude or a re-
2554
turn to the kind of spirit of the old Public Assistance and Poor Law days, which we abolished, it is the duty of the Minister to examine such criticism, and, if he finds it to be true, to put matters right. Or, if he refuses to do that, to admit that there has been some change in direction from the Government. I do not believe that it is true, and I do not believe that there is any change. From my own experience, I can say that at any rate in my part of the country there is no change on the part of National Assistance officers, to whom most hon. Members would wish to pay tribute.
When we debated this issue in March, during the time when the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Chancellor were in purdah—which they managed to make last far longer than the Budget and from which they managed to escape last November—the only points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby were discussed at length. These were, alarm that the level of subsistence of the poorest people in the country was getting lower and lower; that it had fallen below what it ought to be; that we were increasing production, and that we agreed that the whole of the increased wealth of this country resulting from such increased production should not go in the workers' wages on the one hand and the owners' profits on the other, but that there must be a third sharer in any advance in the standard of living in this country; and that the third sharer ought to be the poorest people of the country, who themselves have no means of adding to their means except by what the State gives.
We also expressed alarm in March that the rise in the cost of living was bearing most heavily on the poorest people in the country. We have abundantly proved, month after month, that any of the national indices by which we measure rises in the cost of living are by no means accurate when related to the poorest people in the country; that the burden of the rise in the cost of living weighs heaviest on the poorest people, because the greatest increases are in the vital essentials on which they must spend their money.
Incidentally, I am sorry that the Minister seemed to treat the question of the budgets of old-age pensioners rather flippantly. I know that the Old-Age Pensioners' Federation has been very

2555
persistent. I know that it presses its claims with perhaps more vigour than moderation. I can understand that from time to time it makes hon. Members cross. But the Minister should treat the Federation in a statesman-like way, and should remember that its anger and its demands, and the amounts for which it asks, always spring from the poverty of the people which it represents.
The Minister frequently has complained that the Federation had promised to send a number of such budgets but had sent only a handful. I can assure him that most of the old-age pensioners that I know are too proud to show their budgets to anybody, Minister or otherwise. One would not expect the proud people whom we are now discussing to flaunt or advertise their misery in the hope of deriving some extra benefits from this House. On the other hand, those of us who know them know how bitter is their hardship.
On the one hand, then, there is the poverty of the poor. But, on the other hand, there was the need to increase the basic pension as of right. It must also be remembered that some people are unwilling to go to the National Assistance Board, and it is held not to be a good sign if more and more people go to it. Somehow or other the Minister has to deal with these two rival claims—the need to raise the subsistence level on the one hand, and to lift the basic pension as of right on the other—and, in so doing, to remove some people from National Assistance.
Of the two claims I should say that the claim of those on National Assistance is the more weighty. If the Government could afford to spend a certain sum of money, more of it should have gone to those living at the poverty level than to increasing the basic pension. It is right to try to lift people off National Assistance, but the extent to which that is done in one moment is certainly a matter for debate and is certainly one in which the Government have gone much too far. If we want to measure the extent we can do so by considering the £15 million which the Minister hopes to save on National Assistance after paying the new rates of benefit.
The amount by which the Minister proposes to raise the basic living standard
2556
of our people is not enough to lift the poor out of their poverty, although everyone will admt that the grinding, bitter poverty that we knew in the past has disappeared. The figure which we are discussion tonight is the yardstick by which we shall measure the claims of the poor, the old people, the widows, the sick, the injured, and everybody who goes to the National Assistance Board.
When the Government were shaping their plans for next year I should have thought that they would have remembered that the height of a civilisation is measured by the standard of living of its poor people, and that they should have raised the National Assistance minimum by more than 2s. 6d. I emphasise, as I tried to do in another debate, the fact that in the spring of next year, when the first payment of the new benefits is made, thousands of old-age pensioners will go to their Members of Parliament, and say, "We have been robbed by the National Assistance Board of 5s. of the 7s. 6d. which the Minister gave us upon our basic pension."
They will receive a rise of 7s. 6d. automatically on their Post Office books, but as the rise in their National Assistance will be only 2s. 6d. they will, in their simple way, think that the National Assistance Board has taken away 5s. of the increase. It will be no use hon. Members arguing with them and putting forward the perfectly correct theory that of the money they will then get—including the extra 2s. 6d.—7s. 6d. more is theirs as basic rate of pension; and of right, than it used to be. I can only say, from experience in the past that every time the basic rate is stepped up above the extent of the increase in National Assistance, the old-age pensioner regards himself as having been robbed.
I think much of the hurt that is to come—and it will be a real hurt and will arouse real anger on the part of the old people—could have been avoided if there were not such a discrepancy between the 7s. 6d. rise in the basic pension and the 2s. 6d. rise in National Assistance. If the Minister will change his mind even now, and increases the 2s. 6d. every penny by which he increases it will, first, remove some elemental poverty, and, second, will prevent some of the disappointment and sense of injustice which

2557
old-age pensioners will feel when they get their new benefits.
In all this, we are speaking of about 1¾ million of our population, and with their dependants, possibly even more than that. We have said in debates in this House before that these are largely the people, because the bulk of them are old folk, who had the thinnest and hardest times in the years between the wars, and I therefore appeal to the Minister to think over the things that have been said in this debate, not to accept this 2s. 6d. as a final figure but to raise it towards the 7s. 6d.
Mr. Richard Thompson (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. We understood that this was exempted business.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Certainly it is exempted business, but the Government have now moved the adjournment of the debate, and I must accept the Motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

ESTATE DUTY (HOUSE VALUATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
10.10 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I am glad to be able to raise a topic of considerable importance to a not unsubstantial proportion of the public, and I am also glad that in this Christmas week I am able to raise a question which will, at least, find support on the benches opposite, or so I believe, as well as on this side of the House.
It concerns the Estate Duty valuation of houses that were owner-occupied by deceased persons and which, by necessity, continued to be occupied by the beneficiaries. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer since 1944 have granted a concession that, where the element of vacant possession at the date of death inflates the value of the house more than it did before the war, it should be disregarded for Estate Duty purposes. The
2558
Chancellor has maintained, both in the House and in correspondence with myself, that this concession still operates.
On 4th November last, in reply to a Question of mine, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed the House that he considered that the Chancellor's concession still operated. But there is abundant evidence that valuation officers throughout the country do not share the opinion of his Department. The Chancellor's opinion, as stated in correspondence with me, is that the concession value has diminished, and, in some areas like Cardiff, has disappeared, because the premium on vacant possession has diminished or disappeared.
The important words are that "the premium on vacant possession has disappeared." The concession has never given relief in respect of increases over the pre-war value which are not attributable to the factor of vacant possession. Nonetheless, by the change of practice which has been sanctioned by the Treasury during the past year, instances of grievous hardship are to be provided to the Minister from the City of Cardiff, from Bedwellty, from Cornwall and from other pants of the country.
I propose to give but two illustrations to the House with which, I believe, the. Minister will not be unfamiliar. The first case is that of a middle-aged man who died this year and left his widow only the house and its contents. He left her no money. The house was valued at £850 in 1938, but the Estate Duty valuer now says that with vacant possession it is worth well over £2,000 today. If the widow is to meet the obligation of this inflated value of vacant possession, when the house never can be vacant, she will have to sell her home in order to do so.
There is another case in Cardiff with which the Minister is very familiar, because he has sent me a letter about it in which he says:
"The gap between the cost of building a similar house and its vacant possession value on sale has closed completely."
I submit to the Minister that it is quite fallacious to suggest that vacant possession value today is no more than it was in 1939, because it is worth about £200 to the person who owns the house in the part of Cardiff from which these examples come.

2559
The legal profession in Cardiff are disturbed. The legal profession are anxious about the hardship and the injustice involved in the change of practice by the Department. Firms of long standing and of the highest repute in South Wales are making their protest against the change in practice of valuation officers. The Minister may tell me tonight that there is no change, but it is strange that the legal profession in South Wales are quite satisfied that there has been a change in the policy pursued since 1944.
District valuers must be the only people in South Wales who believe that there is no premium on vacant possession at the present time. The long list of people waiting for council houses is an indication of the premium on vacant possession. If this concession is still in practice anywhere in the country, the Minister ought to tell us the cities and towns. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whose justice I have very great faith, has often made a promise to look into individual hard cases. That means nothing at all. When we submit our cases to the hon. Gentleman, we find that he can do nothing about them. It is the shadows that are behind him that frighten me. The hon. Gentleman has no real power in this connection. Those who suffer are widows and children.
I ask the Financial Secretary to re-examine the whole question of this concession and at least to give an assurance that he will make a statement which will satisfy the people responsible for the administration of these estates. They feel that the concession is not operating but that it ought to operate, and that the sums involved are so small that the Chancellor could well afford to continue the practice of his predecessors.
10.18 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I certainly take no exception to the action which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has taken in raising this subject on the Adjournment, nor to the manner in which he has done so. Indeed, it is excellent that the House should spend half an hour discussing a matter of some technicality.
This concession was announced to the House on 18th May, 1944, by the then
2560
Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as I can ascertain, there have been only five Parliamentary Questions drawing attention to it in the 10 years since that date, and the matter has never been debated. Those facts alone seem a very good reason for debating the matter now. I want to do everything in my power to clear away misconceptions. I think there are misconceptions and misunderstandings about this concession, even in the minds of some members of the legal profession, and I will try to state the facts as accurately as I can. Whether or not the debate gives the hon. Member for Cardiff, West any satisfaction in other senses, he has served a good purpose by enabling the matter to be ventilated and restated. The fact that there have been so few Parliamentary Questions does, I hope, go to prove, first, that the concession in itself was reasonable when it was made, and, second, that its administration has been reasonable.
Miss Irene Ward: Can the Financial Secretary say whether the Questions have all been asked within a recent period, or whether they have been spread over the years?
Mr. Brooke: The Questions have been spread over the last 2½ years.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West has described what the concession implies, but perhaps it would be well if I read again the original words of Sir John Anderson, as he then was. He said:
"The general rule of valuation for purposes of Estate Duty is to take the market value at the date of death. I have however, reached the conclusion that, in the exceptional cases to which he refers, it would be right in assessing the value of the house to disregard any increase in the market value above the pre-war value in so far as it could only be realised by a sale with vacant possession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 350.]
The hon. Member was good enough to quote the answer I gave to a supplementary question which he asked about six weeks ago. I then said:
"The concession continues to operate in all parts of the country where it is still the case that the element of vacant possession at the date of death inflates the value of the house more than it did before the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 580.]
I now wish to see whether I can make this plainest by taking a purely hypo-

2561
thetical example; I stress that it is hypothetical and that I have no particular house or part of the country in mind. We will imagine a house which before the war had a market value, with vacant possession, of £1,200. We will assume that, before the war, the market value of the house, without vacant possession, was £1,000; that is to say, people were willing to pay a premium of £200 for the benefit of vacant possession. Values have changed since then. This house after the war, may have reached a position in the market where its value with the benefit of vacant possession rises as high as £3,000. The value without vacant possession might be only £2,000, because, in conditions of house shortage, people were prepared to pay a premium of no less than £1,000 for the advantage of vacant possession.
Let us see exactly how the concession works. The concession says that the amount taken into account for Estate Duty purposes in respect of the element of vacant possession shall be no larger now than it was on that house before the war. On this hypothetical house the prewar premium for vacant possession was £200. Therefore, when the benefit of the concession is given, the value of this house for post-war death duty purposes will not be £3,000 but £2,200.
The reason for the concession was that dependants who might well desire to live on in the house, could not, in the conditions of 1944, secure the full £3,000 for vacant possession. The very simple reason for that was that, owing to the housing Shortage, they could not give vacant possession. There was nowhere else where they could freely go. That is why the concession was introduced. It was always intended to be a temporary concession to meet a temporary situation. In the 10 years that have elapsed, certain things have been happening. The price of houses has risen, quite apart from the vacant possession element. There has been a change in the value of money, and for that and other reasons the cost of building new houses is considerably greater than it was.
The secondhand value of everything tends in normal circumstances to get into a certain relationship with the cost of the new article. There was a period after the war when the price of secondhand cars went well above the price of new
2562
cars, because new ones were unobtainable, and in those circumstances people were paying a premium almost corresponding to the vacant possession premium for a secondhand car. But as the market returns to normal, the price of the secondhand article will revert to a normal relationship with the price of the new article.
The fact that building costs have risen since the war has, in conjunction with the changes in the value of money, tended to put up the price of new houses and correspondingly the price of what I might call secondhand houses. In addition to that, there is not, I am thankful to say, in many parts of the country the same acute housing shortage that there was immediately after the end of the wax. Consequently, there is nothing like the same premium on vacant possession in those parts of the country.
One cannot lay down any precise figures for the country as a whole, because I believe we are agreed in all parts of the House that the housing shortage remains in acute form in a number of built-up areas, whereas most of us can think of places where there is no longer any housing shortage altogether out of relation with the pre-war housing situation.
Mr. G. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman say who decides when that level has been reached, when there is no building shortage?
Mr. Brooke: I think that the district valuers have got to decide in relation to certain facts, some of which I have mentioned and some of which I am going to mention.
In years like 1945 and 1946 people were paying fantastically high prices for houses which were in a wretched state, and they were paying those prices, wisely or unwisely, simply because they felt that they must at all costs get a roof over their heads. That is not happening to the same extent anywhere now, and if one goes about the country one sees a great many more "For sale" boards than one did at the end of the war. That is another consideration that valuers have to take into account, because if there are constantly up for sale a good many houses of the type in question, that in itself indicates that there is not the same difficulty or scarcity attaching to the vacant possession element.

