Sitting of 7 July 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]
    FALMOUTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL

    Imports
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Paymaster-General, following the ending of house coal allocation arrangements and price control for domestic coal supplies, what restrictions by the Ministry of Power, the Board of Trade or the National Coal Board will continue to exist in respect of imports of coal into the United Kingdom; to what extent it will be in order, without
    2
    impediment or interference from Government Departments or from the National Coal Board, for any private trader or consumer of coal in the United Kingdom to bring in his own supplies from foreign sources should he so desire; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Except for imports from the sterling area which are on open general licence, coal can be imported only under licence issued by the Board of Trade which consults the Ministry of Power. This control will continue when the statutory control on house coal supplies is ended. As previously announced, Government policy is not to authorise further coal imports beyond existing contracts, and this applies to both private and National Coal Board imports from non-sterling area sources.
    Mr. Nabarro: Whilst not wishing to see any resumption in coal imports, which, fortunately, we have now been able to end, would not my right hon. Friend agree that continued restriction in terms of coal imports, for example from Western Germany or Poland, both of which are non-sterling countries, represents a contradiction of Her Majesty's Government's policy on the liberalisation of Western European trade?
    Mr. Maudling: We have not yet carried out the 100 per cent. liberalisation of Western European trade. In the meantime, we think that for the sake of the balance of payments this country could not and should not import further coal.
    Mr. Neal: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he received any applications from private traders to import coal

    3
    in the period when it could not be obtained in the world market under £8 a ton?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot see why they should have wanted to import coal at prohibitive prices, but, with the fall in transatlantic freight rates and in view of the present commercial policy of the Poles, the situation has changed.

    Briquettes
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Paymaster-General to what extent the Shape process briquettes have proved successful; and what steps are being taken to provide plants in coal fields other than South Wales.
    Mr. Maudling: A pilot plant has been erected in South Wales and two variants of the Shape process are being tried there. Until the process has been further developed the question of erecting plant in coal fields other than South Wales cannot be decided.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this scheme is successful, in order to bring about efficiency and to cheapen transportation, one of these plants should be installed in the Yorkshire coalfield?
    Mr. Maudling: I gather that there are still engineering difficulties in the process. The briquettes are too brittle and it is difficult to make them at adequate speed to be economic, but, if the National Coal Board can solve these difficulties, I think there are considerable possibilities in this process.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we spent £250,000 last year on research, and does he not realise that we ought now to be receiving some of the fruits of that expenditure?
    Mr. Maudling: Research is an extremely expensive business. I think that a lot of work has been done on this matter, but it is not easy to find a briquette which is free from the difficulties involved in the traditional briquette.

    Coal Mines (Roof Supports)
    Mr. Nealasked the Paymaster-General what advantages in safety have derived from the introduction of Roof-master supports into coal mines.
    Mr. Maudling: This system, like others recently introduced, is an attempt to mechanise the process of setting and advancing supports at the coal face, and it will be some time before its effect on safety can be judged.
    Mr. Neal: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but if it is intended to extend the use of this support throughout other coal mines, can he say whether the output results have been favourable?
    Mr. Maudling: Once again, I think it is too early. It is a very complicated business involving a complicated technical matter, and there are other systems designed to achieve rather similar results. I think that it would be too early to give any forecast of what is likely to happen, but the idea behind these systems is rather promising and is being pursued with great interest.

    Pneumoconiosis, North Staffordshire
    Dr. Strossasked the Paymaster-General how many men, as a percentage of the total employed, have been lost to the coalmining industry in North Staffordshire as a result of a diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, or pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis, for the years 1955, 1956, and 1957; and, in view of the high incidence of the disease, whether he will recommend that a research centre be established in this area.
    Mr. Maudling: In 1955, 1956 and 1937, the number of men suspended from the industry in North Staffordshire as a result of a diagnosis of pneumoconiosis with tuberculosis was 11, 13 and 11, respectively, out of a total of about 22,000. No estimate can be made of the number of men leaving the industry solely as a result of a diagnosis of pneumoconiosis. The research carried out by the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit at Llandough covers the whole country and the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee, in agreement with the Medical Research Council, has decided that the provision of additional research centres would not help to solve the problem.
    Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a research centre for the pottery industry in this area which does invaluable work? As there is a basis for tackling the problem in one industry, would it not be better, and

    5
    certainly not very costly, to add to it so that both industries, coal and pottery, could be looked at together? Will he consider that?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, but I think it is right to say that the Medical Research Council looked at this as a result of questions raised in the House two years ago by hon. Members from Stoke-on-Trent and it recommended against a new project. The matter was considered again by the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee, on which the National Union of Mineworkers is represented, and it also came down, on balance, against it.
    Dr. Strossasked the Paymaster-General whether he has noted that in 1956, of the 405 cases of pneumoconiosis diagnosed for the first time among miners in North Staffordshire, only 36 cases were under 40 years of age; and what reason has been deduced for the steep increase in the figures for the older workers.
    Mr. Maudling: The proportion of younger to older men in 1956 was virtually the same as in previous years. In view of the nature of the disease, most of the new cases diagnosed are, naturally, from among older men who have been exposed to dust for longer periods.
    Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact that in this area the number of cases of pneumoconiosis tends to be high and there is a feeling among the men that it is higher in North Staffordshire than in almost any other area in the country? Could not the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any special effort is to be made to make the work safer and whether special preventive measures could be made available for pits which are deep, hot, and certainly very dusty?
    Mr. Maudling: The Question referred to the ratio between men over 40 and under 40. I have the figures here for the period since 1951. Of those men contracting the disease, between 90 per cent. and 92 per cent. were aged 41 and over, so there has been very little difference in the trend.

    Exports
    Mr. Palmerasked the Paymaster-General if he will make a statement on the future export prospects of the British coal industry.
    Mr. Maudling: The export demand for coal has fallen sharply this year owing to the slackening in economic activity on the Continent and to competition from oil and from other coal producers. With a higher level of activity there should be opportunities, which I am sure the Coal Board and the coal exporters will take, for expanding this trade.
    Mr. Palmer: But now that the National Coal Board has gained for itself a breathing space, is it not time to make a new effort in this direction? After all, this country is very close to Western Europe and the United States is relatively far.
    Mr. Maudling: Certainly, and the National Coal Board is making a continued effort, but so are all its competitors, because all its competitors and its customers are facing the same situation—relatively high stocks and rather flagging demand.

    Production
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Paymaster-General for what reasons coal production has fallen by 5 million tons in the first half of 1958; how much of that loss is attributable to further increases in absenteeism from 12·84 per cent. to 14·22 per cent.; and, having regard to the grave consequences of continued decline in output and increased absenteeism, what steps are being taken to remedy matters.
    Mr. Maudling: There has been a fall in demand, and production has been kept in reasonable balance by restrictions in recruiting and by the stoppage of Saturday working and limitation of overtime. Absenteeism in the coalfields continues at a high rate but has been fairly constant for some months.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend view with equanimity the present fall in coal production at a rate of 10 million tons in a full year? Is this not likely to lead later on to a recurrent shortage of coal for domestic purposes and further to undermine what opportunities there may be for rebuilding Britain's tattered coal export trade?
    Mr. Maudling: I certainly do not view with equanimity the continued rate of absenteeism in the coalfields, but the fact is that a good deal of reduction in production has been the result of deliberate

    7
    policy, such as reducing recruiting and limiting overtime, which has been brought in by the Coal Board in face of the reduced demand for coal and the very large stocks which are piling up. I think that my hon. Friend is slightly over-anxious on that side of the matter.
    Mr. Nabarro: No, merely prudent.

    Finance and Prices
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Paymaster-General, having regard to his statutory responsibilities for National Coal Board finances and borrowing, whether he will state the accumulated deficit, or loss forward, of the Board at 31st March, 1958; and, in view of falling production, rising absenteeism in the pits, exports at only one-half of last year's low level, and other factors militating against profitable enterprise, what steps are being taken to prevent a large increase in coal prices in the early future, thus undermining the success of anti-inflationary policies of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Maudling: I invite my hon. Friend to await the Board's quarterly statistical statement for the first quarter of the year, which will be issued within the next few days.
    Mr. Nabarro: But that is begging the question. Would my right hon. Friend have some regard to the fact that the accumulated losses forward of the Board at 31st December last were of the order of £30 million, and as only a tiny part of that might be offset in the first quarter of this year, can he give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not underwrite these continuing Coal Board losses by facilitating additional borrowing by the Board?
    Mr. Maudling: The measures the Board is taking to deal with the situation and the need for economy include the restriction of adult recruitment, the suspension of Saturday working, the closure of uneconomic pits, the standstill on non-operational expenditure, and a limitation of overtime working, all of which, I think, should produce useful results.
    Mr. Ridsdale: If it is a question of the price of coal being put up again, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the Government's import policy?
    Mr. Maudling: As there is no proposal for an increase in the price of coal put to us, that seems to me to be a hypothetical question.

    Control Orders (Revocation)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Paymaster-General when house coal decontrol will take place.
    Mr. Maudling: On Monday next, 14th July. A Statutory Instrument revoking the control orders will be laid on Wednesday.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. G. Jeger asked the Paymaster-General whether, in view of the divergent opinions on the value of opencast coal mining, he will arrange for hon. Members who are interested to be shown opencast operations and restored sites in their regions.
    Mr. Maudling: The National Coal Board has told me that it will be glad to arrange for such visits by hon. Members if they will approach the Chairman of the Board.
    Mr. Jeger: Does the Paymaster-General mean that we should approach him individually or in regional groups? It is obviously preferable for hon. Members to go round in groups rather than individually, which means repeating the same trips over and over again.
    Mr. Maudling: I am not sure how far each hon. Member is gregarious in this matter, but the National Coal Board will be glad to do all it can to help. Clearly it would be much more convenient to the Board if hon. Members would go in groups.
    Mr. G. Brown: However the groups are chosen, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that their first trip is to Derbyshire to see how opencast coal mining has ruined and is ruining that county?
    Mr. Maudling: That is what is sometimes called a loaded supplementary.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Iron and Steel Industry
    Mr. Palmerasked the Paymaster-General if he will request the Iron and Steel Board, under Section 16 (2) of the

    9
    Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to furnish a special report on the industry in the light of the present recession and falling output.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. The Iron and Steel Board made a special report to my noble Friend last summer on the development of the iron and steel industry. Further information will be found in the Board's Annual Report which will be published shortly.
    Mr. Palmer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recession has developed since that time? Was it not for this kind of purpose that the Iron and Steel Board was established, to look at special difficulties? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Iron and Steel Board is not effective for this purpose?
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir, not at all. The steel situation is dominated, first, by the very steep fall in the export demand, which I do not think the Iron and Steel Board could really do much about, and, secondly, by the substantial destocking in the home market. Therefore, I do not think that a special report by the Iron and Steel Board would be appropriate in the present circumstances.

    Nuclear Power Station, Hinkley Point
    Mr. Palmerasked the Paymaster-General if he will give a direction for the Hinkley Point nuclear power station, now being built for the Central Electricity Generating Board, to be constructed and operated as a maximum efficiency power plant and to be excluded from the military plutonium programme.
    Mr. Maudling: The efficiency of the station will not be affected by the modifications authorised as an insurance against the need for additional military plutonium.
    Mr. Palmer: Since the plutonium credits are slightly to be offset, and since this station is likely to be one of the most modern and up to date, which will give foreign buyers a real check upon the operating costs of British nuclear plant, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a case for this station to be excluded from the military plutonium programme?
    Mr. Maudling: No; if it should be necessary—it is by no means certain—
    10
    to use this station at some stage for the production of military plutonium, I am quite certain that should not impede the obtaining of any scientific information which might be necessary from the operating of this station.

    Underground Gasification, Newman Spinney
    Mr. Nealasked the Paymaster-General if the experiment in underground gasification at Newman Spinney is successful; and whether a commercial power station will now be erected.
    Mr. Maudling: It is still too early to say whether this experiment will be successful and whether a commercial power station will be erected.
    Mr. Neal: The Paymaster-General says that it is too early. After nine years of experimentation in this direction, does he not think that it is time that some commercial results were obtained, or should the idea be written off as a complete loss?
    Mr. Maudling: The National Coal Board is doing all it can, but it is a difficult project. The Board has studied experience in other countries. It still believes that it is worth going ahead on this experimentation, and I think we should support the Board in that.

    Gas Grid
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Paymaster-General what instructions he has given for the preparation of plans to provide for a high pressure gas grid linking the coalfields of the Midlands with London and Lancashire.
    Mr. Maudling: The Gas Council is examining the possibilities of such a grid in anticipation of the wider use of high pressure gasification processes now under development.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are great opportunities in this process, it being cheaper to convey gas by this method than to bring coal from the Midlands or the North to the London area by sea or by land?
    Mr. Maudling: There are certainly great economic possibilities in transporting gas under high pressure, but we have

    11
    not yet solved the problem of manufacturing gas under high pressure. There are at least two, possibly three, experimental plants in being for this purpose, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the gas industry is very well aware of the great importance of this development.

    Coal (Production of Oil)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Paymaster-General what research is being done into finding economical ways of using coal for the production of oil.
    Mr. Maudling: Before coal can be economically converted into oil in this country, we must develop an efficient means of gasifying it at high pressure. Our efforts to solve this problem were described in the reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) on 16th June. Co-ordinated work on other aspects of the problem of oil synthesis is being pressed forward by the Fuel Research Station and by my Department.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Could my right hon. Friend say why this was not considered by the Select Committee on the Coal Industry, and could he assure the House that its omission was not due to any complacency with regard to this development?
    Mr. Maudling: I can only speak for my noble Friend, who attaches very great importance indeed to this matter.

    Steel Works (South Wales)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Paymaster-General, in view of representations which have been made to the Government on behalf of other sites in the United Kingdom, if he will give an assurance that, whatever further delay must ensue before an announcement can be made about the starting of the new Richard Thomas and Baldwins steel works, no step will be taken to prevent the company from siting this undertaking in South Wales in accordance with their desire.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. As no decision has yet been taken about the siting of works in question, I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter.
    Mr. Gower: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions about this very important
    12
    matter? First, in his reconsideration of the matter, will he take account of the long association of Richard Thomas and Baldwins with South Wales? Secondly, will he bear in mind the fact that the company and the Iron and Steel Board have expressed their opinion that the best site would be in South Wales? Is it not in accordance with Conservative policy, apart from extraordinary circumstances, that a decision of this kind should be taken by experts in an industry and not by politicians subject to political influence and pressure?
    Mr. Maudling: All these considerations are certainly being taken into account to get the views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides on a matter which, one must admit, has not only very great economic implications but also social implications.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Paymaster-General convey to the Prime Minister that it is desirable that this decision should be announced before very long because of the rivalries and rumours, and so on? The future of the communities depends on this decision, and it is far better that they should know where they stand. Can he assure his hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that Barry and South Wales would have been in a desperate plight if politicians had not exercised some influence in the interwar years?
    Mr. Maudling: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is well aware of the need for as early a decision as possible in this matter, but there are conflicting genuine interests and we must be certain of getting the right answers, even if it means delay in order to get them.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the overriding consideration in deciding this site should be the public interest? Will he also pay attention to the plea made by his hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower)? Is he aware that in Scotland, where the decision one way or the other is of vital importance, great assistance would be given to the public if one knew how long approximately it would take before a decision was reached?
    Mr. Maudling: I take the point, but I am afraid that the public interest in these matters is not a thing that can be determined either by economists or politicians alone. It is a blend of the two.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    N.A. 39 Aircraft
    Mr. G. Brownasked the Minister of Supply whether he has now authorised the manufacturers of the N.A. 39 to seek orders for this aircraft from the United States of America.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Brown: Will the Minister give us some idea why an aeroplane as outstanding as this appears to be should be sold commercially in this way instead of being used by us and kept to trade against other "know-how" and important secrets or new weapons others may have? Secondly, is he quite satisfied that the failure of the Royal Air Force to consider a modified version of this aircraft and insistence upon something which will take ten years to develop—which, I understand, is the reason for seeking the American orders—is justified and not merely the chase after perfectionism which has so bedevilled us in this sphere?
    Mr. Jones: I cannot agree with the assumptions underlying the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. This aircraft is being developed because of a naval need for it. There is, therefore, a British need. On the other hand, if an aircraft is developed for British purposes, it is in the interests of the country as a whole that it should be exported either as a complete aircraft built in this country or under licence. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken pleasure in the fact that certain negotiations with a view to a licensing agreement are taking place.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that the R.A.F. has flatly declined to have anything to do with this aircraft, while the Admiralty has accepted it? Can the right hon. Gentleman be frank with the House and explain why the R.A.F. has refused to have this aircraft?
    Mr. Jones: Certainly, I will try to be frank, although, of course, I am not
    14
    speaking for the Air Ministry. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air said in a recent debate, the Air Ministry has a requirement for a low-flying bomber. It is examining the question whether or not this requirement is best met by the N.A. 39 or by some other aircraft. That examination has not yet been completed.
    Mr. Brown: If the Royal Air Force are examining it at this moment and they were to place an order, would that not mean a combined order for this aeroplane big enough for the overheads to be spread to the satisfaction of the Treasury? If the R.A.F. were to decide in favour of it, would we still need to sell it to the Americans in order to get a big enough order to justify its production? In that event, ought not we to hold it back until that decision is taken?
    Mr. Jones: There is no question of selling to the Americans merely in order to get a big enough order. However big the domestic order, it is surely in the national interest to enlarge the market to meet a national demand.
    Mr. Wigg: As this aircraft obviously does not meet the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force, is this not just another example of the Government's failure to plan so that the operational requirements of the Navy and the Royal Air Force can be dovetailed and a satisfactory aircraft produced instead of this appalling situation which now confronts Blackburn and General Aircraft Limited?
    Mr. Jones: I think the hon. Gentleman is presuming too much. There is no decision in this matter, although an attempt may well be made to correlate the demands of the two Services. It still remains to be seen whether the two demands match.
    Mr. Shinwell: This has now become even more important. Do we understand that a decision has not been reached whether the Royal Air Force will accept this aircraft? What is the reason for the delay?
    Mr. Jones: The situation is as it was described to the right hon. Gentleman in a recent Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I can add nothing at the moment to that statement.
    Mr. Brown: In view of what I think the whole House will regard as the very unsatisfactory way in which the Minister has replied, I must give notice that in one form or another we shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

  HOSPITALS

    Coleshill Hall, Chelmsley and Weston (Hostel)
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made since December, 1957, to provide the Coleshill Hall, Chelmsley and Weston Mental Hospital Group with a hostel for high-grade patients ready to return to normal life or handicapped by being orphans.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The regional hospital board has considered three more properties without success. A fourth is under consideration.
    Mr. Moss: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that he was kind enough to say on a previous occasion that he accepted in principle the provision of hostels, and is he aware that the opinion is growing that the regional board does not want to find one because of the delays in reaching decisions when opportunities arise? Can he write to the regional board to ask it to take up this as a matter of great urgency, because it would be tremendously useful to the hospital concerned?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I reiterate that I am in favour of the principle of providing this type of hostel in suitable places, and I am satisfied that that is also the policy of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. The board, in fact, is not guilty of any delay. Of the three properties to which I refer in my Answer, two were not approved for planning purposes by the local planning authority.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that it is well known that the Minister approves in principle of the provision of these particular institutions, can he say why there is an urgent need in other areas for them and why he does not apply more pressure?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think I can answer that supplementary question
    16
    within the bounds of order. It is a question about progress made in this particular locality.

    Admissions, Accrington
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Health how many patients are on the waiting lists for admission to hospitals in the Accrington area.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: 1,280 at 25th June.
    Mr. Hynd: In view of the alarming figure, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what is being done to try to shorten this waiting list? Is he certain that the waiting list is not so large because of the surgeons being linked up with patients who can afford to pay to get to the head of the queue?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: With regard to the latter part of the Question, there is no reason for thinking this is the case. In regard to the first part of the Question, the main projected easement of the situation is in the proposed 100-bed extension at the Blackburn Royal Infirmary in the same hospital management committee group, which should, of course, considerably help the position in Accrington.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the very surprising figure, can the Minister let the House know which departments are in greatest need of beds, whether for E.N.T. cases or for malignant cases?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. The position is worst in respect of general surgery; the E.N.T. list is long, but there is no worsening trend in respect of that. Only in respect of general surgery and orthopaedics is there any worsening trend.

    Nurses
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he will estimate the number of girl leavers from the secondary schools of England and Wales who took up nursing in the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, respectively; how far this falls short of an adequate intake; and what steps he is taking to increase these numbers.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The number of female entrants to nurse training in England and Wales in 1956, 1957 and the first three months of 1958 were, respectively, 20,877, 20,887 and 5,801. So far as can be judged these numbers

    17
    should be fully adequate to meet the requirements of the nursing services, but there is still a need to reduce wastage by good selection and other measures.
    Mr. Johnson: While welcoming those figures, may I ask whether on close examination they do not show geographical maldistribution; in other words, that the Midlands, places like Coventry and Rugby, are short of recruits while London is turning numbers of student nurses away? What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman doing to cure that situation?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of distribution as distinct from entry to the nursing profession, the National Consultative Committee on the Recruitment of Nurses and Midwives is undertaking a special and detailed study of the question of distribution, and I am sure it will take note of the observations of the hon. Gentleman.

    Psychiatric Day Centres
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health how many psychiatric day hospitals are in operation; and how many of these are outside the four metropolitan regions.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There are 25 day centres providing psychiatric treatment; 17 are outside the metropolitan regions.
    Mr. Robinson: Does the Minister not agree that the day hospital is no longer experimental but a proven method of keeping patients out of mental hospitals? Will he do all he can to encourage the development of the day hospital?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, I certainly welcome any measure which can reduce the burden of in-patient treatment. The actual provision is a matter for regional hospital boards.

    Medical Staffing (Report)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health whether it will be open to the Hospitals Staffing Working Party to report and make recommendations, if they wish, upon the levels of consultant staffing either in the country as a whole, or in particular regions; and approximately how long he expects the working party will require to complete their task.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As the working party's task is to study the principles on which the medical staffing structure in the hospital service should be organised, they will not be concerned with the numbers of consultants as such. No estimate can be made yet of the time they will require, but I am sure they will proceed as quickly as they can.
    Mr. Robinson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not appreciate that the level of consultant staffing is a basic consideration, not only to the senior registrar problem but to everything else that the working party is supposed to be examining? Does he not realise that unless they can recommend on this matter, these distinguished gentlemen will be wasting their time?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It is for these distinguished gentlemen themselves to decide what matters they will need to go into so that they can discharge the terms of reference, of which they are aware and which they have accepted.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health why he did not include either a psychiatrist or a layman with special knowledge of the staffing structure requirements of the mental hospitals among his nominees on the Hospitals Staffing Working Party.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The reason is that the working party as constituted is well equipped to cover the hospital service generally and is free to obtain evidence about particular classes of hospital, mental and others.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister not aware of the indignation which is felt among psychiatrists at the way they have been excluded from this important body? Does he not realise that the needs of the mental hospitals, even concerning the staffing structure, may be very different from those of general hospitals? Will he not reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such indignation as the hon. Member suggests. He will, I know, appreciate that to give representation to all the various specialities and to the different kinds of hospitals which would logically follow, would only increase the size of the working party far above the number of 12 and would certainly have delayed the results of its proceedings.
    Dr. Summerskill: This is a curious omission, because the hospitals which are grossly overcrowded in every area are the mental hospitals. The main problem very often is lack of staff or the proper allocation of staff. Therefore, to omit a psychiatrist from a committee which is considering the overall allocation of staff is, I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit, a little peculiar.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. The working party consists of people all of whom have great experience in the hospital service. They can, I am sure, be trusted to obtain such information as they will need in regard to all the particular classes of hospitals and specialities with which they are concerned.
    Mr. Robinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of this and the previous reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Imported Egg Products (Inspection)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to ensure that imports of egg white are fully inspected before release to manufacturers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): Port health and other local authorities have been asked to pay special attention to the sampling of imported egg products for bacteriological examination. At present, the authorities try, whenever possible, to sample every batch. It would not, of course, be practicable to sample every tin.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Minister recognise the importance of this issue in view of the wide use of this material in the general preparation of confectionery of all kinds? Does he not agree that the reports from his own Ministry show that there is a large proportion of samples taken which show a high level of infection?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, we recognise that there is a problem here, but we consider that the present arrangements for sampling are the best we have tried and also that the wish which we have made known to the exporting countries ought to provide a solution.

    Committee on Prescribing (Report)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the Hinchliffe Committee's Report on Prescribing.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot as 'yet add anything to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 16th June.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he expects to be in a position to say something more on the matter, which, I think he will realise, interests hon. Members on both sides of the House?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. I shall be in a position to make a more precise statement as to the implications of the more detailed recommendations of the Interim Report when my consultations with the British Medical Association and other professional bodies are complete.

    World Health Organisation (Malaria Fund)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a contribution to the World Health Organisation's Malaria Fund.
    Mr. R. Thompson: It is not possible in present circumstances to supplement the contributions which we make to the Regular Budget of the World Health Organisation. We are in any case already making substantial contributions in this field.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise that here is here an urgent problem, an attempt to get rid altogether of malaria in the world, and that here is a chance which we may lose if action is not taken quickly? Does he not recognise that the regular budget of the W.H.O. does not nearly provide for the sort of funds which are needed? Why does not Britain in this case at least accept the leadership of the United States, which has made a considerable contribution to this Fund?
    Mr. Thompson: I do not think we need stand in a white sheet on this matter. We are the third largest contributor to the regular budget of W.H.O., and we contribute heavily to the United Nations Technical Assistance programme and Children's Fund, both of which play a

    21
    prominent part in anti-malarial work, and all this takes no account of the money we spend on colonial development and welfare and under the Colombo Plan.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Before the hon. Gentleman turns this down altogether, may I ask him to ask the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the implications of this matter again, in view of the very high scientific advice which is available that this is a most urgent world problem and that we stand to gain from its solution as well as everybody else in the world?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, but we are opposed to the creation of special funds financed by voluntary contributions—which are, I think, what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—for organisations which are normally financed by compulsory assessment on member States.

    Mass Radiography, North Staffordshire
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health what effect the mass X-ray examination of miners in North Staffordshire has had in increasing the figures of men diagnosed to be suffering from pneumoconiosis for the first time in the year 1956; and whether he will make a statement on his intentions for the future of this essential survey.
    Mr. R. Thompson: 8,523 mineworkers in North Staffordshire were examined by mass miniature radiography in 1956, and 399 new cases of pneumoconiosis were found. It is intended that this type of survey should continue.
    Dr. Stross: Do not these figures illustrate particularly how very valuable mass miniature radiography can be if pithead examination can be made? May I ask, therefore, whether this type of work is to be offered to other areas in the country where, I believe, it is still not yet available? In other words, will it be extended so that the whole of the country and every area will be covered by this method? Secondly, does the answer mean that it will continue year by year in North Staffordshire?
    Mr. Thompson: In reply to the second part of the supplementary, as I said, it is intended that this work shall continue for Staffordshire. On the generality of the matter, I understand that the National
    22
    Coal Board will be approaching shortly the regional boards to discuss the co-ordination of X-ray surveys as a whole.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Would the Minister consider asking those responsible for this examination whether they will also indicate what proportion of the men in the mines they find are suffering not only from pneumoconiosis as defined in the Regulations but also from emphysema?
    Mr. Thompson: I will certainly give consideration to that.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is there any resistance on the part of any number of people to submitting to the X-ray?
    Mr. Thompson: Not as far as I am aware.
    Mr. Dugdale: In view of the success of this examination, is there any intention to extend it to foundry workers who also suffer from pneumoconiosis?
    Mr. Thompson: I think I should like notice of that.

    Bronchitis
    The Rev. Ll. Williamsasked the Minister of Health the number of persons who died as a result of bronchitis during the years 1950, 1955, and 1957, respectively.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The number of deaths attributed to bronchitis in 1950, 1955 and 1957 in England and Wales was:—

    1950

    28,257

    1955

    28,793

    1957

    26,930 (Provisional)

    The Rev. Ll. Williams: Is the Minister aware that these figures reveal a frightening state of affairs, that we are probably the worst country in the world in the incidence of bronchitis and deaths from bronchitis, that the figures for Scandinavia are forty times better than for Great Britain, and that in heavy industrialised areas such as the Ruhr and Belgium the figures are four times better than the figures in Britain?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not entirely accept the ratios which the hon. Member has given, but I do accept that the figures here are a good deal ahead of the other countries to which he has referred. It certainly is a considerable problem in this country and is accepted as such.
    Dr. Summerskill: Representing a constituency with the highest mortality from chronic bronchitis, may I ask how far the Minister is collaborating with local authorities to establish clean air zones?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Clean air zones, as the right hon. Lady will appreciate, are not the responsibility of my Department, but I am, of course, constructively interested in all aspects of preventive medicine.

    Cancer
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take on the report by Dr. Percy Stocks to the British Empire Cancer Campaign following his survey of cancer incidence in North Wales and Liverpool; and whether he will arrange for similar surveys to be carried out officially in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I understand that cancer research under official auspices is already devoting much attention to epidemiological studies of the causes of cancer with similar aims to those pursued by Dr. Stocks. I do not think that the publication of his results, interesting as they are, call for any special action by me.
    Mr. Janner: I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read the report of Dr. Stocks. Is he not satisfied from that report that it is highly essential that similar investigations should take place throughout the country so that a definite decision can be reached, particularly on the question of smoking and the pollution of the atmosphere by smoke in various places?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member knows, matters of research are for my noble and learned Friend the Lord President, who I have no doubt will take appropriate note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Industrial Establishments (Medical Inspectorates)
    The Rev. Ll. Williamsasked the Minister of Health the number of industrial establishments which have medical inspectorates attached to them under the auspices of his Department.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: None, Sir.
    The Rev. Ll. Williams: Is the Minister aware that in the older types of industrial area, such as Salford, Warrington and
    24
    Oldham, the incidence of chronic bronchitis is six times what it is in Eastbourne, and that in the newer type of industrial centre, such as Coventry, the incidence of chronic bronchitis is comparable to a non-industrial city such as Canterbury? In the latter type of new industrial centre, such as Coventry, there is surely a higher rate of medical inspection.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have no statutory responsibility for medical inspectors in industrial establishments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is responsible for the medical inspection of factories, although his inspectors are not attached to industrial establishments in terms of the hon. Member's Question.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not at least aware of the rather disturbing interim report issued to his right hon. Friend concerning the industrial health situation in Halifax, particularly in view of the close link between this matter and the facilities offered by general practitioners? Will he not consider, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend, the importance of encouraging general practitioners to play a much wider part in this type of industrial health work?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am, of course, aware of the report to which the hon. Member refers and I am always happy to discuss these matters with my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Member has any more specific proposals in mind, perhaps he would be good enough to communicate them to me.

  MEDICAL RESEARCH

    Road Accidents (Alcohol)
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is now able to indicate an early date for the publication of the Report from the Medical Research Council on the relation of drink and road accidents.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The report on the experimental work upon the effect of alcohol on the skill of drivers of motor vehicles has now been considered by the Joint Committee appointed by the Medical Research Council and the Road

    25
    Research Board, under whose auspices the work was carried out. It is at present undergoing revision and will be published as soon as possible.
    Mr. Page: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the fairly wide speculation in the Press on the gravity of this Report and the connection between drink and road accidents? Is he in consultation with the Minister of Transport and others with a view to bringing forward some constructive proposals?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not take my assessment of the contents of the official reports altogether from the newspapers, but as to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, the Report has been transmitted by my noble and learned Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

  REFUGEES
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the growing support for the inauguration of a world refugee year; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such a proposal comes before the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): Yes, Sir. I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Lady's suggestion.
  Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he could go a little further and not merely bear the suggestion in mind but, when he has borne it in mind, let me know what might result from it?
  Commander Noble: As my right hon. and learned Friend said the other day, the Government are still considering this proposal. It would be premature to go further today.
  Mr. Younger: If it is intended to do anything at the United Nations General Assembly this year, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that this is a matter which he should not bear in mind much longer but on which he must do something? Can he not suggest to his right hon. Friend the other Minister of State that the occasion of the Economic and Social Council in Geneva might
  26
  be a very good time to collect a few voices from other countries and to get support for this proposal?
  Commander Noble: I will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister of State represent to his right hon. and learned Friend that if the Government would take up this proposal and put a little capital into it, they could liquidate the refugee problem for much less money than it now costs to sustain the refugees year by year?
  Commander Noble: I fully realise that there is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but as I think he knows, we make a substantial contribution to the various refugee funds.

  EGYPT (BRITISH REFUGEES)
  Mr. H. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on proposed Government action to deal with the various claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government.
  Commander Noble: I have nothing to add today to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on 6th May.
  Mr. Fraser: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the situation of these people over here is becoming extremely grave and that time after time the claims talks with the Egyptian Government have broken down? Surely the Government are beholden to make a statement and take action before Parliament goes into recess.
  Commander Noble: I particularly said in my Answer that I had nothing to add today. It is likely that negotiations will be started in the near future. I fully realise, as my hon. Friend has said, that these people have been very patient in the face of hardship.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that if he does show consideration for these people he will have full support from this side of the House?
  Commander Noble: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

  YUGOSLAVIA
  Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what guarantees of military aid in the event of attack on her territory have been given to Yugoslavia by Her Majesty's Government by way of treaty obligations or otherwise.
  Commander Noble: Our obligations to Yugoslavia, as to other member States, are governed by the Charter of the United Nations.
  Mr. Parker: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that it would be best to make absolutely clear what our position would be to prevent this thing happening?
  Commander Noble: Our position is quite clear with regard to the United Nations. It would not be wise to speculate on hypothetical questions at this moment.

  DEFENCE SERVICES
  Mr. Wiggasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a White Paper setting out the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the reorganisation of the defence services.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Prime Minister to the admirable precedent set by the Labour Government in 1946 when a White Paper was published, the principles were then debated and then, after the Government had had further time for consideration, there was a further debate when legislation was introduced? Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that stories about the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence are being leaked by Ministers to every journalist in the Lobby? Is it not time that we had an authoritative statement so that the House and the country may know where we stand?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member's question to me was related to the medium by which this decision should be conveyed to the House and to the world, and
  28
  I have told him that his valuable suggestion, for which he now quotes a precedent, will have full consideration by my right hon. Friend. Beyond that, I will not accept the full course which he mentioned in the case of the Labour Government. There is no certainty that all these steps would be necessary. What is important is to assure that people know what is going to happen.
  Mr. G. Brown: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this White Paper, if it is issued, will be preceded by a statement by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence to the House? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication whether we can expect a statement to be made this side of the Recess?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I can only give the answer which I gave to the original Question. I will convey to my right hon. Friend the observations of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first part of the supplementary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is the subject of a Question on the Order Paper from me to the Prime Minister for answer tomorrow?
  Mr. Brown: I have a Question down for tomorrow, too.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that we should not, therefore, expect a reply to that question today? If legislation should be in contemplation affecting the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence, may I ask whether there is likely to be any consultation with the Leaders of the Opposition, if there has yet been no consultation?
  Mr. Butler: In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, I was aware of the Questions on the Order Paper for tomorrow, and I thought that we would take one course at a time, and so we shall be able to take, another course tomorrow in which the right hon. Gentleman can join. I have no further observations to make, except that it would be a pity to jump to conclusions that the courses suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in this connection, namely, legislation and so forth, are necessary in this case.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Bronchitis
    The Rev. Ll. Williamsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many working days were lost in 1957, or the latest available year for which the figures are known, which were attributable to the incidence of bronchitis.
    Miss Leeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the number of working days lost as a result of bronchitis in each of the last five years fully recorded.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I can answer only for the number of days of incapacity attributed to bronchitis among people insured for sickness benefit, which as they involve a table of figures, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The Rev. Ll. Williams: Is the Minister aware that, in a country which is as dependent as ours on maximum industrial production, these figures should not be taken complacently but demand drastic investigation by the Minister?
    Mr. Vane: I assure the hon. Member that they will not be taken complacently.
    The following are the figures:

    DAYS OF INCAPACITY ATTRIBUTED TO BRONCHITIS

    Millions.

    1951(a)

    26·61

    1953–54(b)(c)

    25·62

    1954–55(b)

    25·38

    1955–56(b)

    26·87

    (a) calendar year;

    (b) year from first Monday in June;

    (c) 53 weeks.

    Information for later periods is not available.

  POST OFFICE

    Television (Alternative Programmes)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General what plans are being made for a third television network.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): No decision has yet been reached on the applications made by the B.B.C. and I.T.A. for alternative television programmes.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been leakages about the Government's intentions in this matter? As this is a most important political decision which the Government have to take, may we be assured that the Postmaster-General will make some kind of statement on the matter before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Marples: There have been no leakages of any kind. I can assure the hon. Member of that. I cannot say when a statement will be made.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a departure as this, or such a step as this, would involve very big questions of principle? Therefore, before the Government take action, will they bring the matter to the House, to obtain its opinion, remembering that when commercial television began they not only came to the House but there was legislation?
    Mr. Marples: I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says but, if I remember rightly, at the time of those fierce debates the party opposite did not want commercial television. I do not know whether it stands by its statement that it would do away with it.
    Mr. Lipton: Irrespective of what happened when commercial television was first introduced, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will be given the necessary information before the Government come to any irrevocable decision in the matter?
    Mr. Marples: I can assure the hon. Member that the House will be given information before anybody else, newspapers or not. When the Government have made up their mind, which is their duty, they will inform the House accordingly.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    R.A.F. Stations (Security)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what precautions are taken to ensure that aircraft based on Royal Air Force stations in the United Kingdom are subject to such security control as to make impossible the unauthorised dropping of atomic bombs in the North Sea.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The normal precautions are entirely adequate.
    Mr. de Freitas: In view of the widespread speculation in the Press last week, why did not the Air Ministry issue a statement pointing out that security precautions at R.A.F. stations used as American bases were such that the alleged threat by the alleged American airman was not just very difficult indeed but impossible to carry out? Why was not an immediate statement made by the Air Ministry?
    Mr. Ward: The House is well aware, because it has been told so many times in the past, that the precautions taken are very thorough and the procedures, both on the ground and in the air, need the co-operation of large numbers of people.
    Mr. de Freitas: While that may be true, was it not right that a statement like this should have been made by the Air Ministry? After all, the Air Ministry has the facts and should tell the public about them.

VOTE OFFICE (DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS)
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House.
The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) raised with me on Wednesday last a question about copies of a certain document being made available in the Vote Office. This was a statement by the Manchester City Council with regard to their Bill, which the Chairman of Ways and Means has ordered to be considered on Wednesday next at 7 o'clock. The hon. Member asked whether it was in order for this document to be made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
The Vote Office distributes to Members a wide variety of papers published by the authority of this House or presented to Parliament by Ministers. Most of these are printed by H.M. Stationery Office, but not all. Other documents published by bodies such as the boards of nationalised industries, dock boards and the like, are distributed by the Vote Office at the request of Ministers who
32
think they may be of use to hon. Members in view of a pending debate. But all these documents are deposited by persons who are directly responsible to the House, or over whom the House exercises some direct control.
In the case of Private Bills, the practice has been to allow the deposit in the Vote Office by Parliamentary Agents not only of copies of the Bill but, when a Bill comes on to the Floor of the House for debate, copies of statements on behalf of the promoters and the petitioners on the points which have caused the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. These statements are succinct in character and confined to facts. They are, I believe, of assistance to hon. Members from constituencies remote from the locality in question, in enabling them to form an opinion on the gist of the question at issue. I see no reason to interfere with the proper exercise of this practice. Normally, Parliamentary Agents send these documents by post but, when time presses, they may seek the services of the Vote Office.
I would remind the House that the term Parliamentary Agent has a very restricted meaning. It means a person who is registered as such in the Private Bill Office of this House. Before he can be so registered, he has to satisfy me, on behalf of the House, that he is a fit and proper person to exercise this function. He has to sign a declaration that he will observe the Standing Orders and rules of this House. I can remove him from the register in case of misconduct. Any person improperly calling himself a Parliamentary Agent is liable to be proceeded against for breach of Privilege.
A Parliamentary Agent is, therefore, a person over whom the House, through me, exercises a direct control, and it is no doubt for this reason that they have been given the privilege of depositing document in the Vote Office. Hon. Members will find the rules which govern the conduct of Parliamentary Agents set out in the latest edition of Erskine May at pages 908 to 910. Among those rules is No. 18, which says:
"No written or printed statement relating to any bill shall be circulated within the precincts of the House of Commons without the name of a parliamentary agent attached to it, who will be held responsible for its accuracy."

33
The document in question did not bear the name of a Parliamentary Agent attached to it, though it has been circulated within the precincts of the House.
I asked the Agent to come to see me on Thursday. He explained that his clients, the Manchester City Council, had prepared their case on the point in dispute some time ago. When, however, the case was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, they considered, I think properly, that they should not distribute it, either through the post or through their Agent, until the Director had decided what he should do. The Attorney-General gave a reply to a Question for Written Answer which stated that the Director saw no grounds for a prosecution. This appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT on Tuesday last.
The Manchester City Council then felt that they had little time to lose. They sent a copy of their statement by post to every hon. Member. At the same time, they sent a number of copies to their Agent. This gentleman, also, I gather, felt that time pressed him. He, in the result, asked an Hon. Member for Manchester who supports the Bill to hand these extra copies to the Vote Office. This the hon. Member, I am sure in all good faith, did. The Clerk in the Vote Office telephoned to the Parliamentary Agent's office and understood that the documents had been placed there by the authority of the Agent. They were then made available to hon. Members.
It is clear that this was a breach of Rule 18, because the document did not bear the name of the Parliamentary Agent. He had realised his mistake and had apologised for it to the Chairman of Ways and Means. He repeated his apology to me and I have no doubt at all that he was sincere.
In all the circumstances, I feel sure that there was here no deliberate attempt
34
to evade the rules of the House. This error was due to inadvertence and a sense of haste, which is a frequent source of error. I therefore think that I have no need to take any further action with regard to the incident.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir J. Barlow: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the very exhaustive and comprehensive manner in which you have investigated this matter, and I and my hon. Friends are also most grateful for the action which you have taken.
Mr. W. Griffiths: As I was the hon. Member who placed the document referred to in the Vote Office, may I also say that I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for what wou have said? I can only apologise for any wrong action which, inadvertently, I may have permitted. However, perhaps I may also take the opportunity, while thanking you, of also thanking the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), because I have observed that when books are banned curiosity is aroused, and the Manchester Corporation will be grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to this document, because all that they seek is that hon. Members should read it.
Sir G. Nicholson: Would you make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is no reflection on the admirable officials of the Vote Office, to whom we all owe a great debt for their excellent work?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the House understands that. I am certainly of that opinion myself. It would be rather difficult for a clerk in the Vote Office to refuse a request of an hon. Member who is well known in the House, especially when he has been told that it has the authority of the Parliamentary Agent. I do not think that any blame attaches to them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the following services connected with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, namely:—

    CIVIL ESTIMATES 1958–59

    £

    Class X, Vote 2 (Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance)

    10

    Class X, Vote 3 (War Pensions, &c.)