2563
For all these reasons, people are not so willing now as they were some years ago to pay a very large premium for vacant possession. That means, to go back to my hypothetical example, that the gap between the £3,000 with vacant possession and the £2,000 without vacant possession has been closing, and when it comes down to £200, which according to my example was the premium that could be obtained for vacant possession before the war, then the special circumstances disappear and the Chancellor's concession has nothing left to operate on.
I thought that the hon. Member was not quite correct when he spoke of the element of vacant possession disappearing altogether. The point which one has to watch in the operation of this concession is where the element of vacant possession has dwindled to no more than what it was for a house of that type before the war. This was a temporary concession. That, no doubt, is why it was not written into the law. In some parts of the country the exceptional conditions which it was designed to meet have passed away, and the concession has expired naturally; it has died a natural death. In other parts it has not and is still of substantial value to dependants who desire to occupy a house which belonged to a relative who has died.
May I try to remove some misapprehensions which exist about this concession? I am not for a moment charging the hon. Member with having given further currency to any of these misapprehensions, but I think it might be of value if I mention them. Some people have evidently fallen into the simple error of imagining that the Chancellor's concession substitutes for the present value of property the pre-war value of property; that, of course, is not the case.
Secondly, some people have imagined that this concession excludes entirely the value of vacant possession; that is not so. It excludes the excess over the prewar value of vacant possession for a house of that type. Thirdly, it does not involve or foreshadow any permanent change in the law for the benefit of near relations living in the house. It was a war-time concession designed to mitigate a war-time situation which is now gradually passing away. It would be improper for us to discuss the possibility, probability, or unlikelihood, of any changes in
2564
the law. My argument has been that the special circumstances which brought the concession into being are now passing away.
Lastly, I want to stress that, despite what the hon. Member said, there has been no change in policy. Neither has there been any directive issued by the Treasury. Some misunderstanding has possibly arisen through my predecessor, the present Minister of Transport, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, endeavouring to give a fuller explanation, in a Parliamentary answer on 14th May, 1953, about the nature of the concession. I want to stress that the answer which he gave at that time in no way modified the nature of the concession. He was seeking only to explain it.
I have examined his words very closely in relation to the original words used in 1944, and I can confirm that there is no difference between them. I also ask the House to accept from me that no directive has gone out from the Treasury to district valuers. What has been modified is the difference in value which the concession makes. As I have sought to explain, that has been modified by economic circumstances. The hon. Member will not wish me to go in detail into the cases to which he referred, although I recognise them. I was a little surprised that in one case the hon. Member mentioned a pre-war value of £850 for the house, because I think I recognise the case to which he was referring. I should like to tell him that in that instance the house had been bought in 1937 for £1,500.
I thank the hon. Member warmly for having raised the matter tonight. I assure the House that I am always ready to look into any further cases of this kind that are put to me, and to do everything which is in my power to make clear, as I have sought to do this evening, the effect of what necessarily is a somewhat technical matter and an element in the administration of our affairs which it is certainly not easy for the layman to understand, and which even the professional man has not always grasped.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. Michael Higgs: I am sure that the House and all who are interested in the administration of estates and in assisting the relatives of deceased

2565
people will be grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who raised the matter, and to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his explicit reply.
As one who is concerned professionally in that kind of work, I too was given the impression some 18 months or two years ago that there had been a change of heart. It so happens that my practice spreads over two or three adjoining areas of different district valuers' offices, and it certainly was noticeable—I put it no higher—that at about the same moment the realisation of changing circumstances seemed to have penetrated into the district valuers' officers in two or three districts. One accepts entirely, of course, what my hon. Friend has said, that that was not the result of any directive, but I do not think that it was any accident. The realisation must have spread through the bush telegraph, if not through official channels.
There is one other point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. This concession was, as my hon. Friend has said, a war-time or immediate post-war measure, and in its inception it was due entirely to that form of scarcity which followed the war, and which was not common to houses. But now there are beginning to operate on values of houses a number of other kinds of scarcity which may get mixed up in people's minds with war-time scarcity.
The obvious example is the operation of town planning in its post-war sense. A house in a country district, where there is no extreme shortage of houses, as there is in a big city like Cardiff, may still have
2566
an enhanced vacant possession value simply because it is one of the few houses in a pleasant country district and nobody else is allowed to build there because it is in a green belt.
Again, a house in a town or city may have an enhanced value, not because of general post-war scarcity, but because there is a scarcity of building land in and around that town due, again, to the green belt which is preserved around its boundaries and to the fact that all the building land in the town has been used. If we add to that the fact that the town is one of those which in days of full employment attracts people either from the country or from overseas, there is a scarcity value upon vacant possession which may not be due to the causes which were in mind when this concession was first introduced but which are none the less causes which produce the same effect upon the value of houses and upon the pockets of people who are placed in the difficulty which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West described following the death of the breadwinner.
While this may not be a matter for legislation, and it would be improper to suggest it now, I am wondering whether the time will not soon come when we may have to consider whether some similar concession is necessary through legislation, or whether, without legislation, the scope of the concession ought to be enlarged to cover scarcities of that kind.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Assistance Grants, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
  Assistance Grants, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Death Grant Orders (Encashment)
  Death Grant Orders (Encashment)
  Dietary Allowances
  Dietary Allowances
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
  HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
  INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
  INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
UNITED NATIONS
  Underdeveloped Territories
  Underdeveloped Territories
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Peking Government (Admission)
  Peking Government (Admission)
  International Criminal Court
  International Criminal Court
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Fact-finding Commission
  Fact-finding Commission
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (ARGENTINE NOTE)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (ARGENTINE NOTE)
  FORMOSA (CHINESE NATIONALIST FORCES)
  FORMOSA (CHINESE NATIONALIST FORCES)
  TERRITORIAL WATERS
  TERRITORIAL WATERS
  INDO-CHINA (INTERNATIONAL SUPERVISORY COMMISSIONS)
  INDO-CHINA (INTERNATIONAL SUPERVISORY COMMISSIONS)
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (AGREEMENT)
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (AGREEMENT)
  COMMISSIONER GENERAL FOR SOUTH-EAST ASIA (STAFF)
  COMMISSIONER GENERAL FOR SOUTH-EAST ASIA (STAFF)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION (COST)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION (COST)
  U.S.S.R. VISITS (RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS)
  U.S.S.R. VISITS (RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS)
  CHINESE COAST (BRITISH SHIPPING)
  CHINESE COAST (BRITISH SHIPPING)
  AUSTRIAN PEACE TREATY
  AUSTRIAN PEACE TREATY
  HERR WALDEMAR KRAFT (INTERNMENT)
  HERR WALDEMAR KRAFT (INTERNMENT)
  LUBRICATING OIL (POOL GRADES)
  LUBRICATING OIL (POOL GRADES)
COAL
  Situation
  Situation
  Stocks, Bristol
  Stocks, Bristol
  Output and Capital Expenditure
  Output and Capital Expenditure
  Smokeless Fuels
  Smokeless Fuels
  ELECTRICITY (TRANSMISSION LINES)
  ELECTRICITY (TRANSMISSION LINES)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Cereals (Deficiency Payments)
  Cereals (Deficiency Payments)
  Fatstock Auctions
  Fatstock Auctions
  Tea
  Tea
  Imports from France
  Imports from France
  Bread (Profit Margin)
  Bread (Profit Margin)
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Short Brothers and Harland Limited (Shareholding)
  Short Brothers and Harland Limited (Shareholding)
  Hydraulic Press (Purchase)
  Hydraulic Press (Purchase)
  Swift Aircraft
  Swift Aircraft
  Building Application, Chorley (Refusal)
  Building Application, Chorley (Refusal)
HOSPITALS
  Clinical Experiments
  Clinical Experiments
  Regional Boards (Capital and Maintenance Expenditure)
  Regional Boards (Capital and Maintenance Expenditure)
  Student Nurses (Pulmonary Tuberculosis)
  Student Nurses (Pulmonary Tuberculosis)
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Nurses' Hostel Accommodation (Cost)
  Nurses' Hostel Accommodation (Cost)
  Welsh Sanatoria (Vacant Beds)
  Welsh Sanatoria (Vacant Beds)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Prescription Charge
  Prescription Charge
  Mass Radiography
  Mass Radiography
  Sight Tests (Manchester)
  Sight Tests (Manchester)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  New Towns (Progress)
  New Towns (Progress)
  Rent Tribunals (Points of Law)
  Rent Tribunals (Points of Law)
  Road Charges (Agricultural Frontages)
  Road Charges (Agricultural Frontages)
  ARMY BARRACKS, WINDSOR
  ARMY BARRACKS, WINDSOR
  AUSTRALIA AND CANADA (UNITED KINGDOM EMIGRANTS)
  AUSTRALIA AND CANADA (UNITED KINGDOM EMIGRANTS)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Capital Punishment (Executions)
  Capital Punishment (Executions)
  Mrs. Christofi
  Mrs. Christofi
  ADULT EDUCATION COLLEGE, TRING
  ADULT EDUCATION COLLEGE, TRING
  RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES (POLONIUM)
  RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES (POLONIUM)
  HORNCHURCH AERODROME (SMOKE NUISANCE)
  HORNCHURCH AERODROME (SMOKE NUISANCE)
AGRICULTURE
  Sugar Beet (Crop Forecasts)
  Sugar Beet (Crop Forecasts)
  Horticultural Produce
  Horticultural Produce
  Fruit Trees (Damage by Birds)
  Fruit Trees (Damage by Birds)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES AND U.K. (IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES AND U.K. (IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Charitable and Cultural Organisations (Grants)
  Charitable and Cultural Organisations (Grants)
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  High Strength Wines
  High Strength Wines
  ROAD TRANSPORT (HEAVY FREIGHT)
  ROAD TRANSPORT (HEAVY FREIGHT)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  CAR PARKING IN HYDE PARK
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask first the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before accepting Sir John Nott-Bower's recommendation of underground garages in Hyde Park, involving long delay and heavy cost, they will give immediate relief at no cost, by using on mid-week days unfrequented surfaces such as Rotten Row from Marble Arch to Victoria Gate.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I would call the noble Lord's attention to a statement made by my honourable friend the Minister of Works on December 14 last about arrangements for parking motor cars in the Royal Parks in Central London. These arrangements provide for motor cars to be parked along the whole of the North, East, South and West Carriage Drives of Hyde Park, except where it would be dangerous or cause congestion, and at the place already appointed near the Magazine. These arrangements were agreed after the matter had
  been most carefully examined by my honourable friend the Minister of Works, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and the police. The noble Lord will be aware that my honourable friend has to balance the interests of all those who use the Royal Parks. Rotten Row and other horse rides are kept for their traditional purposes, and my honourable friend does not feel that he would be justified in sacrificing them for the parking of motor cars.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I must say that I do not find that Answer very satisfactory. Would the noble Earl impress upon the Government the

  509
  fact that, to many of us, the idea of burrowing under Hyde Park, at huge expense and with long delay, is fantastic so long as there are large surfaces in Hyde Park and other Parks still open for use in this matter? To talk about the part of Rotten Row of which I speak in this Question—namely, from Marble Arch to Victoria Gate—as being used for horses for their traditional purposes is, if I may say so, not true. The horse there is unfortunately almost Obsolete, certainty during day time in mid-week; and on Saturdays and Sundays only a small posse of riders may be found there. If the broad stretch of Rotten Row were reserved for their purposes I suggest that, under present-day conditions, that would be enough. The part of Rotten Row of which I speak is absolutely unused by horses, as also are other parts of Hyde Park and parts of other parks. Those places could be made available for cars, and I hope the noble Earl will be good enough to impress that feeling upon the Government.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I ask whether it is not desirable to consider this matter in a bigger perspective, and to realise that, for pleasure purposes and for casual visits, the motor car is quite out of date in London at the present time; and that we ought to see that we do not have, day after day, this frightful congestion of people who come up from long distances by car when they could better come up by Tube? I understand that a number of noble Lords do come up by Tube to this House. Would it not be better to have the whole matter looked into very carefully indeed before any desecration of the Park, such as is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, is undertaken?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I will certainly convey the views of the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, to my right honourable friend. As regards the question asked me by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, I would say that if it were decided that cars should be parked in the North Ride—and that is roughly corresponding to Rotten Row—it would be necessary, I understand, to re-surface the whole of that ground with a hard surface capable of maintaining motor cars
  510
  upon it. That, as the noble Lord will realise, would involve a very vast expense indeed.

  THE BOULEVARD SCHEME
  2.41 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will place for inspection in the precincts of the House a model of the "Boulevard scheme."]
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my right honourable friend will carefully consider this suggestion.
  LORD BLACKFORD: If there is not a scale model available, is there, at any rate, a plan which could be put in the House?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, as this matter is still in abeyance, I hope the noble Lord will not press me further at the present stage.

  FORMOSA
  2.43 p.m.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there has been any change in their policy regarding Formosa.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is, No. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to see the fighting in the area brought to an end. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place on December 8, we have urged on all concerned the dangers of fighting, the importance of lowering tension and the need to avoid precipitate action.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I welcome the answer given by the noble Marquess. Arising out of it, I should like to ask two questions. The first is whether there is any international instrument implementing the Cairo Declaration and, if not, what is the present international status of Formosa; and the second is whether Her Majesty's Government

  511
  have any obligations to defend Formosa other than those which may be inherent in loyalty to the United Nations Charter.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: In answer to the first part of the noble Lord's first supplementary question, I would say that no such international instrument exists. As regards the second part, the position of Formosa is some what difficult in international law. The situation is that the Japanese Government renounced sovereignty over it but we do not regard it as forming part of China. The exact position is highly technical and, if I may say so, not very suitable for discussion in this way. As regards the second question, whether Her Majesty's Government have any obligation to defend Formosa, the answer is that they have no obligation other than that arising out of their membership of the United Nations.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, whilst welcoming the statement of the noble Marquess, does he not think that it is undesirable that Ministers should give speculative answers to questions concerning foreign policy based on hypothetical circumstances?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think I see what is in the mind of the noble and learned Earl, but I believe that what my right honourable friend the other Minister of State said does not substantially differ from anything that I have said to-day.
  LORD HENDERSON: But may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that his colleague referred to Formosa as a member of the United Nations, and that is certainly not true in fact?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I have stated what I believe to be the view today. As I have said, it is a difficult and delicate question.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess two questions?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Please do.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: First, when he says there is no change of policy, does he mean that Mr. Nutting's statement represented the Government policy? That
  512
  is the first question. The second question is: when he says there is no instrument implementing the Cairo Declaration, does he not regard a public statement signed by our Prime Minister, that the island would be restored to the Republic of China, as being an international obligation?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: As regards the first question asked by the noble Viscount, I do not think that anything my right honourable friend has said purported to announce a change of policy. I have stated what I believe to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government in general terms to-day, and it is better at this moment left in general terms. I was asked a question whether there was any international instrument carrying out the terms of the Treaty. I replied that there was not, and there is not.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does the noble Marquess allege that Mr. Nutting's statement represented Government policy, tel quel? That is the first question. The second question is: does the noble Marquess regard the Cairo Declaration as existing as an obligation of this country?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: It is possible to take different views as to the exact construction to be put on the statement that my right honourable friend made. I have given what I understand to be the Government policy in this matter, and I do not think I can usefully carry the matter beyond that. As regards the other question, I know that the Cairo Declaration came into being. What I was asked was whether there was an instrument—I think that was what was in the noble Viscount's mind—putting into force what was decided; and I said that there was not.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the earlier answer being given by the noble Marquess, may I ask whether the Government's view is that the United States action in relation to Formosa in general is right and that they are committed now to the defence of Formosa as such? The Government apparently regard it as not being any longer a part of Chinese territory. To whom are we committed, and are we committed in any way to supporting the United States in any defensive action that they may take?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: If I may say so with respect, I thought that I had answered that point in replying to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He asked me whether we had any obligation for the defence of Formosa other than that arising from our membership of the United Nations. I said that the view of the Government was that we had no such obligation. When the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, put his question and spoke about "obligations," I am not sure whether he was talking about our obligations or the United States obligations. The United States, as the noble Viscount knows, have recently entered into certain arrangements with the Chinese Nationalists which are the subject of a Treaty; but we, of course, are in no way a panty to that Treaty.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged for the last statement, because when the announcement was made in the United States by the colleague of the noble Marquess, China apparently felt that it meant that we were already implicated behind the United States. I am much obliged for the last statement.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not think that it could have been made clearer, it the time when the announcement of this Treaty was made, that Her Majesty's Government were not a party in any way to the Treaty. That was stated plainly then, and it has been stated time and again since. I hope that, if anybody was under any delusion on the subject, we have been able to remove it.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  2.49 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
  The Committee reported as follows:
  1.—LIBRARY
  The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Ilchester, E. Drogheda, E. Bessborough, V. Mersey, V. Soulbury, V. Simonds (Chairman), L. Stanmore, L. Reid, L. Burden, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
  2.—HOUSE OF LORDS CHAMBER
  The Sub-Committee on the Windows of the House was appointed as follows: D. Wellington, M. Salisbury, E. Drogheda, E. Munster,
  514
  V. Mersey, E. Crawford, L. Burden, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
  3.—REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
  The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. Fortescue (Chairman), E. Bessborough, V. Mersey, L. Mancroft, L. Killearn, L. Ammon, L. Henderson, L. Lucas of Chilworth, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
  4.—ACCOMMODATION
  The Sub-Committee on accommodation in the House of Lords was appointed as follows: E. Fortescue, L. Teynham (Chairman), E. Lucan, L. Rea, L. Burden, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
  5.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
  The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishments Circular No. 50/54 (Pay and Duties of Paperkeepers), dated 27th October, 1954, to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
  6.—PAY SUPPLEMENT
  The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishments Circular No. 53/54, dated 23rd November, 1454, to the staff of the House of Lords to Whom it may be applied.
  7.—DEPARTMENT OF THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN
  The Committee authorised a revised scale of salary for the Staff Superintendent.
  8.—HOUSEMAIDS
  The Committee sanctioned an increase in the rate of pay of the Housemaids.
  The Committee also sanctioned a small consequential increase in the superannuation award to Mrs. Doris Sandison, who retired an 9th October, 1954.
  9.—ESTIMATES
  The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1955–56 were laid before the Committee and approved. The Committee requested that in future more detailed information about the Estimates should be circulated to them in advance.
  10.—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1954–55
  The Committee approved the Supplementary Estimate submitted to meet the excess due to revised scales of pay, the temporary appointment of two male cleaners for the extra work during alterations to the Victoria Tower, Pay Supplement and the appointment of two extra housemaids for the cleaning of additional rooms.
  11.—APPEALS FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS
  The Committee considered certain appeals to members of the House in respect of Staff Outings, Christmas Fund, etc. The Committee referred the matter, in so far as it related to the Refreshment Department, to the Sub-Committee on that Department.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
  Moved, that the Report be now considered.—(Lord Terrington).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, as your Lordships will see, this Report deals almost entirely with routine matters. Unless any noble Lord has any point to raise, I propose to move formally that the Report be agreed to.
  Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(Lord Terrington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  2.50 p.m.
  Order for the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this is an important Bill, although what it does is very simple. There has been presented to Parliament at the same time as the Bill a substantial volume of information and statistics; they cover a wide range of interesting points, from the domiciliary accommodation of the old to the adjustment between National Insurance and private superannuation schemes. I do not propose to deal today with the many varied facets of the problem raised by these papers except possibly through an illustration from time to time. I should, however, like to thank the members of the Phillips Committee for the care and attention, and indeed the speed, with which they have completed their Report, which by any standard will always remain an interesting and important document. I should also like to express thanks to the Government Actuary for the admirable clarity with which he has presented his Quinquennial Report, and particularly for his success in presenting matters of such complexity with an astonishing degree of simplicity.
  I think that most of us, in approaching this subject, have really two thoughts in mind. First, we are all glad that it has proved possible to arrange for larger benefits to be paid under National Insurance and Industrial Injuries schemes, to the sick, to the unemployed, to the
  516
  injured and, perhaps above all, to the old people. I suppose that our second thought is a certain sense of anxiety as to whether this country can, in fact, carry the extensive burden which it is now carrying and the additional burden which this Bill necessarily brings with it.
  In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I propose to examine these two points. Before I do so, perhaps I may say this: that it is important, at the outset, to remember that the increase has become necessary because of the fall in the purchasing power of money, and it has become possible only because the economic strength of this country has improved during the last three years. We are now in the middle of the twentieth century, and I dare say that one of the most remarkable features of this century has been the growth of social security. I should like to examine how rapidly and how extensively it has progressed since the time when, during the time of the Government of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in 1908, old age pensions were first introduced. At that time, or in 1910, we were paying £7 million to non-contributory old age pensioners. By 1930, the amount of contributory and non-contributory pensions had risen to ten times that amount. By 1953, the figure had risen to fifty times that amount, and by 1978 it will have risen to one hundred times that amount. Those are payments in volume; but they also represent an increase in the net or real value to the individuals who receive them.
  If we examine retirement pensions, it is, I think, roughly true to say that the value of the present pension to the pensioner can be put at about two and a half times the 5s. which was paid in 1914. It is about three times the value of the 10s. paid in 1920, and twice the value of the 10s. paid in 1934. In regard to real purchasing power, the present standard rate will be about 6 per cent. more than the 26s. paid in 1946; about 36 per cent. more than the 26s. paid in September, 1951; and about 15 per cent. more than the 30s. paid to certain pensioners from October, 1951; I think that shows a steady development in both those spheres.
  In terms of cash, this Bill means that, with the exception of the pensions which were raised to 30s. in October, 1951, practically all the other benefits will have been increased during the period

  517
  of this Government by 50 per cent. This includes retirement pensions payable to persons who reached retiring age after October 1, 1951, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, and all the main industrial injuries benefits. Under this Bill the leading National Insurance rates are all being raised from 26s. to 40s. a week for a single person, while industrial injuries benefit and disablement benefit is raised from 45s. to 67s. 6d. Proportionate increases have been made to dependants. Details can be found in Appendix II of the Minister's Memorandum on the Bill (Cmd. 9338). There can be no doubt that the amount of these increases far exceeds any rise in prices which has occurred during the last three years—in other words, these increases also make up for rises in the cost of living which occurred before this Government came into power. I pass to the second question which I think most of us are asking ourselves—namely, glad as we are to see these benefits, are we putting too great a burden on posterity? Are we, in fact, in this position: that having spent all our money and having borrowed all we can get, we are now pledging our grandchildren's credit? I think it is desirable to look at that question for one moment.
  I will first turn to the Industrial Injuries Scheme. Here, of course, one is dealing with a scheme that is intended to be actuarially self-supporting. The fundamental difference between the Industrial Injuries Scheme and the National Insurance Scheme is that the Industrial Injuries Scheme in general did not take in old cases, whereas the National Insurance Scheme did. It is, of course, true that the fund has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase for the time being. But the ever-rising number of disability pensions will gradually eat into this sum, and the Actuary, in his Report, has warned us that contributions may sooner or later have to be slightly increased if it is ultimately to reach a stable condition necessary for continued solvency. We think the addition of one penny, payable by the employer and the employee, imposed by this Bill is the essential minimum increase to meet the cost of the increased benefits which are here proposed. We are awaiting the Actuary's Quinquennial Report on this fund, which we hope will show that there is no heavy, long-term
  518
  problem—at least, nothing comparable to the problems posed in the National Insurance Fund.
  I should now like to turn to the National Insurance Fund. The problem here is not new; it is fairly well known, but it is bigger. The problem arises basically because of the increasing percentage of older age groups in the population. If I may refer to one point which the Phillips Report brought out, it is that our problem is not limited to the percentage increase of population of pensionable age. There are certain other formidable factors—for instance, the increase of old people will be from 7 million to 9½million, an increase of 40 per cent. on the number of pensioners; but the number of pensioners is expected to increase from 4½ million to rather over 7½million; that is, about 80 per cent. The reason is that in twenty-five years' time more people of pensionable age will come into the scheme than is the case now. But even that is not the whole of the story, because the Committee point out that because a certain number of pensioners have postponed retirement, they will be receiving pensions at a higher rate, and accordingly they consider that the increase of pensions to be paid will be at the rate of 100 per cent.—which means to say that in twenty-five years the amount which will have to be paid in pensions is about double what we are paying now.
  On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that the Actuary in his Quinquennial Report gives us a slightly more favourable picture than that previously seen. Even taking account of the proposals we make here regarding benefits and contributions, the annual deficit to be borne by the Exchequer will not be very different from the deficits previously forecast on the basis of the present rates. This more favourable picture results from a number of rather complex factors mainly related to the future structure of the population. On the Quinquennial Report, I would point out that in the first five years of the operation of the Scheme, the actual benefit experience has been much more favourable than was anticipated in 1946. This is particularly so in the case of unemployment and sickness, and the result of course is that the forecast was very different from the picture we see to-day. The difference would represent about 25 per cent. had