    10

    Class X, Vote 4 (National Insurance and Family Allowances)

    10

    Class X, Vote 5 (National Assistance Board)

    10

    Total

    £40

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  3.37 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I think that the Committee will agree that it is appropriate that we should devote this day to a review of the work of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and that we should be holding it in this year of grace 1958 and on 7th July, for this year we are celebrating two anniversaries which mark two important landmarks in the development of the British system of social insurance and service.
  Fifty years ago, the first national old age pensions Act came into operation. It was associated, and here I must be politically careful, in the minds of most people, if not actually in the procedure of this House, with the name of my famous compatriot David Lloyd George. Indeed, in the minds of most people, it was known and is still known, as the old Lloyd George Act.
  When one reads the debates of 1910 in this House and in another place, and
  36
  realises the excitement, the anger, the fears, the wild anticipations that a pension at a maximum of 5s. and a minimum of 1s. a week would be granted to a man and woman at 70 years of age and over, the fear that the independence of the workers would be undermined, that the country would be ruined and the Empire go to the dogs—to read the debates of those days is to realise how far the climate of opinion has changed in this last half-century.
  I read today a very interesting supplement to The Times which is devoted to the tenth anniversary of a service which we shall not discuss today on this Vote, but which we salute—the National Health Service. I notice that The Times, in its editorial commending this Service to the country, says that we all now accept the concept of a National Health Service. What a change in ten years. I hope that The Times will read its own editorials of ten years ago, and that hon. Members will read their own speeches of ten years ago. As one who has spent many years in the Labour Party, I can say that among the greatest triumphs of my party is the triumph of ideas.
  Last Saturday, by the way, was also the tenth anniversary of the coming into operation of three important Acts, which it was my privilege to play some part in piloting through the House of Commons and bringing into operation. These were the National Insurance Act, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and the National Assistance Act. There was a further Act of Parliament which falls within the administration of the Minister which was then on the Statute Book. When I. became Minister of National Insurance in July, 1945, all I had to do was to fill in a blank, and that was the date upon which the National Health Service Act would begin to operate. I ordered the earliest possible date, which was 2nd August, 1946.
  The Minister will know what I recall as the Minister who made the provision, that for about 500,000 persons in this country the tenth anniversary has its own special importance. The people known as late entrants, having now completed ten years within the cover of the National Insurance scheme, are qualified for a retirement pension today. Here, I ought to declare my interest. I am one of the

  37
  late entrants myself, having been a contributor to the earlier scheme.
  So I want to thank the Minister, and through him the courteous servants of the Ministry of National Insurance, for whom I have a deep regard. I have received with great pleasure their notification that I am now qualified for a retirement pension. They asked me two questions which I had to answer. The first was whether I contemplated retirement. I hope I have not disappointed them or my constituents by replying that I do not contemplate retirement at the moment.
  The second question was about my earnings. I replied that since this nation is now slightly more generous to its devoted servants in the Commons than it used to be, Members' pay has at long last reached a stage where it disqualifies me from receiving a pension.
  I propose this afternoon to take stock of these Acts of Parliament, to look back ten years, and to find out whether our hopes have been fulfilled or whether they have been disappointed. I want to find out whether the service we intended should be rendered by these statutes to our people has been as equal and adequate as we contemplated when we passed the legislation. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I devote myself entirely to this aspect, although the Vote covers war pensions, also.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who was himself a Minister of Pensions, will deal with that aspect as, no doubt, will other hon. Members. I am sure that the Committee will understand that I am not spending time on that subject not because I do not believe it is an important part of the Service and administration we are reviewing today. In the main, therefore, I shall deal with the National Insurance Act and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and I shall venture to look into the future.
  The National Insurance Act was noteworthy in many respects. One reason why it was noteworthy was that it was the first attempt in our country, and at that time as far as I know it was the first attempt ever made in any country—to seek to cover virtually the whole of the population within one social security scheme based on insurance by contribution.
  38
  There were a variety of schemes providing for adversities and old age in many other countries but here, following the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, was an attempt to seek to cover the whole population in one insurance scheme. Previous schemes had provided for only a part of the population, namely, persons who had been in employment, and only those of them who had an income of less than a maximum laid down at the time, £408 per annum.
  The first test I apply is: where have we got? Have we proved in these last ten years that it is possible to bring virtually the whole population within the cover of an insurance scheme built on these lines, and if we have failed, why have we failed? The Government Actuary, in his seventh interim Report, published recently, has given us some figures to show the total number insured under the scheme in the three categories: the employed contributors, the self-employed and the not gainfully employed.
  He states that at 31st March, 1957, there were 19½ million insured in the first category, employed contributors. Just over 1¼ million—1·39 million—self-employed, were also covered by the scheme, and half a million were covered as not gainfully employed. From this standpoint the employed contributors are in a sense an easy problem. The only difference made there was that there was no income limit. Anyone who is employed under a contract of service is covered in Class A. He pays a contribution, so does the employer, and so does the State.
  Our new venture was to bring in the self-employed and the not gainfully employed. I hope that whoever replies to the debate will tell us where we stand in relation to these two last categories. Charging my memory—I think it is right, because I checked this point—the number of self-employed covered is substantially less than the number we estimated would be covered. I do not know the reason for the difference. I think we estimated that between 2 million and 3 million self-employed would be covered by the scheme, but there are only just over 1 million. In the case of the not gainfully employed it is difficult to make any estimate, but I also have the impression that the number of these people who are paying contributions under the scheme is much less that we anticipated.

  39
  I should like to know whether the number of self-employed who are insured under the scheme has been affected by the contributions. This is vastly important for the future of the scheme. We Members of Parliament are fortunate, as self-employed people, in that our contributions are collected for us by the kindness of the Vote Office, to whom we ought to pay a tribute. Other self-employed people have to make their own contributions. How many are not paying? Have we really found the way to bring the self-employed into a scheme of this kind? It is a wide class, from the barrow boy up to the man who practises his own profession, including barristers as well as Members of Parliament. I have a feeling that a substantial number of self-employed are not covered. Since we set out to make the scheme comprehensive, it is important to know about this.
  Two other important points arise here. In the 1946 Act we found it necessary to insert a Section, which is still in operation, that we would exempt people whose income did not reach a certain figure. At first, it was £104 per annum and then it was raised to £156. It is interesting to find from the Report of the Government Actuary how many persons have claimed and have been granted exemption from paying contributions to the National Insurance scheme because their income was less than £3 a week in 1957–58.
  Here are the figures. There were 50,000 men, 130,000 single women, 175,000 widows. So there were 355,000 men and women in Britain in that year who could not pay contributions to the National Insurance scheme because their income was less than £3 a week. What tragic human stories lie behind those figures of men, of single women, of widows. How much do we know about them? All the Ministry knows is that they have under £3 a week each, so they need not pay contributions. How do they live? What is the relation between this and the National Assistance Board? I will return to this point.
  Here is a number of poor people, the size of an average city, who have not an income of £3 a week in 1958. One of the problems is that, good as our scheme is, in the change-over we have lost the personal manner which some of the best of the old boards of guardians had. By means of that type of personal service,
  40
  the tragedy of such people became better known than it does now. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is known about these people and how we can in future provide for them whereas, at the moment, our scheme does not cover them because their income is not sufficient to enable them to pay contributions.
  There is also the case of young men and women students. At the time I found it hard to justify allowing young men and women students full credits without paying contributions, whereas young men and women who were not fortunate enough to be students but had to work in industry had to pay contributions. I was confronted with the problem that if I gave the students credits I should have to increase the contributions paid by the others.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Does the right hon. Gentleman know to what extent the number of self-employed people may have been reduced by the growth of, say, larger economic units in the last ten or fifteen years? Also, has he any knowledge of how many of the people with very low earnings may be working a day or two a week?
  Mr. Griffiths: That is what I am asking the Minister. All I know is that they have not £3 a week, and the Ministry has agreed that that is so. I hope that the Minister will give us the answer.
  It must be remembered that when the students finish their student life and enter their chosen occupations they have to make good their contributions or lose their credits and some of their qualifications. I am sorry to bother the Committee with figures, but in this matter figures are of the essence. From the seventh interim Report of the Government Actuary I find that in 1956 there were 233,000 young men students and 190,000 young women students. How is the scheme working out? How many of them find it too difficult when they get into employment to pay back their contributions in a reasonable period and so put themselves in benefit? How many of them realise that if they do not do that their benefits will later be affected, in particular their pension benefits? May they not go through life without realising that? Cannot some means be devised, without putting the burden on the other contributors, for dealing with young

  41
  students under our social insurance scheme? This is one of the matters to which I hope attention will be given by the Minister.
  The first basic principle of this scheme was comprehensiveness. As to the second, after due consideration we decided to build the scheme on the insurance principle. There is a general view still in favour of retention of the insurance principle. My T.U.C. friends attach enormous importance to it, rightly thinking that unless the insurance principle is maintained we shall not be able to ensure what they regard as the essence of a sound scheme, which is that benefits shall be paid as of right on the basis of contributions and without any means test. The only alternative is to make the provision from the national Exchequer. I strongly hold the view that it is better to base the scheme on the insurance principle.
  However, we decided not only to base the scheme on the insurance principle, but to base it on the pattern of the insurance principle already embodied in existing Acts, which was—flat-rate contributions; flat-rate benefit. I can remember discussing in the House what was the maximum contribution that we could impose as a flat rate bearing in mind that the lowest paid worker would have to pay the same as the highest paid worker, that a business executive with a salary which sometimes makes that of the Prime Minister look small would pay the same as the day wage man in the pits. After a lot of discussion, we decided upon the sum of 5s.
  If hon. Members take the contribution as a percentage of average earnings in 1948 and 1958 they will see what the difference is. Average earnings conceal enormous disparities. On the average these days there is a much bigger gap between earnings and wage rates than ever before. As an old trade union officer, I can say that one of the features today is the growing disparity between earnings and wage rates having regard to overtime factors and so on, but the situation will very quickly change. Today, we heard the Paymaster-General speak of the steps which the National Coal Board is taking to try to equate demand and production of coal. He referred to no Saturday work. Do hon. Members realise what that means to the earnings
  42
  of a miner? It may mean £1, £1 10s. or £2 a week less.
  I beg hon. Members to realise how the increased contributions at these very high levels will affect people. I believe that we have reached the limit of flat-rate contributions—indeed, I thought so a long time ago—and that we shall have to change the system. All we have heard is rumours. I hope that the Government will tell us what is in mind. We follow with interest in the Press what is taking place. We are besieged with literature from the National Chamber of Commerce and the life assurance offices.
  I have here an advertisement by a life assurance office in one of yesterday's Sunday newspapers. It refers to the pension problem. As an old trade unionist, I hope that these people pay for it out of their political fund, and I hope that, in accordance with their conviction, it is on a contracting-in basis. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is tough with them when they ask for expenses of this kind to be allowed for Income Tax purposes. If this is not political propaganda, what is? However, everyone is conscious that a change must come.
  All I hear is that the Government are in collusion with the insurance companies—that is only to be expected—and that one of these days they will produce a joint scheme devised not by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, but by the Conservative Central Office and the life assurance offices association. I gather that the Government are in great doubt—I understand it—whether to produce a White Paper and fight a General Election on it, or produce a Bill and seek to pass it into law. Perhaps the Minister would tell us what he proposes to do.
  The contributory conditions are rigid. How are they working? How many insured contributors fail to maintain the average number of contributions required for full benefit? How many are getting less than full benefit? This is especially important in the case of the self-employed; the contributions of the employed contributor are deducted at regular intervals. Has the Minister any figures of the number of persons who fail to get full benefit because the contributory conditions are so rigid that they are unable to maintain the required number of contributions and keep themselves

  43
  within benefit? This is a serious matter for sickness and unemployment benefit, but it is vitally important for pension benefit.
  The next principle which was laid down was that benefits should be at subsistence level. To paraphrase what Beveridge said, it was decided that the National Insurance scheme should provide benefits at levels which for the normal case would suffice, leaving the Assistance Board as a residual service. In his scheme, Beveridge contemplated that the benefits to be provided would, by and large, provide for the needs of the sick and unemployed and others entitled to benefits under the scheme.
  Let us admit at once that in this major problem we have failed, I shall not argue about who failed most. I do not want to discuss the subject on that level. We have all failed. The number of people on Assistance in December, 1948, was about 600,000. Ever since then, that number has increased. It may be down at the moment and the Minister may say that that is because new benefits have come into operation. However, the number will not stay down for long.
  How are we to judge whether scales provide a subsistence level? We can argue what subsistence is. The Ministry has still not yet done anything about the Phillips Report, which said that there should be a special criterion for the people affected, bearing in mind the pattern of their expenditure. For the purpose of this examination, I shall take the subsistence level approved by Parliament in approving the Assistance Board's scales. If the Board's scales are subsistence, then the number of people who have to supplement their benefits under the National Insurance scheme by drawing assistance is the measure of our failure to provide subsistence for them.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he and I spent many days together in Committee discussing his 1946 Measure. Am I not right in saying that in his original plan Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, never visualised a subsistence level from the word "go", but thought that it could be built up to that level only over many years of contribution?
  Mr. Griffiths: That is true for pensions, but not for other benefits. Beveridge proposed that the pension rate should not be raised immediately, but over a period. The benefits were 24s. and 40s., which I changed to 26s. and 42s. to take account of the increase in the cost of living.
  The Digest of Statistics for May, 1958, shows that of the 1,630,000 National Assistance Board weekly allowances in March, 1958, nearly three-quarters, 1,107,000 were in supplementation of National Assistance benefit. The Assistance Board is only partly an assistance board. It is an adjunct of the Ministry of National Insurance. At that date, there were more than 1 million grants made to supplement National Insurance benefits, so that there were more than 1 million people whose insurance benefit was not for them subsistence, by the Board's test. That is the measure of our failure.
  In Appendix III of the National Assistance Board's Report for 1957 are the figures of households receiving National Insurance benefits and the proportion of those households who were also in receipt of assistance. They were, for pensions, 24·6 per cent.; unemployment, 20·6 per cent.; sickness, 12·4 per cent.; widows' benefit, 14 per cent. One in four of all the pensioners drawing retirement pensions under the National Assistance Act were also receiving assistance, in spite of the fact that in recent years an increasing proportion have been receiving not only the basic rate, but an increased rate because of age increments. That is the measure of our failure.
  It is, therefore, quite clear that on the principle which we embodied in Section 40 of the 1946 Act, the principle of a national minimum of subsistance as recommended by Beveridge, we have failed. We have to admit that at the end of ten years we are not providing a subsistence level of benefits.
  I turn to some of the benefits, to make one or two comments and suggestions. I am disturbed to find that of those in receipt of sickness benefit, 113,000 have to receive assistance. I want to know something more about those 113,000. I believe that I know who they are. They are the people with large families and they include people for whom, I have always felt, we have

  45
  never provided adequately in our insurance scheme. This is one of the matters which must be considered. One of the things which I hope we shall do is to provide for the long-term sick a benefit other than the basic benefit provided under the National Insurance Scheme.
  What I hope will be done, and what I hope a Minister of National Insurance will do in the next Government—the next Labour Government which will be the next Government—is to apply to the long-term sick two benefits which will not cost much, but which will render immense service—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how much this would cost. We should make available to the long-term sick two benefits—on the same scale—which we provide for the long-term disabled under the Industrial Injuries scheme—the unemployability allowance and the constant attendance allowance.
  I know what an enormous service such an arrangement, which began with war pensioners, has given to our longterm disabled under the Industrial Injuries scheme. How many of the 113,000 people who draw sickness benefit and received assistance are long-term sick? Does the right hon. Gentleman's experience tally with mine, and will he accept my view and agree to refer the matter to the National Advisory Committee to see whether we can adapt the industrial injuries arrangement to meet the needs of the long-term sick?
  The same problem of subsistence arises with unemployment. Page 7 of the National Assistance Board's Report for 1957 shows that there were 95,000 registered unemployed who were receiving assistance at the end of 1957. Of those, 40,000 were receiving unemployment benefit, while 55,000 were not receiving unemployment benefit, although registered for work at employment exchanges.
  This problem brings in Section 62 of the Act. At what rate are the unemployed exhausting their standard benefit? Unemployment is growing. Earlier today we were discussing Lancashire, but in my constituency the unemployment rate is higher than it has been at any time since the 1930s. Are the Minister, his Advisory Committee and his officials paying attention to this problem, which especially affects the unemployed who fall
  46
  out of work through technological unemployment? In my constituency, for example, the tinplate industry has been completely revolutionised. The old hand mills have closed down, and new mills are being installed. This is a tremendous problem. I hope that the Ministry of Labour will take note of this, because it is also an important problem for that Ministry.
  The man of 55 years of age, who has spent many years acquiring his skill; whose skill has been destroyed overnight by a technological revolution and who finds himself unable to find a job in this modern world, is a tragic figure. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) will be familiar with this problem. Under the present system, after a period of unemployment pay there is no more for such a man, not even under Section 62. For him there is then only National Assistance. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this problem, and to tell us whether he has considered it.
  I now want to say a few words about widows' benefits. Here, I must make a confession. This was the most difficult problem with which I had to deal. The first thing we had to decide in 1946 was whether we should make widowhood, as such, the only criterion for a widow's pension. That was the old criterion, under which we paid a widow 10s. a week. Lord Beveridge recommended—and the general climate of opinion was—that we should provide differential widows' pensions to meet the different needs of widows.
  How has that system been working? Has there been a real examination of the situation? I have read reviews of a book which I have marked down as a "must", written by Mr. Peter Marris and called "Widows and their Families". It is a study of the position of widows in this country. We owe a lot to these young men, who are doing a great service in examining these problems. They are developing an enormous amount of knowledge on the subject. The only person who has not given us an adequate report is the Minister, under the quinquennial review. When the Minister's predecessor presented the quinquennial report for which I had provided under the 1946 Act we found that it was a little flimsy, instead of a real review of

  47
  the problems. What are we doing about it now?
  I must confess that I am the author of the 10s. widow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] My hon. Friends say, "Shame". It shows how careful administrators must be. What I thought was a concession has become a grievance. In the context of what I wanted to do it was a concession. It provided a pension for widows, as such, and for varying the pension according to circumstances. In the case of the widows who had qualified merely by widowhood, under the old Act, I thought I had a duty to make the old pension available if they would not qualify for the new.
  From the reviews of Mr. Marris's book—which I must read—it is quite plain that this is a human tragedy, about which we must do something. It may be that we shall have to recast the whole system of widows' pensions, and of children's allowances. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to this point and act very quickly. I would be inclined to abolish the earnings rule for widows. As for the war widow—she has paid a price, but she has the advantage over all the other sorts of widow that she is allowed full duplication, and I wonder whether we could not have a complete recasting of the whole system of widows' pensions immediately, bringing in duplication. Those are some of the things that I wanted to say in connection with the National Insurance Act.
  I apologise for keeping the Committee for so long, but I must say a few words about the Industrial Injuries Act. This was the most revolutionary of all the Acts which have been passed since I entered Parliament. It made the biggest change, and converted what had been the responsibility of employers—who, more often than otherwise, farmed out their responsibilities to the insurance companies—into a social service. It changed the fundamental criterion from loss of earnings to loss of faculty. I remember the excitement aroused in connection with the hardship allowance, but it is only that hardship allowance which has saved the industrial injuries scheme from wreckage. I urge the Minister to recognise that fact. It is a safety valve, and if he does not keep it at a high level the whole scheme will collapse.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman. A short time ago my right hon. Friend was talking about a reconsideration of flat-rate benefits for pensions. I hope that he is applying that principle especially to the Industrial Injuries Act, where the introduction of the flat rate probably made the biggest change of all.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am coming to that point in a moment. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that there is no demand among trade unions for a general recasting of the principles of the scheme. There are defects in it, and my hon. Friends will speak of them.
  My general view is that the assessments made by the Board are generally on a lower level than I had thought. At the beginning, we had no experience in this matter. All our experience of the assessment of loss of faculty lay in the sphere of the war injured, and, in the main, war injuries are more easily capable of assessment, usually amounting to the loss of an arm or a leg, or a similar injury. But there is a wide variety of industrial injuries and industrial diseases, and I have the impression that the average assessments are too low. I beg the Minister to consider that point.
  My second point concerns administration. When we established these new tribunals I hesitated whether we ought to abolish the final appeal to the House of Lords. In workmen's compensation cases the House of Lords sat as a judicial committee, and was very generous in its interpretation of the old Workmen's Compensation Act, particularly in regard to acceleration. It was sometimes claimed that an accident had accelerated a man's death, even though the cause of death was something other than could be directly attributable to the accident. There is a general feeling that the tribunals and the commissioners are less generous than was the House of Lords in interpreting the rule of acceleration, especially in regard to industrial diseases. I urge the Minister to remember that much feeling exists on this point, and that there is a growing demand to recast the judicial system. If that is not done many people will think that better justice was being provided under the old scheme.
  Lastly, in connection with industrial injuries, I want to put in a plea for the

  49
  old cases. I wanted to bring them in originally, but I felt that I could not do so when it meant placing the burden upon contributors in respect of cases for which the old employers were responsible. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I admit to a little feeling in the matter. I asked myself why I should ask the miners and the State to pay extra money in respect of old cases which were really the responsibility of the former coal owners, who, had been paid compensation. I wish we had taken something out of the compensation we paid them and made it available for these old cases. In the result, I failed in my negotiations to find a way to include these cases, but there is no reason why anyone should be left outside now.
  Surveying the achievements of the past ten years, I think that we have a right to be proud of what we have done. It has been of enormous benefit to the people. I consider it a great privilege to have had the opportunity and the honour of taking some part in framing the legislation and in building the Ministry. Now we must look to the future. We have said what we want to do about pensions and we shall say what we want to do about the whole scheme. Flat-rate contributions and flat-rate benefits are not in tune with the age in which we live. Beveridge, in 1942, and I, in 1946, immediately after the Second World War, considered the matter in terms applicable in the 1930s, when the cry was, For heaven's sake let us have a minimum below which no benefit may fall."
  Now I hope that we are entering an age of full employment and an expanding economy which will require the provision of sickness and unemployment benefits, and particularly, benefits for old age, which bear an adequate relationship to the income received by people in work. One week people are in work and receive an income of £X, and the next week they are retired and have to live upon a pension. Subsistence levels, even though we had achieved them—and we have not—are out of tune with this modern age, and the whole scheme must be recast.
  I have not said much this afternoon about the cost. The Minister's estimates provide that next year there will be an increase of £38 million in the grant from
  50
  the State for National Insurance. The total grant of £138 million appears a lot, but I wonder whether the country realises that the National Insurance scheme is not the only scheme which is assisted by the Government. I wonder whether people realise that four years ago, in 1954, the Phillips Committee estimated that the subventions, or tax concessions, made to private pension schemes cost the Exchequer £100 million. So, this year, we shall be providing for the National Insurance scheme only £38 million more than is provided for private schemes, including the "top hat" scheme.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the Treasury does not hand out concessions in this case, but merely defers the collecting of tax, admittedly at a lower rate, when the pension is actually paid.
  Mr. Griffiths: But it means that through this concession, or whatever one cares to call it, the Treasury loses £100 million; because contributions can be set against Income Tax. Therefore, the Chancellor gives up £100 million.
  The Welfare State is not a luxury. It is an essential part of the life of a civilised community and the cost must be borne by the community. We need an economic and financial policy which will enable us to make full and wise use of our resources. I believe that a Britain determined to expand and build up her economy can provide such a Welfare State. I am proud that I was permitted to play some part in creating it, and I look forward to its future with confidence.
  4.25 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): I wish, first, to thank the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for his tribute to my Department and to the work which has gone into the operation of the first ten years of full insurance and industrial injuries benefits; not least to the fact that he was properly notified of his own entitlement.
  The work of the first ten years presented an enormous task in which the right hon. Gentleman played an important part in

  51
  guiding both the relevant Acts of Parliament through this House in 1946. Though comprehensive insurance came into full operation in 1948, it was not wholly new. Perhaps it is unnecessary to remind the Committee that the foundations of social security had been laid many years earlier and the existing schemes of pensions, sickness benefit, and unemployment insurance, were all absorbed into this new, comprehensive National Insurance scheme.
  What I think is worth reminding ourselves about is that even during the days when the outcome of the war was in the balance the thoughts of many people were turning to the need for improved and wider measures of social security for the years after the war. I wish briefly to remind the Committee of the history behind the present National Insurance scheme. The Beveridge Report was commissioned in June, 1941, and the Report itself was submitted in November, 1942. A White Paper on Social Insurance was issued in September, 1944, and the Ministry of National Insurance was set up in November, 1944, both under the then Coalition Government presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill).
  I have always had in mind some words of my right hon. Friend which he used in a broadcast on 21st March, 1943, when he said:
  "I personally am very keen that a scheme for the amalgamation and extension of our present incomparable insurance system should have a leading place in our Four Years Plan. … Here is a real opportunity for what I once called 'bringing the magic of averages to the rescue of the millions.' Therefore you must rank me and my colleagues as strong partisans of national compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave."
  Therefore, the right hon. Member for Llanelly is not the "father" of this infant whose tenth anniversary we are celebrating, but rather the "male nurse" in attendance.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Lady will not forget the work of my distinguished compatriot.
  Miss Pitt: No. Indeed, I will join with the right hon. Gentleman in his tribute. I should like to come back to the point later.
  The principle of universality was established with the National Insurance
  52
  scheme and I think it is appropriate when we review the scheme to have in mind that today is the first pension payday for the late age entrants and their wives, as we were reminded by the right hon. Gentleman. These late age entrants are people who were within ten years of the minimum pension age when insurance became compulsory in July, 1948. They were not covered previously for a variety of reasons.
  For the most part, those reasons were that their own exempted employment provided at least as good a pension as the State scheme, or their salaries were over the income limit, or they were employed on their own account. But from now on virtually everyone reaching retiring age will qualify for a National Insurance pension. Today, therefore, marks the triumph of the Beveridge principle of universality, and pensions paid as of right without regard to means. We can truly say that this universal scheme now embraces, if I may borrow a phrase, everyone from the field marshal to the private.
  I am glad, because I think that the pensions now to be enjoyed by the late age entrants, as we call them, will help many whose occupational pensions or personal thrift in the years gone by were sufficient, as they thought, to maintain a standard of living, but because of changed money values are not now buying the security which they hoped for when they were working and saving for it. I am glad that this legislation will be a help to them.
  Of these 400,000 new pensioners, 300,000 are contributors themselves and 100,000 are the wives. Thus the figure of 400,000 represents as many new pensioners in one day as we would normally take in one year. They bring the total number of pensioners to 5¼ million, and the extra cost of the late age entrants' pension will be £50 million a year. It has been a very considerable administrative operation to bring these pensions into payment, and I am happy to say it has been carried through without any serious hitch.
  I think that it is a happy coincidence, too, that in this anniversary year the 13th General Meeting of the International Social Security Association was held in Great Britain. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee attended many of the sessions and functions arranged in

  53
  connection with that meeting, which took place in May, when we were the host country to representatives from more than forty-eight other countries and were able to discuss many problems and exchange information on this important subject of social security.
  To return to the review of ten years' work, over the period there has been a tremendous gain in experience, both among the staff of the Ministry in administering the service and the public in the understanding of their rights and making use of the service. Of course, one still meets with some misunderstanding, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee share this experience with me. For instance, there are still people who do not understand the difference between the retirement condition and the earnings rule. There are two totally different sets of conditions. One is that it has to be accepted that a man has retired from full-time employment. When this has been accepted, other conditions come into operation, and he comes up against the earnings rule. It is sometimes here, I find, that the beneficiaries are not quite clear on the two different sets of conditions.
  I find, too, that it is not clearly understood that the earnings rule of 50s. for the retirement pension and the 60s. rule for the widowed mother are not limits on earnings. Sometimes people say to me, "I am not allowed to earn more than 50s." Of course, as we understand, there is no limit on their earnings, but if they are, in the respective cases, earning above 50s. or 60s. then the earnings rule itself bites. I wish that were fully understood.
  One other thing misunderstood is that the earnings taken into account are net earnings, and disregard any fares which the individual concerned may have to pay getting to and from work, and disregard any payment which the widowed mother may have to make for the care of her children while working. The earnings rule does not operate until the deduction of these and similar expenses has been made from the gross earnings.
  One of the other things still misunderstood is the need for making claims prompts in order to secure benefit. I need not remind the Committee that we in the Ministry do all that we can to
  54
  make this known and the staff is always willing to help. I think, too, that the readiness of the public to seek to help is borne out by the fact that about 20 million personal inquiries a year are now being made at our local offices.
  During the past ten years the work of the Department has steadily increased. For instance there are now nearly 1½ million additional retirement pensioners, 600,000 more family allowances for an additional 900,000 children, 1 million more contributors to National Insurance. Also, the Department now issues documents for welfare foods to about ¾ million expectant mothers each year and for a total of 3½ million children under school age. This is work which we took over on an agency basis in 1952.
  The central office of the Department at Newcastle now records contributions each year from no fewer than 24 million people. I think that hon. Members will be amused to learn that of that 24 million there are 525,000 people with the name of Smith. At the same time, there has been a constant search for economy in administration. Between 1948 and mid-1953, the staff has been reduced from the peak figure of about 39,500 to 32,000, a saving of 7,500. In September, 1953, the Ministries of National Insurance and Pensions were merged. In consequence, the number of staff rose to 37,800 but by 1st June this year it had been reduced to 36,000, a saving of 1,800.
  The number of National Insurance offices has also been steadily reduced from a peak figure of 981 to 857, but where there is need established in the locality we have maintained an inquiry office open either whole or part-time for the benefit of the public. These changes have resulted in economies, but the public is still well served.
  The number of war pension offices has been reduced from 32 to 22 since 1953, but in every case a local pensions office has been retained for war pensioners' inquiries, medical boarding and welfare services. In fact, the merger of the Ministries of Pensions and National Insurance provides, through the much wider local office network available, greatly increased facilities for personal inquiries by war pensioners. Last year's total was 48,000.
  Staff reductions have been made possible, in part by constant review by the

  55
  organisation and methods teams seeking to simplify and improve procedures and in part by mechanisation and mechanical aids of many kinds introduced to save time and labour. An order is now being placed for an electronic computer to be installed in 1960 in the central office of the Department at Newcastle which will do pay-rolling for about two-thirds of the Ministries' staff and process statistical data on the insurance schemes. This will save about 100 staff and soon pay for itself. I would add that the displaced staff will be absorbed into other vacancies caused by normal wastage.
  There have been improvements in accommodation, too, because originally we had to take what we could get. I say "we", but hon. Members opposite were responsible at the time. I know that buildings were difficult to acquire and old churches, old houses and empty factory buildings were used. We have been able to improve the position over the years. Since 1952, 173 National Insurance offices have been rehoused in new or specially adapted buildings. Improvements have been made in 256 others and we have further improvements planned for the future.
  Staff training has gone on steadily over the years and much attention has been paid to training in management and relations with the public. I think that this has contributed to the smoothness, efficiency and good relations which we have established.
  On the benefits side, perhaps the clearest comparison that I can give is on the total expenditure. I should like to give the figures. On National Insurance benefits the actual cost for the year 1949–50 totalled £390 million. The current expenditure on National Insurance benefits for the year 1958–59 is estimated at £897 million. I know perfectly well that when I make that comparison hon. Members will ask me what that means in terms of 1948 values. I have broken down the figures, and if we translate the £897 million current year's expenditure to 1948 values we get £578 million as compared with the first year's working of £390 million. Similar figures for Industrial Injuries are: in the first year the actual cost was £14 million and the current expenditure for the year 1958–59 is £53 million. At 1948 values
  56
  that represents £34 million. As the Industrial Injuries scheme was then new, the cost was expected to build up gradually over the years, and I think that the figures show that this has happened.
  On the war pensions side, the actual cost in 1949–50 was £88 million, and the current cost in 1958–59 is £100 million. That, at 1948 values, is £64 million. I should explain here that the reduction is due, as hon. Members will know, to the fact that the total number of war pensions beneficiaries has declined. If hon. Members would like the figures, the reduction has been from 1,080,000 in March, 1949, to just over 800,000 at the end of 1957. The final figures in the work of our Department—family allowances—are, actual cost, 1949–50, £61 million; current expenditure for 1958–59, £125 million, which, at 1948 values, is £81 million.
  In July, 1948, the main benefits—that is, retirement pension, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit—were operative at the rate of 26s., single, and 42s., married couple. Since that date there have been four increases in retirement pension; one which bridged over the months of September and October, 1951, one in October, 1952, another in April, 1955, and another in January, 1958.
  Over the same period there have been three increases in unemployment and sickness benefit—in the months of July, 1952, May, 1955, and February, 1958. These rates are now 50s., single, and 80s., married couple, which represents a substantial increase in purchasing power. It is, in fact, higher than ever before, even when allowing for the withdrawal of the Tobacco Duty relief for some pensioners, because, measured by the Index of Retail Prices, the present equivalent of the 26s. and the 42s. that operated in 1948 would, today, be 40s. 4d. and 65s. 2d. As I have reminded the Committee, the actual figures are 50s. and 80s.
  There have been improvements also in widows' pensions on three occasions, and the widowed mothers' allowance has been increased five times over this ten-year period; and there have been additions to guardians' allowances, maternity allowances, and other benefits. Experience showed that the position of families with children required special consideration, and successive improvements have increased the benefits for such families

  57
  more than in proportion to the improvements in standard rates. In 1956, the widowed mother was given priority over other families with dependent children, with a lead of 5s. for each of her children. That lead she still maintains.
  An example of these improvements for families, both in benefits and in family allowances is that, in 1948, the sick or unemployed man with a wife and three children would have received 59s. 6d. In 1958, he receives 127s., which, allowing for price changes, represents an improvement of 38 per cent. In 1948, the widowed mother with three children would have received 43s. 6d. In 1958, she receives 112s. and, allowing for price changes, that represents an improvement of 66 per cent. That, I hope, goes some way towards answering the right hon. Gentleman's point that more should be done for the widowed mother.
  I turn to the Industrial Injuries scheme, which, of course, was something entirely different—the biggest change made, I think, in the pattern of insurance—when the new basis of compensation for loss of faculty was substituted for the former basis of compensation for loss of earnings. If I may say so, I think that the new basis was not so readily understood by workmen—I was earning my living in a factory at the time—but I know that they did appreciate this enormous changeover when they realised that this new basis took the partisan atmosphere out of workmen's compensation.
  There have been three increases since the Industrial Injuries scheme first became operative, as a result of which the original 45s. of 1948 has become 85s. at present. Allowances for dependants are, of course, the same as in the main scheme, and have been increased in the same way. New claims for Industrial Injuries benefit have been steady at about 800,000 a year. The average period of injury benefit for men is four weeks, and, for women, five weeks, and only one in 60 receives injury benefit for the full six months.
  Injury benefit is, of course, followed by disablement benefit where loss of faculty exists. Originally, this disablement benefit was not payable unless the disability was either permanent or substantial or, in certain circumstances, both. From August, 1953, it has been payable for any assessment of at least 1 per cent. This change was the main reason for the increase in
  58
  the number of claims from about 69,000 in 1948 to 162,000 last year.
  In 1948, there were 35 prescribed industrial diseases, in addition to pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. These diseases, of course, are kept under constant review, and that has resulted in the addition of five new diseases, and an extension of cover for pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. The minimum degree of qualifying disablement for the last two has also been reduced to 1 per cent. About 40,000 claims for injury benefit for prescribed diseases are allowed each year, roughly half of these for industrial dermatitis.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not propose to deal with war pensions, but I think that a review of what we do at the Ministry would not be complete without mention of them. As he said, they play a very important part in our work, and are included in the Estimates now under consideration. Again, in the period under review, the past ten years, war pensions have been increased three times—in May. 1952, February, 1955, and January, 1958, and the 1958 increases were the biggest ever to be made in war pensions.
  An age allowance for disablement pensioners was introduced in February, 1957, and, at the same time, improvements were made in the conditions for the award of the comforts allowance for the most seriously disabled of all ages. Welfare services have continued. There is no need to stress the excellent job they do, as all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen must be aware of them. Particular attention has been paid to the elderly war widows, to keep in touch with them to make sure that they are in touch with voluntary organisations, and so on.
  Family allowances, again, are not strictly within our purview today, because they were already on the Statute Book. They have now been payable for twelve years, commencing on 1st August, 1956, following the Act of 1945 passed by the "Caretaker" Government. The rate of 5s. originally given was increased to 8s. in 1952, and further beneficial changes were made in 1956, the two most important being the introduction of higher age limits, and increases in the rates for larger families. From 1st August, 1956, children at school, and apprentices, count for family allowance until their eighteenth birthday, instead of, at the latest, to 31st July following their sixteenth birthday.

  59
  At the same time, family allowances for physically or mentally handicapped children were extended to their sixteenth birthday, from which time, of course, they may qualify for National Assistance in their own right. This closed a gap whereby handicapped children were unable to attract any payment for their family between their fifteenth and sixteenth birthdays. Nearly 90,000 families have benefited from these changes in the age limits.
  Since October 1956, the larger families have also benefited by the increase to 10s. for the third child and subsequent children. About 1,200,000 families have benefited in this way: One other change, though not so far-reaching, allows children committed to the care of a local authority who are returned temporarily to their own homes while the committal order still applies to attract family allowances while they are in their own homes.
  By far the biggest responsibility of the Ministry is that of retirement pensions, and this also accounts for the heaviest item of expenditure. I scarcely need to remind the Committee of the facts. No one can possibly have paid the full actuarial contributions for present benefits, and although the contributions have been increased, the deficit falls to be met by the taxpayer in the form of a steadily growing figure from this year onwards.
  We do need to remind ourselves that the proportion of old people in the population is now about one in seven. By 1979, this figure will be about one in 54 of the population. If we consider the numbers of old people in relation to the workers whose efforts will support them, the changes are even more striking. For every person of pensionable age in 1949 there were just five workers. There are now less than 4½, and by 1979 there will be less than 3½.
  The numbers of old people and of retirement pensioners now and expected in the future are as follows: In the present year there are 5,200,000 retirement pensioners, including the late age entrants about whom we have already spoken; all old people over minimum pension age number 7,300,000. By 1979, the numbers will be: retirement pensioners 7,600,000; all old people over minimum
  60
  pension age 9,700,000. This rising proportion of old people, coupled with the fact that responsibility was accepted for payment of pensions at full rates to existing pensioners, and because of the increases given, means that the total cost of pensions is estimated to be £826 million by 1969–70 and £978 million by 1979–80. At these figures the deficit to be met by the taxpayer is expected to rise to £322 million by 1969–70 and £475 million by 1979–80 in addition to the Exchequer supplement.
  Mr. Gower: Does that take account of late entrants?
  Miss Pitt: Yes; I said so.
  One other point that I should mention in this list of developments, although I shall have to miss many of the minor ones, is the growth in reciprocal agreements with other countries.
  Before 1948, there were reciprocal agreements between schemes of sickness insurance in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Irish Republic, but none with schemes of social security in Commonwealth or foreign countries. With good will and determination, reciprocal agreements have been concluded with four Commonwealth countries—Australia, New Zealand, Malta and Cyprus, and with 15 other countries. Agreements are under discussion with three more countries.
  My right hon. Friend gave a full list of the countries to the right hon. Member for Llanelly in answer to a Question in March, and I will not take up the time of the Committee by mentioning the list again. However, the right hon. Gentleman may like to know that since that reply, the Belgian agreement has been ratified and is in operation, and the Yugoslavian agreement has been signed. General speaking, these agreements aim at enabling the national of one country to take his social security rights with him where he goes to live in another country, and although the agreements differ form, they represent a very valuable step forward in social security.
  There are a few points that I should like to take up from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He asked why the number of self-employed people was less than estimated, and the same question was asked about those not gainfully employed.