  519
  there been no succeeding legislation from 1946 up to the present time. I mention that because it is proper to bear in mind that similar changes might affect calculations in the course of the next twenty-five years. This does not, however, relieve us of the necessity of facing quite boldly the position as we see it to-day. I should like, therefore, to examine the facts which the Actuary has given.
  The capital value of the National Insurance Scheme for present and future beneficiaries is just under £33,000 million —that is, about 25 per cent. more than the amount of the National Debt. The capital value of future contributions by insured persons and employers is about £17,000 million, leaving the Exchequer to shoulder a liability of nearly £16,000 million. It is doubtless this consideration which has inspired the Phillips Committee to say, in paragraph 132 of their Report:
  "On pension account alone, a deficit already exists and might be increased at any time; it is open to any Government to announce an increase in benefit rates which its successors will have to finance, and it can, in doing so, add to the future liabilities of the State with a facility that makes even a war seem a laborious method of inflating the National Debt. It can cast the burden on its successors of honouring pledges given to-day without any corresponding, obligation to bring into existence the capital assets that would help to enable the pledges to be kept."
  Turning to the annual side of the contribution, the Actuary's Report shows that the cost of National Insurance benefits will rise from £622 million in the first year to £1,100 million in twenty-five years' time, of which retirement pensions will account for about £800 million, or nearly four-fifths. These payments will be met from three sources: first, interest on the two Funds, about £45 million a year; secondly, contributions from employers and employees, which vary but will total about £520 million; and thirdly, an Exchequer supplement of about £93 million. The National Insurance Fund may show a deficit for the first time in the coming financial year, and this deficit is expected to grow to £145 million a year by 1960, to nearly £300 million by 1970, and to about £425 million by 1980.
  Noble Lords will observe that Exchequer payments in this matter are fairly heavy. It has been suggested that they should have been heavier still, but it seems to me that this view ignores the
  520
  effect of what Her Majesty's Government are doing by Clause 2 (3), which is to make the Exchequer liable for the payment by 1960 of up to £325 million—an average of £65 million a year. If we add this to the £93 million supplement, it gives an annual average payment of £158 million. This is a larger sum than the Exchequer has ever paid for National Insurance and will represent about 22 per cent. of the total expenditure to be made from the Insurance Fund. This is, of course, considerably more than one-fifth of the total expenditure—not, would point out, simply of the amount of contributions from employer and employee. Thereafter the Exchequer expenditure will rise until it reaches nearly 50 per cent. From these facts it will be clearly seen that we have come down pretty heavily on the side of the principle of contributory insurance which was outlined in the Beveridge Report, a principle which has been maturing slowly but steadily for some forty-five years.
  There may be some noble Lords who in this matter are drawn between two considerations: first, the desire primarily to help the least privileged members of our community, those who, often through no fault of their own, are least well-placed; secondly, on the other side, what may be called a hatred of a system which compels those unable to support themselves to disclose their resources and to receive assistance subject to a means test which may involve their eating into their hard-won savings. Doubtless all noble Lords have from time to time been drawn towards one or other of these considerations; and, within certain limits, one tries to get the best of both worlds by having something of both. But in examining whether we are right to emphasise the insurance aspect as we do, I should like to turn to paragraph 296 of the Beveridge Report, where the same question is asked, and see what was the answer given there:
  "The capacity and the desire of the British people to contribute for security are among the most certain and most impressive social facts of to-day."
  I suggest that the answer is probably the same to-day as it was then.
  This is a scheme of immense significance which we must all want. If we do not, then I am quite certain that we shall not consider the effort to maintain

  521
  it worth while. Her Majesty's Government believe that the vast majority of people in this country do want this system, because they think, as we do, that payment of right is both fair and necessary as an essential element both of liberty and of human dignity. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has been good enough to give us some good economic arguments as to why this outlook is sound. I will mention only one: that if we rely on payment of assistance subject to test, then the building up of capital becomes a matter of conflict between the individual and the State.
  The next question which will doubtless be in noble Lords' minds is whether the distribution of the burden in this matter is fair. This largely centres around the question whether the payment by the man who falls into Class I, 6s. 9d. a week, is too high in relation to the benefits or too heavy a burden for him to bear. This is not an easy matter to answer, because inevitably it contains an element of judgment of circumstances; but perhaps noble Lords will permit me to make some comparisons with the past. Since 1946, benefits have increased over 50 per cent., while contributions have increased 33 per cent. These facts appear to suggest that the burden has been transferred, if anything, towards the Exchequer. Figures in regard to earnings show that the percentage of average earnings paid in contributions to-day is smaller than it would have been under the 1946 scheme. Of average earnings, whereas, under the 1946 provisions, 3·9 per cent would have gone in contributions, to-cay 3·2 per cent. would go in contributions.
  I am aware that it may not he quite fair to take average earnings, became this is a minimum scheme essentially devised for, shall I say, those who are least well off in the community. Of course, anyone who wishes to do so can make private provision or, as many now do, enter some occupational pension scheme. I may mention that the Phillips Report shows that something like one-third of the population who are contributing under the National Insurance Scheme are currently acquiring rights also under some form of pension or superannuation scheme. They number about seven million individuals, and this number is increasing. Moreover, at the present time, there are about one million
  522
  who are actually receiving benefits under some such superannuation scheme.
  If we turn now to the lowest paid worker, we find that under the 1946 provision 4·9 per cent. of earnings went in contributions, whereas in 1954 the proportion was 4·2 per cent. I think it is worth remembering that, without the Exchequer supplement, contributions even from the age of 16, from employer and employee, would not be actuarially adequate to meet the cost of benefits when they became due; that is to say, this is a far more advantageous scheme than could ever be contemplated between employee and employer, even if we entirely omit the consideration of the many beneficiaries who come later into the scheme and whose payments, in some cases, cover only a small percentage of the benefits to be obtained. It is perhaps worth recalling, too, that for the people who come into the Scheme at the age of 25, instead of 16, the contributions should be one-third higher; at the age of 35 they should be doubled, and at the age of 50 they should be five times as much as at the age of 16. Of course these increased contributions are not applied; many people do come in at a later stage, and have done in the past. I think that, on balance, therefore, most of us must come round to the view that the Exchequer has taken on as much as it could be expected to do; indeed, we are still a little concerned as to whether it will be able to fulfil its undertaking here in a real sense and in real values.
  If I may for one moment refer again to the Phillips Report, I think most of us will find it is encouraging to note that, viewing the subject with the objectivity which so eminent and so distinguished a body can do, they came to the conclusion that the burden of pensions would not he unmanageable in twenty or thirty years' time. I am bound to add the qualification that this was said before the new Scheme was brought forward. I also think it important to recall two points to which the Phillips Committee drew attention. The first was that, in view of the volume of expenditure falling on the Budget, there might have to be a corresponding economy in other directions, even if that meant that pensions were given a special priority. The second point was to emphasise that one of the primary objects to which the thoughts of the State should be directed is that of

  523
  ensuring that capital assets are growing at a satisfactory rate. I think we must recognise that, in the long run, the only way these burdens can be carried is by increasing the general level of national wealth and maintaining the value of money. It is important to remember that we have already been warned of the existence of inflationary pressure. The more rapidly we can expand the national income and our capacity to produce, the easier the problem will be.
  Here, again, I would quote some figures which are not unencouraging. Between 1947 and 1953, national income increased by about 23 per cent. in real terms, while the total employed population rose only by 5½ per cent. This means that over the economy, taken as a whole, output per man has risen, on an average, by something like 2½per cent. per annum over the past seven years. There is as yet no comparable figure for 1954, but the indications are that an encouraging increase in productivity has continued. Our general economic policy must be to study the growth of productivity and productive capacity, and, indeed, to improve on it. And it is for this reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his last two Budgets, has laid so much emphasis on the need for more productive investment and a policy of encouraging economic expansion, placing the growth of economy as the necessary counterpart to these proposals for increasing pensions. Indeed it is only viewing the matter in that light that these proposals make sense.
  This Bill is an expression of confidence in the future strength of the community and our way of life, but this expression of confidence must be supported by positive action on the part of all the people in this country, both in their thoughts and deeds.
  May I say this in ending? If we regard this Scheme simply as a means of redistributing the wealth of the country, as a more effective way of cutting up the national cake, it will assuredly fail in its purpose, for the very simple reason that at the present time there are just not the funds available to make payments which eventually will be required in terms of this Bill. If, however, we regard social security as a platform, or as a foundation on which to build greater productivity, in which all, from the leaders of
  524
  industry to the newest entered apprentice can unite, then indeed we shall have a scheme which will be a boon not only to this generation but also to our children and grandchildren. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  3.16 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, it is customary in rising to address your Lordships' House to disclose any personal interest one may have in the Motion under discussion. I will begin, therefore, by reminding your Lordships that as it is nearly twenty years since I passed pensionable age, I naturally have a considerable interest in this subject as it affects those who, like myself, are in the later stages of the journey through life. But I have a specific interest as well as a general one in this question, because as Vice-Chairman of a charity known as Cecil Houses, I have a particular interest in their home for old ladies whose old age pensions have an important part to play in the financial structure of that house. But my concern with pensions goes back over more than half a century. I was closely associated with Keir Hardie in his struggle to secure for aged persons a pension, a very modest pension, to which the noble Earl has just referred and which finally came into law in the year 1908. Furthermore, my wife and I were instrumental in bringing to this country from the United States, Judge Henry Neal to advocate what he had already got in his own district of that country, a pension for widowed mothers who had lost their breadwinner-husband and therefore had to do a double duty themselves. And it was to this subject that I addressed my remarks in my maiden speech in the other place.
  Those were very cruel days for the poorer members of the community—no sickness benefit, no workmen's compensation, no unemployment allowance, no help towards old age from the community except the grim relief of the Poor Law and the cold bleak walls of the workhouse, wherein husband and wife were shut off from each other's society long before death them did part. There are Members of your Lordships' House today who experienced those days in their youth and whose mothers fought single-handed the valiant battle imposed by those conditions and filled the dual rôle of breadwinner and home-keeper. The

  525
  Welfare State, as we know it to-day and as the noble Earl has just described it, has been built up during the last fifty years to its present structure by all Parties. The most outstanding addition was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, when, on the instigation of my friend the late Arthur Greenwood and with the help of an expert Committee, he drew up his famous Report. This was accepted in principle by the Coalition Government of the day and in 1946 was coined into an Act by the Government of which I myself was a member.
  This Act has more than once had to be amended and the latest proposals for amendment are contained in the Bill which we are discussing today. A glance at its provisions is sufficient to see that, although it is dealing with essentially human matters, in its text and in its implications it is almost exclusively a financial question. In view of that, I am proposing to tell your Lordships the attitude that I and those for whom I speak in this House propose to adopt with regard to it. It is true that it has not been certified by the
  Speaker as a Money Bill; nevertheless, we do regard it as mainly concerned with finance and, as such, as far more appropriate to be discussed in another place than in your Lordships' House. Therefore we shall devote our speeches in this debate on the Second Reading to the general provisions of the Bill and we do not propose to put down any Amendments for the later stages of the Bill. We do that not only for the reason I have already mentioned to your Lordships but also because the kind of Amendments we might have put down have been so recently discussed and defeated in another place that it seems to us to be otiose to put them down again. Finally, I am quite sure I am carrying all sections of the House with me in desiring not to delay the passage of this Bill into law. Many administrative steps have to be taken to set the machinery in motion and all of us are anxious that the setting up of the machinery should not be delayed.
  What is the reason why the Act of 1946 has needed and needs today substantial revision? Is it due to any major defect in the Act itself? I answer to that
  question, No, and I am supported in that view by the Government Actuary
  526
  in his first Quinquennial Review—I shall be referring later to the words which he said on that matter—which in fact has been accepted by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading. Why, then, has the Act to be amended at all? It has to be amended because of the change in the value of money brought about by inflation. Inflation upsets the physical basis of all contracts which run for a period of time. Benefits, being expressed in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, become quite different in real value when the purchasing power of the pound drops substantially. What might have been adequate in 1946 has become wholly inadequate in 1954. If, therefore, the intention of the 1946 Act is to be carried out, the money rates of benefit must be revised upwards, and that is what this Bill does. On this I think noble Lords in all parts of the House are generally agreed.
  Before I come to the other features of the Bill, I propose to deal with the popular misconception regarding the capacity of the country as a whole to support in decency and reasonable comfort its own people in their old age or earlier misfortune. Contrary to popular belief, the sole criterion is whether or not at the time when the benefits are required the country can afford out of its current income the sufficient proportion to satisfy this worthy object. And this is not dependent on the purchasing power of the pound at the time, so long as
  any changes which have taken place in price level have affected all commodities roughly in the same proportion. Nor is it dependent directly on the existence of any proper scheme of insurance, such as the Beveridge Plan. My Lords, 1954 cannot heap up a pile of food and clothing to be dispersed in 1979. It cannot put into a gigantic money box several thousands of millions of pounds' worth of gold. All it can profitably do is to exercise thrift by directing income from immediate consumption to capital development, thereby ensuring the future productive capacity of the country. This, in effect, is what it does when the Exchequer and other sources are used to create an insurance fund. Lest I be misunderstood, I hasten to add that I am not decrying the value of the insurance principle, which I regard as of very great importance. I am trying only to set out the basic economic facts which underlie the financial superstructure.

  527
  Having said that, my answer to the question which the noble Earl incidentally posed, of whether in, say, 1979 the country will be able adequately to look after its aged and afflicted persons, is an emphatic affirmative. I think it is also the answer which the noble Earl gave and which he attributed also to the Phillips Committee, even though perhaps they were not speaking of what will be after this Bill but before it. Of course, that statement of affirmation is subject to the proviso that in the meantime our economy has not been blown to smithereens by war or by some other devastating catastrophe. I am almost sure that that statement was made in one or other of these papers, but there is such a mass of them, when one tries to look up the whole scheme, that the noble Earl will agree that sometimes one mislays such statements. However, I think the noble Earl quoted the figures to justify what I have said.
  Hitherto this scheme has been based on two principles: first, that there would be paid continually into the fund on behalf of every worker a premium which in the case of those who enter the scheme at sixteen is sufficient to cover actuarially the benefits to which they are entitled, this premium being contributed in fixed proportions by the worker, the employer and the State; secondly, that the Exchequer has to make a block grant in order to bring into the scheme the workers who are more than sixteen at the time of the start and are in what, in common jargon, to-day is called the pipeline between sixteen and old age. This block grant is not, and never has been, intended to be paid into the Fund as a lump sum, but has always been arranged annually, to be paid as required in later years to cover the deficits as they arise. Here I should like to quote from the Government Actuary on page 29 of the Report, where it says:
  "The annual deficits are not the result of an unfavourable experience, nor are they unexpected. They arise from the grant of full insurance rights when the National Insurance Scheme was introduced and when pension and other benefit rates are increased to practically all existing contributors and pensioners, although past contributions of adequate amount cannot have been paid."
  In other words, that is what both the noble Earl and I have said: that the part that the State pays in the block grant is
  528
  paid in order to keep up to the full insurance all those people who are over sixteen either when the Scheme started or when further increases have been made.
  In their proposals for meeting the cost of the increased benefit in this Bill the Government are raising the contribution by 1s. per week per worker and 1s. per week from the employer. In so doing, the Government are breaking new financial ground, in that they are for the first time providing a premium paid on account of young entrants in excess of the actual cost of these benefits. This is quite clearly stated on page 13 of the Government Actuary's Report on the financial provisions of the Bill, where he uses these words:
  "The proposed contributions are materially greater than the amounts of the actuarial contributions."
  I shall have something to say on this matter later. I have said that, though this Bill is not entirely along the lines that we should have liked to see it, we still wish it well and hope that it will come speedily into law. Our main criticism of the Government scheme as a whole is that, owing to faulty timing, the Government fall in certain respects between two stools. They have failed to provide the necessary increase in benefits in time to be available for the winter season; and they have failed to consider at all adequately either the important proposals of the Phillips Committee or those of the Quinquennial Report of their own Actuary.
  This is not some wicked view taken by the Labour Party, but a view which has been expressed in circles by no means unfavourable to the Government. I was interested to read these words in The Spectator of December 10, a paper which certainly leans towards the Conservative Party rather than the Labour Party:
  "What the present position called for was not a patched-up expedient but a deliberate and considered piece of legislation of a kind which must one day be forthcoming. All the most urgent questions are still unanswered."
  The Economist, in its issue of December 11, is still more scathing. In the role of heavy father, for which we are accustomed to look, the Economist tells us (not, of course, in the precise words that I am going to use) that all of us, in both Houses—Government, Opposition, Front Benches and Back Benches—are a set of naughty boys who ought to be whipped

  529
  and sent to bed; and then "father" will be left to do what is best for the country.
  The questions that have to be considered and settled by Parliament, acting as a Council of State, are many and various, and most of them are mentioned in the Phillips Report. Here are some of the more important ones. If the contributions are continually to increase, should they remain, as at present, on an entirely flat basis? On this question there is a great deal to be said on both sides. In particular, it should be noticed that at present the lower-paid workers pay out of their resources not merely a larger proportion of their incomes but a larger intrinsic sum, because the better-paid workers recover part of their contributions in reduction of income tax, whereas the lower-paid workers, who do not pay income tax, suffer the full reduction from their earnings. I am not deciding the point one way or the other but I am putting it forward as a point which I think has escaped a number of people.
  Here is another question. Should there be any change in the age of retirement, whether voluntary or compulsory, or does the present option to continue at work, which exists only in certain occupations, fully meet the case? The Phillips Report has revealed to many members of the community something which I could have ventured to put before them before ever the Committee investigated the matter—namely, that a large number of elderly people stay at work because they want to. One thing an old person does not like is to become, as it were, a mere piece of furniture. I remember that a young woman went to call on an ex-agricultural labourer and found him sitting outside his house. She said to him: "Well, Mr. Grimes, what do you do with yourself nowadays?" He replied: "Well, miss, sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." That is what he is forced to do. But I am sure, from my experience of men of all classes, that most of them prefer to go on creating something and administering to the community, if they possibly can, rather than sit about and do nothing, with their hands folded in front of them. Whether we decide that the compulsory retirement age should be changed or not, I am certain that we must take that fact into serious consideration.
  530
  Another question is this. Should the State pension scheme remain, as at present, entirely separate from the superannuation schemes to which the noble Earl made reference? Should these occupational schemes remain unregulated and uncoordinated? Should the combined contribution, hitherto calculated to cover only the actuarial cost of benefit of a person entering the scheme in youth, be raised so as to bear some part of the Exchequer block grant, as the Government are proposing by this Bill? In this connection, I would point out to your Lordships that the increase in contributions is not quite the clear benefit to the Exchequer that is sometimes represented. Consider, in the first place, the contribution which falls on the employer. The addition of 1s. a week—I am taking round figures—means that in the course of the year employers will pay something in the neighbourhood of £50 million. But all that is not a clear gain to the Exchequer—very far from it, in fact. The employer will take one of two courses. He may take it all out of his profits. If he does that, it will represent a reduction in the amount of income tax payable: the Treasury will therefore lose, out of the £50 million it thinks it is getting from the employer, a sum certainly not less than £20 million a year, and probably some surtax as well.
  Suppose, on the other hand, that the employer takes the more likely course of putting up the cost of the article which he sells. The effect of that will be inflationary. Perfectly clearly, it is a pure matter of inflation. It may injure him, incidentally, in the course of his export trade but, so far as the home market is concerned, it means that he puts one more ring on the spiral of inflation. Inflation is the nigger in the woodpile against which we have to be particularly on our watch in this pension scheme, because inflation, as I have pointed out, has already damaged the results of the scheme in the past. If inflation is going on continually, we shall be constantly having to raise the rates and the contributions; and where the upward spiral will end no-one can see.
  With regard to the workers' contribution, to some slight degree the same conclusion will arise, because some of the workers, at any rate, can deduct the amount of their contributions from their income for the purpose of tax; so that,

  531
  here again, the Treasury will lose a certain amount of money in income tax from the workers. Quite apart from that, there is the differential result, to which I referred a few sentences ago, on the high and the low paid workers. The Minister, in introducing this Bill in another place, and the noble Earl in his speech, made certain comparisons between the proportion of income taken by the flat rate contribution to-day, and what it will do after this Bill becomes law, with what it did in the year 1946. I was under the impression that those figures dealt mainly with average earnings, but the noble Earl did say that they affected the lowest paid worker.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, I am sorry—the lowest earnings.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I must say that I cannot follow the noble Earl's arithmetic here, because, whereas a low-paid earner would be earning £6 a week, the average earnings are something over £12. Therefore, it seems incredible to me that, when the average proportion is 3·2 per cent., that of the low paid worker should be 4·2 per cent. It seems to me incredible that there is such a slight difference. However, the point I am making is this. The low paid worker will have to pay this whole contribution, and though it may seem little to us to have to find 6s. a week, for a man with a family who is getting only £5 or £6 it may be quite a serious item affecting his budget. Therefore, we on these Benches take the view that this is one of the matters that ought not to have been introduced by itself. If it was a desirable thing to do, we ought to have waited until we had a general scheme in which all the points that are open to discussion could have been discussed together, and this should have been taken as one of those.
  Finally, there is the relationship of the pensions scheme to National Assistance. That, of course, does not come directly into this Bill, but the Government scheme with regard to pensions would have looked very odd if the poorest persons in our community—those who draw National Assistance owing to their poverty—had been the only people to get no rise in their income. Of course, we know that by what I think Sir Winston Churchill would have called a "most fortunate coincidence," the National
  532
  Assistance Board have chosen this particular moment to decide that there ought to be some increase in their rates also. Most of us understand the reason why these increases are less than those given to their better off neighbours, but I doubt very much whether the older people themselves will take that complacent view.
  Now what are the conclusions of the whole matter? The first one that I draw is that we must do everything possible to avoid inflation, which upsets all promises made for the future. Under its spell we are like the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass, who had to run as fast as she could the whole time, in order to remain where she was. For the rest, I and the members of my Party can regard this only as an interim measure, and we shall press for a full discussion on all the issues involved, so that we may all of us, not thinking in terms of Party, but as a Council of State, build a sound scheme which will make this great country of ours greater still in the consideration which it shows to the young, to the old, to the unfortunate and, indeed, to the whole of our population.
  3.48 p.m.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I am sure that all those present would like me to begin by thanking the noble Earl who has spoken on behalf of the Government for the lucid and persuasive way in which he has put his case. I should also like, as I am sure most of us would, to thank the noble Lord who has just sat down, not only for his interesting observations but even more perhaps, for the promise that no Amendments to this Bill will be put forward on behalf of his Party, so that the Bill may be sure of a rapid progress. I am the more happy to thank the noble Earl who has spoken for the Government because I recollect an earlier debate on February 10 of this year in which I did not feel quite so grateful to him. I was then pressing the Government for speed; for ignoring, if necessary, what the Government Actuary wanted to say about the finance of the scheme; for hurrying on the Committee of Sir Thomas Phillips; and for putting into that Committee some of the spirit of my noble friend who presides over me on this Bench, Lord Samuel and his Commission upon the Coal Mining Industry in

  533
  1925–26. I can assure your Lordships that under Lord Samuel's driving force we produced in six months a much longer Report than the Sir Thomas Phillips Committee have produced in, I think, eighteen months, or nearly eighteen months. I had hoped that the Phillips Committee would have had their work done in time for real consideration before die Government came to hold that debate. In that debate, however, the noble Earl who speaks for the Government insisted that we must wait for these Reports, and, further, that there was no likelihood of getting the Reports this year.
  I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Earl and his Government on doing so much better than the rather cheerless programme they had before them suggested. The Sir Thomas Phillips Committee have reported, and the Government Actuary reported before the end of November. Indeed, the Government have done better, because they have added a third most interesting Report as the result of a special inquiry made by the Ministry of National Insurance and Pensions as to the reasons given by individual men for retiring or for continuing at work at sixty-five years of age. All of those Reports are of human interest and great importance. The tragedy that none of them really came in time to guide public opinion or to be considered nearly as carefully as they deserve to be before a decision had to be taken on this Bill.
  The Report of the Phillips Committee was actually published after the Government proposals had been announced. The most important recommendation of the Committee for raising the statutory pension age was excluded, in practice, by the announcement before its publication, made by the Minister of Pensions, of the intention to raise pensions without reference to age. The recommendation was formally rejected when the Minister in another place spoke in introducing this Bill. Therefore, while I congratulate the Government on the modified speed that they have put into their "reporters," I am afraid that the reporters themselves have had slightly shabby treatment. Secondly, I have to congratulate the Government on the speed of their own proposals. Finally, and most important of all, I congratulate them most heartily and unreservedly on the main nature of their
  534
  proposals, first, for strengthening benefit as of right rather than by assistance subject to a means test, as the main instrument for dealing with lack of income, whether through unemployment, sickness, accident or old age; and, secondly, for maintaining, so far as it still can be maintained, the insurance principle by raising contributions as they raise benefits.
  I think I can illustrate the positive commendation which I should like to make of the Government proposals by referring to the main criticism, the most vigorous criticism that I have seen, of their proposals in the article in the Economist to which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has already made reference. It is in an article on pensions in perspective. Lest your Lordships should have any doubt as to my views of that article, let me begin by saying that it seems to me to fall gravely short of that judgment and sense of perspective which we have hitherto regarded as one of the great features of the Economist.
  What does the article do? First, it describes the end of insurance. It uses a phrase about the "wreck of the National Insurance Scheme." It does so because it has apparently at last become clear to the Economist that the National Exchequer, for years to come and, indeed, indefinitely, will have to find a large part of the money needed to pay the pensions which will fall due. There is absolutely nothing new or unexpected in that. It is all set out in the Government Actuary's Report, that if, when you introduce a pensions system, you want to bring in some of the people who are already well advanced in years, or advanced even past the earlier years, you must somehow find money from other sources than their contributions for back services. That is the experience of any employer who starts a pensions scheme and wants not to postpone it for fifty years but to bring in the people who are more than sixteen when they join. There is nothing new or unexpected in it. It is all carefully set out in the Government Actuary's Report. It was all carefully set out in the Beveridge Report of 1942, which gave all these figures of increasing expenditure from the Exchequer as the number of old people rose.
  Of course, one can say that this is not insurance, but that is merely quarrelling about words. Is it not really insurance if money comes from outside other than