  61
  The answer is contained in the first interim Report of the Government Actuary for 5th July, 1948, to 31st March, 1950, which says specifically that the number of persons working for an employer is considerably larger than was assumed in the Estimates for the Bill, and conversely the number of self-employed persons is much less.
  I understand that the reason for this is that the Estimates were taken on a 1931 census and therefore they have been proved incorrect. Where it was estimated that there would be 2,200,000 self-employed when the Bill was passed, the figure for 1950 was 1,460,000, and in 1956 1,390,000.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Could the hon. Lady say how the figures now equate with what we learned from the last census? This is important not only from the standpoint of the scheme but as showing the pattern of our economic life.
  Miss Pitt: I will make inquiries and will inform the right hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the people who may be precluded because their income is less than £156 a year. He asked how they would be brought into benefit. I would make clear that their income can be rather above £156, because it can be £156 plus the contribution that they would pay towards National Insurance. That brings the income limit somewhere nearer to £3 10s. a week. If these people apply for exception they have no benefit rights, and in the long run they would, I imagine, resort to National Assistance.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about students and made the point that they have to pay back in the years when they begin work following their undergraduate days. He thinks that perhaps these young men and women do not realise that their benefits may be affected. I would like to assure him that we do all we can on our part to make that clear to them. There are some excellent leaflets, and it is made clear to them also, I believe, in their interviews at universities and with our local offices. I want to stress that they have six years now—
  62
  originally, it was four years—after they have started work in which to catch up with the contributions if they wish. There is no compulsion, but if they wish to pay, the period has from 1956, been extended to six years, so that they have a fairly long time in which to make good their record of contributions.
  When the right hon. Gentleman asked me if there is no way in which we can help them, I think that, on reflection, he will feel we have given them a considerable amount of help. These young people who are taking further education are relieved of any necessity to pay contributions up to the age of 18. It would be wrong to the general body of contributors if we were to give those who have the opportunity of higher education even more concessions at the expense of those who have to pay through a longer working life.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the number of pensioners receiving National Assistance. In fact, he quoted the figure as being 24·6 per cent. That was correct in December, but I think that he and other hon. Members who propose to take part in the debate may like to know that it was 22·3 per cent. in March of this year, and similarly there have been reductions in the number of sickness and unemployment claimants who resort to National Assistance.
  On the long-term sickness benefit, the right hon. Gentleman made the point that he thought we should consider trying to provide something either equivalent to unemployability supplement or constant attendance allowance, on Industrial Injuries lines. In reply to that, about which I know he feels deeply—he has raised it before—I would say that National Insurance is on an insurance basis.
  There are uniform rates for the main contingencies which mean the interruption or cessation of earnings, and to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests would mean far more generous treatment for the long-term sick than, for instance, for the widow or the retirement pensioner.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  5.0 p.m.
  Whereupon The GENTLEMAN-USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
  The House went:—and, having returned;
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act, 1948 (Amendment) Act, 1958.

  2. Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1958.

  3. Marriage Acts Amendment Act, 1958.

  4. Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958.

  5. First Offenders Act, 1958.

  6. Opticians Act, 1958.

  7. Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1958.

  8. Litter Act, 1958.

  9. Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act, 1958.

  10. Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1958.

  11. Drainage Rates Act, 1958.

  12. Defence Contracts Act, 1958.

  13. Maintenance Orders Act, 1958.

  14. Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act, 1958.

  15. Pier and Harbour Order (Margate) Confirmation Act, 1958.

  16. Holy Trinity Hounslow Act, 1958.

  17. Seaham Harbour Dock Act, 1958.

  18. Blackpool Corporation Act, 1958.

  19. London County Council (General Powers) Aot, 1958.

  20. Clergy Orphan Corporation Act, 1958.

  21. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1958.

  22. Essex County Council Act, 1958.

  23. All Hallows the Great Churchyard Act, 1958.

  24. All Hallows the Less Churchyard Act, 1958.

  25. London County Council (Money) Act, 1958.

  SUPPLY
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed
  That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the following services connected with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
  5.16 p.m.
  Miss Pitt: We were talking about additional allowances for the long-term sick and, in reply to the plea made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly that we should consider whether anything could be done, I was saying that it would be very difficult. How could we justify it compared with the widow or retirement pensioner who might have been living on benefit for a long time? Furthermore, if it were possible to grant such a benefit, what would happen when the sickness beneficiary reached retirement age and had to take retirement pension? To take away the constant attendance allowance or the unemployability supplement would impose a considerable hardship, yet, if one contemplated maintaining it into retirement years, what would one do then for the 5 million people at present of retirement age?
  Mr. J. Griffiths: What happens now? There are people receiving unemployability allowance and constant attendance allowance under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act who have reached retirement age. Why should there be a different problem here from that which is already dealt with in the Industrial Injuries scheme; and, even if it is a problem for both, why is that a reason for not considering the idea?
  Miss Pitt: That is an entirely different scheme based upon entirely different principles. What is now suggested is that we should try to introduce the comparable benefit from the Industrial Injuries scheme into National Insurance. If we did it for the long-term sick, I do not see how we could draw the line at the 5 million retirement pensioners and say to them that they could not have constant attendance allowance or unemployability supplement. Although no figures of costs are available, they would really be enormous.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady again, but she is answering the Committee, and we are in Supply. What does she mean by enormous"? Leaving out for the moment what happens to the retirement pensioner, she has not answered about what happens under the Industrial Injuries scheme. Under that scheme, do people still receive constant attendance and unemployability allowance? If so, why does she say that the problem is not the same? Would the cost be enormous in the context of the scheme? What is the total number of long-term sick? My own view is that the cost would not be so very great, and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to say that a suggestion of this kind would cost an enormous sum without saying what she means by "enormous".
  Miss Pitt: The right hon. Gentleman has just raised the matter. Without considerable research, I do not think that it would be possible for me to give him an answer about the total long-term sick within the sickness beneficiaries.
  Mr. Griffiths: Then the hon. Lady does not know what the cost would be.
  Miss Pitt: The point I was making was that one could not, in my opinion, draw the line at long-term sick, especially when they reach retirement age. One would have to consider all the other people who, because of age or infirmity, are unable to go on working. Therefore, the potential cost could be enormous.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked another question about widows. He was particularly thinking of the widowed mother, and I have earlier reminded him that there have been five improvements in her benefit. The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether there had been a review. I remind him that in 1956 there was a full review by the National Insurance Advisory Committee of the pensions of all widows, and arising from that we made some of the improvements to which I have referred. He mentioned also Peter Marris's book. Since the right hon. Gentleman intends to read it, I might give him the title, which is, "Widows and their Families". But the interviews related in that book took place before the improvements which we made in the years 1956 and 1957.
  66
  I should like to take up one further point which arose from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I have not disposed of all of them and my right hon. Friend will be replying to other points later. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of old cases, which has been discussed before in the House. We have done something for the old cases by giving them a supplement of 17s. 6d. out of the Industries Injuries Fund, which is bearing the burden, and in that way the burden falls on present contributors. What is even more important is that the old cases enjoy the benefit of the improvements that we recently gave to all National Insurance beneficiaries. They will either get increased sickness benefit or, if they have retired, increased retirement pension.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a matter of taking stock.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: Before the hon. Lady continues, will she deal with the entitlement to benefit of the partially incapacitated? I think that is what my right hon. Friend had in mind when he drew attention to workmen's compensation cases.
  Miss Pitt: The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the partially incapacitated, but I will gladly endeavour to reply to the point. Surely they will gain because they are only partially incapacitated. They are not unemployable. They will enjoy some benefit from the increased wages which are now being paid. I think that they have a share in the general level of prosperity.
  In conclusion, this canvas is all too broad for me to fill in all the picture. I have tried to fill in some of it so that hon. Members may have the information on which this debate will proceed. But all parties have contributed to social security—right back to the Lloyd George days. I think that my own party can claim that we have not only maintained the social services which we are discussing, but have improved them. We have endeavoured to put the priorities where they are needed. We are spending more money and we are providing better benefits than ever before. The money is provided by the contributors and the taxpayers, but I think that we can claim to give better value for that money. I have no wish to be partisan, but I think

  67
  it right to make that plain. In National Insurance we are dealing with people, and in the main we are dealing with the problems of people caused through sickness, unemployment or old age. It is a matter which needs understanding and humanity.
  I should like to pay my tribute to the staff of the Ministry. After a close association of two and a half years, I can say that I am very impressed with the job of work that they do and the effort that they bring to this work in order to help people. I am sometimes a little surprised at the considerable amount of work that has been done to prove a person's entitlement to retirement pension. Employment histories are sometimes very chequered. Not everyone recollects clearly who were their employers in the past, and sometimes the officials of my Department do a "Sherlock Holmes" act so as to prove entitlement to benefit. I am glad that they bring to this service the feeling of humanity and the sense of owing something to the community. The job has been done over the past ten years with understanding and humanity. I think that we may all claim a share in the progress that has been achieved over this period.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I think that some of us during the earlier part of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's speech felt that it would be more valuable to study the compendium of facts in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But we all appreciated the last minutes of her speech, and the humane way in which she talked about the problems of the Ministry. When she said that, I could not help thinking of something which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) spoke about, namely, the amazing change in atmosphere which has taken place in the last ten years.
  When the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to war pensions, my mind went back to a talk I had with George Buchanan, and I think that we on this side have the right to mention his name today as one of the outstanding men in pensions. I once asked him, "What did you think was the job that you had to do as Minister of Pensions?" He said, "It was a perfectly simple job. When I
  68
  got there, the officials all believed that it was their task in life to ensure that they never paid a penny more than was necessary. When I left there, they had begun to learn that their job was to ensure that everyone got every penny to which he was entitled." There has, indeed, been a complete transformation of the spirit of the bureaucracy, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary paid a perfectly legitimate tribute to the staff.
  Those of us who remember pre-war conditions regard this transformation of the climate in which we consider these problems as perhaps the greatest achievement of the first Labour Government after the war in humanising relations. Having said that, may I say that when the Parliamentary Secretary read all those figures of improvements, I could not help reflecting how much of those so-called improvements have been, not improvements, but merely "catching up with inflation." Of course, it is true that great things have been done in the last ten years, but we should be quite unrealistic if we tried to claim to ourselves that one of the great things that we have done has been to abolish poverty in old age. We have not abolished it.
  I was glad my right hon. Friend said that we have to face some of the things that we failed to do and admit that we are all to blame. Of course, we are all to blame but over the last ten years the greatest social scandal has been the way in which our old people have not been given their share of increasing prosperity. Surely, in this debate, we must acknowledge those facts and try to assess, as my right hon. Friend did so admirably, why we have failed to do what we believed we should be able to do when the National Insurance Act came into force ten years ago this weekend. Why is it that its promise has not been fulfilled? I have already mentioned the major factor which no one took into account in planning our social services and Welfare State in 1945–46 and that was the continuing pressure of inflation—and once again let us be frank about this—under succeeding Governments of all parties. None of us really managed to cope with inflation.
  I hoped that we should have at least one admission of this from the Parliamentary Secretary. Often we have had to listen to the outrageous argument that

  69
  the only thing to do for old people to protect them against inflation is to prevent inflation taking place. Actually, the job of social services is to protect old people against inflation, if it occurs. I hoped that we could write it down as a lesson of the last ten years that any system of social security which leaves old people's pensions unprotected against inflation is not a system of security at all. It is a mockery of the principle that one should help the weak first and leave the healthy to look after themselves.
  Over the last ten years, the fact has been exactly the contrary. By and large, over the last ten years it is the healthy, the strong and those who have been able to look after themselves who have been protected and it is the weak and the aged who have taken the chief brunt of inflation. That has had its financial effect on the whole National Insurance scheme. Aware of these facts, successive Governments have tried to keep up with inflation by constantly increasing benefit, and quite rightly. The result, however, has been that benefits and contributions have become completely out of relationship with one another.
  It has been said that 400,000 old people, by achieving their rights during the last 10 years, are entering the scheme and receiving their benefit for the first time this week. And the hon. Lady added that the taxpayer would make up the difference. It is not only the taxpayer, but the young worker, who is making up the difference. Under the hon. Lady's system—and she must take responsibility for this—every young worker who starts work this year will, at the very minimum, year after year, for forty-five years, pay 1s. 3d. a week more than he should pay actuarially for his own pension, as a contribution towards other people's pensions. This is not an insurance principle. It is the very reverse of insurance. To be required to pay an extra 1s. 3d. a week is not a contribution, but a poll tax, weighing heaviest on those least able to bear it.
  Let us be quite clear that we celebrate—using that word in inverted commas—the tenth anniversary of National Insurance by the achievement of universality combined with bankruptcy. The scheme has become universal at the same moment as it has been made bankrupt and the insurance principle has been finally
  70
  undermined by the method used by the Government for increasing the contributions. These are facts which should be clearly stated in this debate.
  There is, however, one other aspect which I want specially to emphasise concerning the change in the last ten years in the problem of old-age pensions, and that is the growth of occupational pension schemes. Their growth since the war has completely transformed the problem. We can thank the Manchester Guardian for giving us, in a leader this morning, in convenient form, some salient and striking figures about the growth of certain occupational pension schemes since the war. The Manchester Guardian takes only one or two which are typical of our nationalised industries today to show the scope and size of the schemes.
  It states—I am sure that the figures are all correct—that the latest report of the National Coal Board's pension scheme for miners shows that its funds are now nearly £40 million. When we add on to that the supplementary scheme for industrial injury benefits with £14·5 million, it is reckoned that together these two funds have an investment income of more than £2·5 million a year.
  When we find that I.C.I. has pension schemes of about the same size and Unilever has one, too, we begin to find that private occupational pension schemes now form a larger and larger part of the financial strength of the country. More and more of the nation's investment money conies from two places from which ten years ago it would not have been expected: that is, from the trade union movement, on the one side, and from superannuation schemes on the other side. They are now two of the largest groups of investors in the City of London.
  Looking at those schemes over the last ten years, I want first to make one point of complaint. I make it as someone who has been much concerned to try to study the facts of the question. One of the difficulties of studying it is that the information is not available. A little work is now being done at the London School of Economics, where money has been found from private sources to study the growth and the precise structure of occupational pension schemes. The Government, however, have hogged the information. Either it is not collected or they have kept it to themselves at the Ministry. I can suspect political reasons why

  71
  they did not want to let us know too much information about these schemes. It is, however, possible to discover certain facts about them.
  In criticising and discussing the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, we ought to discuss the growth of these schemes. It is completely unrealistic to say that they do not profit by tax concessions because of the theoretical fact that in the end the tax is paid when the benefit is paid. Frankly, no company would go in for these schemes but for the very large tax concessions which enable it to reduce the amount of profits which would otherwise go to the Government. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that these schemes are subsidised by the Government. The Government, who say that they cannot afford more than £75–£80 million contributions to old-age pensions, contribute over £100 million to these schemes.
  The schemes are registered for Income Tax purposes—they have to be, otherwise they would not get the tax concession—but apart from registration there is, as far as I know, no form of adequate control as to whether these are genuine superannuation schemes. When the Government grant the tax concession they do not then say, "We grant this concession on condition that we inspect these schemes regularly to ensure that they are giving genuine value for money to the workers." There is nothing like that. A person can get the tax concession although anybody who studies his scheme may have to admit that it is a bogus scheme giving virtually no security to the worker.
  There are today thousands of these schemes—we know of at least 7,000 or 8,000—varying from first-rate schemes—adequately funded, with trustees representing the workers, and rights of transferability—down to what is really a deception of the worker, in which he has no personal right to the pension and where there is merely a vague promise by the employer, "I may pay you a pension of a certain sum if you stay with me long enough." That is really the modern equivalent of the gold watch promised to persuade the worker not to leave. There are astonishing variations between good and bad schemes, but all schemes get tax
  72
  concessions whether they provide adequate security or are totally inadequate. One of the things which I should like to see is a much more active supervision by the Government to ensure that when a worker believes that he is a member of a scheme giving him security he is not suffering from a delusion.
  Let me quote one or two simple difficulties which face private firms who want to make their schemes sound. It is clear that just as the National Insurance scheme has been undermined by inflation in the relation of benefit to contributions, the same thing applies to any private pension scheme. Inflation creates a major problem, and the more conscientious an employer is the greater the problem. He fixes a scheme of contributions and, as the inflation proceeds, he finds that if he lets an unfortunate man retire on the amount of pension for which by contribution he has qualified he becomes a standing scandal in industry because the amount is not enough. The employer, therefore, puts his hand into his pocket and makes up the difference in the scheme because the scheme itself has become unstuck.
  Then comes the next temptation. To try to keep the benefits at a decent level, the employer tends to say, "I will not adequately fund my scheme. I will rely on a steady flow of new entrants, lapsed policies and the rest, and so I will try to maintain my rate of benefit far higher than my contributions justify in order to give people some defence against inflation. I will do that, although I am well aware as an employer that if suddenly my firm were to close down and I was made to honour all my obligations, I would not be able to do so." I would say that a large number of private occupational pension schemes are strictly speaking, in that sense, unable to meet their full obligations because they are not fully funded. I do not blame them.
  I record this as one of the facts of inflation which we have to face. It is a fact which people might remember, when they look at the national scheme which we on this side have worked out and say that it is not adequately funded. That is a criticism which could be made of many large-scale private pension schemes to-day. Indeed, the only schemes I know of which are fully, adequately guaranteed

  73
  are the statutory schemes, the Government schemes, because there the money is paid out by the taxpayers. It is the taxpayers who say, "We will pay that money out."
  That is what seems to me the gravest problem of the private pension schemes. But, despite all those problems, those workers who are in private pension schemes, who number roughly one-third of the working population, are far better off than the two-thirds who are outside. Although the workers in the private pension schemes may be tied to jobs, though there may be great disadvantages, they are saving for their old age and they are able to look forward under their pension schemes to a far better old age than if they had to rely on the National Insurance pension, supplemented, after means tests, by the National Assistance Board.
  Therefore, we have to face it, and the Government must face it, too, that over the last ten years an ever-widening gap has been growing between one part of the community, the privileged part who are going to have superannuation, and the great majority who are not. This is the great problem of the last ten years, this widening gap between those who are looking forward to relative pension security in old age, varying from the top-hat security of £10,000 down and £6,000 a year—for that is the sort of pension paid at the top—to the bottom level of the humble 10s. or 15s. a week which a railway worker may get.
  These schemes vary enormously, and the benefits of them vary, too, but at any rate the recipients receive more than they do from the destitution pension of National Insurance. I use the words "destitution pension" advisedly, for under a system of flat-rate contribution and flat-rate benefit the pension can only be what the lowest-paid worker can afford to contribute to it. That is the terrible price of the flat-rate system. That is why the present National Insurance pension has to be supplemented, to bring it up to the level of national subsistence. For National Assistance is a device to keep people just above the level of destitution. Therefore, I am not exaggerating when I call the National Insurance pension a destitution pension; for it is in truth below the level of subsistence set by the National Assistance Board.
  74
  The next point I want to make about the occupational pension is this. One of the advantages of those in superannuation is that they are in pension schemes which advisedly and deliberately seek to give their members a share in increasing national prosperity. Quite deliberately, whether it is an insurance company or whether it is a body of trustees who run the scheme, the investment policy followed in the best private occupational schemes is what one can call a profits policy.
  I notice—and I am sure my hon. Friends from the Mineworkers' Union will forgive me for saying this—that very wisely the trustees of the National Coal Board's superannuation scheme have invested of their funds £1 million in each of five major industries, insurance, heavy chemicals, electrical engineering, iron and steel, and motors and aircraft. They have not made distinction between public and private industry: they have invested in prosperous industries in this country in order to ensure that their members, when old, get their slice of the profits of these industries.
  This is one of the great advantages which members of private pension schemes enjoy. We on this side of the Committee say that we are determined to make sure that the majority excluded from private occupational schemes shall, when we are in power, also profit in the same way under a national superannuation scheme. What the National Coal Board does for its workers, what I.C.I. does for its workers, what Unilever does for its workers, and what many small, good employers do for their workers, we are going to do for every worker in the country not covered by an adequate private scheme.
  It will take a lot of persuading and a lot of skiffling by the Minister to persuade the public to think that this is not a good idea. One of my hon. Friends says, "He may pinch it." All I can say is that no one will be happier than I if he does and if this problem of poverty in old age can be taken out of politics and become non-party. I wish it could. But if he is going to do it—and this brings me to the other thought of my speech—he will have to do a lot of in-fighting against certain people behind him.

  75
  I have here some pamphlets, one issued by the Pearl Assurance Company, containing a speech by the chairman, and two harmless looking documents, issued by the Life Offices' Association, all strictly impartial. One of them is "Four Conclusions on the Pensions Problem" by J. H. Kitton, chairman of the Life Offices' Association. Another document, which arrived this morning, with the brilliant timing for which the Association of British Chambers of Commerce is famous, is a well printed, expensive pamphlet containing "A critical review of the proposals of the Labour Party". The title of the booklet is "National Superannuation."
  I think that we on this side can be proud of ourselves because of the amount of research and publicity we have stimulated on the other side, and I can only hope that the Minister has been doing his homework, too, as well as the life insurance companies.
  All these people, strictly impartial, have come to the same conclusion, a very remarkable conclusion, and I will read it from one of these pamphlets. "National Superannuation":
  "The final verdict must be that the Labour Party scheme … for additional retirement benefits is unnecessary, wasteful, oppressive to the working population, and dangerous to the very security it pretends to offer."
  They have come to a strictly impartial conclusion that it is the function of the State to arrange for a basic pension to cover subsistence, and which is financed by contributions during the workers' working life, and that, to the extent that additional retirement benefits are required as a form of remuneration for service, there is adequate machinery available now to provide them—through the insurance market.
  That is the strictly impartial conclusion which the Minister is having loaded upon him by that strictly impartial group of people, the life insurance companies. They say, "Keep the State pension a destitution pension, because in this way people will be compelled either as individuals or as groups to swell the profits of our companies." It is as simple as that. "Keep the State pension a totally inadequate, flat-rate pension so the people will require another pension as well."
  I have never seen such an addiction to the flat-rate pension as the life offices
  76
  feel for it. I have not seen such enthusiasm for it outside the City. They are infatuated with the present State scheme—because it is so bad. For, they say, this means there is plenty of room for them.
  I am not going to say a word against the work of the industrial life offices. They do splendid work for individual workers. I hope we are all going on with our policies. I hope we are going on with our life policies. Nor am I saying a word against the principle of private superannuation. What I do say is this, that anybody who pretends that schemes run by assurance companies or by private trustees can be extended to cover the whole community deceives himself. They have been given absolute freedom. They have been given vast tax concessions to encourage them to do this work—and they now cover only one-third of the workers. If the Government plan to wait until these people have covered the lot, they will wait a hundred years.
  As the process goes on, the injustice grows greater, because on the whole it is the middle-class wage-earners in the large-scale companies with large profits who would benefit. The employee of a small company with a low rate of profit would be at a disadvantage. A scheme is being evolved for farmworkers. Some of the big farmers in Norfolk and Suffolk may carry it out, but who believes that the man with a 100-acre farm employing one or 1½ workers will introduce it, or a small shopkeeper or a small builder? Millions of workers will be permanently excluded, that is, male workers. Females will be ruled out altogether.
  Mr. Gower: Has the hon. Member any evidence that an industry as a whole, composed of many small units, could not conceivably do this?
  Mr. Crossman: I have no evidence. This is perhaps where the hon. Member and I differ. I can conceive of such an industry doing it. The difference is that we on this side of the Committee intend to do it by Act of Parliament for the two-thirds of workers. We shall not wait until industry conceives of it. If we leave the present process to go on we shall have, on the one side, an

  77
  increasingly bankrupt National Insurance, financed by a poll tax which would get heavier and would bear most heavily on the workers and, on the other side, a small growth of pension schemes with a very high profitability to those who made them and with the grave disadvantage of tying the worker, without adequate transferability of pension rights. We should have the growth of what I call a new feudalism, because I do not believe that most firms would introduce these schemes except in order to tie their workers.
  We on this side of the Committee propose that any scheme allowed as an alternative to ours will have to have written into its constitution full transferability not only of the worker's contribution but of the employer's as well. That is already done among local authorities and in the State nationalised industries. It is possible to do it, but most employers do not do it because they do not go into these pension schemes for love but in order to keep their labour and to deter middle-aged people from seeking promotion by going elsewhere. That is an undesirable thing in industry. It immobilises people at a certain age far too much. Nobody on this side of the Committee is content to see things develop with an ever-widening gulf between those who do and those who do not receive superannuation.
  Mr. Richard Fort: As soon as the hon. Member's scheme gets under way, would he invest the very first money coming in for a superannuation scheme in a fund with a view to funding it to pay superannuation or to meet the deficit which one is confronted with on the existing flat rates?
  Mr. Crossman: I am fully aware that the rules of order in this Committee are such that I am mot able to answer details about future legislation at great length. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am perfectly prepared to do it, however, as I see a certain indulgence in the eye of the Chair. We propose to have annual net savings of a very large amount, just as in any private scheme one must be sure that what is drawn in is far more than what is required to cover outgoings. Ours will work on exactly the same principle, and the annual savings will then have to be invested, just as the savings of any
  78
  ordinary superannuation scheme are invested. There is no difference in principle between the attitude of a national scheme to savings and investment and the attitude of a private scheme or a scheme run by a nationalised industry. What is done by the National Union of Mineworkers, in association with the Coal Board, is in principle the sort of thing that a State scheme would have to do with its savings. Part would be spent on current outgoings, and what was surplus to that would be invested.
  Do not let us try to pretend to ourselves that in the matter of old-age pensions the last ten years have been anything but a disgrace to this country. It really is a disgrace to let our old people progressively become worse off compared with the rest of the community. Figures can be brought forward to say that old-age pensioners are slightly better off than they were in 1946, but the rest of us are vastly better off than we were in 1946. We do not eat meat once a week as we did in 1946. We should not tell old people, "We have done well for you by making you slightly better off whilst everybody else has been rushing ahead to improve his standard of living." It is an outrage to tell them that.
  Nobody should be content with National Insurance until we have made it a genuine insurance scheme with contributions and benefits in genuine proportion to each other and until we have arranged that those in existing occupational pension schemes shall be assured that their rights are fully preserved in the new National Superannuation. We must also ensure transferability, so that week by week as we earn part of our earnings is deferred and saved so that a man may say, "Whether I happen to be in a private or a public industry, and however often I change my job, I know that a percentage of my earnings is being saved and invested each week on my behalf so that when I stop work I shall be able to live on half-pay." Until we can assure that on a national scale, in an all-inclusive scheme, we shall not have abolished poverty in old age.
  5.57 p.m.
  Brigadier Sir John Smyth: I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his interesting discourse, because I want to

  79
  confine myself to war pensions since that subject has not been debated for some time. I shall try to keep it very much on a non-party-political level, although both parties are proud of what they have done for war pensioners. I am certainly very proud of what my own party has done over the last five and a half years.
  The war pensions scheme should be looked at as a whole. It was built up during the war by the Coalition Government and under Labour and Conservative Governments immediately following the war. The service which we give to war pensioners consists of many parts—the basic rate of pension, the basic war widow's rate, the special allowances, the priority hospital treatment, the provision of artificial limbs and appliances, the provision of cars and bicycles, the welfare system, and the whole social system of the Welfare State—most particularly, the National Health Service.
  I have always found it difficult to compare the war pensions schemes of different nations. I had a most interesting tour of the Continent, during which I looked into the war pensions schemes of some of our Allies and tried to compare them with our own. I always came up against the point that in those countries there was not a National Health Service, and, therefore, whatever benefits were given to a war pensioner for his war disability, he still had all the anxiety about the possible sickness of his wife and family and his relations, of which the war pensioner in this country is relieved.
  Since the Second World War, the war pensions scheme and the Industrial Injuries scheme have been absolutely linked together, and I think that many people do not realise that that has taken place. It would be quite impossible for any Government to make improvements in, say, the basic rate of the Industrial Injuries scheme without doing the same thing for the war pensions scheme, and vice versa. Many of the allowances are common to both, but they are not always called by the same names.
  For instance, the allowance for lower standard occupation in the war pensions scheme is called the hardship allowance in the Industrial Injuries scheme, but the constant attendance allowance, the un-employability supplement and the sickness benefit are more or less common to both
  80
  schemes. I think that it is extremely sensible that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry should be dealing, as I believe he is at present, with some aspects of the Industrial Injuries scheme as well as the war pension scheme because they are so very similar.
  The war pensioner has certain priorities over the industrially injured, and certain financial advantages which perhaps everyone does not realise. I was often asked why there should be any difference between the rates of pensions and allowances of the war disability pensioner and the industrially injured, when their disabilities are exactly the same. Up to now, I think that there has been a very good reason for that, in that the war pensioner probably received his disability while serving overseas far from his home and country, living in deserts and jungles, and, therefore, was perhaps entitled to these little extras which still exist as between the war pensions scheme and the industrial injuries scheme.
  I feel that, very probably, if there were ever another war, which God forbid, there would be an ugly rush to the deserts and jungles, and, probably. Members of Parliament and other people compelled to stay in London would be the people to get priority in the way of war pensions and benefits of that sort; but we hope that that will not happen.
  Although the war pensions scheme is made up of a lot of different parts, as I have mentioned, the basic rate of pension remains the yardstick by which we measure our progress in war pensions. In 1946, the basic rate was raised from 40s. to 45s., and, at the same time—and I have always given the Labour Party the fullest credit for this—the Government brought in the most valuable and important welfare service, which is an extraordinarily important part of the service which we give to the war pensioners. I find that any foreign Minister of Pensions who comes to this country—and I have taken some of them round our pensions offices—cannot understand this service at all. I refer to the tremendous services given by so many voluntary organisations and other people in this welfare service set up in 1946. On the other hand, the Labour Government made no increase in the war disability basic pension, and by 1951 the purchasing value of that pension had dropped from 45s. to 35s.

  81
  There was a very important debate in the House in February, 1951—an all-party debate, as we are hoping all our pensions debates generally will be—on a Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), seconded by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), which urged the Government of the day to make an immediate increase in the basic rate of war pensions to compensate for the great decrease in the value of the pension which had occurred between 1946 and 1951. The Labour Party at this time had two Ministers in the Ministry of Pensions for whom I have the highest regard—the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), who was the Minister, and the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) who was the Parliamentary Secretary.
  I am quite sure that they wanted an increase in the basic rate of pensions just as much as everyone else who took part in that debate, but, when it came to the Budget just afterwards, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to give any rise in the basic pension at all, and that was because, as we know, there was a financial crisis at the time. When there is a financial crisis, the climate is not good for the war disability pensioner. A valuable increase was made, however, of £600,000 in the comforts allowance in the Budget of 1951.
  Immediately we came in power, we made a most courageous and certainly most necessary increase in war pensions in our first Budget of 1952. We increased the basic pension by 10s., at a cost of £10 million. Perhaps even more important than that, we instituted a system of priorities, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in her speech this afternoon. We tried to pick out certain classes of pensioner whom we thought needed help more urgently than anyone else.
  The first of these were the badly disabled men who were unable to work. Since the war, employment for war pensioners has been extremely high, and work to a disabled man is really the most important thing that we can give him. I have always said that the greatest service which we can do for the war disabled is to help them to help themselves, to restore their self-respect and the feeling that they are playing an important part in life again.
  82
  I only realised how important that factor was when, a few years ago, I went to the Star and Garter Home and saw a badly disabled man of the last war who was completely paralysed from the neck downwards, but who had always had an ambition to become a painter. He had learned to paint pictures, and very good pictures, by holding the brush between his teeth, and that had given him back an interest in life. That is why I say that employment is such an important factor for any category of disabled man.
  We therefore selected them for first priority. In 1951 a single man who was unable to work received a minimum pension of 80s. a week. We raised that first to 90s., and later, in 1955, to 112s. That is an increase of 32s. 6d. per week. My right hon. Friend the Minister has continued that priority to that class of man, and in his recent increases in January of this year that first priority class has been raised by another 38s. per week. If a man is married and has a family, or if he needs the constant attendance or the comforts allowances, he gets very much more.
  The second class of pensioner about whom I was very worried myself was the war widow, the elderly war widow, the the widow going out to work or the widow with children, and, in two pensions increases, we gave the war widow with two children an increase of 26s. per week, while the Minister, in his recent increases, has raised that figure again considerably. In the last five years, the basic pension of the war widow has been raised by 31s. 6d. per week, and the children's and rent allowances have also been increased.
  The basic pension for men in the last five and a half years has been raised by 40s. a week, so it has been very nearly doubled, and there have been big increases also in all the special allowances. I was particularly glad that the Minister increased the recent unemployability supplement from 45s. to 55s. and also increased the constant attendance allowance. It is important to know that the cost to the Exchequer of the war pensions increases given in the last five and a half years is about £41½ million a year, which is a considerable contribution to this all-important cause.
  I was also glad that the Minister introduced last year a special benefit for older pensioners. My experience over a

  83
  number of years has been that a man feels a disability most in two periods of his life. He feels it acutely when he first receives the disability as a young man, particularly if he is fond of athletics or dancing and suddenly finds himself a cripple. So he needs our help particularly at that period of his life to get him back into the world. Secondly, he begins to feel his disability severely when he reaches the age of 60. That is when the artificial limb becomes most irksome and any form of disability becomes more difficult.
  My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has called attention to the Transfer of Functions Order. This merger took place on 30th June, 1953, and I can remember, as I am sure do other hon. Members here who are interested in war pensions, the great anxiety expressed about the merger by the ex-Service men's associations, by many individuals and by a number of hon. Members. I would remind hon. Members that the Order only went through the House with a Government majority of 14, so there was a very close vote on it.
  I believe that most people interested in war pensions would agree, however, that the merger has not worked to the detriment of the war pensioner generally. It may have done so in one or two respects, but overall it has worked out to his benefit, particularly in the sphere mentioned by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—the local offices. When the merger took place we had in the Ministry of Pensions 80 local offices and we acquired another 900 from the Ministry of National Insurance. This was a great benefit to the pensioner, who no longer had to travel so far or wait so long to have his disability attended to.
  At the time the Minister of Pensions gave certain assurances about Roehampton Hospital, which holds an extremely important place in the lives of these people. It is, of course, an internationally famous hospital and the war pensioners regard it as their own, although today it takes in many more civilians than it used to do as the war pensioners become fewer.
  There is one point I want to clarify about Roehampton Hospital, because the Minister of Pensions mentioned it in 1953
  84
  when the merger took place. It is that the governing body of the hospital has no responsibility for the medical treatment, for the staffing, for the medical organisation, the acceptance or rejection of patients, etc. All that is now the province and responsibility of the Minister of Health. May I say, in passing, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) did a wonderful job as chairman of the governors for five years, and has now been succeeded by Sir Arton Wilson, who was the last Permanent Secretary to the old Ministry of Pensions. The job of the governors today is concerned with the bricks and mortar and there has been a great deal of rebuilding going on. The governing body is also concerned with the amenities we can give to the war disabled, in the form of a new library, cafeterias, new telephones, etc.
  I hear good accounts of the artificial limb service. I thought it was a tribute to Roehampton to read in my newspaper the other day that a prisoner undergoing sentence, who was taken to Roehampton to have a new artificial limb fitted, made off and eluded the warders. So they must have given him a good one and there cannot be much wrong with the service. Fear was expressed to me the other day that the tropical diseases centre at Roehampton is to be abolished. I can assure anyone who has in his constituency any Far Eastern prisoners of war, as many hon. Members have, that there is no truth in this rumour. The centre has been reduced owing to the reduction in the number of people who use it.
  Now I ask the Committee to examine for a moment how our war pensions schemes stand today. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said he wanted to take stock of the National Insurance scheme and I have tried to take stock of the war pensions scheme. There is no doubt that enormous improvements have been made in it since the war by successive Governments. I think that the improvements are due in no small part to the great interest taken in war pensions by Members of the House of Commons and also by the work of the war pension committees, the ex-Service men's associations, such as the British Legion and B.L.E.S.M.A., the welfare officers all over the country and a host of individuals.

  85
  Does our scheme fail in any particular? No scheme is perfect and I will suggest some ways in which we might improve our war pensions scheme. First, I feel that the time has come when the old-fashioned single-seater invalid tricycles should be replaced by some form of small, handy two-seater vehicle such as one sees running along the roads today in large numbers. I believe strongly that the last people who ought to travel alone are the war disabled or disabled civilians, so I hope that attention will be given to this point as soon as possible.
  Secondly, in my experience the people who do not come off so well in the assessment of their disabilities are those who suffer from nervous disorders. They are the people I am most sorry for, the people for whom one gets a job, who break down and lose it. They are a nuisance to the Ministry and to themselves, and they deserve more sympathy in the scheme than perhaps we have given in the past.
  There is one other category of person which it is very difficult for the Minister to help, but I hope my right hon. Friend will give the matter his attention. There are certain people who are apt to come off rather badly when pensions are being awarded. They are those whom I describe as, "Dead, but they won't lie down," those who will never go sick and always want to dodge the doctors and avoid hospitals. Then, after perhaps many difficult and dangerous experiences, the human body rebels and they are forced to apply for a pension.
  Naturally, the Ministry of Pensions says "Where is the proof? To what hospital did you go? Did you apply for a pension?" All the man is able to say is that he was sunk three times by torpedoes, or something like that. Alas, in the majority of cases, that is not sufficient to give them a pension. I most strongly suggest to the Minister that when such cases arise closer attention should be given to what the man has been through when considering whether he should have a pension or not.
  I do not want to talk in generalities. I want to mention a certain case that I have in mind. In March, 1942, we suffered in the Far East some of the greatest defeats and disasters in our history, and many things occurred about which no one in this country has ever heard. I do
  86
  not suppose that anyone has ever heard of the incident that I am about to mention. Two armoured merchant cruisers, "H.M.S. Dorsetshire" and "H.M.S. Cornwall" were on patrol duty in the Indian Ocean when they suddenly sighted a mass of Japanese dive-bombers approaching.
  The captains of the ships had time only to give the order, "Action stations" and to don lifejackets before the Japanese attack started. The ships hit back with everything they had, but it was completely hopeless. The Japanese pressed home their attack with their usual ruthless disregard for their own lives or anybody else's, and in a few minutes both ships went to the bottom, smashed to pieces.
  The captain of "H.M.S. Dorsetshire", who had been decorated in the First World War and was 52 years of age, a time of life when many people would think that they ought to go out of the firing line and get an easier job, went down so deep with his ship that he burst a lung, and he is now a very seriously disabled man. When he came to the surface, he found that half the ship's company had been killed outright and the remainder were swimming about.
  There then appeared a danger even worse than the Japanese, that of attack by sharks. It was decided that the only method to keep the sharks off was to collect all the dead bodies in the middle and have a circle of live men outside them. The men held on like that in the hope of someone coming to rescue them, and they remained like that in the water, fighting off the sharks, for 36 hours. I maintain that none of those men will ever be the same again after such an experience. Those men may be all right for a time, but sooner or later the tortured body will rebel and they will claim pensions. Will they get their pensions?
  How Captain Agar, the captain of "H.M.S. Dorsetshire", managed to dodge the doctors I shall never know, but he avoided a medical examination and got another ship. He saw active service for another two years, and then, somehow, the doctors got hold of him and at once invalided him out with a 100 per cent. disability pension. The captain pays the highest tribute to the Ministry of Pensions and how it dealt with him, but he told me that at least 90 per cent. of

  87
  his surviving ship's company dodged the doctors, would not have a medical examination or go to hospital but got another ship.
  My advice to any young friend of mine going on service—I know it would be very wrong to give it and I would not really give it, but it would perhaps be correct if I did—would be to say, "Do not be too noble if you are hit or disabled. Lie down, go into hospital and get a doctor's certificate. Then, if anything goes wrong in the future you will at least have a claim for a pension." The best soldiers, sailors 'and airmen do not do that, and they are, unfortunately, the people who come off worst. Consequently, I urge my right hon. Friend to ask, when such claims arise, not, "Where is the proof?", but "What did you go through?"
  I wish to pay a particular tribute to my right hon. Friend for what he has done for the war disabled and the Far Eastern prisoners-of-war both when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury and in his present post. In both capacities he has been a tremendous friend to the Far Eastern prisoners-of-war. It is very largely owing to the help that we got from him that F.E.P.O.W. got from the Japanese nearly £5 million, a great deal more than we thought possible at one time.
  Increases in pensions, and the value of those increases when made, depend entirely upon our national economy being in a healthy and flourishing state. What the war pensioner wants is a solvent and generous Chancellor of the Exchequer and a sympathetic and forcible Minister of Pensions. We have had that combination in the past, and I think we have it now when one remembers that the present Chancellor was the Minister of Pensions in 1952.
  The position of the war pensioner today is satisfactory, but, like other pensioners, he is affected by the high cost of living. However, I wanted briefly to trace the progress that has been made, and I hope that the same interest will be taken in this House in the war pensioner in the future as has always been taken in the past.
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that, while the Minister
  88
  of Pensions himself may be sympathetic—having for many years been a member of a War Pensions Committee in Birmingham, I know he is—he should instruct his medical officers to deal with these men in a more sympathetic manner? It is all left to the medical officers when the men appear before medical boards. The Minister should instruct the medical officers to look into these cases in the way the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. Not everybody is a lead-swinger.
  This is so, also, of old-age pensioners. We find that a number of men have gone sick, but have not gone to the doctor—if they had done, they could have had their cards franked—and so they have lost some of their pension because of a break in their contributions. These old-age pensioners are in exactly the same position as men who have been in the Army. Navy and Air Force and have suffered in the way that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has described.
  Sir J. Smyth: I see the difficulties very clearly. In a big pension scheme, one must have very definite rules about who is to become entitled to pensions. That is the trouble. These men suffer by reason of their gallantry and their wish to serve their country. It is very difficult to know how one can best be of service to them. I am very glad that the hon. Member has mentioned that point.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. George Deer: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) will forgive me if I do not attempt to follow him in his eloquent plea for the victims of war service. Most of us will support the plea which he put forward on their behalf.
  I want for a few moments to draw attention to a class of industrial workers who seem to have been forgotten for a long time and whose claims I have had the opportunity of making on a number of occasions. These are the men who had the misfortune to suffer an industrial injury before 1948, the men, a diminishing number, who had accidents while at work and whose compensation is on the basis of loss of earnings and not of faculty, as we have it today.
  There are about 40,000 of these men, and I draw attention to what I regard as a sin of omission by the Ministry. Two

  89
  years ago, recognition was given to those who were completely disabled and a special Bill went through Parliament very quickly, acclaimed by both sides, to give 17s. 6d. a week to the wholly disabled men who were suffering a disadvantage in that they had never caught up with those getting benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act. We thought that that began a period of equality and parity for those men, but when, in 1957, a Bill was introduced to increase the amount given to people suffering industrial injuries, they were left out again. Once again, they slipped back to far below the corresponding benefit of the people whose accident came after 1948.
  Because of the rules of order, I cannot spend too much time in referring to attempts which have been made to deal with this matter. However, I remember one day when a Bill was "talked out". I remember occasions when attempts were made to get a Second Reading "on the nod" so that a Bill might be discussed further. Amidst some hilarity, the cry of "Object" has come from the other side of the Committee, sometimes in dulcet tones and sometimes very loudly. However, what was comic for some hon. Members who were obstructing was tragic for the people who were being neglected.
  I suggest that the Ministry is not doing its job until it deals with the case of the men who, merely by the misfortune of a date, suffer and are at a disadvantage compared with their fellows. I give the Minister credit for having done something at one time and then having forgotten.
  There is also the problem of the partially disabled, those who suffer a considerable loss of faculty, but who do not lose a good deal of earning capacity at the time, but whose earning capacity then diminishes. I have a shrewd suspicion that if the numbers of unemployable were analysed, it would be shown that many of the people who have run through their unemployment benefits and who are now receiving National Assistance are those who were partially disabled so that they became a drug on the market and found it impossible to get a job.
  Most industrial injuries occur in heavy industries, half or two-thirds in the coal industry. There are not many light jobs
  90
  for partially disabled men in heavy industries and coal mining. There must be constant agitation until we can urge the Minister to take responsibility for the two classes of men to whom I have just referred.
  I notice with interest that my friends the National Union of Mineworkers, are meeting at Porthcawl this week and that on the agenda is a motion calling for the very relief for which I am asking. The miners are most anxious that something should be done for these people. After I had achieved some little publicity by my two attempts to get these people within the scope of the Industrial Injuries Act, the number of letters I received indicated that there must be many people who, feeling that they are forgotten, are anxious that their case should be put for them. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter to ensure that justice is done to these specific classes of industrial workers who are being so hard pressed.
  We have had much talk about the ten years of the Industrial Insurance scheme. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I did not have a strike. I started paying when it was "ninepence for fourpence," and I had no difficulty about paying the 4d. My employer did not threaten to go on strike, like some of those ladies did who said that they did not intend to lick stamps for their servants. I worked for one of the companies in which the N.U.M. had invested its money and it was much more generous. From that day onwards, I have been paying insurance contributions, as a contributor or voluntary contributor, and I am still paying and hoping for the best.
  The scheme needs considerable revision and we cannot judge it on the "ninepenee for fourpence" test which I mentioned. I heartily associate myself with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who put forward some alternative suggestions. My last essay into local government work was nearly forty years ago, as a member of a board of guardians. They were some of the most unpleasant hours of my life—spent fighting and agitating for a square deal for the very poor. The basis then operating was of treating them rough, so that they did not come again. When I heard the reference made to the National

  91
  Assistance Board, and the change that has taken place over the years, I thought of those days. I do not object to the Assistance Board not having that intimate touch that the nosy-parker guardians had, forty years ago.
  I can remember having, as a boy, a slice of bread and margarine—it might have been butter, but I am sure it was margarine—in the house of the family of a friend, enjoying what hospitality they could give me. Their boy had a slice of bread, so I had a slice of bread. Then I was hurriedly asked to slip away, because the relieving officer was coming down the garden path and they were afraid that he would see that they had food to spare.
  Mr. Shurmer: That is true.
  Mr. Deer: That is perfectly true.
  A short time ago I attended the opening of one of our new, beautiful welfare homes for old people. Not only was the Minister represented, but the chairman of the National Assistance Board was there as a partner in the whole undertaking. I thought that if some of my guardian colleagues had seen that there would have been miniature earthquakes, because they would have been rumbling in their graves.
  So we have had a change from the old board of guardians, with their deterrent policy, to the present system of co-operation and association between the Assistance Board, Ministers, and local authorities, who try to do the decent thing by old people. This marks a very great upward stride towards that humanity which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned.
  I do not intend to detain the Committee any longer, except to repeat that I trust that the Minister will at least give a little hope to the special class of industrial worker that I have mentioned, which merits all that he said in his 1956 speech.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am sure that no one can complain of the Opposition's desire to mark this tenth anniversary with a debate. I should like to add my felicitations on this tenth anniversary. It is an idea which
  92
  stimulates certain reflections—this possibility of having debates on the anniversaries of statutory occasions. I can think of some occasions which neither side would be so anxious to celebrate in this manner. I think, for instance, of the Town and Country Planning Act, which has been allowed to slip past unhonoured and unsung—if that is the right term. In fact, this is a double anniversary. It is not only the tenth anniversary of the National Insurance scheme, but the fiftieth anniversary of the scheme that Lloyd George introduced. I would add that it was a 5s. pension in those days. It was limited to those reaching the age of 70, and the bill in 1920, entirely met by taxation, was under £20 million a year. Today it is rather more than that.
  I am not absolutely certain whether if National Insurance were administered by a corporation or by a private company and if this were a meeting of its shareholders we would get an unreserved atmosphere of celebration and rejoicing from all. It might be a rather difficult meeting for the chairman, because we would ask questions which our rules of order preclude us from asking today.
  Lloyd George was accused of immorality when he offered 9d. for 4d. How I wish I had got on the bandwagon with the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) in those days. At the moment we are offering a pension in capital value of something over £2,000 in return for something over £100—a ratio I am told of 13 to 1, so it is clear that we have learned something since the days of Lloyd George. There is a rather disquieting absence of public knowledge as to how all this works out, either actuarially or—more important from the public's view as taxpayers—on a longterm future basis.
  I do not want to waste time in discussing the financial viability of the scheme. I want, first, to say two things of a general political nature. Criticism has concentrated round the level of the pensions which, with some variations, the old-age pensioner has been given during the last decade. Lord Beveridge thought that the pension should be enough to provide subsistence—that is, the essentials of food, clothing and shelter—in order to sustain life and meet what I think Mr. Seebohm Rowntree "primary" poverty.