  535
  the contributions of the employers and the employees? No employer who starts an insurance scheme with money for back services would admit that it was not insurance. But, much more important and, to me, much more disastrous, is the objection this article raises to the raising of benefit rather than the increasing of National Assistance. It describes as "completely lacking in human compassion" the fact that, while putting up the benefits by 7s. 6d. a week, the Bill proposes only a meagre half-crown rise in National Assistance. That assumes, of course, that National Assistance was in the right relation to benefit before. Actually, it can be seen that National Assistance was unduly high in relation to benefit before.
  The article goes on to its central thesis, that it is extravagant, under any social insurance system, to give money to people who do not really need it and who have any money of their own: in other words, that we should give up the whole of insurance and benefits as of right in favour of assistance, subject to a means test for everybody. That is the central thesis of this remarkable, this astonishing article. What does that mean? It means that the State should say to everybody: "We will help you in proportion as you have failed to help yourself. The more you have done for yourself, or tried to do for yourself, the less we will do for you. Therefore, be wise; do not do anything for yourself." That is the moral, that is the effect, of assistance subject to a means test. We must have it; we cannot abandon it altogether; but to make it our main feature in dealing with this question is to make State action the enemy of individual action. The State says: "I will do something provided you do not. I will use my money power, my power of helping you, in order to discourage you from helping yourself or thinking about Yourself". That is really universal pauperisation.
  The right view, the contrary view, is that what the State should do is to make a firm basis of minimum over and above which the individual can build up himself for what he wants above the minimum. That gives liberty and variety in the community, and liberty and variety are more important than dead equality
  536
  to which universal assistance, subject to means test, would reduce our whole people. The Economist is simply living in the Dark Ages; and I think that anyone reading that article and contemplating what it involves, what I have called the universal pauperisation of the people of this country, will see at once the outstanding merit of this Bill; and that is why I, for one, welcome wholeheartedly the Government's proposals. I agree that substantially they have covered the decrease in the value of money in the pensions provided under social insurance. I only hope that they will be encouraged to go on to the still harder task of preventing any future decrease in the value of the money in my pocket and in everybody else's pocket—because the fact remains that it is diminishing and is not being increased by this Bill. Next time I hope that the Government will do something still better, and will prevent inflation and preserve the value of the money in our pockets.
  Let me come to the second main question posed by the noble Earl who spoke for the Government—namely, can we afford what is proposed in this Bill; or, alternatively, can we, without harm, materially reduce the cost of what is proposed by this Bill? The Phillips Committee made one proposal for diminishing the cost. They proposed to raise the minimum statutory age for drawing pensions by three years—for men, from 65 to 68; for women, from 60 to 63. They proposed to do it by three stages of a year, spread over at least fifteen years. To go with that, they proposed to lessen the conditions required for sickness and unemployment benefit so that a person could get sickness and unemployment benefit more easily in the years between 65 and 68, and 60 and 63.
  There are many criticisms of detail which one can make on this proposal of the Phillips Committee. The first is that there is no medical evidence at all as to the capacity of man to work after 65 up to 68, or of how long that capacity lasts. All we know is that about six men out of ten do continue working after 65, but we do not know for how long. There is no real medical evidence as to their capacity; and, as the Phillips Committee themselves said, this proposal is based on lack of any precise evidence. I think there is here a clear indication of the speed at which the Committee had to

  537
  work. They proposed to preserve the existing retirement condition between 65 and 68. This would mean that in future for the two years between 68 and 70 only (there is no retirement condition after 70), we should keep all the fuss, unpopularity and administrative work involving the retirement condition. I am certain that if the Government are, in fact, going to raise the age to 68, and are, as new, to have no retirement condition after 70, they had better do away with the retirement condition altogether. But these are criticisms of detail.
  My main criticism of this proposal is that it does not touch the main problem of paying for pensions. The estimate of the Phillips Committee was that their proposal would, by 1978, save £50 million a year—that is, one-fifteenth—out of a total expenditure on pensions of £665 million, or one-seventh of the expenditure of £364 million incurred by the Government on making up deficits. To have all this apparatus, raising the retirement age over fifteen years and, in so doing, making pensions a part of political controversy all over the country, for the sake of £50 million a year, out of a total expenditure of £665 million, seems to me to be not worth while. As your Lordships know, the Government have already rejected that proposal, and I imagine that it is dead. I do not say this because I feel that on principle all question of the minimum pensionable age ought to be excluded from consideration. I do suggest, however, that the only chance of getting a rise in the minimum pensionable age, the statutory retiring age, and of compelling people to go on working rather than draw pensions, would have been to combine that as a kind of bargain with raising the rate of benefit and pensions now, perhaps with the abolition of the retirement condition. That was the only chance, and that chance has gore.
  In future, what we really have to do to cover the expense of pensions is to trust to increasing productivity. As the noble Earl has already pointed out, in an interesting paragraph of their Report, paragraph 147, the Phillips Committee
  take a relatively low estimate of increasing productivity. Their estimate adds 1½ per cent. per year, so that by 1979 our national income would have risen from £14,000 million a year to £20,000 million a year. That increase could easily stem
  538
  the growth of pensions from £334 million to £365 million, which is the growth we have to face. If we can maintain our productivity, and our growth of productivity, there is no question but that we can afford what is now proposed in this Bill. The other line to work on is not the compulsory continuance at work of people who cannot work because they are too ill to work or cannot get work, but the voluntary continuance at work of all who want to do it. Of course, in many cases that involves a change of the employers' attitude, and in many cases, as the Phillips Committee said, supervision of the employers' own pension scheme and superannuation schemes. That is the direction in which we should look, rather than to a raising of the pension age.
  I am bound to say that, to my mind, there is a good deal more to be said for the proposal to abolish the difference between pension ages—that is for men, 65, and for women, 60. That is subjected to a strongly worded note by the only
  woman member of the Committee, Dr. Janet Vaughan, who was most anxious to assimilate the women's pension age of 60 with that of men at 65. Historically, we are almost, if not quite, alone in making this difference. Of other countries from which the Phillips Committee took evidence, seven had the same age for men and women, including the United States and Canada, and most of the countries I know of, except Australia and Denmark. Historically, also, the principle of pensions for women at 60 rests on nothing but two legislative blunders. The first was in 1925, when contributory pensions were first introduced. The people who devised that scheme were a secret committee of civil servants in the deepest recesses of Whitehall—or so they were once described by our present Prime Minister. They agreed on a pension for a man at 65 and for his wife also if she was 65, but not if she was younger than the husband. That, of course, was ridiculous, because most wives are younger than their husbands, and not only younger but busier, for they are bringing up families. Yet no provision was made for them. Had that committee looked at any other branch of insurance, like unemployment or sickness, they would have seen that there were allowances for wives; but that committee made none.

  539
  When, in 1940, this situation became too ridiculous to be allowed to continue, another amendment was made and the age for women's pensions was lowered to 60, instead of 65, on the assumption that the average wife was four or five years younger than her husband. Many wives were much younger than that, and they got no benefit. That situation has now been put right. The sensible thing was done, and an allowance was given to the wife who is dependent, irrespective of her age, when her husband becomes pensionable. But Her Majesty's Government in 1940 still proceeded on the age-for-pensions basis, and when they brought in married women who were living with their husbands they felt bound to bring in single women who were working for their living: and those women got pensions also. Let me say at once that I do not believe one can now go back on that provision. As the Phillips Committee have said, to abolish the differentiation would achieve a saving of £20 million, but at the cost of compelling single working women or married women to go on working on their own. Politically it would be difficult to get that suggestion accepted.
  I dislike this retiring age for women at 60 for a reason quite other than the expense of the pensions involved. I believe it is wrong to give any able-bodied men or women at 60 the idea that they may safely retire into leisured ease as there is no need for their services. There will be great and growing need for the women of 60 to 65 to give, in the homes and elsewhere, the care that will be needed by the masses of older people, those from 75 to 85 years of age. There is an immense problem in giving care to the really old people, and to the elderly who are becoming feeble. They need that care, in a sense, even more than they need money. The problem of the aged will not be solved by any action on pensions. I hope that after this debate to-day, when we have settled pension rates, we may have a discussion on the human and social problems of provision for old age, as they are admirably but briefly illustrated in the Phillips Committee report.
  There are nearly one million pensionable persons living alone, and their isolation from their families has undoubtedly increased. The chance of those
  540
  who want employment getting such employment is affected by employers' pensionable schemes. There is an all too easy abuse of hospital facilities by families who want to get rid of their old people into hospitals, where they occupy beds badly needed for other purposes. There are the difficult financial problems facing central and local authorities. All these points are dealt with in the Phillips Committee Report. The general conclusion is that a full re-examination of the services for the old is needed. It was not possible to make that re-examination before considering this Bill, but I hope that we shall discuss the Phillips Committee's Report. I will come back to the main problem raised by the noble Earl who spoke for Her Majesty's Government: how we can best bear together the burden of old age. The Government Actuary's figures for 1979, although they may be familiar to noble Lords, are worth repeating, for they are rather staggering. By 1979 the number of men over 65 will be 3,330,000; of women of 65 and upwards, 4,710,000; and of women from 60 to 65, nearly one and a half million. There will thus be nine and a half million persons of present pensionable age. That figure, though staggering, is not in any way new. As the Government Actuary points out, it is rather less than the figure forecast in the Beveridge Report.
  As the noble Earl who has spoken for Her Majesty's Government has quoted the Beveridge Report, may I say a few words on it from this point of view? I have heard that Report referred to, even in your Lordships' House, as a painting of a glorious picture of easy life for all of us. That was not the nature of the Beveridge Report. It did not in any way profess to usher in what an elder contemporary poet of my time described in 1919 as "the brave new world"—
  "The brave new world begins
  When all men are paid for existing
  And no man must pay for his sins."
  That was Kipling's view of the "brave new world" in 1919. It was not the view of the author of the Beveridge Report in 1942. That Report faced reality. I foresaw the difficulties of the immediate aftermath of war, and for that reason I favoured the postponement of full pensions for five, ten or even fifteen more years until we had surmounted those difficulties. I have been interested to look back and see what answer I gave in 1943 to the question whether we could

  541
  have the abolition of want immediately after the war. We clearly could have abolished want before the war. I named the conditions under which we could do it after the war, and two of them are worth noting to-day.
  The first condition is that the world after war is a world in which the nations set themselves to co-operate for production in peace, rather than to plot for mutual destruction by war, whether open or concealed. I had entirely forgotten that I had forecast the cold war in December, 1942. The second condition is that the readjustments of British economic policy and structure that will be required by changed conditions after the war should be made so that productive employment can be maintained. The first of these conditions, with its unexpected forecast in 1942 of the cold war in which we live to-day, has, of course, not been satisfied. Does it follow that we ought to abandon the aim of abolishing want? I suggest that certainly it does not. With increasing productivity per head, all that was aimed for in the Beveridge Report, all that is aimed for in this Government Bill, is well within our powers.
  Secondly, I would urge that the redistribution of income so as to guarantee the individual enough to live on, as of right, when he cannot work for any reason, should have a priority in the use of our resources second only to that of defence: that has priority for the nation, and it should have priority for the individual. That, I think, is the justification of the contributions that we ask the individual to make. But we are bound to remember the conditions which make full employment and our present standard of living easy to-day. Those conditions are that in the cold war we have allies, as well as enemies; and if peace returns and these alliances cease, the second condition, that of a reconstruction of our economic structure to meet a world at peace and not arming itself for war, becomes absolutely vital. It is no good denying that if pace comes, the time ahead for Britain may be much harder even than it is to-day. We shall have to readjust our immense population on a small area, and maintain the selling power of our products abroad in face of all the nations that want to make the same kind of products themselves. After World War I, when we thought we had peace, we all fell into
  542
  a pit of mass unemployment. After World War II, when we get peace we may not find productive employment at high standards nearly so easy to get as we should like it to be. That is one of the problems we have to face.
  Let me just sum up in three sentences what I have tried to say. The first and most important thing—and I am sure it will be echoed all over the country—is to welcome this Bill as making the abolition of want on honourable terms, by pensions and benefits, as of right, a first priority for all of us after defence: we can, we must, afford that. The second is, of course, that even to do that would leave unsolved any number of problems—the social and human problems of the old, as I have mentioned; the general problem of preventing inflation; the destruction of the value of money; and, finally, the problem of how, if peace should return, this country would find it possible to be prosperous and active and provide full employment in those conditions. Do not let any of us—either Government or individual—think that there are easy times ahead for this country.
  4.25 p.m.
  LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, it is something of an ordeal, and certainly a great responsibility, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, in a debate of this kind, because it is on a subject upon which he speaks with probably the greatest authority of us all. It will be understood, therefore, that I should be extremely rash were I to try to follow him on the ground which he has covered. I am glad that in this debate I can
  follow the lead which has been given by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence and discuss the Bill which is before us on something of a non-Party basis. That does not mean that we view the matter in a casual, a light-hearted or an academic way. On the contrary, as has been said, the Bill affects the lives, the comfort and the well-being of millions of our fellow-citizens, and particularly the poorer among them, and the great human issues involved make this a matter of very deep feeling and great concern to all of us.
  Some of us find it very difficult indeed to approach this subject in at all a dispassionate way. We have strong feelings based, as my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence has said, on bitter memories of early experiences. I can remember my own parents, in my childhood, struggling