  93
  It is widely suggested that, notwithstanding five increases in ten years, the Beveridge conception has been destroyed by inflation. I am not sure that that is the whole story. Not only the direct effect of inflation, but the indirect effect of an incomparably higher standard of living has changed our notions of what the basic pension should be. Here I am at one with the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I want to agree with him where I can, because I am coming later to a matter in respect of which I cannot agree with him. He said that the old-age pensioners have not had their share in increasing prosperity. He is right. We cannot keep old-age pensioners in a social vacuum. When wage earners and others are enjoying a greatly increased standard of living than the State is able to provide for its old age pensioners the gap widens, and it has widened. It is the climate of the situation as much as the hard cash which has led to a very severely felt hardship. We would do well to recognise that.
  Secondly, at the risk of hurting my right hon. Friend's feelings, I must express my disappointment that in the last four years the Phillips Report has not received more attention. Perhaps it has been muted largely by political considerations; I do not know. The Committee was set up five years ago, in July. 1953. It reported at the end of 1954, after much labour, making what I think any hon. Member who read the Report would agree was a profound study of the long-term implications of old age as it affects this nation.
  The long-range plan stimulates my imagination, as I think it would stimulate the imagination of anyone looking back over the last ten years. Yet we have not been able yet to discuss in the House some of the very awkward questions raised by the Committee. I will mention only one in passing. It suggested, on economic and biological grounds, that there might be a change in the age at which the pension is received. I can understand why more attention is not paid to that—there are some highly explosive political considerations in the Report—but I cannot change my own private view that it is regrettable that we have not given the Report more thoughtful discussion.
  94
  Today we cannot talk about anything which would involve legislation, but we can say something about the future, and we should. We would probably all agree that there is a case for a wide measure of re-assessment in the light of ten years' experience; in the light of the considerable social revolution which we have gone through, and—this is not the least important factor—the manifest public requirements and inclinations of which we should take note. It is difficult to catch up with the minds of people on this subject, but there are straws in the wind. Perhaps we shall not all interpret them in the same way, but we can at least look and listen
  We have reached a crucial point in the history of social insurance, and the important thing is to decide where we go next, because policy in this field will last for a very long time. Insurance, if it is still to be known by that name, is a contract, and the terms which are agreed are binding upon our heirs and successors. Even in the many vicissitudes of political life that is the principle which we have always accepted, and therefore what we decide carries a very long-term view. That emphasises the importance of discussing the matter thoroughly and of giving ourselves ample time, opportunity and scope to see a long way ahead. I am at one with those who think the present arrangements leave much to be desired. There is not only the political problem about the right level of pensions; there are other factors.
  We have a flat-rate pension regardless of need. The circumstances of individual pensioners cannot be taken into account. I am not one of those who thinks that equal treatment for those who differ is equality. It can be a cruel form of discrimination. Some people manifestly get a great deal less than they need, and others inevitably get rather more. All hon. Members can think of examples in their own constituencies. Then again, we have financial arrangements described—some say euphemistically, some say deceitfully—as insurance. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the insurance principle. I only ask how far do we have to go in subsidy by the taxpayer before we have to drop the notion of insurance, even in theory. Insurance suggests that a person insures according to his needs and receives something in relation to his

  95
  premium. Neither of those things apply at the moment.
  Looking back over the last ten years, I am pretty certain that nothing better could have been devised to meet the circumstances of the post-war years. There is one point which is overlooked by the critics, who are always ready to commit their views to paper, namely, that those who are drawing or are about to draw the National Insurance retirement pension have not enjoyed the current standards of living and wage standards for 40 years of their working life. They may have done so during the last ten years, but they have not all been given the opportunities for self-help, for saving, and those other things we talk so grandly about, during three-quarters of their lives, from just before the First World War and through the 1920s and 1930s. That is a point which should be borne in mind before we become too critical of the present or the past operations during the ten years of the lifetime of this scheme.
  That brings me to the question of occupational pensions—which we are permitted to discuss today as they are in the sphere of private industry—which are playing an increasing part in the general shape of the provisions over and above what is provided by the State. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in some light banter about some of the propaganda or publicity put forward in connection with these schemes. I think that they may be judged by their deeds as well as by their words. The figures reveal a most remarkable development during the ten years under review. I think there were under 2 million of these schemes just before the war and there are now 9 million—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: It is 2 million members. The hon. Gentleman said "schemes".
  Mr. Deedes: I beg the pardon of hon. Members.
  I do not accept the criticisms of the hon. Member for Coventry, East as being entirely detached. I think that some of these companies are "suitors" for the hand which the hon. Gentleman seeks. They are both after the same girl. I was not able to accept all that the hon. Gentleman said as true, detached and objective. I think, too, it faintly ironical
  96
  to hear attacks made on welfare schemes promoted by private enterprise by hon. Members on that side of the Committee. We have come a long way when it is possible to mention as lightly as did the hon. Gentleman schemes promoted by I.C.I. and other corporations to provide for their employees. A hundred years ago we should have regarded that as a remarkable development.
  Mr. Crossman: On the contrary, I pointed out that these schemes vary in quality from the absolutely first-rate down to a very low level. I pointed out that there were certain defects in some schemes which were in contrast to the large scheme of large organisations which did not have them.
  Mr. Deedes: I accept that.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to contrast those with and those without, the haves and the haves not. He said that the gap was widening. So, one might add, are the numbers who get these occupational pensions schemes—I believe at the rate of about 500,000 a year. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not quarrel with the notion that there are those who can afford to look after themselves and who eventually, in the long term, might make a less demand on the State and so leave us with more opportunity to make provision for those who need help?
  Mr. Crossman: Certainly not.
  Mr. Deedes: It is quite true that those without occupational pensions are in roughly the same position as some people who are without rural electricity. The more the lines are laid down and the greater the area of supply becomes, the more difficult it is to provide a supply for the minority left in remote areas. I am more familiar with this problem in terms of electricity than in terms of pensions. Of course, it is true that there are people whose position or job does not provide them with facilities for an occupational pension. But that does not mean that there are no provisions for them at all. There are friendly societies and savings in various forms; there is life insurance, property and so on, with which some of them have taken steps to equip themselves. Again, it is true that those who work in small firms or who are self-employed or who work in agriculture—though steps are being taken in that direction—are not included. The United

  97
  States has found a way round this difficulty and I hope that we shall be able to do the same. It may also be true that pension schemes impede the mobility of labour because of the difficulty of transferring the pension rights. Something has to be done more quickly to meet this problem. I am not sure why it has taken so long. Perhaps when there is a clearer view of which way we want to go a way will be found. I am not expecting hon. Members opposite to agree with me, but I wish to say to my hon. Friends that I consider there is an enormously important principle at stake. It is not a question of thinking bigger on one side or the other or even a question of what we can afford. It is difficult in terms of the imponderables of the national income to consider that. It is a question whether we should contemplate pension schemes which will take people a step away from independence towards dependence on the State—or the reverse—and I regard that as a most important principle. My own instincts are clear on the matter, but they are not important. What matters are the instincts of a great number of people in this country.
  I said a few moments ago that we ought to find out what the people are thinking and saying. I believe that there are a large number of people who would prefer to take a bigger hand in their own financial arrangements for the future. It is interesting to note their reaction even to a more comprehensive State scheme. It is fair to say that the response has been somewhat less than rapturous. It may well be that there is a stronger spirit of independence in this matter than we, the stewards of National Insurance, either believe or want to believe. I put that forward as something earnestly to be considered.
  An English writer once said that as far as possible Government aid should be so given as to be a course of education for the people in the art of accomplishing great objects by individual energy and voluntary co-operation. That writer was John Stewart Mill. I believe that embodies a very great number of private aspirations. Any transition in that direction must be a very slow business indeed, reckoned in terms of half a century.
  But this is the moment of decision. Although we may not be able to say more now, this is the moment when we
  98
  have to decide whether it shall be transition to or away from independence.
  Housing offers a not inapt analogy. We have had an Act of Parliament which places an obligation on local authorities to provide houses for our citizens. At the same time, we have come to see the value of doing all that we can to encourage home ownership. That is a logical and forward step. But a party cannot advance home ownership as a sound political philosophy and at the same time advance schemes for enlarging State pensions. I have said that very quickly, Mr. Chairman, and I shall pass on.
  I conclude by saying two things. Let us conceive the present pension in terms of reality, if need be. I do not think that it is conceived in terms of reality now. Let it be nearer to what Rowntree called secondary than primary needs. We must retain a flat rate at the moment, but it need not be regarded as its final, lasting shape. In the last ten years, the biggest objection to increasing the pension for those who really need it has been the fact that any increase at present must go to everyone and be paid for by the taxpayer.
  Then I would say, nourish, encourage and foster by all means ways in which the population may supplement State pensions by their own endeavours, foresight and thrift. Such means are not lacking. I think they can be harnessed to our needs, but that will need the will and the vision. I hope that on this, the tenth anniversary of the National Insurance scheme, this party will show that it has both.
  7.05 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has referred to the question of occupational pension schemes. There is no doubt that in the days that lie ahead more attention and thought should be given to those propositions. I do not propose to comment further on the hon. Member's dissertation, except to say that I entirely agree with what he said about the Report of the Phillips Committee. It is something of a scandal that such an important Committee, dealing with such an important topic and presenting such an important and interesting Report, has not had the satisfaction of having its Report debated in the House of Commons. I hope

  99
  that his remarks about the Phillips Committee's Report, which I re-echo 100 per cent., will be taken notice of by the Minister and that he will realise that it is the will and wish of the Committee that the points raised in that important Report should be considered by the House of Commons.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in opening the debate, introduced the right and proper tone for our discussion today. He was retrospective, introspective and also prospective. It is most fitting that on this day, ten years after the launching of the National Insurance scheme, the Committee should have the opportunity to discuss the working of the scheme. I listened with some nostalgia to the speeches this afternoon. Perhaps the most vivid recollection which came to my mind as I listened was of a speech made by the present Lord Attlee on the eve of 5th July, 1948, when as Prime Minister he introduced to the country this great scheme of social welfare.
  It would be as well to remind ourselves that the National Insurance Act is a combination of five important pieces of legislation which covers National Insurance, Industrial Injuries, family allowances, the National Health Service, and National Assistance. These five pieces of legislation, woven together, now form an important part of our social life, and I believe that they will go down to history as being of very great importance.
  The first comment which I should like to make about 1948 is that it was not the end of the book; it was the beginning of a new chapter in a book about our social services which had to be written and which will be continued. Legislation had to be prepared and the administrative machinery devised. This machinery was no less important than the legislation itself, because the proposals embodied in the legislation could not have borne fruit had it not been for the provision of the administrative machine to carry out so gigantic a task.
  It was no mean achievement in those early post-war years when economically and socially ravages and disaster had spread throughout the whole of the land. I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend on the occasion of the Third
  100
  Reading of the Measure which brought this scheme into being. At the time he was Minister of National Insurance, and he said that what it was proposed to do was an act of faith in the ability of the British people to overcome those economic and social ravages which had come upon us as a consequence of the war.
  We can say, after ten years, that this scheme was, and still is, an important milestone in making better provision for those who became, and who still become, the victims of adversity through the interruption of earnings. I refer, in the main, to the aged, sick, unemployed and widows. It was a great venture, which was indeed fully justified, as has been proved by events.
  I said that it was the opening chapter, the beginning. Neither then, nor since has anyone—on this side, at least—ever said, or thought, that the National Insurance Act and the other pieces of legislation were the last word and that no changes would be necessary. In fact, this was foreshadowed in the National Insurance Act, 1946, itself, because it provided for a quinquennial review.
  One of the tragedies is that advantage has not been taken of that provision, and now twice five years have gone by and the only substantial changes there have been have been greatly increased contributions and increased benefits. It is true that there have been one or two other minor modifications, but we have never had the opportunity that the Act provided of looking at the structure of the scheme and deciding whether any changes were necessary.
  I must express my disappointment with and disapproval of the Government in that they have allowed Section 62 to lapse. The experience of the first five years of its operation provided ample evidence that it was working well, and that it was doing what it was intended to do—to remove the taint of the means test from the long-term unemployed. In the early post-war years, particularly, who were the long-term unemployed? They were, in the main, the seriously disabled and the long-term sick; those who, judged on medical examination, were just not well enough to qualify for sickness benefit though, in terms of working capacity, they were, to coin a phrase from the old workmen's compensation days, the "odd lots" among the unemployed.

  101
  What happened under this Section? It is sad to relate that few employers employed these men, because their working capacity was so small. There then came a point at which these men were transferred to the Ministry of Labour—and at this stage I want to pay a tribute to that Ministry for the work that it has done for this type of man. It is extremely difficult to find jobs for them.
  At some time in their period of unemployment, after their normal 180 days of benefit, plus any added days to which a good insurance record might entitle them, these men were told by the Ministry of Labour, "Unfortunately, this is the end. Your unemployment benefit is exhausted"—and it cannot be more than 18 months at the most. When they exhausted their right to that, their only avenue was a transfer to the care of the National Assistance Board.
  Table 30 of the Report shows that, at that time, 25,000 unemployed—which is nearly one-sixth of the total unemployment figure—were receiving benefit for additional days. To put it another way, 25,000 of the unemployed people shown there had then been unemployed for more than 180 days. I should like the Minister to tell us, first: how many unemployed people now receiving benefit have received it for more than 180 days? Secondly, how many of these long-term unemployment cases had to have recourse to the National Assistance Board because their statutory benefit and added-days benefit had come to an end?
  I turn now to sickness benefit, which is in some ways related to what I have just said. In paragraph 113 of the Report, we are told that 614,000 sick visits were made during 1956 by the National Insurance officers. I regret that, although this system of sick visitation was visualised in the early days as an important service, the direct reference to it takes up one one line of the Report. I know that it is not easy to put everything into the Report of such a big Department as the Ministry of National Insurance, but this is a very important service, and we should have a little more elaboration of this subject.
  Again, the Report shows that 624,000 cases were referred for medical examination, yet, although in the early stages it was intended that this part of National Insurance should be a kind of welfare side of the Department, very little information is provided in the Report. The
  102
  giving of advice and help is most important. I hope and believe that attention is given to choosing the right kind of person for this job because, as I say, in such a scheme as this sick visitation should be advisory and helpful.
  I want to make a passing reference to medical examinations by the regional medical officers of health. I do so in order to ventilate in the House of Commons a dissatisfaction felt in one or two cases of which I have heard, and also because, in my own division, I have come across dissatisfaction over treatment at medical examinations.
  Further, this is felt not only by some of the people in my own division but by the general practitioners themselves, though it may be to some extent concealed. I took up a certain case with the Parliamentary Secretary. This man was certified capable of doing some work, but if I were to read out what the medical examiner said he could and could not do, one would see what a thin line divided the decision whether or not he was capable of any work. For many months this man had no benefit at all, and, as much as I tried, I was unable to persuade him to apply for assistance. Unfortunately, he had become self-employed and was not entitled to unemployment benefit. Happily, he has now been restored to benefit and he is still off work after four years. He feels that he was swindled, and had a very rough deal indeed.
  I want to say, and I want it echoed throughout the Department, that there is a danger that in their enthusiasm to catch the dodger, the officials are likely to penalise the genuine applicant. That is why I say that this part of the Department's work is very important and needs all the concentrated attention that the Department can give to it.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: Does not my hon. Friend think from his knowledge of his constituents who have spoken to him about this matter that it goes even deeper and that there is a feeling by workers that the doctors employed to carry out examinations are servants of the Ministry, are not really independent and are acting only as watch-dogs of the Treasury to save money?
  Mr. Taylor: I agree. That is the feeling that has grown up. That is why I have mentioned the need for attention

  103
  to be given to this aspect of the Ministry's service.
  I notice in the Report that 25 per cent. of those who were referred to medical examination were declared not incapable of work, although—and this bears out what my hon. Friend has just said—a certificate of incapacity had been given by the panel doctors. Can the Minister say, to the nearest convenient date—say for a given twelve monhs—how many cases have been examined twice by the regional medical officers because of disagreement with the panel doctor, the man's own practitioner?
  One could go on for quite a time on this subject because there are so many aspects of National Insurance. This is a big Department with an income of £762 million. The payments out are in the neighbourhood of £700 million; with over £100 million for family allowances. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told us, it affects about 24 million people; I thought there were nearly 1,000 local offices, but I understand that the number is now about 850. One could dilate upon that for quite a long time. The only reason I mention it is that this work which is being done by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is gigantic, stupendous.
  May I make a brief reference to the Industrial Injuries side of the Department's work? I want to confine myself to two aspects only—the medical appeal tribunals, and a local reference to the question of pneumoconiosis. In paragraph 170 of the Report, extended upon in table 45, there is the statement:
  "References by the Minister were often made"—
  note the words—
  "in the interests of the claimant."
  That might be all right on the surface. Let us assume that that is the position. The figures in table 45 reveal an entirely different story. Only 25 per cent. of the Minister's references to the medical appeal tribunals were favourable to the claimant and more than 50 per cent. were unfavourable to the claimant. In view of those figures, I say that generally the Minister's references are not very satisfactory for the claimant.
  This is a very important question. Is the Minister satisfied that the examinations
  104
  by the medical appeal tribunals are as thorough as they might be? I was concerned with a case about which I have already written to the Minister. The man concerned tells me that he went for an examination to the medical appeal tribunal and he was not in the place for more than ten minutes. His assessment was reduced from 7 per cent. to 2 per cent. He was frustrated and bitterly dissatisfied because he was of the opinion that he had not had a thorough examination by the medical appeal tribunal.
  I know that the Minister wants satisfaction to be given in these cases and I hope that he will ensure that whatever the outcome, whether the assessments are increased or reduced or maintained at their existing level, the examinations are thorough. The medical appeal tribunals are very responsible bodies and there is no appeal against their decision.
  I should like to say a few words about pneumoconiosis medical panels. I have communicated with the Minister on this point, and I still think that we should have one in the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire coalfields. In 1956, 440 cases from this important coal area were examined as pneumoconiotic suspects and all of them had to go to Sheffield. I ask the Minister to consider this matter again and see whether we can have our own pneumoconiosis medical panel. If that is not possible, I should like to know what is the position about the proposed new premises at Sheffield. The present ones are most unsatisfactory for these unfortunate men.
  In the past ten years much has been done in the sphere of National Insurance. Many people have benefited. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said, much of the good has been minimised by the change in money values and inflation, and there is still a great need for improving the benefits, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I hope that all of us have learned quite a lot from the last ten years. I have learned that it is time that we had a thoughtful look at the existing structure of National Insurance, because I have come to the conclusion that a flat-rate contribution for a flat-rate benefit upon which it is based is now outdated and the time has come for a change.
  7.30 p.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: The nation does well to consider, at the end of ten years, what progress has been made in this extraordinarily important field. Therefore, I praise the House of Commons for having put upon its Order Paper this subject for debate today. I add my appreciation of the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who opened the debate, for the way in which they avoided claims and counterclaims and making party politics out of this most poignant business.
  What strikes me is that no material difference is discernible between the two sides of the Committee. Speeches are different and emphasis is different. The way that people speak depends greatly upon their circumstances, how near they are to an Election, and so on. This applies to all of us, and I am not making party points. It is by our actions that we should be judged. If any outside person with a wholly impartial mind was to judge what had been done during the last ten years by the two major parties, I do not think that he would find any real difference between them. Each party has tried to do its best for retired people. Secondly, each has failed to do all that we would like to do. Thirdly, each is looking for some way in which we can do better.
  The cost of living is now, perhaps, coming to a point at which it is likely to be stabilised. It may conceivably drop or rise a point or two, but it looks to me as if it is likely to be stabilised. That will be the first time that this has happened in twenty years. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is more than that."] Possibly the hon. Member is right. It went down in the decade from 1919 to 1929 and then began to go up after the slump until 1938, but the material rise in the cost of living started in about 1938, went on through the war and in the years after the war and has continued in the last few years. Now it looks as if it will be stabilised.
  Let us remember, however, that the standard of living will not be stabilised, and I am glad that that should be so. It has been going up by leaps and bounds and the retired people, the old and the sick not only get left behind a little
  106
  actually, but they tend to think that they are even more left behind because the standards around them have risen so swiftly. That is a material factor.
  I do not know that there is any easy solution. I am quite sure that if the grandiose scheme put forward by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), particularly if applied with the swift certainty which he assumes and with which, I think, he deceives himself, were to be carried out as fully and as quickly as the hon. Member wishes and claims to be possible, it would be self-defeating. This is not something which can be done as quickly as that. The reason is the backlog of persons who are not in the scheme, or who have been in it for only a short time and cannot properly be brought into an insurance scheme of any kind, but for whom there arises an increasingly powerful demand which cannot be wholly ignored. This is common to State schemes and to private schemes.
  Any businessman who has had to do with private schemes—and I have with two or three—will know that at the time the schemes are introduced, quite a lot of members of the staff who are in the 45s or 50s cannot go into a scheme on an actuarial basis. Therefore, they must be provided for by the continuance of special ex gratia payments. These payments are largely conditioned, not by the custom of the past, but by the new standard which is set in the insurance scheme.
  Since the new standard is obviously a higher one, it is necessary to meet an enormous debt in respect of the old people, who earned their living in an earlier currency, and who have now to be paid out in today's currency on which to live in their old age. Because of this inflation and the practice of basing a great many expectations on what a man earns in the last period of his working life, an enormous bill has to be met.
  If we were suddenly to introduce a national scheme such as the hon. Member for Coventry, East commends to us, we would immediately raise the expectation on behalf of all the people who are now old and who live among us—and who, I add, will have a vote at the next Election; I am sure that that is not outside the consideration of the hon. Member for Coventry, East. There would be

  107
  raised amongst them an expectation, not that they would be treated progressively better than in the past or in the present but that they should get as much as today's young people will get in forty years' time when they have paid their contributions, which will have been matched by the State and by the employer. That expectation could not be realised within the kind of time which the hon. Member for Coventry, East has in mind. That being so, it is somewhat misleading and even somewhat unkind to hold out to people the kind of vague promise that on retirement it is possible for a person to have half the money that he was earning at the time of his retirement.
  That is true to some extent, but it is not the whole truth. It is true that a person who starts paying contributions now can have that amount of benefit in forty years' time, but it is not true to let people imply from that that those who are now old can have anything like it. I am certain that that was a great misunderstanding which arose in the minds of many people. To the extent that it might have been part of the Labour Party's political gambit, it was rather shocking.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, East was critical of all of us. He said that the present scheme from beginning to end was insolvent and had failed. He said that most self-run industrial and commercial schemes run by trustees inside companies were over-spending and were probably insolvent. He then proceeded to blame all existing schemes. The curious thing is that the one branch of schemes that the hon. Member did not blame particularly were those run by the insurance companies, because, of course, he could not. They are the one exception to the rule. They are the ones that are solvent. All those private schemes of companies and firms which are run on the basis of premiums paid to insurance companies are solvent and sound.
  It may be that they do not meet the rising requirements of inflationary salaries and wages and that the employers have to put in lump sums to fortify and strengthen them, but an insurance company does not pay out more than is appropriate to what has been paid in. They are the only ones which are sound, and it is with those in mind that the hon. Gentleman intends,
  108
  I think, to abolish the lot. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, he intends to bring them all into a national scheme. If he is to allow some of them to continue he has never made it quite clear. So he will abolish the only solvent ones to try to do better for some of the insolvent ones. I do not think that that is a sound thing to do.
  Why is it so difficult to deal as generously as we would wish with our retired people? It is because there are so many of them, and because they live longer and longer and thus aggravate the economics of the problem. I believe that at present the nation's living is earned by about half of us. The other half are composed, as to one moiety, of the older people, too old to earn, or to earn generally; and as to the other, of the children who are too young to earn. So half the people earn the bread and butter and the jam for the other half.
  There is a limit beyond which we cannot burden the earners to pay for the non-earners without discouraging them, and the further we get away from the family the more certain that limit is. Inside the family it is customary to make sacrifices for the old people and for the children, because they are near and dear to us; but the more abstract the matter becomes, the more those old people are other people's old people and the more those are other people's children, the less is the heart warmed to them. That is, I think, incontestable. It is unfortunate, but it is true.
  How much can we put on the half who earn to make them pay more for the young and the old who do not earn? It is no good waving this aside and saying, "Let us ignore it, because it is an awkward political question." It is the very real question. How many of us know that in a very humble home, in days when there was real poverty, often the woman, without saying much about it, would be the one who went without so that the children might have more, but, even more important, so that the man might have more? Why? Because he needed, as she thought, to be strong to go out to earn the family's living.
  Let the nation remember that those who earn its living, those between, say, 16 and 60, broadly speaking, who earn the nation's living, must be strong; they

  109
  must be tended; they must have, I think, the best of all that is available. The more they have and the more chance they have, the better they will earn a living for all of us.
  We cannot load them too heavily with indirect and rather distant responsibility for other people's old and young. Especially when they are young will they resent. So there is some limit to what we can take away from the earners; and they are, after all, the same people as the taxpayers. It is only earners who pay taxes, except for a handful of inheritors, and whatever may be said about them, there are not enough of them to affect my argument.
  We should all like to do more, but we all of us know we cannot. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East knows this as well as any of us, but he is selling his plan to a lot of rather old-fashioned chaps over there, and he has to work very hard to do it. As to the cost of living levelling off, let us make certain that any action we can take here in Parliament contributes towards that end. Too long have we been paying in good money so that people might draw out bad.
  I venture to make this warning to wage earners generally. I do not suppose that my words will reach them directly, but if I am quoted by others and they will take to themselves what I have said I shall be honoured, and pleased so long as my words do some good. This is my advice to wage earners, "Be very careful, because if you are not, and if you have further increased doses of Socialism and inflation, you will find that your superannuation when you retire will have lost its virtue, just as your fathers did and your grandfathers did."
  I honestly believe that to be true, and I think it is the best advice that any man can give a wage earner. I do not believe that the young men will listen to me. They do not think that they will grow old, and they do not care, when they are in their 'twenties, what is coming to them when they are 60, but every man over 50, of whom there must be hundreds of thousands, should be aware that, unless during the next ten or fifteen years, which means during the next one or two Parliaments, he either returns a Tory Government or so makes his mind clear that the Socialist Government he returns
  110
  do not implement this grandiose scheme, it is absolutely certain that his money will go bad during the last ten to fifteen years of his working life. I believe that to be true.
  Mr. Crossman: The same old scare.
  Sir I. Fraser: None the less true.
  I want to ask the Minister to do one small thing, and that is to see whether he can pay these new entrants who come into the scheme today through a bank, if they want to be paid that way. I draw my war pension through a bank. Why should not they draw theirs that way? It may be very convenient for them. It seems to me very old-fashioned to shut one's eyes to the fact that there is such a thing as a bank in almost every town and village.
  I turn now to a very few remarks about war pensions. All the three parties have contributed towards improvements in war pensions. That story goes back to the war years and before that, and I shall not trouble to try to differentiate between what one has done and another has done. I do not think that it is really worth while, except to make this one observation, that the claim put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East, that it was not until the Labour Party came in that the thing became human, is one of those monstrous legends that it put around for political reasons. It has no substance or truth in it. Let us say that there is agreement among us that the Labour Party did some good new things and that we gave the biggest rise with war pensioners ever.
  It is noticeable that neither in the debate a year ago, nor in this debate, has the Labour Party introduced any observation, sympathetic or otherwise, about ex-Service men. It does not surprise me, but it is noticeable.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: In opening my speech I said that I would not myself talk about the war pensioners, not because they were not important, but because my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who has been Minister of Pensions, would be referring to them.
  Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman's remark was shameful. He ought to withdraw it.
  Sir I. Fraser: I am sorry about that. I thought that I heard the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) begin his speech, but it may be that I missed the first paragraph. I may have been five minutes late. I therefore withdraw that remark altogether and I beg pardon for having made it.
  There are three aspects of the war pension—the basic rate, the special allowances and the widow's pension. During the last ten years all these three have been practically doubled. That is not quite enough to take account of the change in money values and of rising standards, but it is, nevertheless, a very considerable contribution. In the past, I have thanked various Governments for the contribution which they have made in this respect and I will not go over that ground again. I should, however, like the Minister to answer one question. I hope that he will not say that he has already given the information in answer to a Question in the House. I should prefer him to tell me rather than refer me to what has been said to someone else. Is it the Minister's declared policy to renew pensioners' motor cars as they wear out? These motor cars are now ten years old.
  I have no doubts about the merger of the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of National Insurance. It has worked extremely well and the Ministry has continued to give very careful and thoughtful help to ex-Service men. I should like the Minister to say that it is his intention to continue to give them their present priorities and preferences. I also hope that it is his intention to continue the welfare services as they now exist.
  Two allowances have not been doubled. Indeed, they have not been raised at all. One is the 10s. paid to a disabled ex-Service man's wife. It has remained at that figure since 1919. The other is the £1 a week which a very seriously disabled man who receives an unemployability allowance is allowed to earn by way of pocket money, or by way of money paid for work which is in the nature of rehabilitation, in the sense that it is better that he should have something to do than have nothing at all to do. That sum ought to be raised. It has remained at £1 a week for a long time now.
  112
  I have often praised other Ministers. Now I should like to praise the present Minister. He has done very well indeed in his long and fruitful term of office. I should also like to express my thanks for the help which I have received in all my dealings with members of his Department and with the Civil Service. Considering all the circumstances of our time, Britain has done reasonably well in pensions and National Insurance. Both sides of the Committee can take credit for the schemes which we now have. We must all try to improve them, but we must do so in a reasonable manner and in a manner which the people who earn our living, that is, those who work, will be prepared to pay for willingly.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Finch: We have been reminded in the debate that it was ten years ago that the National Insurance Act came into operation. It is an Act that marked an important development in the social services of the country. The name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llattelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) will always be associated with this comprehensive Measure. I know that I am speaking for many hon. Members in paying tribute to the activities and special efforts which my right hon. Friend made in establishing a National Insurance scheme which brought within it almost every section of the community.
  It is true, of course, that Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, and his colleagues helped to pave the way to the adoption of a National Insurance scheme. The Beveridge Report was an outstanding contribution to the social life of the people. As an analysis of social conditions and of services in the country, it will be so regarded in the years to come. It was only to be expected that a Measure like the National Insurance Act, which is so far-reaching and contains so many sweeping changes, in the course of time would be found to contain anomalies and limitations. That has been the case. We have learned by experience. Above all, we are conscious that the ever-rising cost of living and the inflationary spiral have undermined the whole National Insurance Scheme.
  My criticism of the Government is that, although I am conscious that from time to time improvements have been made here and there in the scheme, there has been no change in its general structure.

  113
  The Government have been in power for seven years, and they must be fully conscious of the fact that there can be no general improvement in the benefits of the scheme unless there is some change in its structure. The need to amend its structure, made evident by time and experience, should have been realised by the Ministry.
  It has been stated in the Press that some changes and structural alterations may be proposed, possibly just before a General Election. That would mean that they would be debated in the heat and controversy engendered by such an occasion and it would be most unfortunate. The time is opportune now for the Government to declare where they stand on this whole question, and particularly on the matter of the flat-rate contribution. As long as it is accepted that the Fund should be financed by contributions from workers and employers and others, with a proportionate payment from the Exchequer, the contribution should be arranged in such a way as to relieve the lower-paid of so much of the burden which the present arrangements impose, and the present flat-rate should be replaced by a scheme based upon ability to pay.
  I believe that that is the general con-census of opinion not only in the House of Commons but in the country. We are wailing anxiously for the Minister to tell us where he stands. It is true that he has not been Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for seven years, but the Government have been in office for that period and the time has certainly arrived to make a decision. The time has certainly arrived, because, apart from anything else, many of these people are suffering serious hardship under present circumstances.
  On the question of contributions, I would remind the Minister that the contributions were raised not so long ago in the case of adult workers by 2s. a week, making a total contribution of 9s. 5d. There has also been an increase in the National Health Service contribution, and there was another increase this month. The net effect of this will be to increase the contribution for an adult man by no less than 3s. 2d., and all this has been done in a period of nine months. To many men who are earning only £7 £8 or £9 per week, an increase of 3s. 2d. is a very serious matter.
  114
  It has been stated before that the breaking point has been reached on this question of contributions, because the lower-paid men cannot possibly meet the new situation. If the argument is that we cannot increase the benefits without increasing the contributions, then we must apply our minds to a contributory system which is based, not on a flat-rate principle, but on the principle of ability to pay. That is the most important point I want to make in this debate.
  The second point is on the subject of benefits. I have said before that I think the benefits should be based on the cost-of-living index for those in receipt of State pensions such as the disabled. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in October, 1957, the Government published the Report of their Household Expenditure Inquiry which was based upon a survey undertaken in 1953–54. These figures prove what we on this side of the Committee have said on many occasions, when we have referred to the inadequacy of the present benefits based on the existing index and its predecessor.
  The results of that inquiry showed clearly that on housing, out of the total income, the proportionate amount spent in the family household of the average pensioner was equal to 15 per cent., whereas for the ordinary householder it was 9 per cent. In respect of fuel, light and power, the percentage for the pensioner household was 12, and that for the ordinary householder 5 per cent. In the pensioner household, the figure for food expenditure was 41 per cent., and in the ordinary household 34 per cent. This is a clear indication that, in respect of housing, food, fuel and light the percentage spent out of the pension is far higher than the percentage in the case of an ordinary household.
  Since then there have been further increases in the cost of living, and we find that food has gone up by 3·8 points on the average since 1957. The average pensioner spends 7 per cent. more of his income on it. Therefore, I submit that when consideration is being given to these important matters the position of the retirement pensioners should be borne in mind and special attention given to the need for a special index of the cost of living in respect of these people.
  There is a further point on the question of the transferability of pensions.

  115
  Those are the three main points which should be considered by the Government, and on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us some decision today; first, the question of the contributory system; second, the benefits; and third, the urgent necessity of providing transferability of pensions.
  The other matter which I want the Minister to consider is in reference to the Industrial Injuries scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) has mentioned the fact that we have never had a quinquennial valuation of the Industrial Injuries scheme although this was provided for in the Act. It has been in operation for ten years, but we have not had the opportunity of reviewing the operation of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act in accordance with the provisions of that Act. We have only been able to raise anomalies on various Measures which have been before the House dealing with increases in benefit. I wish to refer to two special anomalies which still exist.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): May I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell me the provision in the Act under which he says there should have been this review, which he says has never taken place?
  Mr. Finch: The right hon. Gentleman must know that in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act there is a provision for a quinquennial valuation and a review of the operation of the Act every five years.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look it up at his leisure, because it is not fair to ask him while he is on his feet, and let me know under which Section of the Act that is provided for. I think he is confusing this scheme with the National Insurance scheme, as he has confused them more than once in the House before.
  Mr. Finch: As far as I recollect, there is a provision in this Act whereby we can seek to review the operation of the Industrial Injuries scheme. If I am wrong about that, then I shall be corrected, but I want to point out that we have never had the review of the general administration of the Industrial Injuries scheme in the way I have suggested.
  116
  To return to the anomalies, the first concerns the very low assessments. There are many men who are being paid off and granted gratuities, based on 5, 10 or 15 per cent., as the case may be, many of whom are partly disabled and not in a position to return to their pre-accident occupations. Although I realise that disablement benefit is not based on loss of occupation, but on loss of faculty, nevertheless the assessments are exceptionally low, and I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case of those suffering from dermatitis. There is a conference to be held at Porthcawl by the National Union of Mineworkers this week, and I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that this problem of dermatitis will be discussed in connection with these low assessments, and that the situation is viewed very gravely by the miners of this country.
  I want to give the Committee the facts in regard to a man who suffers from dermatitis. This is a skin disease which fluctuates, and during the time when the victim seems clear from it he may return to his employment. As soon as he does so the disease returns and he is again disabled. He goes before a medical board and is given a provisional assessment, which may be anything up to 20 per cent. After a short time back at work he is given an assessment of, perhaps, 3 per cent. or 5 per cent., and in the end has to give up his pre-accident occupation. He has to seek other work, but it is very difficult for a man suffering from dermatitis to get suitable work. He is in a worse position than many other men suffering from disablement, because a skin disease makes it impossible for him to handle dust or liquids or anything which will bring about a return of the dermatitis. There are hundreds of people who have received a gratuity of £20, £30 or £40, and whose position is now very serious, because they are deprived of the hardship allowance.
  This brings me to the next point to which I want to refer. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision for the hardship allowance was included in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act by my right hon. Friend for the purpose of compensating, to some extent, for the loss of occupation, but there is an anomaly in the hardship allowance. A man has to be permanently incapacitated before he is entitled to receive

  117
  the hardship allowance, or he has to establish that he has not returned to his pre-accident occupation.
  What happens to a man suffering from dermatitis? In many cases, it is declared that the condition is not regarded as permanent, but only as temporary. Therefore, the man tries to do some other job, without the hardship allowance, and ultimately when he is given his final assessment he is in the position that he has already tried to return to his former work. The very fact that he has tried for a period of time deprives him of the hardship allowance, because these allowances cannot be paid where a man has gone back to his pre-accident employment, even though he may subsequently have had to give it up.
  I know there is a qualification since, if the man is working under medical arrangements or for rehabilitation purposes, he is given a hardship allowance. At the same time there are thousands of these men who go back to their ordinary work. They may continue for months, but then they have a relapse and the fact that they have done their ordinary work for that period deprives them of a hardship allowance. That is an iniquitous position for a disabled man to be in, and it discourages him from trying to take up his ordinary employment. Therefore, in cases of dermatitis, first, the assessment is low, and secondly, in many cases the sufferers are deprived of a hardship allowance.
  Surely it is the purpose of this legislation that a man should be compensated adequately for any hardship he may undergo. A man who receives an injury, particularly if it is of a permanent character, suffers two losses. On the one hand, he suffers the loss of the power to enjoy life through a loss of faculty, but he receives a disablement pension for that kind of disability. On the other hand, he loses money. A man should be compensated for losing money, having regard to the fact that he is not now in a position to return to his pre-accident employment.
  As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, a serious position arises for men who have served years of apprenticeship. They learn their trade and they look forward to the future. They have attended special schools to fit them for a skilled occupation and then
  118
  they sustain an accident. They are deprived of this skilled work to which they had looked forward in the years to cone and they now belong to what may be called the labouring class. Certainly their wages are far less than they were used to previously.
  For instance, in the mining industry a skilled collier may have been earning £15 a week. As a result of pneumoconiosis or of an injury he cannot return to that occupation. He receives a disablement pension. Even if he is assessed at 30 per cent. or 40 per cent., and even if he is given £1 1s. or £1 10s. a week, he will not be able to earn what he earned before. If he gets as much as £8 a week, the gap between that and £15 is £7. Even if he is entitled to hardship allowance, the most he can get is 34s.
  I want to stress the severe loss which skilled men sustain as the result of an accident. The money loss means that much less is going into the home, and instead of being skilled engineers or perhaps skilled colliers, they now belong to the labouring class. They have nothing to look forward to, and in those circumstances every effort should be made to give them compensation in keeping with their pre-accident occupation.
  Now I want to refer to the old cases. I regard the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act as being the bouncing baby of the National Insurance Act. Its funds are healthy. It is different from the National Insurance Act. Financially it is very sound, and on the last occasion when the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill to improve benefits it was noted that increased contributions under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act for 1958–59 will amount to about £22,900,000 whereas the increased benefits will amount to about £10 million. That represents an excess of approximately £13 million, so the Industrial Insurance Fund is in a fairly comfortable position.
  In spite of this, we have not influenced the right hon. Gentleman to bring the workmen's compensation cases within the provisions of this Act or to give them a supplement. It was true that 17s. 6d. was given to the totally disabled, but nothing has been done for the partially incapacitated, and there has been no increase since 1943. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that many of these

  119
  men are in work and earning wages, but nevertheless they have suffered a severe loss. They see other men getting far higher wages than they are receiving and which they could have earned prior to this accident. So the least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to give this matter his attention to ascertain what can be done to give a supplement to those old cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This, again, is a matter which will be considered critically by the miners at their conference this week, because there is considerable feeling about those old cases. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman can assure us tonight that he will consider this matter.
  I join with other hon. Members in complimenting the efficiency of the staff of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. This Act came into operation ten years ago. The staff of the Ministry took on a colossal job. They took over millions of cases and a variety of benefits. Thousands of payments have to be made each week based on many different types of Regulations. In South Wales we can be particularly critical because we have had years of experience of workmen's compensation. I must say, however, that the working of this scheme by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is a credit to the Civil Service. I remember the days, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, when men suffering from pneumoconiosis had to stand in the bitter cold outside the colliery office waiting for their little compensation in all weather.
  What a change there has been. They go to these offices, they are treated courteously by the Ministry of Pensions officers; indeed, frequently the payment is sent to them. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to get too complacent about this. Complaints and difficulties arise, but up to now the officials of the Ministry have done a good job, and it shows what can be done even though great and radical changes are brought in by the Government of the day.
  In conclusion, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information as to the intentions of the Government both in respect of retirement pensions and the contributory system. If he will tell us where he is going and what he is going
  120
  to do, we shall be able to consider the merits or demerits of what he has in mind.
  8.9 p.m.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), I want to use the occasion of this anniversary to congratulate all those concerned in the National Insurance scheme, both for creating and administering it, and the civil servants who carry out its functions throughout the country. Like the hon. Gentleman, I also want to use the occasion to take a critical look at its present position and a constructive look at the future. On this birthday we are faced in the realm of retirement pensions with the menace of the emerging cost; with a contribution, which is as high as a lower-paid wage earner can bear to pay and, with all this, a pension which is below subsistence.
  This tenth anniversary is the time for all of us on both sides of the Committee to remind ourselves that the principal obligation must be to look, first and foremost, at those who are poorest off and the most helpless. But this is also a time to look forward with a certain amount of hope because there are signs on the horizon, particularly in respect of increments and occupational pensions, which are encouraging.
  I am surprised that so far today, in a series of both constructive and rather moving speeches from both sides of the Committee, no one has mentioned the extraordinary influence which has already been brought to bear by the increments earned by deferred retirement. I understand that my right hon. Friend, in answer to Questions, said that out of every 10 people retiring today no fewer than four receive increments which, in the case of a single person, average 9s. 6d. a week and in the case of a married couple 15s. 6d. a week, and that out of the same 10 no fewer than four—not necessarily the same four—receive an occupational pension of a size unknown.
  Obviously, there are some people out of the 10 who receive neither increments nor an occupational pension, and it is upon these in particular that both sides of the Committee should have concentrated today, because there is no doubt

  121
  that among the elderly there is still, in this day and age of a high standard of living and high expectations of a high standard of living, a great deal of poverty. I want to examine why this poverty should arise. Is it entirely due to the size of the State provision? Is it sometimes due—here I obviously do not dream of making any criticism of individuals—to lack of knowledge of the provisions which are available?
  Mr. Shurmer: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that in the last increase given to old-age pensioners the better-off ones benefited and the poorer ones got less, because something was taken away from them?
  Sir K. Joseph: I shall be coming to that. It is one of the central themes of what I want to say.
  I would say, in passing, that many elderly people without the help of their families to advise them do not always know about the provisions that a benevolent State, a benevolent local authority and benevolent voluntary societies could make available to them if only they knew about them. All the surveys which have been carried out, including that by Dr. Sheldon, in Wolverhampton, and the Newcastle one, show that time and time again, as soon as a household is visited, spectacles can be provided, or something else is done free which was always available but no one had sought it. That is a very small factor in explaining poverty among the elderly.
  Another thing which emerges from surveys is that there are many households which by means of meticulous and scrupulous budgeting can get by almost every week of the year but may be sunk by little unforeseen crises. How much better it would be if all the churches and voluntary societies ran small loan clubs to which elderly people could occasionally turn in the week or fortnight of crisis. Some churches and voluntary societies operate such loan associations. This country is known for the fantastically high standard of personal morality, and the losses in activities of this sort are extraordinarily small.
  I have often wondered why, in the case of households which have been used throughout long lives to budgeting, no distinction has ever been requested between pensions during summer and pensions
  122
  during winter. Winter outgoings must exceed summer outgoings because of fuel costs. It may be said that pensioners can even out their outgoings by buying coal in the summer, but many of them cannot store it. It may be that many of them are paying perfectly legitimate middleman charges to get the benefit of cheaper coal during the summer, but the coal has to be stored and delivered later.
  I am not in the position on this occasion, when I cannot suggest legislation, even to put forward such an idea as a summer scale and a winter scale for pensions. I merely comment with surprise that nobody seems to have discussed it in the House in my recollection.
  It seems to me that the real question that we have to ask ourselves is how we can in the retirement field help those who have too little without enormously increasing contributions and tax by helping everybody at the same time whether they need the help or not. Let no one imagine that my answer to this is to put the retirement pension more on to the National Assistance Board. I have the highest respect for the Board, but its job is as a safety net, and we are concerned primarily with the quasi-contractual rights to a pension, subject to the retirement condition, up to the age of 65 for women and 70 for men. Anyway, the poorest already receive help from the Board, and if their pension is increased that means they receive more as of right and less on proof.
  The problem is that survey after survey shows that one sort of pensioner suffers more than others, and that is the person entirely without family, who is termed an "isolate". We already discriminate in public policy at the beginning of the life cycle where family allowances are raised for third and fourth children. I realise that family allowance has no element of contract or quasi-contract in it, but would it be utterly improper to contemplate a pension, and, by implication, a National Assistance Board scale, which discriminated deliberately in favour of elderly retired persons who could prove that they had no close family?
  Plainly, this is a blunt instrument. We should help many people who were better off, and we should fail to help many people who had families but received no help from them and were badly off, but as a suggestion towards meeting the

  123
  most desperate needs without bankrupting the community, I wonder whether, on a suitable occasion, it might be considered. The more universal schemes, the panaceas, which are put forward by hon. Members like the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), really endanger the solvency of the country.
  I for one think that the hon. Member for Coventry, East has done a great service to the community. He and his colleagues have refreshed thought on pensions. They have thrown a large number of ideas, which, while not all new, had a novel presentation, into the pool of discussion. Despite this, the fact remains that the scheme is one which can be described only as a scheme of benevolent totalitarianism; one of enormous expense, costing £650 million extra per annum in 1961 for example, and based on a series of injurious adjustments in relation, in due course, to the retirement age of women and of insured women's rights.
  It is based on a fundamental misconception—that new resources to aid in the productivity of the community will be created, and, owing to miscalculations, a much smaller surplus than is anticipated will, in fact, be available. Anyway, even if there were to be a surplus, the probable effect in diminishing by an equal amount the personal savings of the community and thus producing no new net investable resources has not been taken into account at all. The scheme is, therefore, misleading, and if it were to be put into force would produce none of the benefits by way of extra production on which the whole exercise was based.
  I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in deploring the conception of a State fund. This offends every idea of independence which this side of the Committee holds so high. There is all the difference in the world between a fund run by the State and fed by contributions for and on behalf of every single wage earner in the country, on the one hand, and the aggregate of the funds run by myriads of private employers, equally fed, each to a certain extent, by contributions from and on behalf of every single wage earner in the country, on the other hand.
  124
  The first scheme maximises mistakes and concentrates power in the hands of the Government and could be used to jerrymander taxation, without producing any necessary benefit in the way of investable savings; whereas the second scheme channels an infinite variety of resources into an infinite variety of investments while dispersing control.
  My principal comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East is that he had what I can desecribe only as the impertinance to castigate my right hon. Friend for presuming to depart from the actuarial basis of the present National Insurance scheme by allegedly charging new entrants 1s. 3d. a week more than their actuarial contribution should have been, when the scheme for which he is responsible is blatantly a scheme subsidised by those who receive more than average earnings.
  The whole of the national superannuation scheme purports to be an insurance scheme, yet it is a redistributory scheme of taxation which takes the contributions of those who receive average and more than average earnings—and there is nothing immoral about this, although it is immoral to disguise it—and uses them to maintain or increase the benefits of those with below average earnings. That is properly the function of Government by means of taxation and yet it is to be imposed by a so-called insurance scheme for individual contributors. Let it be realised that this, far more than the point about which my right hon. Friend was criticised, is a genuine poll tax, in this case a poll tax which prevents the more than average wage earner and higher than average wage earner benefiting as much as he would by investing in any of the insurance company opportunities.
  I want to stress this so much because the national superannuation scheme purports to permit the opting out of individual contributors if they can show that they are opting out into a scheme which satisfies the authorities—I forget the exact phrase. Does it not appear to the hon. Member for Coventry, East that, if it is true that the higher than average wage earner will get less for his contributions than he would get if he went to a private insurance scheme, it is probable that the majority of higher than average wage earners will opt out

  125
  of the scheme, if opting out is really a fair alternative given to them?
  If they opt out, the whole financial basis of the offer of half-pay on retirement—which may be 30 or 40 years—to those below average earners, falls to the ground. I very much hope that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) will comment on this matter when he winds up the debate for the Opposition. If opting out is a genuine alternative, it will bring the scheme to ruins.
  Mr. Crossman: The hon. Member said that our scheme was a poll tax, a tax which bears equally on rich and poor alike. My criticism of the Government's position is that our present National Insurance contribution, is, in the proper sense, a poll tax. It is the same tax whether a man earns £50 or £10. The hon. Member has pointed out, quite fairly, that our scheme is redistributory, in the sense that those who earn most will pay most and will get rather less in return. That is the opposite of a poll tax, since is it a graduated tax. If the hon. Member accuses us of introducing a graduated redistribution, then that is openly admitted, but it is equally so that the present method is a poll tax. Both are quite open and both are quite different points. I am amazed that the hon. Member confuses the two.
  Sir K. Joseph: It is the hon. Gentleman himself who is confused. I was taking up his criticism of my right hon. Friend for my right hon. Friend's action in obtaining 1s. 3d. a week from new entrants towards the pension of those who are at present retired. The hon. Gentleman was saying that this was a gross departure from the insurance principle and yet he himself has departed far further from the insurance principle by a graduated and redistributory system applying to above average wages. That was my point. I am not denying that the present flat-rate contribution could be described as a poll tax. I was not defending that position.
  Mr. Crossman: The difference is that under our scheme we suggest—and the hon. Member was quite fair to say it—that those who are better off should make some contribution towards providing a floor below which the pension shall not fall, whereas under the present
  126
  scheme those who are young contribute, quite unfairly, to those who are old. There is a basic difference between a scheme which makes the young subsidise the old and a scheme which makes the rich subsidise the poor.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member fails to recognise that I am criticising him not for doing that, but for maintaining that his is an insurance scheme. It is not; it is a scheme of taxation and redistribution. That may be all right, but on page 24 of his pamphlet he maintains that it is an insurance scheme.
  I was going to say that opting out may be restricted because of the ruin it could bring to the scheme, and this would then have serious results on occupational pension schemes, which I should like to see far more widely spread.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Member seems to suggest that if there were an alternative of opting out people with higher salaries would opt out. Can he explain how, on the insurance principle, any insurance company could give the same benefits to the few people who opted out, as compared with the nation, when everybody was compelled to be in? That is quite a different thing from having a few people going into an insurance scheme.
  Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman would be quite right if the contributions of the higher than average wage earners were not used in the scheme to subsidise the benefits of the lower than average wage earners. He would be right if the contributions of the higher than average wage earners were to be used solely for their own benefit, but they will not be.
  I submit that occupational pension schemes have an enormous advantage over any State scheme. They could provide transferability. Over half the adult male workers are members of such schemes. I join with the hon. Member for Coventry, East in deploring the lack of information, on both sides of the Committee, about these individual pension schemes. It is true that the biggest hindrance to the universal spread of these schemes is the enormous cost of the back service contribution element. I have been making a very rough back-of-the envelope calculation and have worked

  127
  out that if all employers were to put aside a fund to enable all their employees who are not at present in occupational pension schemes to enter such schemes, the total back service contribution might amount to at least £180 million. Although it could be spread over twenty years, it is a very large figure.
  I want to deny the allegation that occupational pension schemes cannot be much more widely spread than they are now. I am a member of the building and civil engineering industry, which employs over 1 million people. It is often said that this is an industry for which, because of the casual nature of the work and the fact that many of its employees may work for as many as five or even ten different employers in a single year, no scheme could be worked out. Nothing is further from the truth. I have heard one of the most progressive leaders of the industry draw an analogy between superannuation and a very successful holidays-with-pay scheme which has been working in the industry for many years. There is no reason why this industry, with its 1 million employees, should not be brought within the occupational scheme net.
  My hon. Friend has mentioned that farmers are beginning to consider schemes for their members. The growth of these occupational schemes might have been faster—and might yet be faster—if only trade union leaders themselves had, or would, back the spread of these fringe benefits, as their opposite numbers have in America. The time to exact these fringe benefits is a time of super-full employment. The opportunity for doing so in the last few years has been lost. I know of a few trade unions that have negotiated strongly for occupational pension schemes, and there has been a great loss of opportunity.
  In Holland, a group of firms in any industry has the right to request the Government to require the remaining firms in that industry to enforce an occupational pension scheme throughout the industry. This sort of requirement might be considered here, because I believe that although there are bound to be casuals who cannot be covered by any occupational pension scheme, there is enormous scope for growth. But there are bound to be casuals who cannot easily be brought in. Just as private enterprise,
  128
  without a profit motive, as in a case like the British United Provident Association keeps covered by insurance some of the exigencies of health expenses, so I hope that there will grow up non-profit-making private occupational pension schemes for those who are least likely to be able to take part in either a State or a private profit-making scheme.
  I have concentrated on occupational pension schemes because I think that they provide us with real hope on this tenth birthday of the National Insurance legislation. We are now faced with an enormous emerging cost, and our object at all time must be to deal with that, while freeing contributions from the ossified condition in which they are now caught and promoting simultaneously a great growth in occupational pension schemes; all this without damaging savings—which we all rejoice to see are so enormously higher this year—and without great tax increases or inflation.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: The disadvantage of speaking late in a debate is that a number of points which one has prepared have already been made and probably made in a better manner. The advantage is that many points have been made which one would wish to take up in arguing with hon. Members opposite who have already spoken.
  I should like to start by taking up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I congratulate him on recognising the problem which exists, and the unsatisfactory nature of the present provisions for old age, and commenting rather more fully than did some of his hon. Friends. I cannot continue to congratulate him on his analysis of the way in which to deal with them. Earlier in his speech the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that such methods as loan clubs run by churches, or special measures to enable people to pay for their coal at different times of the year, were the sort of thing which would meet the problem. The hon. Member must recognise that that is only scratching at the surface of the problem, and that something much more fundamental is needed.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East made a number of criticisms of the scheme which he attributed to my hon.

  129
  Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). While we pay tribute to the part which my hon. Friend has played in this matter, I am sure that he would be the first to agree that it is not a personal matter. It is a scheme to which the Labour Party is committed, and is proud to be committed. It is not committed to the statement in every detail, but to the principles of the statement and to the principle of a national superannuation scheme.
  One of the main reasons why we are so committed is that there is no other way of bridging the growing gap between those people who have the benefit of superannuation and those who have not. While the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and some of his hon. Friends may sing the praises of the occupational scheme, they must recognise that there has been a very long time in which these schemes could have filled this gap, and it is being filled only very slowly. We were told by one hon. Member that about 500,000 extra people came into the schemes every year. The fact is that there are still about two-thirds of the people who work who are not covered by any scheme at all, and some are covered only by unsatisfactory schemes. Only a major operation by the Government, and the passing of legislation through this House, can close the gap.
  The point was made that in some way or other we should interfere with people's freedom. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East even used the phrase "benevolent totalitarianism". I wish to point out that in one important respect we are increasing the freedom of those people who are in private schemes by introducing the principle of transferability from one private scheme to another. But I believe that in a wider sense we are increasing their freedom by removing the fear of poverty in old age. I do not believe that if he took a survey among the retirement pensioners in his constituency who are having to rely on National Assistance or who are only on that level, he would be able to encourage them by telling them that throughout their lives they had the freedom to make provision for old age. That is the job of the community and it must be tackled by the community.
  I should like to turn to one or two other points which have been made by hon. Members opposite during this debate. Two, in particular, to which I should like to refer were made in the
  130
  speech by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made a proposal, which I have heard him make before, about doing something more for the chronic sick. Personally, I believe that this is a most valuable and important proposal and one which deserves the earnest consideration of all of us.
  The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that in some way, if we did this, we should be undermining the insurance principle by differentiating between people. Surely, one of the most important aspects of the National Insurance scheme is that we all contribute to it, but we get different benefits. A person who is often sick can be more benefited now than the person who is hardly ever sick. Many benefits differ in amount, and we can compare what we pay to the widowed mother and the widow without children. I think that there would be no departure in principle there. What we would be trying to do would be to make proper provision for a small group of people with very special needs who have been neglected for so long.
  Our experience of the unemployability supplement and constant attendance allowance under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts and war pensions is that only a small number qualify for them and the cost is small. The numbers may be larger than in other categories, but the total mount in comparison with the total fund is small, although the amount of human suffering that can be relieved is very considerable. I think that further consideration should be given to that point.
  I also want to reply to what the hon. Lady said about old cases—the people who were injured and came under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and who have now fallen behind in their benefits. She said that they were given a supplement of 17s. 6d. I believe that at the time that was done it was thought to be a rough and ready way of bringing up those old cases to the level of people who get benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. There was no principle formerly for doing that. The 17s. 6d. was given to bring them up to the level of a 100 per cent. disability pension under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. Since then, there has been this further rise under that Act and

  131
  it seems to me insupportable to leave this gap as it is at the moment.
  We have recognised, quite rightly, in respect of war pensions, that people from the 1914–18 war get the same pensions as people from the 1939–45 war. It seems to me that the same sort of principle should be recognised for the casualties of industry.
  I should like to make one or two points about the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. I hope that from time to time the House of Commons will have a full-scale debate on that Act, because I think that there are some points concerning it which tend to be squeezed out in a debate of this kind, when, naturally, we direct our attention to the overriding question of the provision for old age. There are many important things which ought to be reviewed from time to time in regard to that Act.
  Those of us who have had the experience of helping and advising people about their rights under that Act realise that there are various matters which give cause for dissatisfaction. Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned them this afternoon. I should like to refer to the general entitlement under the Act, particularly the definition in Section 7 of the way in which people qualify who have had an injury by accident "arising out of and in the course of their simployment." That. I think, is the time-honoured definition, which has stood the test of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and the present Act. There are many people who, because of this provision and the way in which it has been interpreted, get left out, although they suffer what are, in fact, injuries arising from their employment.
  I have had experience of working for and on behalf of transport workers. A man who works in transport, or out of doors generally, often has an accident in circumstances that would bring him within the provisions of the Act were he an indoor worker. For example, a man working in a factory is held to be in the course of his employment when he crosses the boundary of his employer's premises, and if he has an accident in those premises he normally falls within these provisions.
  The transport driver, however, has first to reach the vehicle. For instance, he
  132
  may be a bus driver who leaves his vehicle at the terminus to go to a café across the street for refreshment. If he has an accident in those circumstances he is outside the Act, and things like that cause a lot of resentment amongst the cases affected. Although finding a different formula might be difficult, I think that an attempt should be made.
  There is the wider category of the people who become incapacitated by some process in their work. At the moment, people get benefit if they have an accident at their work or if they contract one of the occupational diseases laid down in the Schedule, but there are many industrial casualties who fall between two stools. There are those who have to put up with a lot of noise at work. Boiler makers working inside boilers and enduring a lot of noise can become deaf as a result, but because that is not a prescribed disease they are not covered. There are people who work in damp conditions who may suffer from bronchitis and emphysema, while others can contract rheumatism.
  Attention must be given to these problems. It could be done, perhaps, by extending the Schedule of prescribed diseases, but even if that were done there would still be gaps, and I think that a more radical and satisfactory solution would be to remove the words "by accident", so that anyone who was incapacitated by following his industrial occupation would be included.
  Then there is the special hardship allowance which, as my right hon. Friend said, was a very necessary safety valve in the original Act because it provided an allowance for people who had suffered what was, perhaps, a small injury in terms of the assessment but one which had had a large effect on their earning power. In fact, I think one of the criticisms that can be made refers to the name of this allowance. It is not so much a special hardship allowance as an allowance for loss of earnings. A similar provision in war pensions legislation is referred to, quite rightly, as an allowance for a lowered standard of occupation. That is much better, and I think that the definition in the Section and the way in which people qualify for the allowance need examination. This allowance is paid only as an addition to a disablement pension, but there are

  133
  those who have no pension because they have no remaining disability but who cannot go back to their occupation because they would be ill again if they did. I think of dermatitis cases in particular.
  Again, should we not revise our ideas about the amount? The present maximum is 34s. a week. I have no up-to-date figures of the rate at which the current allowance is being paid, but in a report that I saw a year ago the figure was 27s. 6d. It was clear there that the average payment of hardship allowance was 96 per cent. of the maximum, which suggests that the majority of people who qualified for it were, in fact, losing a great deal more in their weekly earnings.
  We should consider whether we could not pay on a more generous scale. Precisely the same point applies to war pensions. Many of the pensioners have had relatively small war wounds which, nevertheless, have a very large effect on their earning capacity. These may be points of detail, but they cause hardship, and produce anomalies and a sense of injustice in those concerned.
  I should like to return to the wider question of provision for old age that has run right through this debate. When I contested the by-election in East Ham, North just over a year ago. I was working in an area where there is a larger proportion of elderly people than in the country as a whole. Naturally, canvassing in the daytime, those were the people whom one met. Certainly the principal issue with which one was faced in that election was the poverty in which people were living, particularly the retired and widows, who were trying to live on these benefits. Since then they have had a modest increase, though an increase which is too little and which has come too late. I would remind the Committee that when that increase came into effect at the beginning of this year, two and three-quarter years had gone by since the previous increase, during which time the cost of living had gone up by about 10 per cent.
  This underlines two points that I would mention about the existing scheme. One is the very low rate of the existing pension. It ought to be raised to at least £3 a week without delay. Secondly there is the failure of this scheme to make the pension inflation-proof. When people
  134
  are living on that kind of income, even modest rises in prices have a bad effect upon their standards. A modest rise in the price of vegetables or in the cost of getting shoes repaired can have a catastrophic effect upon their budgets. Not only do they see that happening and the value of their pension decreasing, but under the existing scheme they do not know when any attempt will be made to put it right. If they could rely upon an annual review and could know that they were guaranteed that the value of the pension would be restored, that would be a tremendous advance in itself.
  As has often been pointed out on this side of the Committee, this cannot properly be done within the flat-rate contribution as it stands at the moment. In the last twelve months the rate of contribution has been increased by nearly 50 per cent. A year ago the contribution was 6s. 9d. for men and is now 9s. 11d. The increase for women and juveniles is in the same kind of proportion. That illustrates the mess into which this aspect of the scheme has entered.
  Therefore, one ought to hear from the Government Front Bench some realisation of the fact that we have reached a critical stage in the National Insurance scheme when radical rethinking is needed. All the radical rethinking has come from the Opposition. It is now twelve months since the Labour Party produced its scheme for national superannuation. The Government have the resources of the Civil Service and every opportunity for research and for working out their ideas, and it is time that we were told something definite.
  One does not know whether they are trying to hold it up until the next General Election. If so, after they have lost the Election and we have carried out our scheme they will say, "We thought of it, too." They will say that it was a nonparty matter and that the Labour Party could not take the full credit for it. That would be in the best Conservative tradition. If this is being unfair and unkind to the Government, I ask them to produce without delay some ideas of their own to meet the situation.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: We deliberately put on the Order Paper today the war pensions Vote because it is a very long time since we had

  135
  a debate dealing with war pensions. It is natural that the Opposition, with limited time at their disposal, should attend to those matters on which they have a real grievance or some active case against the Government which they want to put forward. Fortunately, this is not the case with war pensions, but we felt that we ought to give an opportunity to hon. Members to assure the war pensioners throughout the country once again that we are not at all forgetful of their interests and that we watch closely what is going on.
  I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth), the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and others have referred to the war pensioners. I should like, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said I would, to add a little to the consideration of the position of the war pensioner.
  I was Minister of Pensions for three years and I should like to say to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale that I found plenty to do. I was a little more angry about one or two of his remarks at the time he made them than I now am. I will only say that if the hon. Member wants to measure the achievements of the Conservative Party when in office before the war against what was done afterwards, let him look at the record of Parliamentary Questions and Adjournment and other debates on war pensions during the inter-war years, when, I am sure, he will find a marked difference from what followed. I do not, however, want to pursue the question of who did what and which side did it best.
  I should like to add my tribute to those already paid to the staff of the Department, not only to be very large staff which is now working under the Minister in the sphere of National Insurance proper, but to that section of the staff which still works under him on the war pensions side, the latter of whom I know best. All these civil servants undoubtedly deserve the praise which has been given to them this afternoon.
  I should like particularly to refer also to the voluntary workers who play a valuable part in the sphere of war pensions. Even organisations like the British Legion or the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, with whom
  136
  in my time I occasionally had some difficult negotiations and who sometimes, momentarily, perhaps, appeared to be a bit of a nuisance, play a most valuable part in the working of this system of war pensions which we have devised. I should certainly like to thank them and say how glad I am that, although the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale has now had to give up his position in the British Legion, others whom we know very well are carrying on the work.
  The head and front of all this organisation of voluntary workers in their contact with the Minister is the Central Advisory Council. When I presided over that Council, I found that it was a valuable and useful body. I am surprised to read in the latest Report of the Department that the present Minister has met his Central Advisory Council only twice during a year. I wonder whether he is wise to meet the Council so rarely. In answer to a Question in the House, the right hon. Gentleman said that he calls the Advisory Council together when he has something to say to it. My view is that he should call the Advisory Council together to know whether it has something to say to him. This should be a two-way traffic. I say from my own experience that one gets a great deal of valuable information from the Advisory Council, even when one has no particular information to impart oneself.
  I realise that the responsibilities of a Minister of Pensions and National Insurance are much greater than those which I discharged as Minister of Pensions. The calls upon the Minister's time must be much heavier. If the reason is that the Minister cannot spare the time to meet the Advisory Council more often than twice in a year, why not invite his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who looks after the war pensions side of the work to do that for him? I think it would be worth while.
  There have been recent increases in the war pensions themselves, an extension of the comforts allowance and the institution of the new ageing allowance. Many of these pensions and allowances are tax-free. For these reasons and, above all, because such a large proportion of war pensioners, happily, are still in work and earning wages, and those who are not are entitled to fairly substantial supplements to their pension, we on this side of the

  137
  Committee have no particular criticism to offer tonight about the rates of pension and allowance.
  We are struck, however, by the warning note contained in the Report for the year 1956, the warning that the war pensioners, disabled men, are tending to find it rather more difficult to find employment, full employment, the opportunity to work and earn a living and the consequent opportunity to mix on equal terms with other members of the community. Going to work daily, even if one has to go in a wheel-chair, is, as the hon. and gallant Member for Nor-wood reminded us and knows full well, nine-tenths of the battle of life for disabled men, and it would be sad if the onset of unemployment were to rob any of them of that chance.
  That, I think, is the only comment I want to make on that. I am sure that the Minister and his civil servants will watch very carefully and use every means in their power to ensure that, whoever suffers, the war pensioner shall be given the greatest possible opportunity to retain and maintain his employment. But pensions and allowances, however large they may be, and even employment in a regular job, are not the whole of what the war pensioner needs.
  When I instituted the Welfare Service I thought that it would prove of value or I should not have done so. Naturally, I was moved by the experience I had of all sorts of individual cases coming to my notice. I wanted to try to ensure that the sort of treatment which individual cases which came to my desk would get would be available for everybody, even to those who did not write to their Members of Parliament. That was why I sent the letter to every individual pensioner and instituted the Welfare Service. It revealed a far greater number of in-individual needs which could be met than even I had ever understood.
  I well remember on a visit to Turkey some years ago talking to an eminent Turkish gentleman and asking him about the impact of our information services and the work of the British Council on relations with Turkey. I asked him how these were going, and whether people were getting a good idea of the British way of life. He said, "You can close all your information services tomorrow if you like, and you can let the British Council go
  138
  away, if only you will send us more films like the one which I saw the other day." "Oh, indeed," I asked, "and what film was that?" To my great pride and joy he said it was, "The Undefeated", which was a film we made to illustrate the work of the war pensioners' welfare service. It is a rather remarkable thing how strongly it struck those who saw it.
  It was not fussy interference; it was not an attempt to tell the war pensioner what he ought to do; but a voluntary offer that the war pensioner should come to the office if he had any sort of difficulty, no matter what kind of difficulty it was.
  I am glad indeed to read in the Annual Report that it is going on well, and that the home craft service, which grew out of it, is continuing and helping many thousands of disabled, bed-ridden persons, so that they are able to sell substantial quantities of the goods which they make while deriving the occupational therapy which they get from doing that sort of work in their beds.
  I know that the Minister has a lot to reply to, but I would ask him, if he can find a minute in his winding-up speech to do so, to let us know whether any Minister, himself or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, has been able to visit the war pensioners in the United States, Canada, Australia or South Africa. It may be that it is a long time since this was done. I am not sure. If it is, then quite seriously I say it is well worth doing. Those people are very remote, and they appreciate the opportunity of feeling they are directly in touch with the man who is finally responsible for their welfare.
  I was very pleased to read in the Ministry's Report of the systematic extension of the welfare services to war widows over 70 years of age, to read that 47,000 letters were sent out to these widows, and that 11,500 of them wrote back to say that they would welcome a call. I am glad to know that these visits will continue. I hope that they will be extended in time to cover war widows even younger than that. The striking fact that emerges is not so much that this useful and valuable service is rendered to these elderly ladies but that, as the Report says,
  "… about a third of those visited had financial or other material needs to meet."
  These are war widows who have a higher rate of pension than other widows.

  139
  A later paragraph in the Report says:
  "The resources of the King's Fund are being called on more and more to meet the needs of widows, particularly the ageing widows of the 1914 War. Two thirds of the grants authorised were to assist widows and dependants."
  Fortunately, the King's Fund is continuing to receive bequests and donations all the time. It is like the widow's cruse—a miraculous fund that keeps going somehow or other. It steps in and makes its grants when no other payment from State sources is available.
  Although I am glad that the King's Fund still exists, and I have used it myself, it is a rather serious feature that one-third of the war widows over 70 years of age should require financial or material assistance and that the King's Fund should be now heavily engaged in assisting widows. It suggests that all is not well with the war widows.
  It makes one wonder what may be happening to other widows if the welfare service is of value to war widows whose pensions are at a higher rate than those of other widows, except the widows of the industrially injured. If need is revealed in those cases, is not help even more needed by other widows, and ought not there to be a welfare service of some kind provided for widows in the ordinary sphere of National Insurance?
  The number of widows who are in extreme adversity has undoubtedly diminished since I last spoke on the subject in the House of Commons. In March, 1956, the number of widows drawing National Assistance was 77,000. Since then, increases in benefit have reduced the number to 54,000 by the last date for which we have figures. These 54,000 widows who are still on National Assistance are, as we know from the Board's Reports, mainly widows with numerous children. As I have said before, I do not believe that these widows and their children are even yet satisfactorily looked after by our Welfare State.
  The scale rates of the National Assistance Board are a good deal higher than they were. They now pay 26s. a week for a person between 16 and 17 years of age and 20s. for a child between 11 and 15 years. These are larger sums, but the latest report of the National Food Survey Committee states that the average expenditure per person in this country on
  140
  food alone is £1 7s. 3d. a week. No doubt that includes many expensive meals, and it may include a certain amount of waste by well-off people. But if the average is £1 7s. 3d. and the National Assistance Board is able to pay only 20s. a week for the care of children between 11 and 15 to widowed mothers to cover all their needs, including clothing and food, soap and toothpaste and other things, I still say that the rates are not satisfactory. The child of the widow with a large family who is dependent upon her National Insurance pension does not get a fair opportunity in life.
  Reference was made earlier in the debate to the very remarkable book "Widows and their Families", written by Peter Marris. I hope it will be widely read, because this is one of the most remarkable pieces of sociology published in this country for a very long time. It is extraordinarily sympathetically written, and in it Mr. Marris says:
  "Ideally, social insurance could do much to soften the distress of widowhood. Poverty accentuates all the morbid tendencies of grief—the isolation, bitterness, apathy; a sense of being rejected, a drag on the happiness of others—while to secure a comfortable living standard would, instead, at least encourage her to master them. Released from the fear of financial dependence, she would be less diffident in her family relationships. A widow with young children needs an income equivalent to a man's wage. While the children are under five, it seems better that this income should not depend upon her ability to earn, since it may harm small children to be separated from their mother, even if their grandmother or an aunt would be willing to look after them."
  Mr. Marris argues in favour of the abolition of the earnings rule in respect of widows who have children able to go to school, that is, children over five. I do not enter into any discussion of that, but what he says is very persuasive. It certainly made me think afresh about this subject.
  What I should like the right hon. Gentleman to do is not to say tonight, as his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was inclined to do, that this could not be done, for this, that or any other reason, not to jump too quickly at it; but to say that he will have a further inquiry made. Mr. Marris's book relates to London, where the employment opportunities for women are very considerable and where the pattern of family life may well be somewhat different from

  141
  that in industrial areas. I should like to see some inquiry set up. Of course, I should like it in Middlesbrough, but if Middlesbrough cannot be chosen—though I should like it to be selected, for a special reason—let us have it in one of the industrial areas in the North, in the Midlands, in Wales and in Scotland.
  I do not suggest an inquiry by the Ministry, because that may give rise to suspicions or bad reactions on the part of those approached. I seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—I have made this suggestion before, and I make it again quite sincerely and with no political animus, and I hope he will take it seriously—that an inquiry of this kind should not be conducted by the Government, but should be undertaken by a body like the Institute of Community Studies, which made this particular study, or by a similar body, by the Nuffield Foundation, or by the universities in the various areas, as was done at the time of the Distressed Areas.
  If the right hon. Gentleman has no power to do what I suggest, there must be a Government Department which has. It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a suitable procedure. I would suggest that the National Assistance Board, which has laid upon it by Statute the duty—
  "to exercise their functions in such manner as shall best promote the welfare of the persons affected by the exercise thereof,"
  might take a great interest in such a survey. The welfare work which the Board already does might be extended more into this field. We read, in the last Report but one, of the welfare work which is done among the aged; let the Board please turn its attention to the widows as well. Let the Board try to develop this work, as I believe it wants to do.
  I believe that the Board has been hampered in the past by the fact that the sheer load of the payment of allowances was so heavy that it did not have the time to turn to this duty, which is laid upon it by the State, as fully as it would have liked to do. The load is by no means sufficiently reduced to make us happy or contented, but, at any rate, it is lighter. Do not let us see the staff dispersed or reduced because the load of payment is reduced. Rather let us see the work develop into the field of welfare.
  142
  I should like to see the National Assistance Board playing a much larger part than it has done hitherto, and particularly taking new initiatives, such as the work among widows that I have suggested.
  In talking so much, as I have done, about war pensions and welfare and the possibility of extending welfare services, which have been so valuable to war pensioners, to widows and to those injured in industry, I have not left myself much time to talk about what has been the main subject of the debate, the working of the National Insurance system proper. My right hon. Friend has already dealt with that at length at this Box, and therefore I did not propose to recapitulate a a great deal of it.
  We have undoubtedly had an excellent debate on this subject. We have a right to be proud of the system which has been built during these years. When I went with the right hon. Gentleman to the recent conference of the International Social Security Association, we were both made very much aware of how much people from other nations appreciated the work done in this country. We were both pleased to hear the eloquent tribute paid to Lord Beveridge and to see him there. Undoubtedly, other countries admire the structure, built over the years I agree, but put upon the Statute Book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. Equally obviously, we have no right to be complacent; nobody could be complacent after listening to the debate today.
  The hope of the nation, whatever may have been said in blue books or anywhere else, whatever qualifications can be written about it—the hope of the whole nation when the all-inclusive plan for National Insurance was brought forward before the public, the general hope and expectation, was that because now all were in, and all were contributing to the system, the result would be that in adversity—whether it be unemployment, sickness or old age—every citizen would receive an income sufficient to meet that adversity without recourse to a means test. That was the general hope of the nation. That was the intention behind it all. We know, and it has been repeated again and again today, that this has not happened, at any rate anywhere near to the extent we had hoped.
  National Assistance was looked upon, in the words of the hon. Member for Leeds,

  143
  North-East (Sir K. Joseph), as a safety net, and it was generally thought that after the numbers of people not covered by insurance had gradually passed away, there would remain in the safety net only very exceptional cases of special adversity, congenital illness, and that kind of thing. It was thought that National Assistance would be dealing with very small numbers and would gradually wither away. There are, however, still two million people living on National Assistance, and so we find that a change is obviously called for. Though, at the end of ten years, we can look back with pride on the improvement that has taken place over this period, it would be idle and silly to say that this is sufficient. Everyone who has spoken in the debate has looked forward in some degree or other to another system.
  Obviously, I have not time—I must give the right hon. Gentleman time for his difficult task of replying to the debate in detail—to dilate upon the plan for national superannuation which we drew up. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has expounded it eloquently, as he always does, and others have spoken about it.
  I will say no more about it, except this. Hon. Members opposite, notably the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, criticised what they understood to be our plan, and criticised it sharply. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East went so far as to say that private occupational schemes have enormous advantages over the Labour Party proposals for national superannuation. If the hon. Member and' his right hon. Friends criticise our proposals—and they have seriously asked the nation to believe that private occupational schemes have enormous advantages over what we propose—why do they not prove it? Why do they not seek to give us the information? Why have they disregarded all this time the advice of the Phillips Committee? That Committee was set up by the present Government, and paragraph 254 of its Report states:
  "We … consider that information on this subject should be readily available, and we recommend that, for the future, returns giving certain minimum statistics about all pension schemes provided in connection with employment should be submitted at regular but not necessarily annual, intervals to some central official agency which should be charged with the duty of collecting the information obtained and publishing summary reports,".
  144
  What was to stop that recommendation being accepted at once and being put into operation? We should have had a lot of information by now.
  We who did our best without that information to draw up a plan might have made it slightly different in some respects. Who can say? We had not the information. The Times of 28th May pointed out that there are a large number of questions on which we have insufficient information about these private occupational schemes. We did not know how many people covered by such schemes have to withdraw from them when they change their job. We did not know how many, if any, when they change their employment lose their acquired rights in a private scheme. We did not know how substantial those rights are. We did not know how many who leave their job have their money refunded under private schemes. We did not know the standards of retirement income aimed at by the schemes. We did not even know how many schemes are still active.
  Nobody knows the real answers to these questions. The answer may be known in respect of some schemes, but the nation as a whole does not yet know the answers to all the questions. We believe the answers are what we have given, that the private occupation schemes are designed to restrict mobility and that that is an anti-social purpose which should be frustrated by the establishment of a national scheme.
  I challenge the right hon. Gentleman tonight, as I have done previously, to let us have a national debate on this subject. Let us have a grand debate of the nation on the subject, and let us have it as soon as possible, but let it be a fair debate and let it be based on the information which he must now possess. Let him now come clean and tell us all the facts of the situation, and, if possible, let him tonight tell us what his own proposals are.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, last Thursday, announced today's business the Leader of the Opposition said that the Opposition had exercised their rights in respect of Supply Days to discuss this matter as a kind of tenth anniversary party of the National