  543
  to make a contribution to the upkeep of a widowed—and, naturally, in those days, pensionless—grandmother, my father's mother. From a wage of
  less than 30s. a week, it was not easy to make such a contribution and still to provide for the needs of their own home and two children. Old age pensions have certainly reduced, if they have not entirely removed, that burden on working-class homes. But the memory of the bad old days still lingers.
  Again on another aspect of the provisions of modern insurance I have my own recollections. I was only a boy when my father died. There were no widows' pensions in those days, and, like other working-class widows, my mother had to go out to work. Widows who have to go out to work, after having been married and having kept a home for many years, are in a very difficult position indeed. They have almost always to go out to work as unskilled labour—as cleaning women and the like. My mother, in fact, had to take a job as a school-cleaner, and seeing the effect of that work on a woman who had had her own happy home for many years—the effect on her physically and on her spirits—is still one of my bitterest memories. I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree that it is the purpose of legislation such as this to ensure that a widow with children has such a pension and allowances as make it unnecessary for her to go out to work. She is, I think, much more usefully employed—socially usefully—in making a home for her children, and in being available to bring them up, guide them, lead them and control them.
  Perhaps I should apologise to your Lordships for these personal reflections, but I should like to add one more. When my father died, I had to leave school and go to work. Although I had a scholarship which would have covered the cost of schooling, naturally it did not provide a living, so I had to go out and earn it. I make no complaint about that; it did me no great harm, if any at all, although I shall always envy, in a very mild way, those who have had the education that I missed. In that connection, I appreciate that the position is much better to-day, but I think it is still not at all satisfactory. In too many cases, when the breadwinner dies the brilliant child who would
  544
  otherwise remain at school and go on to university on scholarships has to leave school and go to work. Maintenance grants which cover the student's own costs are not enough in the areas of some education authorities to make any contribution to represent what the student would otherwise have been earning, and in some areas they are even not enough to cover the student's own costs.
  I am not speaking of this only or mainly from the point of view of the child concerned. My point is more that, as a nation, we cannot afford to have some of our best brains deprived of their full education in this way. This is a matter on which I think the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Minister of Education should get together and work out a scheme. It has relevance to the principle which we are discussing and to the rates of benefit, but it is also within the purview of the Minister of Education, and I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, if he would put the point to the Ministers concerned.
  Coming more specifically to the Bill, as my noble friend said, it cannot really be considered except in conjunction with the draft National Assistance Amendment Regulations. I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, in his thanks and congratulations to the Government. I welcome the Bill for the provision which it makes so far as it goes, but I cannot say that I find it entirely satisfactory, and certainly I cannot say it is generous. The figures which Dr. Summerskill
  gave in the debate in another place have not been challenged, I believe. Among other things, these figures show that approximately one million retirement pensioners are drawing National Assistance supplementation. These are obviously the most needy of the old age pensioners. Under the provisions of the Bill and draft regulations, 70,000 will get an increase of from 5s. to 7s. 6d. a week and 130,000 will get from 2s. 6d. to 5s., but 800,000 will get only 2s. 6d. When we come to widows who are drawing National Assistance supplementation, we find again that 6,000 will get between 5s. and 7s. 6d., and 8,000 between 2s. 6d. and 5s., but 81,000 will get only 2s. 6d. increase. It is the same with sick benefit. Over these three categories there are just over one million who, under the provisions of the Bill and draft regulations, will benefit to the extent of only 2s. 6d. a week. For those

  545
  not in receipt of National Assistance supplementation, the increases of benefit are reasonable, but reasonable only in the sense that they restore the 1946 purchasing power. Are we satisfied that that really is enough?
  During the debate this afternoon it has been stated that national productivity and production have increased substantially since 1946. Should not the aged widows and the sick benefit in some degree from this? If the national cake is bigger, as it has been shown to be, are they never to have a slightly bigger slice from it? I think they should. If prices continue to rise, as they very well may do—there is no sign of their levelling off or falling off—it will be only a little time after this Bill is passed and its provisions have actually come into operation when the benefits will have fallen again below their 1946 level. Then there will be a demand for their increase and for a new Bill. I agree that in calculating the increases the figures have been rounded off to slightly above the arithmetical calculation of the 1946 purchasing power, but substantially the purpose has been to restore that, and my point is that even if that has been achieved, or slightly better, it will be only a little while before the benefit will be lost by the continued rise of prices. I think our problem is to find a way of dealing with that position. Is there not some way in which we can ensure that the benefits are not inadequate most of the time because of rising prices?
  That brings me to what I regard as the fundamental issue. I share the view, which has been criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, that this is not any longer, if it ever was, truly an insurance Bill. The actuarial basis which
  one expects to find in insurance is absent to too marked a degree. The basis of the assumption that the new rates have some relevance to insurance is surely that prices, wages and everything else, are going to remain stable for the next forty-nine years; otherwise the calculations about the actuarial position of a new entrant at sixteen and the whole forty-nine years of his payments become rather meaningless. Looking back at the course of prices and wages and of money values generally over the last forty-nine years, he would be a bold man who would suggest that they are likely to remain
  546
  anything like stable over the next forty-nine years.
  This is a system (I do not want to quarrel about words) of State benefits with a contributory provision. I am not suggesting that the contributory provision should be removed, but I do suggest that the present method of arranging the contributions is wrong and becomes even more wrong when increases of a flat rate character are made. I had intended to go into the question of the inequity of the scheme as between various levels of wages, but what my noble friend has said has made that unnecessary. But I think we should apply our minds to recasting this side of the scheme, if not to recasting the whole scheme. The starting point—and I hope there will be general agreement on this—should be that the pension, sick benefit, unemployment allowance, or whatever the provision may be should provide a decent, reasonable level of subsistence. Personal savings, private pension schemes or superannuation schemes would provide the amenities above subsistence level; but for those for whom ill health or bad fortune has meant no saving, who are not in any private pension or superannuation scheme, there should be, at least, subsistence provided.
  National Assistance should not come in to the extent that it does at present, with the numbers such as I indicated earlier. In my view, it should come in only to cover the emergency, the unexpected and the unforeseeable. To have over one million people on National Assistance at any given time seems to me to be fundamentally wrong. Having determined the amount required for a basic subsistence level, I strongly urge that it should then be linked to the cost of living index, and that it should be reviewed, say, every six months. If wages, as they are in many industries, can be linked to the cast of living index, I see no reason why pensions and allowances should not be similarly linked. I would say that it is bordering on the indecent that old age pensioners should have to organise and agitate in order to get the value of their pensions, not increased, but merely restored. Linking the pension with the cost of living index would make that unnecessary.
  I recognise that if payments are put on a cost of living sliding scale, then the contributions must also be geared in some

  547
  comparable manner. That means something much more flexible than the present stamp system. I suggest that a reasonable method would be a percentage payment on wages and salaries, with a comparable payment by employers. This percentage on wages and salaries would probably be (I have not the necessary figures with which to work it out in detail) of the order of 3 per cent. It would be more equitable than the present method as between different levels of wage earning; and it would ensure that if prices and wages continued to rise, as they have done for some considerable time, the income from which to pay pensions and allowances would rise proportionately and at the same time. Incidentally, I believe that such a system would greatly reduce administrative costs both in industry and in the Ministry. As a small employer, keeping my own wages books, insurance cards and so on, I know that I would much rather calculate the appropriate percentage on the wages and send a cheque, say, every month, as I do for P.A.Y.E., than have the bother of keeping cards and buying, fixing and cancelling stamps every week. If noble Lords argue, as they may do, that an increase in income tax would be even fairer than the 3 per cent levy, I am not going to cross swords with them. But, in my view, the percentage levy has certain definite advantages.
  If I may digress for a moment, I would point out that reference has been made to the fact that if pensions and allowances were put under general taxation it would involve a means test and make an end of payment as of right. That is an argument which I simply cannot follow; I regard it as being quite fallacious and without foundation. The Health Service is almost wholly financed out of general taxation, but we use it as of right; so are the roads, and so is education. We use as of right many services provided out of general taxation. Why should pensions and allowances be different? But if this objection is raised to putting the whole scheme on general taxation, at least it cannot be applied to the change from fixed contributions to a percentage payment such as I have suggested.
  I have put forward these reflections perhaps a little emphatically in manner, but I assure your Lordships in no dogmatic spirit. I know perfectly well
  548
  that they are not acceptable to either major Party at present, but to me they represent the lines along which we should be thinking. The present Bill can be only an interim measure. A scheme which links benefits to the cost of living and
  contributions to the level of earnings would, I feel, be an improvement. It would have the advantage, which I am sure will appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that it would, to a considerable extent, take the question of pensions and allowances and their proper level, out of the field of Party politics.
  4.47 p.m.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, as the attendance is getting remarkably thin, on a day when I think the House might well have been fuller, in view of the matter which is before your Lordships, I propose to deal only with one or two points. I feel that I should endorse from the Back Benches on this side what was said by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that we rather look upon this Bill as an interim measure. We hope that in the succeeding months the Government will be able to look again at the question of insurance generally, in the light of comments which have been made on the present Bill, not only in your Lordships' House but in another place, so that they may bring before us a more comprehensive Bill. It has been said that, in order to expedite payment of the benefits provided by the Bill to a reasonably early date, we on this side of the House do not want to put forward Amendments, or to discuss this matter later at any great length. I agree with that view. Whatever I may say will, I hope, be taken into consideration by the Government if and when a further Bill is produced.
  The first point that comes to my mind was raised by the noble Earl, Lord
  Selkirk, in regard to the percentages of wages represented by contributions paid by wage-earners. The figures which he gave us, and which the Minister gave in another place, were that the 1946 percentage was 3·9 and the percentage now, 3·2. I am interested, as noble Lords know, in agricultural matters, and when we are dealing with the lowest paid worker it might be considered that the farm worker is in that category. So far as my calculations go, it seems to me that on a wage of £6 a week (I am taking the present wage, and I

  549
  will take the present contribution) the farm worker's present contribution represents 4·8 per cent., not 3·6 per cent. or 3·2 per cent., of his wages. On the assumption that his wage will not increase—although we hope that it will in the next month or two—the payment of 6s. 9d. per week represents a percentage of 5·6. Therefore, under this Bill, assuming that the wage is the same as at present, the worker will not go into the lower percentage category but the proportion of his contribution will be increased by nearly 1 per cent. That is a very material matter for a farm worker on a low wage. He is called upon to pay 6s. 9d. a week, the equivalent of £17 11s. 0d. per annum, which is a lot of money. From that point of view, I hope that, when this new Bill comes before us, some consideration may be given to the lowering of the rate of contribution for people with lower earnings.
  The additional contribution by the farm worker amounts to £2 12s. per annum—that is, 1s. per week. If we assume (I do not quite know the precise number) that there are 650,000 farm workers in this country, it means that the additional contribution from that section of the community alone will be in the nature of £1,350,000 per annum. I know that it may be argued that there may be some tax deduction, but you will find generally that the farm worker is not liable to income tax, although he pays tax indirectly, and that particular amount does hit him substantially.
  Having assumed that the farm workers will be called upon to pay an additional £1,350,00 a year in contributions, let me now look at the Exchequer contribution in regard to the farming industry. On the basis of one-seventh, the Exchequer contribution in regard to farm workers will be about £200,000 a year. There your Lordships see the difference between the additional amount to be paid by the lower paid worker and the Exchequer contribution in respect of those particular workers. That is important, in my view, for not only does it create some difficulty for the farm workers but the farming industry also will have to make substantional additional payments in regard to contributions. Naturally, I assume that the farmers themselves will receive some relief by way of income tax, not only in respect of their own contributions but also in respect of their contributions for their
  550
  workers. I therefore suggest to noble Lords opposite that, in any reorganisation of the scheme, some consideration should be given to the lower paid workers.
  There is one other point in regard to the Exchequer contribution which I wish to make. I do not know whether, by the figures which I am about to quote to your Lordships, I can prove that the Exchequer does not make a contribution but makes a profit—but we shall see. According to the Minister (I think this Came out during the debate in another place), the additional contribution thrown upon the Exchequer by this Bill is roughly in the region of £25 million per annum. The figures were £23 million for the National Insurance and £1 million for the Industrial Injuries insurance. The Minister said that there was a saving to the Exchequer from the National Assistance of £13 million, by reason of the fact that the additional payments would be made from National Insurance and not from National Assistance. That leaves a balance of £12 million. But the Exchequer are called upon, so far as I understand it, to pay an additional £15 million for war pensions, which leaves a balance of £10 million to be paid by the Exchequer in regard to National Assistance. The saving is £13 million on National Assistance, and the net payment by the Exchequer for National Insurance is £10 million. Whether or not I am right in assuming that there is no payment from the Exchequer, but that they are saving money I should not like to say, but those figures came out from the debate in another place.
  May I now ask the Minister one personal question which perhaps affects many noble Lords in this House as regards their own contributions? At the present time, as non-employed persons we are called upon to pay (I think it is) 5s. 7d. a week for National Insurance. But on page 11 of the Bill, in the Third Schedule, the weekly rate of contribution for non-employed persons between the ages of eighteen and sixty-five is 6s. 6d. a week. Like many other noble Lords, I happen to be over sixty-five, and as persons over sixty-five are not mentioned in this Bill I am wondering whether my contribution will in future be 5s. 7d. or 6s. 6d. Like many other noble Loris, came into Insurance in 1948, and I still have to pay for another three years

  551
  before I draw a pension. I may be told that I have to make the requisite number of ten years' contributions, at whatever rate is in force at the particular time at which I pay it. Perhaps the noble Earl can clear up that small personal question.
  There is one thing I should like to say, in view of what vas said, not only by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, but by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. I was born in the nineteenth century, in a generation in which widows, children and old people generally were treated quite differently from the way in which they are at present treated. I am particularly concerned now with the question of the widows, because I may tell your Lordships that my old mother, who passed on two years ago, was left a widow in 1888 and remained a widow for sixty-four years. I came through those sixty-four years as one of two sons of a widow who, during the whole of that time, did not have a penny piece of assistance or pension from the State in any way. Your Lordships will therefore realise how concerned I am now that the widows of to-day and of the future should have a far better time than my old mother had with two young children. A young widow with very small means, she had various possibilities open to her and to us boys, but those possibilities were pretty desperate. I am glad to say that they were not
  accepted in any way by my mother. Suffice it to say that, through hard work, intelligence and industry, things proved much better than they might have been, and much better than they did, perhaps, to other young widows with young children similarly situated.
  Therefore, watching, as I have done, the progress of insurance from 1908 onwards, I am happy that the widows of Britain, and the young children of Britain, too, are now treated in a far better way than they were treated in my young days. I do not want this Government, or any Government, to be parsimonious or callous in regard to the treatment of the widows of Britain, because, to a great extent, they are the flower of our land. Therefore, I hope that in the future not only will substantial increases be made in what can be given to them by way of pensions but that we shall be able to add to the very small pension of 10s. a week
  552
  which at the present time is given to some widows.
  I want to conclude on a personal note to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I was serious the other day in my suggestion about changing the name of the National Assistance Board. I hope that something may be done in that direction in the future. Your Lordships will remember the days of the workhouse and institutions, and you will agree with me that the names "hotels," "old people's homes" and "hospitals" find far better acceptance among our people than anything which had any connection whatever with the old Poor Law days. Therefore I hope that in future we can be guided by the fact that we have cut out from our everyday language the words "workhouse" and "institution" and have brought into our language the words "hospitals," "homes" and the rest. We may be able to cut out not only the word "Board" but also the word "Assistance." In his broadcast on Saturday evening, the Minister made reference to the fact that old folks did not like to come for assistance. I can bear out that statement. I do not want a further reply but I hope the noble Earl will think in those terms in the future.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, those of us who have come here to-day in a week that will end with Christmas Day should look upon ourselves as amply rewarded for having taken the trouble to be here to hear the debate that has taken place. The debate to which we have listened has been a most remarkable one. It seems to me that what has been said here to-day, and the tone in which it has been said, add to the reputation that this House has for the wise and dispassionate consideration of matters of public concern. First of all, we had the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—we know he is an airman, of course—taking us right up into the stratosphere and dealing with astronomical figures. I do not know whether he has ever been in the stratosphere as an airman, but, in any case, he certainly took us to great heights in some of the figures that he gave us regarding the amounts involved in the problem that we are discussing.
  Then it was a real joy to listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who always speaks in that wise way that betokens much thought