  145
  Insurance scheme. Indeed, as I listened to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I almost thought at moments that he was about to place ten candles on the Dispatch Box to celebrate the birthday party.
  I was forcibly made to recall the most famous of all birthday parties, that of A. A. Milne, which, the right hon. Gentleman will recall, begins:
  "When I was one I had just begun,
  When I was two I was nearly new."
  But the right hon. Gentleman perhaps did not remember how it concludes. At least, judging from his speech I do not think that he did.
  "But now I am six I am clever as clever,
  So I think I'll be six now for ever and ever."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) spent a good deal of his speech in discussing a scheme which, of course, is very much older than the National Insurance scheme, the war pensions scheme. The Committee was reminded from time to time, very rightly, that although great changes were made after the war, as a result of the Coalition Government's deliberations on the subject during the war—and it is an impressive fact that at the height of the war the preliminary work for the introduction of these schemes was being carried out despite all our other national preoccupations—none the less social insurance in this country has a much longer pedigree than ten years.
  It so happens that two of the greatest men who have ever served this country and the House of Commons, the father of the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), in the early days of social insurance, both laid the foundations on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, as he would be the first to admit, with the Coalition Government's work behind him, was later able to build.
  It would be unfair to those who have worked on this matter in the public service and elsewhere for many years if the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is having a tenth birthday celebration tonight were allowed to obscure the fact that social insurance in this country goes back a long time.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I began by referring not to the tenth anniversary, but to the half century of social insurance associated with the name of my great compatriot. I did not forget the pioneers.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would never accuse the right hon. Gentleman of a lack of historical memory.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East dealt with the war pension scheme and said that it was not a matter on which he had very much criticism. The criticism on which he spent most time was that I did not summon the Central Advisory Committee with sufficient frequency. I would not say that that was a very damaging criticism. The Central Advisory Committee is a very valuable body. It is also a body consisting of a number of very busy men, and I can tell hon. Members that I have discussed with the Advisory Committee itself the question of the frequency of its meetings. I have said that while I am always at its disposal when it wishes to discuss things with me, or to put a point of view to me, I shall not summon it regularly just far the sake of having a meeting. I do not believe that that is the right way to take public voluntary service from responsible and busy people.
  It is also a fact that the Advisory Committee includes a large number of people, including hon. Members from both sides of the Committee, whom I have the pleasure of seeing much more frequently than one sees the Central Advisory Committee as a whole, and who are representative of the ex-Service organisations as such. The right hon. Gentleman must leave it to the Minister of the day from time to time to decide how frequently he is entitled to use the time of very busy people.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the Welfare Service and the Handicrafts Training Scheme. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that the Welfare Service is perhaps more valuable than it has ever been and that it is doing an extremely efficient job of work. When the right hon. Gentleman was referring to visiting older war widows, which was arranged a short time ago, he drew attention to the number who required financial or other help. When he sought to draw a moral from that,

  147
  he overlooked the fact that the report related to visiting which took place before the recent substantial increase in benefits. He makes a mistake if he assumes that since the increase the position is necessarily the same.
  Mr. Marquand: We have been at a slight disadvantage in that the debate took place before the publication of the next report. Will that be available soon?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If he is talking of the Report of my Department, I cannot give a date of publication because I am in the hands of the printers. The Report on War Pensioners, which I make in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health, is very nearly, but not quite, ready. The right hon. Gentleman was referring to events which took place about two years ago, and his criticism, therefore, is perhaps not to be taken as unduly damaging.
  The right hon. Gentleman then turned to the theme which he has very often raised in this House—the provision for widows, their children, and dependent children generally. He referred to the recent work of Mr. Peter Marris. There again, as the Committee was reminded by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the interviews reported in Mr. Marris's book took place not only before the recent increase in benefits generally, under this Session's Act, but also before the increase made specifically for widows' children under the Act of 1956. In that case, therefore, it is perhaps dangerous to draw an assumption based upon facts as they may have been two increases ago.
  Mr. Marquand: This evidently strengthens the case that I put for a new inquiry, which would bring us up to date.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not sure that an inquiry over a very limited area which is now not up to date strengthens the right hon. Gentleman's case. I took note of what he had to say, but considerable sources of information are already available. I am not convinced that there is any case for a special or ad hoc inquiry, although I shall watch the matter from time to time.
  Let me return to the treatment of children. I believe that less credit was given than ought to be for the provision
  148
  that is made for children at present. The right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that provision for children generally—not only widows' children—has been improved out of proportion to most other improvements which have taken place under the National Insurance scheme.
  Under the National Insurance Act of 1946 the provision for children consisted of 7s. 6d. for the first child; no National Insurance provision at all for any other children, and family allowance at 5s. The present provision for children generally is 15s. for the first child; 7s., plus 8s. family allowance for the second; and 7s., plus 10s. family allowance for the third child and subsequent children.
  Those totals, of 15s. for the first two and 17s. for the other children, amount, in cash terms, to an increase over 1948 of 100 per cent. for the first child, 200 per cent. for the second and 240 per cent. for the rest, or, if one takes real terms—which are much more convincing—29 per cent. increase for the first child, 92 per cent. for the second, and 119 per cent. for the third. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's point that special provision ought to be made for children is one that I fully accept—and I can say with due respect that it is one that we have accepted not only in words, but in the provisions that we have made.
  The width of the debate, and the task which the right hon. Member rightly said has been imposed upon me in replying, is an indication of the extremely wide scope of my Department's activities, and I shall necessarily have to confine what I say to an attempt to deal with a number of the major points which have been raised.
  This is the day when the late-age entrants begin to receive their pensions, and I want to say how glad I am to know that the right hon. Member for Llanelly is one of them, and how sorry I am that his earnings as a Member of this House inhibit him from receiving this pension. I express the hope that the electors of Llanelly may very soon make him eligible to draw his benefit.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Shall I send the right hon. Gentleman a note of my majority at the last Election?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is very rash to be boastful about majorities, as many former Members have discovered from time to time.

  149
  Apart from this very big increase in the number of pensioners because of the late-age entrants who come into benefit today, this debate marks the ten-year period of the operation of the National Insurance Act. Most of the debate has referred, with rather varying emphasis, to the real contribution which that legislation, adapted and developed as it has been, has made to the happiness and welfare of a great many of our fellow countrymen.
  There is another side to the picture which was touched upon by my hon. Friends the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). It is a fact that this scheme had, from the beginning, a built-in financial problem, which derived from the fact that from the beginning contributions were based on what would be actuarially necessary for someone entering the scheme at 16; whereas benefits, including pensions, were paid to people some of whom have never contributed at all under the scheme operated today, and others who have so contributed for a very short time.
  That fact was contrary to the recommendations of Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, who recommended that the retirement pension—I speak from memory—at the rate of 24s. should not come into full payment for twenty years, that would have meant until 1968. In those circumstances, it was expected from the beginning that the scheme would go into deficit, and from the very beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's own Act provision was made for Exchequer assistance to the scheme over and above the statutory Exchequer contribution; and it is, therefore, a remarkable fact that it is only this year that the scheme has actually gone into deficit.
  Of course, the other side of the medal is that the provisions, particularly in regard to pensions, are enormously valuable to the recipients. I gave the figures to the House the other day and I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I repeat them. A man aged 65 with a wife aged 60 who comes on pension today gets a pension of a capital value of no less than £2,650. If he comes on pension today, his contributions and those of his employer together towards that pension cannot exceed £210, and even in the case of a man retiring as far
  150
  off as 1978 the total pension contribution of himself and his employer together will be no more than £970, that is, of course—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: That is contribution under this scheme.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, that is taking the contributions under the old scheme to the maximum possible, and that is why I expressed it as being that no person coming on pension at this time could have contributed more.
  Thus, so far from accumulating an adequate fund, the scheme, having acquired a fund precisely one-tenth of the size necessary were it funded as a private scheme sometimes is, is now going into deficit. The formidable nature of the burden which that has placed on the community was brought out strikingly in the Report of the Government Actuary on this Session's Bill and I wish to read from paragraph 20 of the Report:
  "The capital value of pensions and other National Insurance benefits will be increased under the Bill by over £8,000 millions to about £42,000 million; of this total, £5,000 million's (an increase of about £1,000 millions) is in respect of pensions now in payment. These figures are a measure of the charge already undertaken by the community for National Insurance benefits, and any future improvement in benefit must add to this charge. The National Insurance and Reserve Funds now amount to about £1,500 millions and a further £23,000 millions of the capital liability for benefits will be met in due course from the contributions of insured persons and employers. The balance of £17,500 millions remains to be met by the Exchequer from taxation, £4,000 millions by supplements to conrtibutions and £13·500 millions by grants to meet the annual deficits."
  It is against that financial background that the Committee has to consider this, if it wishes, as I am sure it does, to consider the matter in a responsible manner.
  I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Llanelly said about the desirability of keeping this on a true contributory basis. I suggest that once these benefits become largely and predominantly financed out of taxation, it becomes increasingly difficult to pay them as of right, and without proof of need, to all sections of the community. I believe that that view is strongly held by the trade union movement. Therefore, it necessarily involves our facing the fact that the scheme has now gone into deficit, and in a few years' time the deficit will

  151
  accumulate rapidly if the scheme stands as at present.
  This year we have placed in the Estimates—it was necessarily no more than an estimate—the sum of £14 million, it may well need to be more, as being provision for the deficit over and above the Exchequer contribution of £125 million. Next year the deficit will certainly be over £50 million on the present basis and after that the figure rises at a considerable speed to £235 million in 1964–65 and £475 million in 1979–80.
  It is against that background that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East comes forward and says that we ought to accumulate a very large fund. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, as I would say to the Committee, that the first call on the contributors in those circumstances is not the accumulation of the fund, but the mastery of the deficit.
  Impressed though I was by the impressive tribute which the hon. Member for Coventry, East paid to the merits of private enterprise and the wisdom of the National Union of Mineworkers in investing its funds in a number of progressive private enterprise companies, I think that he must face the fact, as the Committee must, that to accumulate a fund by way of additional contributions, the contributions have to deal, first, with this emerging deficit, and if they are to serve also to amass a surplus, this would involve placing on contributors very heavy additional burdens indeed.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, East said, "That does not matter; they will be graded; the lower-paid worker will not pay more; it will all be placed on the higher-paid worker." That, I understand, is a proposal which has been discussed in many quarters. I hope that the Committee will bear in mind how substantial that burden would have to be. Dealing with the deficit alone, if we dealt with it on that basis, would involve a quite considerable increase.
  I understand that I cannot refer to an interesting work of fiction, which has been discussed earlier today, because, under rules of order, as it would involve legislation one cannot refer to it, at least not in detail; but it is certainly a fact that very heavy contributions indeed would have to be imposed on people
  152
  under any such scheme earning no more than £15 a week. When the hon. Member for Coventry, East says, perhaps hopefully, that the appeal of wage related pensions may be very strong in the country, I wonder whether he has given sufficient weight to the lack of appeal which there would be for very substantial contributions of this kind. It is not the answer to say that they would fall only on the better paid worker.
  The better paid worker already, under our graded system of taxation, bears a considerable burden, mitigated, it is true, under this Government, but still substantial, and to put on him the very heavy contribution which would be involved in the accumulation of a fund of anything like the size that the hon. Gentleman has in mind would require very serious thought.
  Nor do I accept for a moment his view, and that which his right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East expressed in a letter in the Manchester Guardian about a week ago, that the creation of a fund of this kind would enable the economy to pay higher benefits because it would increase savings. I do not see why it is to be taken for granted that the creation of a compulsory fund financed by stiff contributions from the better paid would increase the net total of savings at all. It would certainly seriously affect—and here the hon. Member for Coventry, East was taken to task very brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East—the existing private pension schemes which play a major part now in providing capital for investment.
  It would reduce private savings quite substantially, and, in the absence of evidence, it is a really surprisingly naive economic assumption to assume that the imposition of compulsory savings of this kind would result in any substantial increase in net savings and investment. If that does not take place, that argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, and the hon. Member for Coventry, East, that the community would be able to sustain the burden of these higher pensions, becoming ever higher, through the mysterious workings of something called "dynamism" falls to the ground, and then we come back to the point that this castle in the air is to be erected on the

  153
  insubstantial foundation of an existing fund, with existing liabilities, running heavily into deficit.
  Perhaps I may now refer to one or two other things that the hon. Member for Coventry, East said. I was sorry, I must say, that he used the name of a friend of many of us in this House, the late "Geordie" Buchanan, to cast a reflection on the officials of the old Ministry of Pensions. I do not believe that "Geordie" Buchanan would have agreed with that. [Interruption.] He may well, as many of us in this House do, have said in a light-hearted way something he did not expect to be repeated as a serious statement of view across the Floor of the House or of the Committee.
  I must say, as one whose daily job it is to work with many officials of that old Ministry who are in my Department today, that it is not true, and I do not believe it is true, that, before Mr. Buchanan's coming there, they acted in a manner calculated to secure that only the smallest possible payments were made to the pensioners, as the hon. Member suggested. I must repudiate that. I thought that it was a most unhappy and unfortunate observation.
  The hon. Gentleman also made an attack upon the private pension schemes—this "new feudalism" designed to tie people to their present employment. Some of the newer schemes—I do not want to mention names, as it would be invidious—do provide for vesting and preservation of rights. This directly repudiates the suggestion that they were designed to tie people to their work. I do not know whether this onslaught on the new feudalism applies also to those bodies that have been very prominent in this field—the nationalised industries, the local authorities and some of the most progressive businesses in the country—but the development of these schemes has been an extraordinarily healthy one.
  Most of them have developed out of all recognition in recent years. I welcome that development. It has contributed to savings, it has contributed to good industrial relations, and it has contributed to the development of higher standards in old age for a considerable section of the population. I know the hon. Gentleman's point that everybody does not share in this development, but I should have
  154
  thought that it was a peculiarly mean-spirited approach to grumble about something that helps a considerable number of people just because it does not help everyone.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Coventry, East really was quite unfair when he described these as subsidised schemes because they enjoy the arrangements that they have enjoyed under successive Governments, varied from time to time, in respect of taxation. He said that they were subsidised to the extent of £100 million a year. Let us analyse that. First, let us take the employers' contributions. As I understand, those contributions count as an allowable expense for Income Tax in exactly the same way as do wages. Many of them are looked at, in some ways, as deferred wages. I have not heard it suggested that firms should be prevented from increasing wages because it enables them to pay less Income Tax, or that wages are, therefore, subsidised as a result.
  Let us take the employee's contribution. It is true that in respect of some part of it, that relating to pensions and other long-term benefits, there is a tax concession, but the pensions themselves are taxable when they actually come to be paid, and although it is perfectly true that they may, therefore, at that time, be taxed at a lower rate—as a result of lower income—it is really not a very severe criticism of a scheme which, in this way, encourages most valuable saving; saving which, I would repeat, is of the very greatest value to the economy.
  Therefore, I must say that I wholly disagree with the hon. Member for Coventry, East in his attack on these schemes. We welcome their growth and hope to see it go forward unchecked.
  Mr. Crossman: It is important to get this matter clear. I said that the schemes vary, some being absolutely first-rate with full transferability of pension rights. It is unjust that the Minister should say that this is an attack on some of the schemes. Secondly, I pointed out that if tax concessions are to be permitted to these schemes, it is high time that the Government should supervise them and ensure that their standards are the highest and not the lowest. Thirdly, I pointed out that in the case of local authority schemes and Civil Service schemes transferability has been achieved. I also pointed out

  155
  that since it has been achieved in those schemes it could be extended elsewhere. If the Minister is to argue seriously, he should take the merits of the argument and not make cheap debating points.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I leave the Committee to judge, and, indeed, the hon. Member, when he has the agreeable task of reading his own observations in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. I leave him to judge whether that part of his speech was not a calculated attack on the private pension schemes. The reference to "new feudalism" could have no other context, and I am perfectly content to leave it there and to the hon. Gentleman himself to judge when he reads it in HANSARD.
  I agree with something that he said—or about half of it—in relation to the original National Insurance scheme when he stated that no one foresaw inflation. I thought he was being a little unkind to his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, said:
  "The House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the Government's intention to hold the cost of living at about 31 per cent. over the September, 1939, level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1742.]
  It will not, perhaps, add to the affection with which the hon. Member for Coventry, East is held in certain quarters that he should have recalled that unhappy thought to his right hon. Friend.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelly made an interesting speech. He made the point—and I hope he will forgive me if I do not deal with it again—that the private occupational schemes were subsidised. He will, of course, appreciate that they are not subsidised, and I certainly did not understand him to take the line of his hon. Friend that there was anything particularly disagreeable about these schemes.
  The right hon. Gentleman put forward the interesting idea that he has put forward previously about constant attendance allowance in connection with the long-term sick. The right hon. Gentleman himself realises how far that suggestion goes to import a provision of
  156
  the Industrial Injuries scheme into National Insurance, thereby altering the relationship between the two schemes. It would in any event, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, inevitably be a very costly business.
  Mr. J. Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no time to give way now. There are about 300,000 long-term sick, on sickness benefit, under retirement pension age. That is probably the answer to the question that the right hon. Gentleman intended to ask.
  Mr. Griffiths indicated assent.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was right.
  How many of these would qualify under the ordinary conditions of constant attendance allowance I cannot say, but it would be quite impossible, in respect of those people when they came up to retirement pension age if they were still in need of constant attendance, to withdraw the allowance. When we come to the higher age group who are drawing retirement pension we must allow for the fact that the numbers proportionately in the same category would, with the process of age, be larger. This would be a very substantial change and one affecting the relationship between the two schemes. It is, therefore, not one that I would like lightly to encourage, though of course, I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to it.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) gave a most vivid description of some of the problems and experiences connected with war pensions. But I thought he was far too modest when he attributed to me credit for the F.E.P.O.W. scheme when, as the Committee knows, he played the greatest possible part in that, and it is to him that the Far Eastern prisoners of war owe the fact that we were able to use the Japanese assets successfully. It is characteristic of my hon. and gallant Friend's modesty that he attributed to me a thing which stands eternally to his credit.
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

  TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to constitute a Council on Tribunals, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salaries or fees payable under that Act to the chairman and other members of any such Council or any committee thereof, the allowances so payable for members of any such Council or committee, and the expenses so payable of any such Council or committee or their members.
  Resolution agreed to.

  WATER [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer powers to meet deficiencies in the supply of water due to exceptional shortage of rain and to revoke, with savings, Defence Regulations 50A and 56, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State in consequence of the passing of the said Act of the present Session, and

  (b) of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948. or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.

  Resolution agreed to.

  UGANDA (MALNUTRITION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. John Stonehouse: The House today has been debating the tenth anniversary of one aspect of our great Welfare State. It is an interesting coincidence that another aspect of our Welfare State was reported on this morning with the Report of the Food Standards Committee, which showed that our standards of food consumption in this country are very high indeed. They were referred to in the News Chronicle editorial this morning, which said that the miserable days of mass
  158
  malnutrition are now fading in our memory and that Britain has perhaps one of the best standards of food consumption in the world.
  That is certainly true of Britain, but it is not true of many of the Colonies for which we are responsible. That is why I want to refer to the problem of malnutrition in Uganda, because in Uganda it is extremely serious. There is, in fact, in Uganda mass malnutrition which is absolutely deplorable and the most vigorous attention should be applied to deal with it.
  The malnutrition in Uganda is not only making adult workers listless. It is also helping to kill thousands of children before their time. Malaria is the principal cause of death in Uganda, but malnutrition is the second most serious cause of death. The figures for child mortality in Uganda are incredibly bad. In January, I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the figures for child mortality, but he was unable or unwilling to give the facts. There are, however, other sources, including one which the Secretary of State himself sent to me last year, the report of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition, which was published in 1956.
  That report showed that the average child mortality in Uganda is about 400 per thousand up to the age of 14. That is to say that 40 per cent. of the children under the age of 14 die, which is an incredible figure in comparison with our experience in this country, where only three children per thousand die up to the age of 14. That is ·3 per cent. in this country compared with 40 per cent. in Uganda. Malnutrition in Uganda is therefore having a serious effect on the child population.
  The child population in Uganda is about one-third of the total population of 5½ million. There are some 1¾ million children under the age of 10 and almost 1 million children under the age of 6. Therefore, the problem of malnutrition is vital for children in Uganda. Not only do many of them die, but because of their bad food consumption during their early years they become weak and less resistant to infection and disease later in life. This problem is not only a problem of life and death. It is also a problem of economics, because we cannot expect a country to have a buoyant economy when its people are underfed, and that is the

  159
  case with millions of people in Uganda today. It is estimated that some two-thirds of the child population have protein deficiency and that no fewer than 30,000 children every year are shown at clinics to be suffering from protein deficiency.
  I have purposely given the Under-Secretary of State details of the questions I want to discuss so that he can refute them, for I am not trying to make a party political attack on him. I hope that by ventilating this subject we shall help to deal with this terrible problem. The question I ask him is, which Government Department in Uganda is responsible for tackling this problem of malnutrition? Is it the Medical Department? Or does the Medical Department say that it is not its responsibility, that the Medical Department is responsible merely for treating patients and not for dealing with the wider problem of malnutrition? Is it the province of the Agricultural Department? Is it the problem of the Education Committee?
  I should like to have an answer to this question, because so far in answer to Parliamentary Questions my hon. Friends and I have not yet got a satisfactory reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), for instance, on 17th June, asked what measures were taken in East Africa to co-ordinate the attack on this problem of malnutrition. I admire the Under-Secretary's technique in replying to Parliamentary Questions, but I thought that on 17th June, in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, he really excelled himself. The Question was about measures taken against malnutrition. The Under-Secretary of State in reply gave details of the research work being undertaken, and we had an impressive list of research organisations investigating this problem.
  I say to the Under-Secretary of State that this is not good enough. We have had research on this problem for years. I believe that there is an hon. Member in this House who was a member of a committee which investigated this problem before the war. We have had research. What we want now is a bit of action, and as far as one can tell there has not been enough action on the
  160
  part of the departments in Uganda to deal with this problem.
  The main problem as it relates to children is that of providing enough protein to make up for the deficiency in their diet. It is, of course, a question of education, but it is also a question of making available protein foods which are not normally available in their diets.
  In many countries there have been very useful experiments conducted with the supply of milk powder. For instance, in British Guiana for the last four years there has been a very useful experiment in providing various milk foods as well as other protein foods in the schools. I believe that in St. Kitts there has also been a supply of milk powder for quite a long period and that it has shown itself of value in improving the protein intake of the children. I believe that in Nyasaland milk powder has been provided for a long period.
  Why has this milk powder not been provided in Uganda? I believe that they are beginning to import it, but on such a paltry scale that only a few thousand children can enjoy the benefit of it.
  When the Church World Service, which has been undertaking a very energetic campaign to import U.N.I.C.E.F. milk powder, tried to develop its import, it received in the early stages a great deal of official obstruction. I am glad to note that that obstruction is beginning to die down. One understands that voluntary organisations which have agreed to receive this Church World Service milk powder have been told that if they do so the official milk powder, which is also being imported, will not be made available to them, and vice versa.
  I hope that that is not so and that official departments will welcome all voluntary provisions of milk power as well as make large imports of the powder from U.N.I.C.E.F. I want the Under-Secretary of State also to consider having a large-scale programme for the importation of milk powder from New Zealand so that we may help that country to deal with her excess of dairy products and at the same time deal with malnutrition in Uganda.
  Again, in the school-feeding programme there has been a lack of initiative on the part of the department responsible. There

  161
  is a school-feeding official, but I understand that she has been handicapped in her very excellent work and that no official arrangements have been made for the supply of protein foods to the schools. The school-feeding programmes are haphazard. Headmasters make their own arrangements and very often only the most primitive kind of foods can be provided. One hears of attempts to cook the food under a tree in bad conditions, and of a headmaster having to keep the sugar under his own bed. The Education Department should make itself responsible for these things and should see that there is an adequate school-feeding programme and that protein supplementary foods are provided in the school diet. This has been done in British Guiana with extremely good results.
  Malnutrition affects not only the children but adult workers. In some years 100,000 immigrants come over the frontiers into Uganda. They take jobs and earn low rates of pay in and around Kampala and in the plantations and they are unable to buy the whole range of foods which is necessary to give them the protein intake that they should have in their diets. Certain ration scales are laid down on the plantations but in some cases exemption is allowed to employers. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to give details of these exemptions and say why they are allowed.
  In and around the towns, particularly Kampala and Jinja, the feeding arrangements are inadequate. Even in the town planning of the new industrial estate at Kampala, which was built a few years ago, no provision was made for African feeding establishments. All these details illustrate a certain lack of initiative in dealing with this problem of malnutrition. I hope that it will be possible for the responsibility to be allocated in Uganda and that a really energetic effort will be made to deal with the problem.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Beresford Craddock: Everyone will agree with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) that the subject which he has raised is very important. The purpose of my brief intervention is simply to make this comment.
  I say with great respect that in my view the hon. Gentleman gave what appeared to me, and will indeed appear to many others, to be a rather misleading
  162
  account of the situation, indicating that very little has been done in this important matter in Uganda. That, as I can say from my own experience, is not the case. The hon. Gentleman kindly referred to me in connection with a Committee which was set up in 1934 by the then Governor to investigate and make recommendations concerning this very important problem of malnutrition and diet. That Committee was composed of Europeans and Africans, under the chairmanship of the then Director of Medical Services. We had very many meetings. We had before us managers and owners of many plantations and shambas, and took a very great deal of evidence and gave a great deal of thought and anxious consideration to this problem. Ultimately, we made what I hope was a very interesting report, suggesting certain lines of research, and, indeed, from that very moment the practical application began in a tentative way.
  During my six and a half years working in Uganda, my activities were many and varied. Among other things, I was in charge of two very large shambas, one growing coffee and rubber and the other growing tea, and we had a large African labour force. I got my managers who were in charge of these plantations very interested in the problem of nutrition and proper diet for the workers. As the hon. Gentleman opposite rightly said, in many cases—in fact, I should say in the majority of cases in those days—rations were distributed free by the employer to the African labour and we tried all sorts of experiments.
  The real trouble was to get the Africans to try out, so to speak, the various diets that were recommended by the medical authorities. Week after week, the head boy in charge of the labour used to come with great trepidation saying that he could not get the men and their wives and families to try out these various diets which were recommended. In my view, the crux of this problem is to persuade the Africans to try out these various diets. When they have been persuaded to try them, I am sure that we shall have gone a very long way towards solving what is undoubtedly a very important problem indeed.
  Finally, it is hardly fair to say that the very high infant mortality in Uganda is entirely due to malnutrition. I am

  163
  sure that the hon. Gentleman and everyone who knows these territories will agree that there is a great deal of hereditary disease amongst the people of Uganda in all provinces, and that again is another factor which has been and is being tackled, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree with me that a great deal of work has been done over a very long period; that excellent work continues to be done, and that there are very fine programmes of research, and, indeed applied work, in the field now being planned to be carried out in the years to come.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): As the House knows, the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), who has raised this important subject tonight, has himself been closely associated with the people of the territory, and this has been reflected in the knowledgeable manner in which he has dealt with the subject this evening. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock), from the wide knowledge which he has gained there, has also been able to say something on this subject.
  The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions and has made a lot of suggestions, and I wish to say to him that I will study these suggestions. I am grateful to him for them, and will deal with as many as time allows, but first I want to say something about the relationship of child mortality and malnutrition.
  Although malnutrition is certainly a major cause of mortality among children, as my hon. Friend has said, nevertheless, it is closely associated with other factors, not the least of which is personal hygiene. I want to make it clear that, while the problem of malnutrition is important, it cannot be considered in isolation from other conditions which contribute to this problem in the Protectorate.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 28th January about statistics of child mortality was misleading, in that such statistics are given in the Report of the East African Royal Commission and in
  164
  the Interim Report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Nutrition. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the memorandum submitted to the Royal Commission and published as Appendix 7 of its Report, in which figures are given for fertility and child mortality. In earlier passages of this Appendix, however, a clear indication is given of the very doubtful validity of the figures on which these conclusions were based, although they were the best approximation then available from the census of 1948. I have not time to quote from the Report, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at page 462, towards the end, under "General Considerations", he will see what I mean.
  As for the Interim Report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Nutrition, that was a report on a survey conducted in six isolated villages in five districts in the Protectorate and it cannot be regarded as representing accurately the position in the Protectorate as a whole.
  Turning to deaths among children under one year, the 1948 census indicated an infant mortality rate of approximately 160 per thousand for the whole of Uganda. No other specific rates are available relative to age groups, and therefore one cannot quote any figures about child mortality with confidence in their accuracy. It is true that birth and death rates are recorded in all districts in Uganda, but data are too unreliable for use in calculating the rate of child mortality. An Advisory Committee on vital statistics has been set up, and it is to make recommendations to the Government for improving the realiability of returns. The next population census, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, is to be held in 1959.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this important question of mortality rates, would he confirm that Mr. Goldthorpe, in his paper to the Royal Commission, drew a conclusion that in fact went further than mine, namely, that half the children die before reaching the age of 13?
  Mr. Profumo: Of course I have read that paper but I thought I ought to place on record the fact that the Report to which the hon. Gentleman was referring

  165
  when my right hon. Friend replied explains that the figures are unreliable. I am not denying the general tendency, but it ought to be put in its right relationship.
  Now I should like to say a few words about child welfare clinics. At the present dine it is only in the more sophisticated areas of the Protectorate that parents are willing to use child welfare clinics as distinct from sick children's clinics, so the Government are paying greater attention to welfare work in sick clinics which are held in most hospitals and dispensaries and now total 253 throughout the Protectorate. Eight clinics are devoted exclusively to child welfare work, and these are in operation in Kampala, Jinja and Mbale. In addition, selected rural dispensaries throughout the Protectorate are being converted into health centres, which will include general clinics. Eight of these dispensaries are being converted this year.
  Now about school meals. Funds are not available to establish a free school meal service in day schools but parents are encouraged to pay a small sum every term towards the cost of a mid-day meal. I am told that on a rough estimate—and I emphasise that this is only a rough estimate—one-fifth of the 2,000 grant-aided primary schools and all rural day secondary schools supply an organised mid-day meal.
  No dried milk powder, groundnuts or fish flour are provided by Government as diet supplements for schools. Schools which provide meals purchase food that is available locally and—this is an important point—that is acceptable to tribal prejudices. These, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are very strong on matters of diet. Such meals as are provided normally include beans, peas or groundnuts in the diet. Fish flour, suitable for human consumption, is not at present available in Uganda, but experiments in its manufacture are going on.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the quantities of dried milk available in Uganda. Some 15 tons of dried milk has been received from U.N.I.C.E.F. for distribution in the Protectorate in 1958. U.N.I.C.E.F. also intends to import 45 tons of dried milk into Uganda next year. A small quantity of this milk is used for demonstration purposes at district training
  166
  centres and at Red Cross clinics; the remainder is issued through the Government and mission medical units to mothers and young children suffering from malnutrition. A further 15 tons of dried milk given by the Church World Service of the U.S.A. is distributed to under-nourished children in Buganda. Some local governments subsidise the sale of dried milk at their district clinics, and considerable success has been achieved in encouraging African shop-owners throughout the Protectorate to stock non-fatty dried milk for sale to the public.
  Turning now to nutrition among adults specifically, the Uganda Employment Ordinance does not place a statutory obligation on employers to provide their employees with food. The employment rule empowers the Labour Commissioner to require employers to provide rations according to a specified minimum scale. These rules have been applied to all employers whose labour is recruited under contract and from a distance. They are not applied to employers whose employees are locally engaged and who return to their homes daily.
  The Public Works Department and other official departments feed employees only in certain remote areas of the Protectorate where food is not readily available in sufficient quantity and at reasonable prices in markets and shops. However, experiments are taking place now to assess the value and popularity of mid-day meals provided by the Public Works Department for major working units in urban areas.
  The hon. Gentleman asked who was responsible for dealing with problems of nutrition. The Health Education Section and Nutrition Unit of the Medical Department, in conjunction with the Education and Community Development Departments, try to educate the local people in simple elements of a sound diet by means of talks, books, pamphlets, posters, radio talks, health weeks, country shows, and so on. Balanced diets are now being given in all hospitals, and this also has an educative effect. In addition, the Community Development Department is co-operating with U.N.I.C.E.F., the Red Cross and the Medical Department in training mothers in child care.
  A discussion of the steps which are being taken to counteract malnutrition would be incomplete, however, without

  167
  mention of the valuable contribution of research. I should like, therefore, to congratulate the staff of the East African Medical Survey and Research Institute on the progress which they are undoubtedly making in this important field.
  There is a nutritionist post in the Medical Department of Uganda which was filled until recently when the lady holding the post left on getting married. With the assistance of the Applied Nutrition Unit we are trying to recruit a successor, but nutritionists are in short supply in this country. The Director of Medical Services is considering a proposal to send a local officer for training in the United Kingdom, which would have its advantage in the long term.
  I have tried in a very short space of time—and I would emphasise to hon. Members that this is an incomplete picture because of the lack of time—to show what measures the Government are already taking in the fight against malnutrition. I should like hon. Members to be sure that they do not interpret this as evidence of complacency either on my part or on the part of the authorities in Uganda. It is certainly not.
  A considerable amount of work is being undertaken in the Protectorate to find the best ways of dealing with the problem. Committees on general and applied nutrition have been set up, and the Nutrition Unit is being further developed. I am sure that the advice drawn from these bodies is, and will be, of the greatest value to Uganda, but, without diminishing their value in any way at all, we should be wrong if we did not clearly recognise that hand in hand with basic dietary problems goes the even
  168
  greater problem of educating the people to make the best use of the proteins available in the Protectorate, which is equally important. Uganda is not short of animal or vegetable proteins. Malnutrition so often stems from the failure to utilise nutritional foodstuffs in good supply and from ignorance regarding the preparation of suitable diets for children in the post-weaning period.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: And from poverty.
  Mr. Profnmo: And from poverty; but from these things often. It may also be due to superstition, lack of hygiene, and, in some areas, a backward economy.
  In these respects the Government encourage, as far as financial resources will allow, the educative work of the Community Development Department, improved agricultural and veterinary methods and a planned programme of economic development.
  All these things when taken together mean that progress is being made in a matter which I do not think we could relegate to anything but first importance. It is for that reason that I am grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this matter tonight and to my hon. Friend for having made a valuable contribution. I emphasise that what I have said represents only part of the picture and that this is something which my right hon. Friend continues to study with the very greatest interest.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOSPITALS
  Manchester Region (Maintenance and Capital Expenditure)
  Manchester Region (Maintenance and Capital Expenditure)
  Salford Royal Hospital
  Salford Royal Hospital
  Ionising Radiations (Code of Practice)
  Ionising Radiations (Code of Practice)
  Royal National Hospital for Tuberculosis, Ventnor (Future)
  Royal National Hospital for Tuberculosis, Ventnor (Future)
  Langdon Hills Hospital (Disposal)
  Langdon Hills Hospital (Disposal)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Transistor Hearing Aids (Children)
  Transistor Hearing Aids (Children)
  Bronchitis Deaths (Miners and Agricultural Workers)
  Bronchitis Deaths (Miners and Agricultural Workers)
  GERMAN FEDERAL JUDICIARY (INVESTIGATION)
  GERMAN FEDERAL JUDICIARY (INVESTIGATION)
  THE LEBANON (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  THE LEBANON (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  YEMEN (SOVIET BLOC ARMS)
  YEMEN (SOVIET BLOC ARMS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bank Rate and Public Works Loan Board Interest Rates
  Bank Rate and Public Works Loan Board Interest Rates
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Insurance Cards (Immigrants from Ireland)
  National Insurance Cards (Immigrants from Ireland)
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Chiefs (Status)
  Chiefs (Status)
SOLOMON ISLANDS
  Employment (Report)
  Employment (Report)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (KING'S LYNN CONSERVANCY) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (SHEERNESS) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to a Select Committee.

FURNITURE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1958
2.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bathurst I beg to move that this Order be approved. The Order amends the Furniture Industry Development Council
612
Order of 1948, which set up a Development Council for the furniture industry. The 1948 Order gave the Council authority, with the approval af the Board of Trade, to impose levies on persons manufacturing domestic furniture, provided that any such charge should be computed so as to yield as nearly as possible an equal sum in each period of twelve calendar months, but not so as to yield more than £75,000 in any period of three years. The Amending Order increases the limit on the maximum amount of the levy, which averages £25,000 a year, to £30,000 a year.
The Council require this increase in order to meet the cost of the work which they consider to be necessary and which the industry wishes to be done. Both sides of the industry have been consulted. The trade unions recommended an increase in the maximum amount of the levy to £33,000 a year; the manufacturers recommended an increase to £30,000 a year; and this figure, as the highest common factor of the advice offered to the Board of Trade, has been included in the draft Order. We further propose, that the maximum amount which may be charged shall be fixed for one year, instead of for three years, as was provided for in 1948. This change also has been approved by the trade organisations concerned and will bring the conditions governing the levy into line with those which regulate the levy imposed by the only other Development Council—namely, the Cotton Board. The Amendment only increases the maximum amount of the levy which may be approved by the Board of Trade, and the Furniture Development Council will continue to have to obtain the approval of the Board of Trade for any levy which they may wish to impose within that maximum amount.
Moved, That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1958, be approved.— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAINAGE RATES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PUBLIC RECORDS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on Recommitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered these two sets of Amendments quite separately. I am suggesting that course, because, as your Lordships will no doubt have observed, the Amendments made by the Select Committee refer to the Bill as it came from another place, whereas the Amendments set down on the Marshalled List refer to the Bill as amended by the Select Committee. With the permission of the Committee, therefore, I propose to take first the Amendments made by the Select Committee, and the first Question is whether these should be now considered.
LORD MANCROFT: I think your Lordships would wish to agree with the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees. I will, accordingly, move that these Amendments be considered first. They are not, strictly speaking, Government Amendments, and do not stand in my name, but if any of your Lordships has questions to ask about them, I will do my best to answer them. I accordingly move that these Amendments be considered.
Moved, That the Amendments made by the Select Committee be now considered.— (Lord Mancroft.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I should like to ask a question for guidance. Some people have been rather concerned—I did not know this until to-day—about
614
the interference with the space in Hyde Park which is allowed for public meetings. It would be possible to put down an Amendment, but the case might be met by a declaration by the Government, and I would ask at what stage that should be asked for.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think that the best reply I can give to the noble Viscount is that, of course, it is within the Standing Orders to consider an Amendment drafted to-day; but it is, on the other hand, very unusual to do so—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is what I feel.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES:—and I think it would probably be better to put down an Amendment at a later stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: At what stage would it be in order for me to ask that the Government should simply make an official statement reaffirming the existing privileges of the public in this matter? That is all I am asking; I am not thinking of an Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It would be quite in order for the noble Viscount to do that to-day, either now on this Question or later this afternoon on the Question that some clause stand part of the Bill, because all the clauses will be considered separately to-day in the second part of these proceedings. Or he could do it on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the Motion that the House consider the Amendments made by the Select Committee, I should like to raise a point for elucidation. The Motion, of course, is not strictly true. The Amendments appearing on the List have not been made by the Select Committee. The first Amendment, to Clause 10, is the work of the Select Committee; all the others upon the List have been made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills. This procedure may line up with precedent, but it is misleading to noble Lords who take a great interest in the work of your Lordships' House and who may think that all the Amendments have been considered

615
by a Select Committee appointed by your Lordships' House, whereas in fact they have not.
I have no quarrel with any of the Amendments, though I am going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, later if he would be good enough to explain points on two of them. But this is an important Bill, and what your Lordships are being asked to do is to insert in this Bill Amendments which have not received strict scrutiny either by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House or by the House sitting as a Committee. There may be no harm in that, but those of us who are rather apt to take Amendments which we are told have been made by a Select Committee as having received scrutiny, are placed in a rather invidious position. I do not think any harm is done, but I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees whether it would not be better, and not quite so misleading to your Lordships, if those Amendments which have been made by a Select Committee were so stated and those Amendments which have been made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills were so stated, so that then we could see the difference between the two and be able to discharge our duties in a more efficient manner. Perhaps the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would answer my question.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The points touched upon by the noble Lord do raise, I think it will be agreed, some matters which are not commonly met with in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has correctly stated that the first only of the Amendments on the List which is headed "Amendments made by the Select Committee" was actually considered and discussed by the Select Committee. It is the fact that all the remainder of the Amendments were not made upstairs in the Committee Room but were made in my Committee Room before me. It is not quite correct for the noble Lord—though I do not blame him for being a little confused in this matter, if I may say so—to say that they were made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills. If they had been made by the Committee on Unopposed Bills delay would have been incurred, because that would have meant the necessity of giving notice of
616
such an additional stage of the Bill. That would have caused some days' delay. The actual position is that these Amendments, other than the first, were made in my Committee Room before me, and that is the correct position. The noble Lord said that consequently these Amendments have not received the scrutiny of anybody else, but I would remind him that these Amendments are before a Committee of the Whole House this afternoon and therefore can receive the scrutiny of the Committee of the Whole House, as do all Amendments to all Bills.
As to the future, I would say only this. The procedure which has been adopted on this Bill is in accordance with precedent—of that I am quite satisfied. I understand that it has been carried out for a great number of years. That is not to say that it is the best procedure, or otherwise: I express no opinion on that at the moment. But it is not new and the same procedure has been carried out on all opposed Bills for a great number of years. The noble Lord may wish to suggest that the procedure should be reviewed, and I think that no Member of your Lordships' House would oppose any sort of review. It may be found that it is the best procedure, or it may be found otherwise.
I hope that I have explained the position. I should like to add this. The noble Lord referred, not at all surprisingly, to the fact that the List bears the heading "Amendments made by the Select Committee" and I think he wishes to suggest that that is misleading. I would only say that other noble Lords might well agree, and that some alteration might be thought out and made to this procedure. But I would again say that if the result of that review was that these Amendments had to be referred to the Unopposed Bills Committee, then delay would be caused; and that delay small though it may be, is now avoided.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to make one further comment. I am grateful to the Lord Chairman for explaining the position. My concern is this: that we in this House, quite rightly, hold Select Committees, which we appoint in the highest possible esteem, and anything that has gone before them we seldom question. It came as a shock to me that when I went to

617
the Chairman of the Select Committee who, I thought, had reviewed these Amendments and asked him whether he would explain one or two points on them, he said, "I know nothing about them; I know less than you do. They never came before my Committee." I think that to have a document placed before your Lordships which says that all these Amendments were made by the Select Committee is an unfortunate misleading of the House. Having said that, I am quite willing to allow the matter to rest in the capable hands of those authorities who have the arranging of these things, and I wish to say no more about it.
LORD SILKIN: I should not like the impression to prevail that my noble friend is a lone voice in this matter. Having seen the list headed "Amendments made by the Select Committee," I must say that I was under a similar impression to that of my noble friend—namely, that these Amendments had been made and it was not open to the House to discuss them at all. That, I now gather from the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is wrong. But that certainly is the impression conveyed to anyone who has not the facilities for making the necessary research. Certainly when I came here I thought we were not going to discuss the Amendments made by the Select Committee—that somehow they were sacrosanct—but only those on the Marshalled List. Apart altogether from any other point made by my noble friend, I hope that this matter will be carefully considered so as to avoid any similar misunderstanding in future.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I would make only one further observation on what has just fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and it is this. I repeat that all Amendments, by whichever Committee they are made, are subject to revision by the whole House in Committee of the Whole House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The first Amendment is the Amendment to Clause 10 at page 11, line 32. I will pause there in case any noble Lord wishes to raise any matter. The next Amendment is to Clause 15 at page 14, line 21. Then Clause 16 at
618
page 14, line 46. Then Clause 17 at page 15, line 28; page 15, line 40; and page 16, line 9. Then the new clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 17.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the Question that that clause stand part, I wish to ask a quite simple question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The first words of subsection (1) of this new clause are:
"The highway authority for the Underpass.…"
Would the noble Lord be good enough to tell us which is the highway authority for the underpass?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: So that we may have the matter in order, I wonder whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, when he replies to the noble Lord's question, would move that the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: On a point of Order, may I ask the Lord Chairman whether we shall reach a stage when he will put the Question, that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Yes.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to.— (Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will now pose my question again. Will the noble Lord tell me who is the highway authority mentioned in the new clause to be inserted after Clause 17?
LORD MANCROFT: As I understand the situation, the answer is this. The works in all these projects will be carried out by the London County Council. The London County Council will, at a suitable date, hand over to the Westminster City Council, as the new highway authority, everything except two items. The first is the underpass, for which the London County Council will remain the highway authority, and the second is a small portion at the north-west corner of Marble Arch, for which I think the Paddington Metropolitan Borough Council will be the highway authority. That is, the Westminster City Council will be the authority for everything except the underpass, for

619
which the London County Council will be the authority, and a small part at the north-west corner of Marble Arch.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Does the noble Lord not consider that it would be far better to transfer the functions of the building, the regulation, the maintenance and the overriding function of this desirable project to one highway authority? Cannot your Lordships see the chaos there is going to be at some future date about the regulation and all the functions that fall upon a highway authority if, as the noble Lord says, at one stage the London County Council are to be the highway authority, at the next stage the Westminster City Council, and at the third stage, for some part, the Paddington Borough Council? I should have thought that in a project of this complexity—and the noble Lord will I think agree that it is complex—to have a multiplicity of authorities to regulate a highway was undesirable. Would the noble Lord tell me this? Who is going to be the highway authority for the overpass? We have an overpass and an underpass, and something that is passed over and under by them. Sometimes the authority is going to be the London County Council, sometimes it is going to be the Westminster City Council and the next time it is going to be the Paddington Borough Council. Could not the noble Lord think of something better than this? I have another question to raise, on another Amendment, which may elucidate still further the complexities of this scheme.
LORD MANCROFT: It sounds complicated, I agree, but I do not think it is quite as complicated as it sounds. If the noble Lord will have in mind Edgware Road, he will realise that the authority responsible for one side of that road is Paddington Metropolitan Borough Council, and for the other side, St. Marylebone Metropolitan Borough Council. That causes no trouble. Then at Oxford Street one side comes under the St. Marylebone Borough Council and the other side under the Westminster City Council. That, too, causes no trouble, and the responsibility for this scheme will cause no trouble when it is completed. The London County Council are, quite rightly, as I think, keeping their control while the long and
620
complicated scheme is under construction. Then they will hand over in the normal way, so that the normal pattern throughout London local government is followed—with the exception, a complicated exception, of the underpass. The underpass is an unusual thing, and the London County Council, unlike the Westminster City Council or the Paddington Metropolitan Borough Council, are familiar with the maintenance of tunnels, particularly those under Thames. For this reason I think they are in the best position to look after the underpass, and it is right that this highly technical and difficult subject should stay with them. But the rest goes in the normal way to the local authorities, and that practice, so far as I know, has never caused trouble in the past. It sounds complicated but I think it will work.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, but he will recall that on the passage of the last Road Traffic Act through this House I was sorely buffeted when the noble Lord kept referring me to "the paramount authority of a highway" and "a highway authority." I only wanted to find out who was the highway authority in this case. I do not want to pursue the matter any further, because perhaps experience will prove that the noble Lord is right. If he is, I shall be the first to be quite satisfied and to congratulate him.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: We come now to the Amendment to Clause 19, at page 16, line 37; then to the first new clause after Clause 20: "For protection of British Transport Commission."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord moves the clause after Clause 20, I have a short point to raise. Here is a clause with fourteen subsections that has suddenly been produced before your Lordships' House, nine months after this Bill was read a second time and passed through all its stages in another place. No word has been said about this matter until now. As I understand it, this new clause safeguards the liabilities and responsibilities of the British Transport Commission if the underpass or its workings, either during construction or subsequently, interfere in any way with the

621
property of the British Transport Commission—which, boiled down, really means the underground railways that run under Park Lane where this project is. I am puzzled, but I expect the noble Lord, with his usual fluency, will satisfy me as well on this point as he has on the other.
Where does the highway authority come in on this clause? It deals not only with the interim period of construction but, it appears to me, with the future, for ever more. It starts by saying that the Council shall do this and the Council shall do that, and in the Bill itself, "the Council" is the London County Council. Responsibility for all the safeguards that are offered to the British Transport Commission for any inconvenience caused by the works is taken away from the highway authority and vested in the London County Council. Would the noble Lord tell me who really will be responsible, right the way through, in the years to come, for the proper maintenance of the underpass? Because in an earlier reply to me I was given to understand that the underpass will be the responsibility of the highway authority; that is, at some time or in some respects, the Westminster City Council, the London County Council or the Paddington Borough Council. I feel that we should have some explanation on this point.
LORD MANCROFT: I will try. This new clause after Clause 20 contains certain provisions for the protection of the British Transport Commission. It is aimed particularly, of course, at protecting the Commission's railway property at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch. I understand that their main concern is that the large-scale excavations required for the two tunnels of the underpass should not affect their station and railway at Hyde Park Corner, which are very close to the site. I understand that this type of clause is common to Works Bills, and is in the usual form; and the clause has been agreed with the Commission. What the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is particularly concerned with is who actually is the authority referred to. The highway authority for the London County Council's underground works, except for the underpass and all but a part of one of the pedestrian subways, after they are built, will be the Westminster City
622
Council. The pedestrian subway exception is the northern Tyburn subway, which will be built almost entirely within the area of responsibility, as I have just indicated, of the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington. The highway authority for the underpass, as I have just said, will be the London County Council themselves unless, of course—though this is not intended—they hand over to the Westminster City Council.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If that is clear to your Lordships, it is more than it is to me. I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord is technically correct in all this, but perhaps he will help me if I put just one further question to him. If, after the underpass has been built for five years and has passed the maintenance period, it is flooded and interferes with the operation of the British Transport Commission's underground railway, who will be responsible—Paddington Borough Council, Westminster City Council or London County Council?
LORD MANCROFT: If before five years are up the underpass is flooded and there is a subsidence, it will clearly be the responsibility of the London County Council. Indeed, there is a new provision earlier in the Bill for that particular point.
LORD CONESFORD: May I ask my noble friend one question? When it was decided to construct this underpass, at what date were the British Transport Commission first asked to give their views?
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I pass to the second proposed new clause, headed "For protection of certain statutory undertakers." It is the last of this batch of Amendments. The Question now is that the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.5 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I now pass to the Marshalled List of Amendments to be moved in Committee on Re-commitment.
Clause 1 [Power of London County Council to carry out works]:
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask a question? I will put it very briefly. Under very old practice, I understand, it has been the custom to permit public meetings to be held in a certain section of Hyde Park by Marble Arch; and also by longstanding public practice it has been permitted to hold processions to take them into the park. At one time in my life it was the subject of disturbance: the park railings were actually burst by the crowd making its way in. The new plan, I am told, will take away the piece of land which is at present used for unrestricted public meetings and the tunnels, so I am told, will not make it easy for processions to enter the park. Therefore, what I suggest is that the Minister should either accept on Report stage a short clause saying that if these facilities are reduced they shall be replaced, or make a carefully worded declaration on behalf of the Government which will ensure the same thing.
I am not, I hope, too exacting in asking this, because Departments, if they are not operating under a law, are rather apt to make their own laws. That actually occurred in the case of Trafalgar Square, which is another place of public meetings and where previously, I am told, it was permitted to distribute literature in reference to demonstrations held in the Square. Recently, organisers of the meetings were told that they had to apply to the police for special permission for every meeting. That was a derogation of the general right. Therefore, people who are interested in these matters—and it goes far beyond any one Party—are anxious that we should have either a new clause (which I suppose I could move on Report) or a clear and considered declaration, not an obiter dictum, from the Government ensuring these public liberties. I have no Amendment to move to-day; I am merely asking a question.
LORD MANCROFT: I think I can meet the noble Lord at once in most of his difficulties. He does not need a declaration. It is already covered in the Bill, because the readjustment as illustrated by the plans which are linked to the Bill shows that there is to be no curtailment whatever of facilities or space for public speakers. There will be a
624
slight change of area, but a compensating area of exactly the same size is being made available to speakers, so that in the end the area available will be exactly the same.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was told that, but I was told that it was unsuitable because it was near the railings and nearer to the noise of traffic.
LORD MANCROFT: I think it is more suitable from the point of view of noise than it was beforehand. I speak with a great deal of experience, having done a lot of public speaking at the corner of Hyde Park. One's opponents used to come along and put noisy motor bicycles near the railings. I can say that there will be no curtailment of the area. I cannot answer the noble Viscount's question about the convenience of processions, which is hardly a matter that can be decided in the Bill. I will certainly inquire of the police authorities how they envisage this problem being met, and I will try to deal with it at a later stage. I am quite certain that there will be no curtailment of civil liberties, but I should like to look at the point about processions and ask the police how they envisage using the park.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am greatly obliged for the consideration which the noble Lord has given to my suggestion. I have been told that it is proposed that a section of the railing should be removed, in case of need, so that processions might enter. Obviously, processions cannot go through a tunnel. The real point is that Parliament should not leave this matter to the police authorities or to some subordinate authority: it is Parliament who is the right custodian of public liberties.
LORD SILKIN: Could the noble Lord say exactly where in the Bill the preservation of Speakers' Corner is provided for? I cannot see it.
LORD MANCROFT: It is not specifically provided for in the Bill, but the plans, which the passing of the Bill automatically approve, contain a new area set out for public speakers. That is intended in the plans.
LORD SILKIN: Is the plan part of the statutory provision? Would it not be better to have a clause, to have it

625
quite clear, than to have this protection by some kind of oblique reference? There is no guarantee that the plan will not be altered; indeed, it is almost certain that it will be. This job is going to take some years, and almost inevitably some alteration will be made. If it is related to a plan not specifically part of the Bill, is there not some danger that this might be squeezed out? Would it not be better to have a provision?
LORD MANCROFT: Of course I will look at that suggestion carefully. The whole of the Bill is related to the plan, merely because you cannot publish a plan of this complexity in a Bill. But I see the noble Lord's point, and I will look at the matter again. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to detract in any way from the liberties enjoyed in the past.
Before we pass to Clause 2, may I make another point on the Motion that Clause 1 stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, put a point to me on Second Reading which I promised to consider. That was the fate of a particularly fine plane tree which stands about twenty yards south-east of the Byron statue, and the portion of Clause 1 to which it refers is the portion which concerns itself with the Southern Apsley link. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked me to see if this tree could be reprieved. As he said, it is one of the finest trees, if not the finest, in the park. I have gone into this matter and have had the whole of the Southern Apsley link taped out on the ground and the possible alternative which might take its place taped out. I regret to say that the tree must come down. It is a magnificent tree, and I regret very much its demise. The only possible alternative would bring down three other trees—not such fine trees, but three others—and it would seriously detract from the efficiency of the whole traffic system. It is difficult to describe the point standing here, but if your Lordships had looked at it, taped out on the ground, you would appreciate that the alternative really would not work. Therefore, I say, with very much regret, that I am afraid this tree cannot be reprieved.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Supplemental provisions as to acquisition of land
(2) At any time after serving a notice to treat in respect of any land an interest in which may be acquired compulsorily under the said section six, but not less than fourteen days after giving the owner and occupier thereof notice of their intention to exercise the powers of this subsection, the Council may enter on and take possession of the land or such part thereof as is specified in the last-mentioned notice without previous consent and without compliance with sections eighty-four to ninety of the Act of 1845 (which prohibit entry before payment of compensation or a deposit):
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "fourteen" and insert "ninety" (days]. The noble Lord said: This Amendment appears upon the Marshalled list because of the most sympathetic reply I received from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, when I raised this point on Second Reading. If noble Lords will look at subsection (2) of Clause 7, they will see that it provides in itself for the making of a compulsory purchase order and sidetracks the accepted procedure providing for notice of compulsory purchase, objection, the hearing of objection, public inquiry and, finally, order by the Minister. I do not object to this short-circuiting if a case has been made out for it, and I think that in this particular case it has been so made out.
The point that I really objected to, however, was that under this subsection the tenants—and there are forty to fifty tenants involved—are to receive only fourteen days' notice before the L.C.C. can step in and compulsorily acquire their property. This is what it means. Two of the properties that are to be compulsorily acquired, and can be acquired by the giving of fourteen days' notice, after this Bill becomes an Act, are Nos. 145 and 146 Piccadilly. Twenty tenants of long standing will be displaced and the majority of them—not all of them; the more wealthy have found other properties to go to—will have to be housed in an expanded and altered No. 144 Piccadilly. It was not until June 5, if my information is correct, and if my memory is also correct, that the L.C.C. said, "Well now, we do not want 144, but we shall want some of the garden; we do not know how much". When the head lessee goes to the Crown—for this is Crown property—to

627
negotiate the new lease and for permission to alter the premises to house the displaced people of Nos. 145 and 146, the Crown say, "We cannot move because the L.C.C. do not yet know the building line; they do not yet know the engineering details." So twenty tenants have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads to be dropped at any fourteen days' notice which the L.C.C. might think fit.
When we come to the other end of the construction, in Knightsbridge, we find a somewhat different problem. A number of small shopkeepers are involved. In Knightsbridge, Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 are lock-up shops. Nos. 10, 12 and 14 are lock-up shops with some kind of premises over the top. Nos. 16, 18, 20 and 22, have upper parts, flats over the top of the shops. There are fourteen tenants, and eleven shop traders. There are a sweetshop, a tobacconist's shop, an invisible mender's, a furrier's, a veterinary surgeon, a shop selling gramophone records, one selling ladies' shoes and another ladies' dresses. They are small, honest shopkeepers who have to carry on a business for as long as it pleases the L.C.C. not to invoke the powers they have, under subsection (2) of Clause 7, to turn them out in fourteen days. Is that fair?
If the proposal in my Amendment to increase the period to ninety days would lengthen the time that it will take to accomplish this admirable reconstruction of Hyde Park Corner, I do not think that I should have put the Amendment down. But the scheme is going to take four years. As recently as the beginning of June the L.C.C. wrote a letter, a copy of which I have here. The valuer of the L.C.C. wrote to the agents who are acting for some of these people in these terms:
"As you have no doubt been advised … at any time after the service of a notice to treat in respect of any land an interest in which may be acquired compulsorily the Council may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice, enter on and take possession of the land or such part as is specified in the notice without previous consent."
They go on to say that the road timetable has not yet finally been determined. I suggest that that would be impossible for these folk; it would cause them hardship. They are small shopkeepers of the type I have mentioned, carrying a stock and doing business to earn the necessary cash to pay the rent. They do not know
628
when they will have to take all their belongings out and dump them on the pavement, except that it must be within fourteen days of the L.C.C. telling them to do it.
I expect the noble Lord will tell me that the L.C.C. are not quite so harsh as that, and that they would not think of doing such a thing. My retort is: then why put it in the Bill? Why not be reasonable from the first? So many such things as this creep into Bills. I suppose it would be impossible for the L.C.C. to act in this way; but I think it is bad for such a power to go into the Bill when the L.C.C. have told the large firms of surveyors who are acting for the more wealthy tenants that they have not yet settled the times and it will be a long time before they do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, knows that very well. I hope your Lordships will agree with my Amendment to take out "fourteen days" and to insert "three months". I do not mind whether the noble Lord alters it to "three calendar months", but I think the ninety days is the least we can put into the Bill in order to give adequate security for favourable and fair treatment in regard to these forty to fifty people who will be affected. It will not affect the progress of this scheme by one moment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("fourteen days") and insert ("three months").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is quite right—the L.C.C. have no intention whatever of acting harshly or doing anything unfair or uncharitable in this matter; that is the last thing they want to do. I think they have gone a good distance out of their way to avoid doing it. On the practical aspect, the L.C.C. state quite firmly that it is always their aim, in exercising compulsory acquisition powers, to give those concerned as long notice as possible before entering upon their land. In this particular case more than the usual efforts have been made. Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Amendment is designed to give a long minimum period of notice to the owners and occupiers of property before the L.C.C.—mark you, after serving notice to treat—enter upon and take possession of land which they may under the powers of the Bill acquire compulsorily.

629
The noble Lord has, I think, indicated—or he indicated last time—that some people who find themselves affected have already brought their objections to the shortness of the period of fourteen days to the notice of the L.C.C. Fourteen days was chosen because of the need expressed by all parties concerned for the road works to begin with the least possible delay. Owners and occupiers whose land was affected were served with the usual notices in accordance with standing orders. Most of those were served in November and the rest in January. So by the time the Bill becomes law all the interests concerned, all the folk whose shops are involved, will have had at least six months' warning already while negotiations for their land are proceeding.
I rather gather from the L.C.C. that they have received no representations on this matter, but if the noble Lord feels strongly about it I can give him an Amendment which will not go the whole way but which will at least concede the validity of his point and act as a token and an earnest of the desire of the L.C.C. to act fairly. I am going to suggest that the noble Lord accepts as a substitute one month. This is the period contained in the model Clause 4 which is generally agreed and has been decided by the Committee who determine these matters as being the right model clause to put into a Bill such as this. It is not as much as the noble Lord wants, I know, but I think it is in accordance with precedent and it cannot possibly be considered to act unfairly against those to whom it may apply. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that, while not going the whole way to meet him, this Amendment does conform to the pattern of the model Clause 4 and that it cannot possibly be considered unfair to those concerned.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think that the noble Lord has met the substance of my noble friend's complaint. It is quite true that, broadly speaking, the shopkeepers know that one day—they do not know when—they are going to be interfered with. The Bill is not yet through, and until it is they cannot be certain even that it is going through. In the meantime, they have to carry and to buy stocks, and they do not know when they have to go out—in one year, two years, or three years; they just do not know
630
and I do not suppose anybody can tell them. I am sure that the L.C.C. could not give them an answer—not even an approximate one. So their position is this: that they stay on and at any moment they receive a notice to treat. Then, having received this notice to treat, within fourteen days as the Bill stands, within one month as the noble Lord is prepared to concede, they are liable to be evicted. That cannot be right. The only practical notice they will have is the fourteen days or one month in which to go out.
It is true that the London County Council would not do it, but it is a very strong bargaining point. These people have had notice to treat and they are asked to agree upon the amount of compensation they are to receive. Hanging over their heads is this threat that if they do not accept what the London County Council thinks it right to offer them, within fourteen days they have to go. It is not right, and I do not think that anybody would suffer by giving these people reasonable notice to dispose of their stocks. Having had the notice to treat they should be given time to dispose of their stocks, pay their rent, and negotiate fairly, on equal terms, on the amount of compensation they should receive. I feel that this is a matter which we should press, for one month is not enough; I consider that three months is not too long.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord said that this is not right. He has been a pillar of the L.C.C. himself and there must have been hundreds of thousands of such negotiations, involving hundreds and thousands of little shopkeepers, furriers, ladies' dressmakers, tobacconists and so on. I wonder why though it has been right in the past, this model clause should not be right at this time. The principle is the same. Is it merely the size of the scheme that is worrying us, not the number of people or their personal interests? The period of one month which I am suggesting has been the accepted procedure for a long time over a large field, and while the noble Lord was himself a member of the L.C.C. I wonder why the principle suddenly has gone wrong and why a sense of injustice suddenly arises.
LORD SILKIN: It never was right, but my attention was never drawn to this model clause. This is the first time that

631
I have come across it; but now it is in the Bill. So far as I know, it was never before in any Bill, and, in any case, I was not a legislator. In those days, when I was in charge, I had no responsibility for passing the laws, but now I have; and I believe this is wrong.
LORD HAWKE: If there is in existence any model clause providing for one month, perhaps Her Majesty's Government may be persuaded to give one month in this case.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord is sympathetic, but actually he is not quite right. The difference between this case and any other is that if the L.C.C. want to acquire these properties compulsorily and go through the process of the existing law as laid down in the 1947 Act, they will have to give notice and hear objections and might have to hold a public inquiry; and the Minister might take six months to make up his mind on whether to allow the L.C.C. compulsorily to acquire these properties. All that is short-circuited by this clause in the Bill, which is in itself a compulsory purchase order. That is one difference.
The next difference is that the L.C.C. have said that they do not want the property for demolition until the end of next October. I will read from a document between the L.C.C. and the head leaseholder of the Piccadilly property:
"With reference to the meeting with you and Mr.—on 14th May, I confirm that the present road-programming envisages that possession of the above-named properties will be required for demolition in October. 1958."
So they envisage three months. On the subject of compensation, the L.C.C. cannot treat on this matter until this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. That is laid down. So within fourteen days of giving notice to treat the shopkeepers may be turned out. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, now advocates to your Lordships that we should revert to legislation by warning. I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government had had one lesson in trying to get away with that dodge. One cannot legislate by warning, because we know what warnings are—and these folk have to get out in fourteen days from the day on which this Bill receives the Royal Assent, if the
632
L.C.C. so desire. They will not desire, for they have said October. I am prepared to accept the end of October.
In a letter written subsequent to that which I have just read out they say that the building, design and engineering data are not yet settled; so, if experience is any guide, it may well be October, 1959, rather than October, 1958. So I press the noble Lord to accept the fact that thirty days is not enough. Model clauses are all right for model conditions, but this is an exceptional condition. If my memory serves me correctly, there are only two precedents—one the South Bank Festival of Britain Bill and the other something similar to that. This is an exceptional Bill, and as the noble Lord admitted on Second Reading that it was not quite fair to provide only fourteen days, I beg him to accept this Amendment. If he does not, I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to express your opinion, in fairness and equity to those who are affected, and over something which will not for one minute delay the construction of this very desirable project.
LORD MANCROFT: Your Lordships will appreciate that I am in a slight personal difficulty because I am appearing as unwilling spokesman for the L.C.C. on the L.C.C.'s requirements. I would ask the noble Lord whether he will allow me to consult the L.C.C. over this matter. I cannot possibly accept ninety days, but we do not want to have a fight over a few days either way if we can reach a solution agreeable to everybody. We may not be able to, but I should like to try.
Before I ask your Lordships to give a decision one way or the other, may I remind your Lordships of two things which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said? Owners of properties required for road schemes throughout the country get one month or fourteen days' notice before entry, according to the Acts applying to them. I suppose a public inquiry will have settled whether in fact they are to be taken over; and this Bill does that here. What your Lordships are being asked to agree to is to go back; although I thought the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was a little naïve in his sudden discovery, late in life, of the evils that the L.C.C. have been perpetrating without his noticing at all, under this old-established system and precedent for

633
one month. The size of the underpass and the magnitude of the scheme do not affect the principle at all. It is the damage to the small shopkeepers with which we are concerned, whether we are dealing with ten yards or ten miles of road.
LORD SILKIN: I would not deny that I may be a little naïve, but it is most unusual for a compulsory purchase to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. In all my experience, which was of housing over many years, there was always a compulsory purchase order, and then, as my noble friend has pointed out, there was an opportunity to resist it—a public inquiry, a Minister's order and then the notice to treat. The owner had all that time. He knew that it was coming, once the compulsory purchase order was made. But here the Act ipso facto is the compulsory purchase order, and that is rather different.
LORD MANCROFT: It is indeed different, but it means that full publicity has been given and that everybody knows, and has known for some considerable time, what is intended. Before the noble Lord took the firm line he has taken I was going to suggest that if he would withdraw his Amendment I would put down an Amendment on the Report stage providing for a period of one month. If he will allow me to reconsider this matter and discuss with the L.C.C. and others concerned what has been said to-day I will certainly put down an Amendment at that stage to raise the period. I hope I may raise the period sufficiently to meet the noble Lord. If I am unable to do so he must then take the decision of the House. But I should prefer that he would be good enough to take that decision then, rather than now, because I cannot possibly go as far as ninety days and I should like to put down one month. I cannot make a further decision until I have had a chance to discuss this matter with the L.C.C., for it is they, not Her Majesty's Government, who have to make the decision; and I feel it would be wrong for me to accept an Amendment without first consulting them. I hope the noble Lord, if he sees fit, will postpone the ultimate decision on the matter until I have a chance of doing so.
3.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord's reputation in your Lordships' House is one of always desiring to help the House and the Opposition; but he is now, if I may use a colloquialism, putting the ball into my court. I do not accept the argument that the noble Lord stands there as the spokesman of the L.C.C.; he is the spokesman of Her Majesty's Government. This Bill is a Government Bill; I do not recognise the L.C.C. as regards this Bill. It is the Government who want to put in the Bill a period of fourteen days; if the L.C.C. act as their agents that is another matter. I do not want the noble Lord to take this as a threat, because I do not like threats, but I can assure him that thirty days will not be enough. I want ninety days, and I think that if he will consult his right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government he will find that he feels the same as your Lordships' House does. I want to give the noble Lord all the chances I can, and therefore I will, with your Lordships' permission, withdraw this Amendment at the present time. But I give him warning now that I shall return to the matter on the Report stage by putting down an Amendment. I would impress this upon him.
If the noble Lord wants to bring up the L.C.C. as his excuse, let me say that the L.C.C., in a letter addressed to the head lessee of Nos. 144-45-46 Piccadilly, on May 19, 1958, said this:
"I confirm that the present road-programming envisages that possession of the above-named properties will be required for demolition in October, 1958."
So the L.C.C. are willing to wait for ninety days before they want it, and I would suspect that the same is true of the Knightsbridge properties. Why then fourteen days? Why thirty days? If I have permission, I intend to withdraw, but I shall return to the subject on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Temporary interference with streets and subways]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to take this opportunity to raise a question regarding temporary interference with streets and subways, and to ask whether it is the intention that work will be completed on the roadways on either side of the approaches to the underpass—that is, the Piccadilly approach and the Knightsbridge approach—and the traffic lanes on either side, before work is started on the approaches to the underpass. Otherwise, I think the traffic conditions will be chaotic there.
LORD MANCROFT: I have not seen the final timed programme for this complicated work, but I know that the engineers, in conjunction with the police, London Transport and the local authority, are working it out most carefully to make sure that the minimum amount of inconvenience and delay is occasioned. That there will be a certain minor degree of chaos is, I am afraid, inevitable.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Certain land to become part of Hyde Park
" .—(1) At such time as, by virtue of section fifteen of this Act, the Apsley carriageway becomes a highway, any land situate to the west thereof, being land comprised in the Piccadilly lands shall, if all interests therein are then vested in the Crown, become part of Hyde Park and accordingly be thereafter under the management of the Minister of Works.
(2) In this section "the Piccadilly lands" has the same meaning as in section six of this Act."
The noble Lord said: Nos. 145 to 148, Piccadilly are Crown property, subject to certain lessees' interests, and are to be acquired under the Bill, by agreement, to enable the Apsley carriageway to be built. Only about half of No. 148 will be needed for the new road, and, as the remaining part between the road and Apsley House is contiguous at its northern end with the boundary of Hyde Park, the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Ministry of Works have agreed that the best use to which it could be put is to add it to the park. I hope that that will please my noble friend Lord Conesford. The L.C.C. are agreeable to the proposal, and the new clause is designed to enable it to be carried out.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power of Minister of Works to erect stands]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I want the help of the noble Lord on this matter. In some previous questions, I put to him some points upon the Amendments, which were alleged to have been put into the Bill by a Select Committee; but I want to know who is the authority in various circumstances. Clause 19 gives power to the Minister of Works to erect stands, as I take it, along the East Carriageway for ceremonial processions. Subsection (1) reads:
" … the Minister of Works shall have power to erect stands on any street island formed by the carrying out of the works specified in section one of this Act and on the western footway of the Hyde Park carriageway, and to do anything necessary or expedient in connection therewith, for the purpose of providing for the viewing of any public procession or other event."
The clause then goes on to say, in subsection (2):
"As soon as may be after the occurrence of the event for which a stand has been erected under this section the said Minister shall remove the stand and restore the site thereof as nearly as may be practicable to its former condition."
A great deal has been said in your Lordships' House about the destruction of amenities through these works. I understood from the noble Lord, and I understood also from the excellent models on view, that the verge between the east and west carriageways was to be of such a picturesque character as would make up for all the loss of amenity that was going to take place through the destruction of the garden behind Apsley House and otherwise. If past experience is any guide, stands of tubular scaffolding will be erected; they will be left there for days and weeks, and when they are taken away all that will remain is a devastated area of rough grass.
I understood, and I think your Lordships understood, that this was to be one of the show places of London, and that

637
we were to have magnificent flowerbeds that would divide the east and the west carriageways. What steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that these beds are kept in a picturesque condition? Who will be responsible for keeping them in that way? Will it be the L.C.C., the Westminster City Council, the Paddington Borough Council, or the Ministry of Works? Will the Ministry of Works be responsible for planting these flower beds? We seem to be getting into the state where there are so many cooks dealing with this broth that the end of it all will be that the place is a shambles, and (if I may use such a vulgarism in your Lordships' House) the "buck will be passed" from one to the other.
The noble Lord—and I think he has amenity at heart as much as I have—will recollect that the Minister of Works will erect these stands, and "as soon as may be" he must take them down. In the past, "as soon as may be" has meant weeks. Can the noble Lord give some assurance that ceremonial stands will not be erected upon the verge between the east and west carriageways; that they will be erected upon the west side of the carriageway, and that the area between the two, where I assume the path and the seats will be for the pleasure of the citizens of London, which will be accessible only by the subways, will not have stands at all, as they have to-day—and will not be ruined, as they are to-day? Let it be said truly that the verges between Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive are no credit to the London County Council, or to the Westminster City Council or the Paddington Borough Council, whichever is responsible. They are simply rough meadow grass. Would the noble Lord give some assurance on this point to prevent further amendment to the Bill on Third Reading?
LORD MANCROFT: After the reconstruction of the carriageway in Park Lane, the responsibility for the central reservation treatment, to which the noble Lord has referred, including amenities, will be transferred to the Westminster City Council. Before they take it over the London County Council, under Clause 3 (2) of the Bill, have power to provide a surface for the islands comprising the reservation and to plant it out with trees and flowers. I understand from the L.C.C. that they mean to do this before the transfer takes place.
638
As to stands, no power is given under the Bill to erect stands, for any purpose, on the reservations in the new layout, except as provided for in Clause 19, which gives the Minister of Works power to erect stands on any street island and on the Western footway of the new Hyde Park Carriageway, which will follow the course of the East Carriage Drive. There is no specific control over the erection of stands on roads, footpaths and islands in the new layout outside the Park. This is not necessary since all these will be highways and, with the exception in favour of the Ministry of Works already mentioned, the erection of stands on them by any other person or authority would constitute an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
Previously, two sorts of stands have gone up in London. There are the stands which have gone up regularly for events like the Trooping the Colour on Horse Guards Parade, which go up and come down afterwards. There are the rare occasions when stands have been erected specially, as was recently done in the East Carriage Drive, for such events as the Territorial Army Jubilee March Past. I think that in future these events will be rarer still in the area we are discussing because it will no longer be inside the Park, but outside; and what previously has been a fairly quiet processional way will now become the Queen's highway. If the noble Lord casts his mind back, he will remember that the number of occasions on which stands have been erected there is rare.
The noble Lord also envisages a certain amount of confusion between various authorities about the responsibility for keeping the layout in order and the flowers looking handsome and well-kept. If the noble Lords go round London today, they will not only see that the public amenities do us great credit but that it is difficult to know which local authorities are responsible. The London County Council, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works, the Paddington Metropolitan Borough Council, or, better still, the St. Marylebone Metropolitan Borough Council, work together pretty well. I do not think that the noble Lord is being quite accurate when he gives the impression that chaos reigns all over the place when stands are erected. I have not examined very carefully those left during

639
the last week or two, but after the Coronation the stands were taken down and order was restored in a remarkably short space of time, and very little damage was done. I assure the noble Lord that all the authorities concerned are well aware of this problem and take it very conscientiously. They are very amenity-minded, and I am certain that the same standard of relations between the three bodies concerned—the L.C.C., the Westminster City Council and my right honourable friend—is the same as it always has been. That is the intention, and so far as it is possible to do so, we have written that intention into the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. What worried me was the expression in Clause 19 (1), which says that the Minister of Works
"shall have power to erect stands on any street island …"
I was wondering whether the verge between the east and west carriageways, as it will be in future, is a street island. If it is to be planted out with flowers, are stands to be erected on them, as in the past, devastating the flowers? The point having been raised, the authorities will know what is in the minds of many noble Lords in this House and perhaps take heed. I assure the noble Lord that the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will be nothing to the criticism he will receive when this project is finished and we see tubular scaffolding devastating those delightful flower beds which he has promised us.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Short Title]:
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I raise a point of Order? Whilst taunts and attacks, and even insults, are proper material for debate, they are not proper material for an Act of Parliament; and I should imagine that it is out of Order to introduce into an Amendment, or put in the form of an Amendment, something that does not represent intended legislation but is an attack upon the general character of the Bill. That may be appropriate in debate, but I submit, as a matter of Order that such Amendments are not acceptable.
LORD CONESFORD: Further to that point of Order, I hope to satisfy the Committee, in developing my argument on this Amendment, that it is not moved in irony or by way of insult, but that in every respect what the Amendment proposes is a more suitable Title than the Title already in the Bill.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to leave out "Park Lane Improvement" and insert "Royal Parks Diminution". The noble Lord said: On June 17 in the present year, on a Division, the House approved the Second Reading of this Bill. Strongly as I dislike the Bill and convinced, as I am, that its passage into law will be contrary to the public interest, I fully accept the decision of the House reached on June 17 last and I am not seeking this afternoon either to challenge the principle of the Bill or to affect the operation of any of its provisions. The sole purpose of my Amendment is to improve the language of the Bill by giving it a more accurate and suitable Short Title.
In case it is not known to any Member of the Committee, perhaps the Committee will accept from me that an Amendment of the Short Title cannot affect the scope or the effect of the Bill in any way. Should any noble Lord require authority on this point, he will find it in a short passage in the speech of Lord Moulton in a leading case reported in [1913] Appeal Cases at page 128. The purpose of a Short Title is simply facility of reference. It is, in Lord Moulton's words, "a statutory nickname." Our task, therefore—and I hope to satisfy the noble Viscount who raised a preliminary point of order on the propriety of the Title which I wish to give to the Bill—is simply to find the most suitable Short Title for this Bill.
The first question that arises is this: is the present Short Title suitable? I can deal with that point quite shortly, because not only do I and those who, as I do, take an adverse view of the Bill object to it, but the Title is equally violently attacked by those who favour the measure. In another place, no one attacked the Title with more energy or better reason than Mr. Herbert Morrison, who poured ridicule on it. If I might mention the alternative he suggested, it was the "Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch Bill". That would at least give

641
some indication of the sort of subject matter that the Bill sought to deal with. The present Title is, quite simply, ridiculous. Let me put this point to the Committee. When within a few months after the passage of this Bill into law contractors proceed to cut down the most beautiful trees in Green Park facing Piccadilly, there are many Londoners who will then discover for the first time what is proposed and what is being done. Those Londoners will say, perhaps, to some of the contractors: "What are you doing, cutting down these beautiful trees in Green Park?". "Oh", the reply will be, "we are improving Park Lane." Does that not in itself indicate how wholly inadequate to describe what is contained in this measure the words "Park Lane Improvement" are? I will not, therefore, trouble the Committee further on the proposition that the present Title is unsuitable.
Is my suggested Title more suitable? At least it is factual and accurate; and, contrary to what was supposed by the noble Viscount who raised a preliminary point of objection, I have carefully excluded all words of passion or of ridicule. I have not, for instance, said, "Royal Parks Spoliation" or "Royal Parks Encroachment"; I have simply said what is completely accurate, "Royal Parks Diminution." In considering the appropriateness of those words, I would beg the Committee in all seriousness to consider two points. The first is this. On the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, speaking on the Second Reading in another place, the fact that this Bill takes acres from the Royal Parks is the sole raison d'être of this measure. That is why there has to be a Bill; that is why an Act of Parliament is needed. I shall not weary the Committee with that—I think the same was said in this House by the Minister in introducing the Bill—but it is admitted that this Bill is necessary because land is taken from the Royal Parks.
Not only is land taken from the Royal Parks, but the amount that is taken is important. I am very sorry indeed that any Minister should have given any publicity to the quite false statement that only some four acres are involved. That is not the case. The amount taken from the Royal Parks is twenty-one acres;
642
that is the amount of the diminution. I take that figure from the words of the Minister of Transport himself in introducing the measure in another place. I want to be perfectly fair with the Committee. The Minister then sought to modify the seriousness of that figure of twenty-one acres by carrying out two deductions. The first deduction was of eleven acres which are at present, he said, in a carriageway and will remain in a carriageway. He then proceeded to this further deduction. He deducted a further six acres on a different ground, and I beg the Committee to mark the ground on which he made that further reduction. He deducted them because those six acres, though they will be taken from the Park, will once more be green, or part of them at any rate will be green. But is it really comparing like with like to compare those six acres as they now exist in the Park as a quiet and lovely part of the gardens and to consider them as of comparable value when they are the centre of busy traffic roundabouts?
My Lords, let Parliament, if it thinks fit, take twenty-one acres from the Royal Parks; but at least let it be clear what it is that it is doing, and let it not minimise the destruction by talking nonsense and giving such a figure as four acres. The present Title is indefensible and, so far, has not been defended; the Title which I propose is simple, honest and accurate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 44, leave out ("Park Lane Improvement") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD MANCROFT: The mental process of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford is a frequent source of comfort and gratification to Her Majesty's Government; but not to-day. He is perfectly right when he says that changes in the Short Titles of Bills at a Committee stage are in order. The usual reason is to give the Bill, as he says, a more apt Title, either because the Title does not convey the scope of the Bill as precisely as it might, or because the Bill has been changed during its passage and the Title no longer fits it. Your Lordships will probably recall the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956, and the National Art Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, 1954, both of which changed their names in the course of their progress