  553
  and great human sympathy. I could easily have allowed any observations of mine to go by the board and simply have said that I took his lead on the matters we are discussing. Next we had the author (with his collaborators, of course) of the Beveridge Report. There, again, we had experience and knowledge demonstrated to us in a remarkable way. His strong plea that there must be a discussion of the Phillips Report in the not distant future is a plea, I am sure, that must have earned approval from all noble Lords who heard the reasons that he advanced. The autobiographical details that were given by the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, it seems to me, were powerful arguments and a powerful reason for our giving great consideration to matters of pensions and allowances.
  I think of the fact that last week we were dealing with National Assistance. To-day, we are dealing with National Insurance benefits. It is somewhat remarkable. I tried to make some remarks last week on difference of treatment—in a way, on the difference of classification—of individuals. I took the opportunity of pointing out last week that we were dealing with husband and wife on National Assistance on a new basis of 63s. per week, plus rent, which was an increase of 4s. a week over the previous scales, whereas to-day we are dealing with arrangements which will result in the payment to a husband and wife of a scale of benefit of 65s.—certainly without any additional allowance for rent. That 65s. takes the place of the previous total benefit for man and wife of 54s. Therefore the new retirement benefits are to be raised by 11s., whereas the National Assistance benefits are being raised by a standard of 4s., although, of course, they can vary. In the circumstances, that does not seem to me to be reasonable. If I were to go into that question at length to-day I should be dealing with a mater that we dealt with last week. The position is that the new National Assistance scales which come into operation in February will be on a different standard from that of the National Insurance scales which come into operation in April.
  When I listened to the broadcast on Saturday night, I thought the Minister of Pensions sounded rather complacent. and that he was inclined to claim a great deal
  554
  of credit for this Government for doing what is proposed in these scales of allowance. My own reaction to his broadcast was to think that no one had a greater obligation to give increased benefits, because he is a member of a Government which has, as a policy, withdrawn checks upon the rise in price of basic commodities. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, made some wise references to the question of inflation. Certainly there has been inflation in recent times. I know that arguments can be advanced (I have admitted this before); but, whatever may be said about what the cost of living index shows, I say most definitely that the fact that these increases are so clamantly necessary to-day is due in large measure to the fact that the Government in power to-day have, as a policy, the removal of restraints upon profiteering and upon rising prices. That has led to this position, and it has certainly made the position much more difficult to deal with.
  I think that this scheme of National Insurance is good and sound. In my experience, the contributions that are exacted are not objected to by those who
  have to pay them. I have not found workers complaining about the contributions that they make, and I do not think that there will be any great difficulty about the increased contributions that are being asked for under this Bill. The worker will take this in his stride. As a matter of fact, he is not troubled about it very much because it is deducted from his wages before he gets them. I do not think that, even if he were to examine them very closely, he would be greatly aggrieved about increased contributions for the improved benefits that are found to be necessary at the present time. Indeed, workers say to me that they recognise the scheme that is in operation as one of the greatest blessings that they have known; they look upon it as something that is administered for them, something that they could not administer for themselves. At the end of the day, on an examination of other methods of making provision for their old age, they find that they have a real bargain in this scheme.
  It may be necessary to look at this question of contributions. There have been powerful arguments used with regard to them, but my experience leads me to say that I do not think that there

  555
  will be any great difficulty so far as the contributors are concerned. No doubt we shall consider these matters later, along with all the other issues that have been raised here to-day, and raised in another place much more strongly and vehemently than they have been raised here. We shall look at these things, but at the moment we are very glad to see that a move is being made to meet the position by increased benefits.
  I say to the Government that their duty is to take steps to maintain the value of the new scales by keeping down the cost of living. Let these scales be a real advance upon the position as we have seen it, and do not let that advance be frittered away by allowing prices to get out of hand in the future, as they have in the past. Let us strive for a better condition of affairs where there will not be exploitation. I know that that means a reversal of this Government's policy. They have cried aloud, "Set the people free! "What has resulted from setting the people free—indeed, what it was designed to do—is to set them free in large measure to exploit and to be exploited. If that is allowed to continue, then, before we are very much older, we shall require a new set of National Assistance regulations and a new Bill to raise the amounts of National Insurance benefits. I ask the Government to recognise that fact—because it is a fact—and to act accordingly.
  5.19 p.m.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, when I came to support this Bill to-day I had no intention of speaking because I thought several noble Lords much more experienced than I would be speaking from these Benches on this important measure. But I feel that voices from the Back Benches should not be completely silent, and that I should warmly support Her Majesty's Government for bringing forward this most important measure. When all is said and done, although the attendance in the House has been rather thin to-day, this is perhaps the most important measure of this Session.
  I have been interested to hear some very good speeches, particularly from the noble Earl who introduced this Bill, from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who has such great experience, and from the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. The
  556
  main criticism in opposition appears to be the faulty timing in bringing forward this measure. I would remind noble Lords opposite, however, that Her Majesty's Government had to await the Report of the Government Actuary and the Phillips Committee. I know that Her Majesty's Government asked that the work should be dealt with at all possible speed, to enable these matters to come through in the summer and early autumn. The work was done at very high pressure, and when the Reports were in front of the Minister no time was lost in framing the Bill, which was mentioned in the gracious Speech. The speed with which the Bill has passed through another place is very gratifying, and I was pleased to hear that noble Lords opposite do not intend to put down any Amendments, in order to enable the Bill to get speedy passage through this House.
  I heartily agree that Her Majesty's Government must do everything possible in future to avoid further inflation in this country. I understand that this Bill meets the position caused by the very heavy inflation that has taken place since 1946, and possibly does more. I think the Minister quoted a figure of 15 per cent. as the improvement. I cannot allow the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, entirely to "get away with" the suggestion that all the great inflation has occurred in the last three years, under the present Government. There was much more inflation in the six years of the Government supported by the noble Lord than there has been in the last three years, though I admit that there has been a little. No Government is faultless, and we must do our utmost to ensure that this benefit, which we hope will speedily be given to people in need, will be of real value to them in the future. Until now, I did not realise the tremendous amount of work that falls to be done after this Bill gets on to the Statute Book. Unless the necessary administrative machinery is carefully prepared, the whole scheme may go wrong, and chaos may result. It will take about three months to handle these matters, so I hope that we shall put the Bill on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. I heartily support Her Majesty's Government in bringing it forward, and I hope that it will give a good deal of relief to those who so sorely need it.
  5.23 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the House for the very warm welcome given to this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, particularly for saying that he would offer no delay, thus enabling the Bill to go through. We always appreciate listening to the speeches of the noble Lord, with the mature judgment that he possesses. At the same time, he appeared to want a bit of both worlds; to have full consideration of the Phillips Committee Report and to have pensions increased. In asking for that discussion I think he was pushing things a little too far. He would have been a most irresponsible Minister who took precise action before the Quinquennial Report. I had a very awkward time with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, in February, but I then made that point clear, and I hope that the noble Lord realises that this was the right course and that it would have been quite wrong to hurry things more than we have done. The Minister had to be sure that there was nothing in the Phillips Committee Report which can directly contrary to what he is proposing. The noble Lord wants a full discussion of this matter, and of course we will have one. A host of problems is raised, many of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in the course of his interesting remarks on this important problem; but, frankly, to-day is not the time to discuss them.
  I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. That we are not breaking new financial ground in the calculation of the actuarial contribution: it is substantially the same as was done in 1946 and in 1951, and also, I believe, in 1952. There is no new principle involved in our manner of approach at all.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Government are going a great deal further.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The principle was there in each case; there was a margin to meet the emerging cost. It may be a little more this time, but it existed in each case. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has gone but I would say to tae noble Lord that it is always wrong to use the word "generous" discussing pensions, unemployment or sickness benefit, One way or another. It is not the business of Her Majesty's Government
  558
  at any time to be generous with public money, so that in that connection the word is misused. The noble Lord tried to convey that not enough was being paid. As the noble Lord was a member of the Party in power at that time, it must be pointed out that these rates are, in real terms, 36 per cent. higher than those obtaining when his Party were in power. I will go further: when the Labour Government were in office in 1951, the unemployed benefit then paid was lower than was paid by a Tory Government some twenty years earlier, again in real terms.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wise, raised a number of points on agricultural wages. Whilst agreeing that there is a problem here, I found it a little difficult to follow all his calculations. The percentage of the contribution today, compared with the agricultural wage, is lower than it was in 1946. It is obvious that lower paid workers will have to pay a higher percentage in this flat contribution. I believe I am right in saying that the purpose in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge—and it was accepted by the Socialist Government in 1946–was that this is a minimum which must apply to all. If that minimum is not paid, then, to all intents and purposes, one cannot justify the payment of at least a level of subsistence, a broad subsistence basis, within a contributory system. If we were to go below that, tie benefit would be below that subsistence level and would serve no useful purpose; that is the reason for the flat payment and flat contribution.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wise, offered some calculations on contributions in regard to cost. If we take the three fields of benefit, this Bill, National Assistance and war pensions, the figure in the coming year will be about £25 million—leaving out altogether the £325 million which is included in this Bill and which the Treasury have undertaken to meet. I do not doubt that the noble Lord is perfectly sincere in what he says about the title of the National Assistance Board, and be point will be borne in mind; but this is not
  something which one can change by waving a wand. I entirely agree that it may be
  considered common policy between Parties. With regard to the much-discussed 10s.
  widows, a point which the noble Lord brought up, they, of course, fall right outside the general terms of the

  559
  1946 scheme. Frankly, it is somewhat fortuitous whether or not a widow as such falls within the scheme. The matter is being considered by the Advisory Council
  on National Insurance, who may be able to bring the whole matter of widows into better consideration. There may be cases of hardship but there are a number of cases where the widow is quite young and is able to work fully.
  One noble Lord asked what contribution he would have to make. I hesitate to give advice of this kind free over the Table, but I believe that he should be paying 6s. 6d., though whether he has retired or has deferred retirement I do not know. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, for two things he said. He spoke about inflation, and in what he said on that subject, he supported Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Lord Beveridge. I am sure that these schemes will simply fall away unless we are able to keep this matter in hand. In my opinion, the attitude of Lord Archibald—if I may say so with respect, in his absence—is entirely wrong. His attitude of trying to get round to the effect, instead of dealing with the cause, will never provide the answer to this particular problem. I also wish to thank Lord Mathers particularly for saying that he believed—and I am sure he is right—that the extra contribution is something which the ordinary man in this country will be willing to take in his stride. I think that I have dealt with most of the questions raised, and, unless any noble Lord has anything further to ask, I hope that your Lordships will now agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (VALIDA TION OF CHARGES) BILL
  5.31 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, I would remind your Lordships that
  560
  it was really foreshadowed in my statement on November 11. I then stated that certain doubts had been raised about the charges for certain classes of licence. I stressed the word "charges," because there has never at any time been any doubt about the validity of the licences themselves. It was simply a question of whether certain conditions had been carried out before charges were made. In the statement to which I have referred, I explained the matter to your Lordships. The purpose of the Bill is really to make an honest man not only of myself but of all my predecessors. At one time I thought the number was twenty-one, but I learn that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, officiated twice in the office of Postmaster General. Perhaps I should mention one point. We are not dealing here with retrospective legislation in the strict meaning of the term—that is, in the sense that we are imposing a retrospective charge. What we are doing is validating charges that we made in good faith and which were paid in good faith for many years. And those charges, I might add, have been only just sufficient to cover our administrative expenses. I beg to move that the Bill be now given a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like, in just two brief sentences, to support what the noble Earl has said and to commend this Bill to your Lordships. Perhaps, as one of the line of twenty-two foolish virgins, to which the noble Earl referred, I ought to say how glad I am that his foresight will forestall any possible damage to the national finances that might have resulted from their lack of prescience. I am also glad to think that the noble Earl is the first of a long line of wise virgins who will be able to make these charges for the use of wireless apparatus without ever turning over in their beds at night wondering whether the charges they are making are making are legally valid.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before six o'clock.