643
through the House; and, indeed, the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Bill has changed its name during its present course through your Lordships' House. All of those measures started off with different Titles, and the Short Titles were amended for the reasons I have just given. They were not, of course, amended for purposes of manifestation, demonstration or frolic. I am glad to hear my noble and learned friend say that nothing could be further from his mind than manifestation, demonstration or frolic. I hope he has convinced your Lordships; he has not wholly, I am afraid, convinced me.
I agree that the Title of this Bill is not wholly accurate. I should have been perfectly prepared to accept the suggestion, of an improvement if it had been both more accurate and less possibly susceptible of the thought that there was some naughtiness in my noble and learned friend's heart when he put the Amendment down. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, does not like the Bill. Therefore, when I saw this Amendment I thought the noble Lord was trying, so to speak, to have another crack at the Government, of which one or two of your Lordships may realise he is believed to be a supporter, though I suspect this news would come as a surprise to casual readers of Hansard. Surely, we cannot allow—even though we know the noble Lord is wholly innocent—Short Titles of Bills to be changed so that there might be the suspicion that they reflect the mover's prejudices or partial affections. It would provide an excellent source for competitions in the Spectator or the New Statesman. Even if we allowed someone quite as innocent and frank as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, to do it, it would create, I think, a dangerous precedent if we allowed amendments to Titles such as this which even gained the suspicion of not being serious.
Another fearful thought occurs to me. If we pass this Amendment, the Title, "Park Lane Improvement" will be going free. Therefore, if we ever come to discuss legislation arising out of the Wolfenden Report, I am willing to bet
644
that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will probably try to change the title of the Wolfenden Report to the Park Lane Improvement Bill. I am afraid I must confess that I think the noble Lord's Amendment is thoroughly bad. It is also without precedent. It is without precedent, although I must confess to the House that I have been conducting some research into this matter and there has been an attempt to do it before. One noble Lord did try to put down an Amendment in 1948 to change the title of the Representation of the People Bill to the Misrepresentation of the People Bill. When the news of this got about, the noble Lord in question was sent for by the Clerk of the Parliaments of the day, our old and much missed friend Lord Badeley. The noble Lord in question was crisply but courteously told what Lord Badeley thought of the proposal—so crisply, in fact, that the noble Lord did not dare to put his nose inside the House for another three weeks. It would be a breach of confidence for me to reveal exactly what Lord Badeley said but I could do so, if required, with great accuracy, for I was the noble Lord in question. In short, I refuse to allow my noble, learned and Puckish friend, Lord Conesford, to get away to-day with something I failed to get away with ten years ago. I cannot accept his Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: Clearly the Amendment sought to be moved by my noble friend on that occasion was both frivolous and hostile. My Amendment is both serious and friendly. If I wished to attack the Bill by saying what I really thought of it in the Short Title, I should have used quite different words. I attempted to give, in the Short Title I proposed, words quite free from any passion or inaccuracy, but stating what was the raison d'être of the Bill on the admission of Ministers themselves. I am sorry indeed that my noble friend should have suspected me of wit on this occasion.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Report of Amendments to be received.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now received, I should like to ask the indulgence of the House to make a statement on one point which I think caused concern to several noble Lords who took part in the Committee stage. That was in regard to the procedure for collecting estimates from the local authorities for their expenditure for the years 1959–60 and 1960–61 on the services covered by the general grants. My noble friends Lord Gage and Lord Hylton raised this point. I think there was a feeling that the time allowed for the return of these estimates—wanted by the middle of August—is rather short, and the fear was expressed that there was a risk of error creeping in because of the haste with which the figures would have to be compiled. I have looked into this point very carefully, and I have consulted my right honourable friend to see if there is any way in which we can help to meet the difficulty. I hope that what I say will go some way towards reassuring noble Lords who feel concerned about this matter.
The final object of the procedure started by the sending in of estimates by the local authorities is the fixing of the global aggregate of general grants for the first two years. The estimates, of course, form an important part of the evidence that will be needed for this purpose, but they are by no means the only information that will be available to the Government in deciding in consultation with the local authority associations at what level to fix the general grant. The Government Departments concerned with these services have a great deal of information about trends in local expenditure and about the main factors affecting expenditure. For example, the Ministry of Education have probably more reliable information about the overall supply of teachers than is available to individual authorities, and over the years the Department have their means of forecasting the likely expenditure on its services which have been tested and proved reliable. It will therefore be possible to apply tests to the aggregate of the estimates produced by the authorities
646
to arrive at some global figures for fixing the aggregate general grant.
I mention that point because it is not only important in providing another test, but important in regard to the timetable. I am afraid that it would not be possible to defer the return of the estimates beyond the middle of August, because when they are received by the Government Departments it will be necessary to aggregate, analyse and test the totals in the way I have indicated. After that there will be discussions with the local authority associations about the figures before the Minister is in a position to present to Parliament the general grant order containing these proposals. All this will take time, and noble Lords will appreciate that we must aim at presenting the general grant orders to Parliament in December, if the local authorities themselves are to be told in good time for making up their budgets for the next financial year what their general grant entitlement will be.
In these circumstances, I want to make one thing clear—and I hope that this will meet the difficulty of the noble Lords. The final decision will not be taken for some months after the estimates have been sent in; and, as I say, I want to make it clear, on behalf of the Government, that if an authority were to find, even after it had submitted its return, that it had made a serious mistake in its calculation, it would certainly he open to it to explain the circumstances to the Department concerned, and any necessary correction would then be made to the material which was before the Minister and the local authority associations. As I said in Committee, I hope and I believe that the errors will not be of such magnitude as to affect the settlement of the total grant or, if any did occur, that they would not escape detection. I hope that what I have said will make it clear that although we must keep to the deadline of August 15, that does not mean that there will be no opportunity to correct any mistakes that might arise from hastily producing the figures. I hope that assurance will go some way to satisfy my noble friends. I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has said. It certainly goes

647
some way to meet the points I tried to make. I think that one or two points arise from what he said today and what he said on Committee stage, but perhaps it would be more appropriate if I made reference to those on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I am grateful for what he has said.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the help he has given. I think there were grave fears that this provision might be too rigid in the initial stage, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for helping us over this matter. It would appear that the months of August and September will be two very busy months in Whitehall.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would only thank my noble friends. I do not know what verb I should use, whether I fear or rejoice, that my noble friend Lord Hylton is probably very accurate in his forecast.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to reduce general grant in case of default]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
"the amount recoverable being apportioned among the rating authorities of the areas or parts of areas so comprised in proportion to the aggregates of the rateable values shown in the valuation lists respectively in force for those areas or parts of areas on the first day of the year for which the general grant is payable.".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment which it falls to me to move deals with Clause 3 (2), which is concerned with the case of default by a joint board administering a general grant service in the whole or part of a county. The county council's general grant may, in the case of such a default, be reduced. Where only part of a county is concerned, the Bill provides, in subsection (2) (b) of Clause 32, for recovery of the penalty by the county council from the rating authorities in the part of the county concerned. This small Amendment lays down a method of apportioning the penalty between the rating areas. It provides that the basis of apportionment is to be the rateable value of each rating area, or the part of each rating area concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, at end insert the said words.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Limitation of Rate-deficiency Grant to normal expenditure
(7) For the purposes of this section expenditure for police purposes shall be left out of account, and the Minister may leave out of account any other expenditure of a local authority in so far as it appears to him that by reason of any special circumstances it ought to be excluded.
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "by reason of any special circumstances". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that I raised this same point on the Committee stage of this Bill, and very briefly I will remind your Lordships what the point was. If a local authority exceeds its normal expenditure in a way calculated under Clause 6 it may have that part which exceeds the average disallowed for the purpose of deficiency grant. At the same time, under subsection (7) of Clause 6 the Minister has power to come to the rescue in what is described as "special circumstances". My anxiety was that there might well be cases where a local authority which was following a perfectly sound programme of expenditure—financially sound and not extravagant or negligent—might have a good case to put to the Minister, but that it might not be a "special" case and that the wording in subsection (7) would not be wide enough to allow the Minister to take the action he might possibly wish to take.
The object of this Amendment is to have it made clear that the Minister would be free to act whenever he thought fit in such cases, as and when they arose. It is a very wide Amendment, but I would rather have the Minister given ample latitude in a good cause than restrict him by the legal wording of the Bill from doing something he thought right. However, my noble and learned friend undertook on the Committee stage to have the wording of subsection (7) looked at again, and it may well be that to-day we shall hear the result of these inquiries. If it turns out that my fears are groundless, and that subsection (7)

649
as it stands gives the Minister the power, if he so wishes, to do what I have described, all well and good. No doubt my noble and learned friend will be able to give us some guidance on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("by reason of any special circumstances").—(Viscount
Bridgeman.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has put down this Amendment again, because it gives me the opportunity of giving the results of my consideration; and if I state them at a little length I hope the House will forgive me; I think it will be useful to local authorities who are considering this point. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend on the Committee stage, in saying that the words were too narrow, said this of the phrase we are now discussing [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 210 (No. 80), col. 60]:
"It seems to me to be far too narrow to be certain of including the circumstances which are likely to arise in the normal working of a county's affairs, on the assumption that their financial policy is a sound one and that there is no extravagance. I should have thought myself, in the absence of any other explanation, that the 'special circumstances' could be held to refer much more to something which could not have been foreseen."
I hope that my noble friend's fears were groundless in that regard. I should just like to say this with regard to my right honourable friend the Minister: his desire is that he should be able, by the discretion given to him under this subsection, to deal equitably with cases where the possibility of limitation under the clause arises. He certainly does not want the clause to operate in any arbitrary or mechanical way, and that is why the power to deal with special circumstances is taken.
May I proceed from the particular to the general, because I think it would be helpful if I gave one or two examples. One can imagine circumstances in which there is a drive for slum clearance. Clearly, this may impose particularly heavy burdens on authorities which have many slums—heavier burdens, that is, than on other authorities of the same kind with fewer slums. This is the sort of case with which the Minister would want to be able to deal under the subsection. Or, to take another example,
650
an authority might be faced with particularly heavy expenditure in regard to sewerage because the configuration of its area made sewering particularly expensive. This, too, the Minister would be able to deal with.
I have considered the point very carefully, and I have had the advantage of the departmental advice which the Minister also had, and we have all come to the conclusion that the Bill as drafted is wide enough to enable the Minister to ignore expenditure in such cases as those I have quoted. It will be observed that the words are "any"—I repeat "any"—"special circumstances" which the Minister may take into account. We all believe, and all our legal advice and my own view is to the effect, that a circumstance may be special either if it is associated with a particular authority or a number of authorities, as opposed to the generality (I think that was the point that I mentioned on the last occasion), or, secondly, if it is associated with a particular item of expenditure but not with the generality of items of local authority expenditure. Those are the examples that I quoted to-day. There is no reason to suppose that the words "special circumstances" could be construed so narrowly as to connote only what may have been unforeseen.
It seems to my right honourable friend, therefore, that this provision will enable him to deal satisfactorily with any case where it would be inequitable to allow a limitation of expenditure to operate. On the other hand, if the Amendment were adopted, the Bill would contain no indication at all of the circumstances in which expenditure was to be disregarded, and that, I think, would give rise to an invidious position, making the administration of the clause impossibly difficult.
If I may sum up, an authority which has undertaken expenditure prudently and responsibly has no reason to fear that it will suffer from this clause; for it has to be remembered that no case for the exercise of a Minister's discretion under this subsection can arise unless an authority's expenditure and the acceleration in its rate of spending have both exceeded that of other similar authorities. It does not seem unreasonable that in such circumstances an authority

651
should be asked to show that there is something peculiar to its own circumstances, or to those of a number of other authorities similarly placed; or, as I have said to-day, that there is some special feature of particular items of its own expenditure, which accounts for these circumstances. What is equally clear is that it will not have to show—and therefore will not have to carry the burden—that the expenditure is unforeseen. I hope that my explanation may help not only my noble friend but the authorities who may have to consider this problem.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for the care that he and his right honourable friend have taken in considering this point, which was far from clear when the Bill was last before the House. I think it will be most useful to many people outside this House to have conveyed to them the words that he has spoken, because they go a long way to making clear the situation which, to me at any rate, was far from clear as the Bill stood on the Committee stage. In regard to this Bill, many of us are in the difficulty that we are having to deal with cases which will come to be dealt with by regulations under this Bill, but which have not yet arisen. That being so, it is not possible to say with absolute certainty that the reply which my noble and learned friend has given will, in fact, meet every good case of this sort that is likely to arise. I would certainly say that I think my noble and learned friend's reply will probably meet any reasonable case that is likely to be put forward by a local authority to the Minister under this clause. I thank my noble and learned friend and his right honourable friend, and beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I do not think I need detain your Lordships by going further into it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, leave out from ("section") to ("for") in line 22 and insert ("in like manner as").—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Power of Minister to give effect to proposals]:
4.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (2) to leave out "unless" and insert—
"Provided that, except where the objection is one made by a local authority to a proposal that the area of the authority should cease to be a separate area of local government, or should become a county district, the Minister may dispense with an inquiry if".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is concerned with Clause 23 (2), which provides that where a Local Government Commission's proposals for any area have been objected to by one of the local councils, or by a police authority, the Minister must hold a local inquiry, unless he is satisfied that he is "sufficiently informed" as to the matters to which the objections relate. Throughout, the Government have made it quite clear that this discretion to do without an inquiry is intended solely to cover the odd case where the only objection is on some minor and quite clear issue which has already been gone into fully and dealt with in the Commission's published report, and on which a formal inquiry would be a waste of everyone's time. An objection on a matter of substance or principle is bound to involve an inquiry, on grounds both of common sense and of natural justice, to say nothing of the practical fact that a Minister, accountable to Parliament as he is for every order that he makes under the Bill, would find himself in an indefensible position in Parliament if he did not order an inquiry.
The debates in both Houses have shown that the need for some such discretion is generally accepted but also that there is a desire to limit it. The Government understand and respect this anxiety, and have been cautious of amendment only because of their reluctance to see the clause altered in such a way as might imply that, outside a narrowly specified field, the Minister's discretion could and should be used freely. In an Amendment moved on the Committee stage my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford pointed the way to solving the worst part of this difficulty—by taking away the Minister's discretion in cases where the objection was to abolition or amalgamation, thus disposing of the main anxieties which have been expressed. The House

653
will remember that I accepted the Amendment in principle and the present Amendment is the result. It goes rather further than my noble friend's Amendment—it guarantees an opportunity of inquiry to any local authority, be it of a county, a county borough, a non-county borough, or an urban or rural district, which is threatened with loss of its separate identity or its status.
I think that this Amendment will be welcomed generally by those who have queried the present wording of the clause, in that it meets in full the substance of their anxieties. I am told that it has been well received by the local authority associations. But even at the danger of being plus royaliste que le roi in this matter, want to return to my other point and to emphasise again that the Amendment is not intended to imply that, outside the cases where the elimination of an existing local authority is involved, the power to do without an inquiry into objections should or will be used freely. That is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government nor is it in the mind of my right honourable friend. On the contrary, it is still for use only in exceptional cases: that is, where the issue raised by the objection is small and so clear that the Minister can feel quite satisfied that an inquiry would add nothing to the available information. Having made that point clear again I should say how glad I am to be able to meet my noble and learned friend, Lord Conesford, and I believe the general wish, as this Amendment does. I beg to move.
Page 19, line 44, leave out ("unless") and insert—
("Provided that, except where the objection is one made by a local authority to a proposal that the area of the authority should cease to be a separate area of local government, or should become a county district, the Minister may dispense with an inquiry if").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CONESFORD: The Amendment of my noble and learned friend admirably meets the point which I made at the Committee stage and meets it in more felicitous language than that which I then put forward. I thank my noble and learned friend for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Schemes for exercise of health and welfare functions by councils of county districts]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I moved this Amendment on the Commit-
654
tee stage and I believe it had some support from your Lordships as its object was to save money and more especially specialist manpower. I withdrew it on an undertaking from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord President of the Council. I now move it formally and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack can add a little to what was said by Her Majesty's Government on the last occasion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 40, and page 33, line 2, transfer paragraphs (b) and (d) to follow paragraphs (f) and (g) at end of line 17, page 33.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have given full consideration, with my right honourable friends, to this Amendment the effect of which would be that functions relating to welfare arrangements for disabled persons (under Sections 29 and 30 of the National Assistance Act, 1948), and functions relating to the care of the mentally ill and mentally defective (under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890–1930 and the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913–1938), would not be included in delegation schemes unless the Minister of Health had consented to their being so included, because of the existence of exceptional circumstances.
As my noble friend, Lord Gage, has said, when a similar Amendment was proposed in Committee it received a sub-stantial amount of support and my noble and learned friend the Lord President of the Council undertook to consider the matter again. That has been done. In the first place, I wish to make clear that Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate that, in supporting the Amendment, noble Lords were concerned, first, with securing the maximum efficiency in the administration of the services in question, and secondly, with the avoidance of duplication and extravagance. This aspect of the matter has been carefully considered and my right honourable friends have satisfied themselves that the process of delegation need not entail any of the consequences which have been feared.
I would point out that the administrative requirements of delegation will be these—and I consider this is very important: in order to achieve the Minister's approval delegation schemes and schemes for the administration of the service will have to make provision, first, for control

655
of general policy and of finance by the county council, and for co-operation between the county council and the district council. My noble and learned friend explained that in detail, and the House will remember that he quoted the advice in this sense given by both the Guillebaud and the Piercy Committees. It is abundantly clear that the weight of informed opinion on this subject, and the experience of the Ministry of Health in the administration of the services during the past ten years, point to the vital necessity for the closest possible integration of the domiciliary health and welfare services.
Very similar considerations dictate the retention of the domiciliary mental health services under the same administrative control as the other domiciliary health services, and the general tenor of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Mental Laws is wholly in favour of their close integration. It is indeed contrary to modern ideas to single out the mentally handicapped as a special class to be regarded as essentially different from those suffering from physical illness or disability. I need not go into that matter because your Lordships will have very much in mind the most striking speech made by my noble friend, Lord Feversham, followed by another striking speech by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in the debate which we had a month ago on mental welfare.
The local authority services reflect this new outlook by providing in many cases for the same home visitors to visit both the physically and the mentally handicapped. In the light of these considerations Her Majesty's Government could not advise the House to accept an Amendment which would strike at the root of a principle which, in their view, is vital to the whole conception of delegation, and indeed to the efficient administration of the health and welfare services for which local authorities are responsible. My noble and learned friend, the Lord President of the Council, explained the reasons for these exceptional treatments of the residential services and I do not want to repeat what he said, but I believe I have gone further to help my noble friend, Lord Gage, in that I have shown that there is not only the policy point as to the services but
656
also the very strong and high administrative standards on which the Minister will insist. I think that that should mean what we recognise a very genuine and strongly-held feeling towards economy. In view of my statement, I hope that my noble friend will feel it possible not to persist in pressing his Amendment to-day.
VISCOUNT GAGE: If I understand my noble and learned friend correctly, the Government are proposing to deal with this case administratively; and I understand that the Minister, in approving or withholding consent, is going to ensure that in suitable cases the services of the specialists are going to be properly divided between the county and borough or district. If that understanding is correct, I shall be perfectly prepared to withdraw this Amendment, as well as to express my gratitude to my noble and learned friend for going, into this matter so carefully and meeting us in this way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we are entirely ad idem on that point. I should just like to make quite clear what I said and what is the basis. Delegation schemes and schemes for the administration of the services, in order to obtain my right honourable friend's approval, will have to make provision, first for the control of the general policy and finance by the county council, and, secondly, for the co-operation between the county council and the district council in regard to such matters as the joint use, where necessary, of staff or specialised services and workshops. I think that that meets fully my noble friend's point. I just want to be quite sure that I have made the position clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ADDINGTON: I do not know whether it is convenient for me to speak on the next Amendment after the adjournment, or whether I should move it formally now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be convenient, if I may make the suggestion, for my noble friend to develop his argument after the Royal Commission if that suits him.
LORD ADDINGTON: Whatever is the convenience of the House.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act, 1948 (Amendment),

Solicitors (Scotland),

Marriage Acts Amendment,

Land Powers (Defence),

First Offenders,

Opticians,

Disabled Persons (Employment),

Litter,

Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance),

Physical Training and Recreation,

Drainage Rates,

Defence Contracts,

Maintenance Orders,

Matrimonial Proceedings (Children),

Pier and Harbour Order (Margate) Confirmation,

Holy Trinity Hounslow,

Seaham Harbour Dock.

Blackpool Corporation,

London County Council (General Powers),

Clergy Orphan Corporation,

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,

Essex County Council,

All Hallows the Great Churchyard,

All Hallows the Less Churchyard,

London County Council (Money).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
5.15 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
First Schedule:
General Grants
Part V.—Adjustments of General Grants for pooling, etc., arrangements:
(4) This paragraph applies to expenditure incurred—
(c) in the provision, or in assisting the provision, of such facilities for further education of an advanced character as may be specified by or under regulations under this paragraph.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved in Part IV, paragraph 1 (4), to leave out sub-paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment on
658
the Committee stage, but I did not move it because discussions were then going on between the Ministry of Education and the County Councils' Association representing one side of the local government authorities concerned. So far as I understand it, those discussions are still going on, so that the points are, so to speak, sub judice. If there are any words that can be inserted on the Third Reading so as to embody the results of those discussions, I shall be glad to help in any way I can, and, if it were preferred, to put down certain words to be so inserted.
The main objection to the pooling provisions of the Bill is, as I understand it, that they would upset the arrangements agreed to as recently as July, 1956, between Sir David Eccles, a former Minister of Education, and the County Councils' Association which were designed to promote what is called "free trade" in regard to attendance at further education courses provided by one local authority with students living in the area of another such authority. Under pooling arrangements, counties, and especially the rural counties with no rateable values, would apparently have to pay more, and in some cases much more, and in the large centres of population they would pay less. I would suggest that in this House we should regard fully the interests of the rural areas where the product of a penny rate is comparatively small. No detailed figures have been produced to show on what basis pooling would be actually carried out.
I suggest, further, that local authorities which do not provide such courses would have to contribute to expenditure over which they would have no control; and if the expenditure was pooled, those authorities that do provide them would be less likely to see that they were run economically. I understand also that there is no great difficulty in continuing the payments on the present basis, which is on a user basis. I do not propose at this stage to put the points forward at all fully, or to weary your Lordships with such figures as have been suggested. I am only anxious that a fair and reasonable basis should be worked out for these courses and that the expenditure should be provided equitably. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 23, leave out the said subparagraph.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend, because there is a principle behind this Amendment and the Government's present proposals. The object of the Bill, as a whole, is to increase the responsibility and power of local governments for dealing themselves, without undue pressure from ministerial Departments, with money raised from the rates and with the new general grant. If that is so, then it would appear to be a departure from this principle to insert in this Bill these pooling proposals for this particular form of education. On the one hand you give the local authorities more power to deal with monies, rates and so on, which they raise themselves, and on the other hand you withdraw these powers—powers they already have. I think that is a point which should be mentioned. The local authorities already have the power of paying for this particular form of education on what my noble friend has described as a user basis. That power, so far as I can make out, is being taken away by this Bill, and instead we are to have a pooling system.
Unless a special case can be made for those proposals, they cannot really be identified with the main principle of this Bill, which is to give local authorities more local responsibility. Pooling already exists for teachers, but the pooling of teachers is quite a different subject from technical and other sorts of education. I am bound to say that there is a case—I believe a strong case—to be made for looking into this matter, or for continuing these conversations between the interested parties, at any rate for a little time.
There is one proposal I would submit to your Lordships as a practical one, because this is merely an administrative affair and there are no politics in it. It might be worth while considering whether the Minister of Education should hold his hand during the first year or two while these new arrangements were running-in, and not use his powers of pooling the resources of all the local authorities at the beginning. That would give time for everybody to have another look round to see which side of the argument is right. I am no educational authority, but I have a sheaf of papers from education authorities who are in considerable anxiety about this point. I do not wish to speak any longer than my noble friend has spoken, but I believe that these points should be put before your Lordships' House. I hope
660
the noble and learned Viscount will at least give us a grain of hope.
5.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure that no one in the House, and least of all myself, grudges either of my noble friends the time they have spent on this Amendment. It would, of course, have the effect, as they told us, of moving from the Bill the provision for pooling expenditure on such facilities for further education as the Minister may by regulation specify—I should emphasise that: it is only by regulations subject to annulment that this can be done.
I want to put the difficulties which my right honourable friend finds in this matter as it has been adumbrated before your Lordships. Your Lordships will see that the Bill proposes that expenditure on advanced further education should be pooled, so that each local education authority will contribute towards the total expenditure of all authorities a share based on an objective formula, and will recover from the pool its own actual expenditure. Although I see the differences which my noble friend attempted to draw, it is, of course, accurate, as he said, that it has been applied to expenditure on teacher training and on pupils who do not belong to any authority. The definition of advanced further education, and the formula to be used (which would differ from that used for the two existing pools), will be laid down in regulations, and the local authorities will be consulted before these regulations are made.
I think I can fairly sum up the objections which have been made to the Government's proposal under three heads. First, that pooling of advanced further education is wrong in principle, because it trenches on the responsibility and independence of the individual authority. My noble friend Lord Hylton repeated that a few moment ago. Secondly, that it will operate inequitably in the redistribution of the financial burden in this part of the education service; and, thirdly, that it is unnecessary because the present system, which includes inter-authority payments on behalf of extra-district students, is working satisfactorily. I should like to deal with these points because my right honourable friend is anxious to show that he is giving them full consideration.

661
On the first argument, that the independence of the authorities would be prejudiced, I think it is necessary to look at the nature of the service in question. Advanced further education is of university or near-university standard. It necessarily involves large establishments, with expensive buildings and equipment and highly trained staff. Efficiency and economy alike demand that these facilities should be sited in accordance with regional plans, in centres which are accessible to large numbers of students. To help this kind of planning, regional advisory councils for further education have for long been established. All local education authorities in the region are represented on them, and all proposals to start new advanced courses have to be considered by the regional advisory council concerned before they can be approved by the Minister of Education. In other words, I think it is fair to say that in this field the authorities are interdependent, rather than independent, and the only way in which this Bill will lessen their present degree of independence is by depriving of their main weapon those authorities who are restraining the free movement of students across local authority boundaries.
Now may I turn for a moment to the fear that the new arrangements will bring about an unfair shift in the financial burden? Of course, details of the effect on individual authorities involved are not yet available, because the proposed formula for distributing the expenditure has still to be discussed with the local authority associations, and it may be (I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will consider this) that when the formula has been settled some of our critics will find that their fears are not so great as they at first thought. There is a further point which I should like my noble friends to consider also. Have they taken full account of the effect of the change from the percentage to the general grant? At present, as we have heard so often in an earlier stage of the Bill, that grant is directly related to the expenditure of each authority; and an authority which spends little gets little grant. As I said on Second Reading, and again in Committee, the general grant works quite differently as each authority gets a share of the grant based on the formula in the Bill, irrespective of what it spends. This would
662
be manifestly unfair to the authorities who spend a great deal on advanced further education, unless it were accompanied by the redistribution of expenditure which the pool is intended to bring about. It is true that there are other classes of educational expenditure which vary between authorities, but there is no substantial element of the educational service on which direct expenditure varies, and must always vary, so widely between different authorities.
I admit that under present arrangements authorities which provide facilities for the use of others do not have to carry the whole burden themselves, because they make a charge to the other authorities for the students who use the facilities. I take the point which the objectors make: why should these arrangements not continue under the general grant? There would be certain technical and accounting difficulties, but though I think they are perfectly genuine I do not want to enter into that aspect or to rest my case on it. The more important point is that the recoupment system depends on the home authority giving its consent to the admission of students to another authority's college. Two years ago, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Addington said, the then Minister of Education reached an agreement with the local authority associations which was designed to secure virtually complete "free trade" between authorities in that respect. The agreement resulted in some improvement; but, taking the counties as an example, by no means all are yet prepared to give automatic consent to suitably qualified students to attend colleges of advanced technology, and the majority have important reservations, seriously incompatible with the agreement, about giving automatic consent to the attendance of students at advanced technical courses at other colleges. This situation was a major factor in the Government's decision to propose pooling, which removes the need for consent so far as inter-authority payments are concerned.
These are the difficulties, and we are very sorry that this element in our proposals should have caused so much concern in the County Councils Association. We hope and believe, however, that a number of their fears are misconceived. It is the convinced view of the Government that the pooling of expenditure on advanced further education gives the best

663
assurance for carrying out the essential development, within a local authority framework, of a service which is of peculiar importance for the efficiency and survival of this country. I need not emphasise that aspect, for we are all at one on it—that unless we can make advances, especially in scientific and technological education, the whole future of the country is jeopardised. The Government feel as I say, that no inequity need be involved for any group of authorities, but they will, in any event, be prepared to review the matter, in consultation with the local authority associations, for the second general grant period. For the first, they feel that the system of pooling must be introduced.
I think it is convenient that I should have set out these reasons. If they show any gaps in the argument or that the basis is faulty, I think that the County Councils Association will point out the flaws in my argument to my right honourable friend the Minister of Education. But, although I have considered this point with great sympathy, I have not been able to find out the flaws, and therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am in the same position as my noble friend in front of me; that is, I am by no means perfect in my knowledge of the details of education as administered by local authorities. But we are here in a good deal of difficulty, largely because the practical application of this clause, if it remains in its present form, will have to be decided by regulations not yet made. I think our friends in the local authority associations, worried as they are about many things, are more worried over this point than anything else; they feel they are being taken into the unknown. There are two or three points which seem to stand out. One is that local authorities want to get as many places as they need for boys and girls in the local authority area who want education of the kind dealt with in paragraph (c). The second is that, though they want to pay what is right for them, they do not want to pay for other people. Fair shares, as has been said in another place, are not always equal shares. Thirdly, the whole matter is complicated by the previous discussion which has taken
664
place between the Minister of Education and local authorities, to which my noble and learned friend referred just now, over the question of what is called "free trade".
It looks now as if the position is this. First of all, my noble and learned friend has said that the Minister of Education will be prepared to review the matter in the second period. Secondly, he said, I think, that the local authority associations were going to be called into discussion before the framing of the regulations So far so good. As for any financial or accounting difficulties, I am not sure what they are, but I should have thought it would not be beyond the wit of the Ministry to solve them, with the assistance of the various local authorities' treasurers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I just want to assure my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that the regulations will be made after consultation, and what the local authority associations say will be given every weight in the making of the regulations. That is the modern legislative practice; and one of the advantages of subsidiary legislation is that you can have these discussions and perhaps improve it in the making. I am sorry that I have not been able to go further in this matter. I will give my noble friends complete freedom and licence to point out the grosser errors in my argument to my right honourable friend the Minister, and I shall not be in the least offended if they find those errors are gross, although I have not seen them myself. I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend Lord Addington's Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, lest it be thought that this side of the House is not interested in the matter, I would point out that this is certainly the penultimate stage of this legislation. I have listened with the greatest care to what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, and also read with the greatest care the dossier which I understand was unanimously approved by the County Councils Association. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that the point will be looked at again, but to-day he is taking the power to do the thing which all the associations think bad. Whilst apparently it is quite impossible to move

665
the noble and learned Viscount from his present position, I think it should be made quite clear what the situation is—nothing at all.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the reply of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the support of noble Lords who have spoken. The only point I would add is that some rural counties do not find there is any need whatsoever to send somebody who is working in agriculture to one of these highly technical courses for specialists; and therefore it seems unfair that they should, as presumably they will, have to pay quite a large sum to the pool because of their general population. Although the extent to which certain local authorities use these courses varies very considerably, the practice may not follow a general pattern. I think that, so far as authorities are concerned, the only people who really speak for them are the executive bodies of their associations, or, as regards a county council, its council as a whole. I know from my own experience that a finance committee of the council can override and alter even the estimates put up by the education and other committees; and a number of the education authorities have a certain number of co-opted specialists who have no responsibility whatever for the raising of a rate. But as the noble and learned Viscount has held out some chance of consultation, and some prospect that there may be some review at an early date, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Eighth Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
5.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out sub-paragraph (1) and to insert instead:
"(1) Where contributions under section eighty-six of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, in respect of a child or young person committed to, or received into the care of a local authority are payable, by the person liable to make the contributions, to an authority other than the authority responsible for maintenance, the authority receiving the contributions from the said person shall pay them over to the authority responsible for maintenance, subject however to such deductions in respect of services rendered by the authority paying the contributions over as may be agreed beween the two authorities or as
666
in default of agreement may be determined by the Secretary of State
(2) In the foregoing sub-paragraph references to the authority responsible for maintenance—

(a) in relation to a child or young person committed to the care of a local authority, are references to that authority;

(b) in relation to a child received into the care of a local authority, are references to the local authority into whose care the child has been received, except that where the authority to whom the contributions are payable by the person liable to make them has been notified that under subsection (4) of section one of the Children Act, 1948 expenses are being recovered from another authority, the said references shall be construed as references to that other authority.

(3) In subsection (3) of section eighty-six of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 after the word 'and' where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words 'in the case of a child or young person ordered to be sent to an approved school.' "
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a formidable looking Amendment but I can assure your Lordships that it deals with only a small administrative point. I am happy to say that it has the support of all the authorities directly concerned—the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the London County Council, and, I hope, Her Majesty's Government. But as it is a new point, although a small one, perhaps I should explain its object if only for record purposes.
Section 86 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which is being amended, provides that it is the duty of certain persons to make contributions for the maintenance of a child who has been committed to the care of a fit person or sent to an approved school. This section has been applied to children in the care of a local authority by the Children Act, 1948. Subsection (3) of Section 86 states to whom the contributions should be paid: they are to be paid to the local authority of the area where the person making the contribution (usually the father) resides—for convenience I will call that authority local authority A. Local authority A deducts expenses for collection and sends the balance to the Home Office. The Home Office act as a clearing house, and pass the contributions (less 50 per cent., being the amount of the Exchequer grant for the children service) to the authority responsible for the maintenance of the child, which I will call local authority B. The purpose of paragraph 2 of the Eighth Schedule is to

667
remove from the Home Office the task of acting as a clearing house, and instead to require local authority A to pay the contributions direct to local authority B.
This administrative change, which is consequential on the abolition of the 50 per cent. Exchequer grant and the introduction of the general grant, is satisfactory to the local authorities, with one exception with which I will now deal. There may be a further complication in the case of a child in the care of a local authority. A child who is ordinarily resident in the area of local authority B may be received into care by a local authority of some other area, which I shall call local authority C. In that event, local authority C is entitled to claim the cost of maintenance from local authority B. The question arises whether the contributions collected by local authority A should be paid over to local authority B or local authority C. Under the terms of the Bill, contributions collected by local authority A would be paid to local authority C, with the intention that local authority C would deduct the amounts before rendering accounts to local authority B. Under the terms of my Amendment, the contributions collected would be paid to local authority B. That authority would not have to earmark each contribution towards a particular child's maintenance, but would accept it as income; on the other hand, local authority B would pay the accounts rendered by local authority C. This would save detailed financial records and unnecessary work. I hope that that indication has made the matter clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert the said new sub-paragraphs.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for putting down this useful Amendment which modifies the arrangements in regard to parental contributions towards the cost of maintenance of children in the care of local authorities. The Bill provides for a method of direct adjustment between the authorities responsible respectively for collecting the contributions and for care of the child to which they relate. That was in substitution for the existing method of adjust-
668
ment undertaken by the Secretary of State and tied in with the specific grant now absorbed in the general grant. The Amendment of my noble friend improves the method provided for in the Bill, by securing that the contributions shall go direct to the authority ultimately financially responsible where this authority is a different one from the collecting and the "care" authority. This will save some double accounting for money and, as I have said, should be useful to all the authorities concerned. I hope your Lordships will accept my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.46 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment No. 8 is an Amendment of my own and it is linked with the Amendment at page 72, line 1. They are drafting improvements to those provisions in the Eighth Schedule which relate to the charters of boroughs constituted by amalgamations embracing existing boroughs under the 1933 Act. Their effect is that the Minister will be enabled to continue in force, as part of the new borough's charter, any of the provisions of any of the charters of the boroughs from which it is formed. I think that this is a liberal and useful improvement, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 31, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 34 and insert ("for the charter of the new borough, by applying thereto, with any necessary exceptions or modifications, the charter of any borough comprised in the union, provisions of charters of two or more boroughs comprised in the union, or the charter of one and provisions of the charters of one or more of the others.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are both consequential to previous Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 1, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 4 and insert ("for the charter of the new borough, by applying thereto, with any necessary exceptions or modifications, the charter of any amalgamated borough, or, in the case of an amalgamation including two or more boroughs, by applying as aforesaid to the new borough provisions of charters of two or more amalgamated

669
boroughs or the charter of one and provisions of the charters of one or more of the others.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 7, column 3, leave out ("'or by the London County Council' and") and insert ("from 'consolidated' to the next 'or in' and the words").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COSTS OF LEASES BILL
5.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, this Bill has to do with the liability for solicitor's costs as between the lessor and lessee in regard to the drawing and the preparation of a lease. As your Lordships will be aware, there is a general custom throughout most of the country whereby the solicitor to a lessor is entitled to prepare the lease and the counterpart and to charge the lessee with his charges and expenses for so doing, together with the stamp duty on the documents. This Bill, which was introduced in another place by Mr. Granville West, the honourable Member for Pontypool, proposes to do away with that general custom, and, in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, requires each party to pay his or her own costs and stamp duty.
The reasons for this proposal are very simple. The existing custom, although it has been in force for a long time—indeed, so long "that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary"—appears to have no logical basis in these days and is frequently the cause of great hardship and irritation to a lessee who may be quite unaware of the custom and who, the lease having been prepared and executed by both parties and the document having been stamped, finds himself faced with the burden of two sets of solicitors' costs. This Bill also assimilates the practice or position as between lessor and lessee to that of a vendor and a purchaser, where, as your Lordships know, each party normally pays his own legal costs and expenses. The Bill has the support of the Law Society and I
670
hope that its objects will commend themselves to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
5.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Milner of Leeds, in introducing this Bill, referred to the practice of a lessee having to pay the lessor's costs by custom as an anomaly and a hardship, and of course it is. As he explained, in the purchase of the freehold of a house each party pays his own costs. If one takes an assignment of a lease or of a long term, again each party pays his own costs. But if one takes a fresh lease, then the lessee is expected to pay the costs of the lessor. My quarrel with the Bill is that it does not remove the anomaly or the hardship; it merely regularises it, because as soon as this Bill becomes law every lessor will put into his contract a provision that the lessee must pay the costs; and that becomes perfectly lawful.
Having accepted the fact that something has to be done and that this anomaly has to be removed (I hope he will not mind my saying this), my noble friend at once sets about putting the anomaly right by ensuring that it will become a matter of course that every lessor will put in writing, as one of the conditions, that the lessee should pay his costs. It is, of course, a bad thing that a person should pay somebody else's costs for something with which he is not concerned. A man pays his own solicitor for approving the lease, going through it and negotiating, but why he should pay the lessor's costs, I do not know—and my noble friend does not know either. He agrees that it is an anomaly; but this Bill does not remove that anomaly. I believe the Bill is susceptible to amendment and I propose to have a try at amending it in Committee. It is because of that, and because it can be amended, that I shall not object to the Second Reading; but if it were to remain as it is I should strongly object to this Bill going forward.
5.55 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to offer a little support for the Bill as it is drawn. It would he unprofitable now to go into the history

671
of this matter and explain how the custom has arisen. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Silkin, that if this Bill passes into law it will still be possible for a lessor to stipulate as a matter of contract that the lessee shall pay his costs. At the moment it is perfectly possible for a vendor of property to make a similar stipulation, and sometimes that is attempted. The objection to the law as it stands at present is that the general public do not understand that this custom exists and therefore they enter into negotiations on their own without obtaining prior legal advice and then are faced in the end with having to pay the costs of the lessor, which they never expected to have to do.
I know it is a maxim that every citizen of this country is supposed to know the law of this country, but it is still nevertheless the case that they do not; and the sooner this anomaly is removed, the better, because then things will happen as people expect them to happen and not in a way which they do not expect.
5.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should not have detained your Lordships for more than a moment, which would have been used in giving short but sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, on this Bill, were it not for the troubles which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has found. I should like to say a little more, for I feel that the matter deserves some attention. I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, for in all the years that we have known each other I think this is the first Public Bill that I have ever heard him introduce, though I have heard him introduce Private Bills as Chairman in another place. In any case, I want to congratulate the noble Lord on the persuasive language in which he put the Bill before your Lordships.
In another place there was no opportunity for the views of Her Majesty's Government to be given, and therefore I gladly take this opportunity of saying that we welcome the Bill as a useful amendment to the law and custom relating to leases. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, put the real difficulty of this problem: that tenants, knowing nothing of the custom that exists, get extraordinarily annoyed
672
when they find themselves subjected to it. From time to time I have myself received letters from members of the public expressing their surprise and irritation at finding themselves, without warning, under an obligation to pay the costs of both sides of a lease or tenancy agreement into which they have just entered as tenants. I should think numbers of your Lordships, and not only those, like all of us who have spoken on this Bill to-day, who are engaged in the legal profession, have received similar expressions of annoyance; and I must say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who receives more protests than I do, has sympathy, as I have, with the complainants.
A custom should become part of the law only when it is generally accepted, and when it complies with the essential condition that it should be notorious and known to everyone concerned; and undoubtedly this is not known. I should have thought that it was more natural and right that the parties should be left to reach agreement and to arrange how it is to fall. I am surprised and worried, as I always am when I find that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, takes a different view on the matter. I am sure that Lord Milner of Leeds will consider anything further that there is to say, but I should have thought that, on any basis at all, this Bill is a help and an advance. I am grateful not only to the noble Lord but also to the honourable Member who put it forward in another place, and to the Law Society for having suggested this improvement. And, most of all, I should like to congratulate Lord Milner of Leeds on the way he put it before us to-day.
6.1 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He and I have known each other for a great many years, and he has always shown the same kindness and courtesy. I greatly appreciate the expression of congratulation to which he gave voice. I do not desire to detain your Lordships for any length of time on this matter, but I think I must say just a word or two in reply to my noble friend Lord Silkin. If he will forgive my saying so, I am a little surprised that, not for the first time, he does not appear wholeheartedly to approve the course adopted

673
or the proposals submitted by his own professional Society. Again, if he will forgive my saying so, I do not think he takes any part in the proceedings of that Society. If he did, his views might be put forward before any proposals came to this House.
However that may be, I cannot for a moment accept the view which he puts forward, that this Bill does nothing to remove the present hardship and injustice. So far as I am aware, there never has been a proposal to alter the normal position in regard to the costs of a conveyance whereby the vendor and purchaser each pays his own share. It is very rarely the case, though it does sometimes happen, that the vendor makes it a condition that the purchaser shall pay the vendor's costs. That is, as I say, very rarely the case, and I do not understand why in the future, as soon as the general position becomes known, lessors will necessarily insert in leases the proposal or the condition that the lessee shall pay the lessor's costs.
674
I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and to my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch for their support. This is a step, at any rate, as the Lord Chancellor said, in the right direction. It still preserves freedom of contract, which I gather my noble friend Lord Silkin, in this instance would like to take away. In my view, the terms of the Bill, if passed by this House, will make the position fair as between the lessor and the lessee, and thus do away with a good deal of hardship and irritation. Therefore I hope your Lordships will approve the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

VARIATION OF TRUSTS BILL
6.4 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes after six o'clock.