Sitting of 23 November 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.

  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm an Order to confer further powers on the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board and to enact further provisions with respect to certain of the works authorised by the Forth Road Bridge Orders, 1947 to 1958, to make provision as to the acquisition and utilisation of lands by the said Board and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament for any increase attributable to the said Act in any advance by way of loan made by the Secretary of State under the Order confirmed by the Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1958.
  Resolution agreed to.

  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Order for Consideration read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.
  Question amended, by leaving out the words "now considered" and adding the words "committed to a Committee of the whole House"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]—instead thereof, and, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION (MOVEMENT OF LABOUR)
  Mr. D. Priceasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will propose to their partners in the European Free Trade Association the free movement of labour along the general lines of Article 48 of the Rome Treaty.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. The Stockholm Convention contains no provisions about the movement of labour.
  Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am aware of that fact, and that I am asking whether Her Majesty's Government will consider proposing making this addition to the Stockholm Treaty, thus bringing us more in line with our friends in the Rome Treaty? Would not it give great comfort to those young people in Scandinavia who are anxious to come to work here, and who are admitted by the Home Office only if they are prepared to work in domestic service?
  Mr. Heath: I think the fact that there is no provision about this in the Stockholm pact indicates the difference between these arrangements and the arrangements of E.E.C. These arrangements are purely trade arrangements. E.E.C. covers a much wider number of provisions. In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have not had any complaints about the conditions of admission of people from E.F.T.A. countries, but I will certainly look into them if my hon. Friend will bring them to my notice.

  GERMANY

    Destroyers and Supply Ships
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal what policy Her Majesty's Government are adopting inside the Western European Union regarding raising the limits on West German destroyers to 5,000 tons and her supply ships to 6,000 tons.
    Mr. Heath: As these discussions are confidential, it would not be right for me to make public the views of Her Majesty's Government in advance of a decision by the Council of Western European Union.
    Mr. Allaun: Surely, the Minister can tell the House whether he is for or against? Is not this increase intended to accommodate nuclear missiles and not only anti-aircraft missiles? Why are the Government step by step permitting, and indeed encouraging, the revival of German militarism? Where is it going to end?
    Mr. Heath: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to make those suggestions until he knows to what decision the W.E.U. Council has come.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Cannot the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether these so-called destroyers, which are as large as cruisers used to be, will be capable of launching missiles?
    Mr. Heath: I cannot start to give the right hon. Gentleman answers to individual supplementary questions of that nature, because otherwise one is obviously breaching the confidence of the discussions in the W.E.U. Council.
    Mr. Warbey: Is not this a matter of the highest public policy? Could not this House be informed what the Government's intentions are? Are they or are they not in favour of the relaxation of the Brussels Treaty to allow German rearmament to expand further and further without limit?
    Mr. Heath: The Government will inform the House when a decision has been reached, and of the details of that decision. It is not the practice when confidential discussions of this kind are being carried on to give details beforehand. Otherwise, obviously, there would be no point in the confidential nature of the discussions.

    Berlin (Air and Land Transport)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Lord Privy Seal if the air and land transport of persons and goods into and out of Berlin, particularly the British sector, is now unimpeded; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heath: Air transport remains unimpeded. Land transport is proceeding normally, apart from a few recent instances of interference with imports to West Berlin from Poland, and with exports from West Berlin to the Federal German Republic. Within Berlin, the illegal East German requirement that citizens of the Federal Republic must obtain a permit in order to enter the Soviet Sector is still in force.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the discussions which have taken place with regard to this matter with responsible Governments include the Russians, and if so, what was the result?
    Mr. Heath: There have been discussions on a tripartite basis between the three Western Governments. They have made their views known in repeated notes to the Soviet Union about these restrictions.

  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  Mr. Awberyasked the Lord Privy Seal if negotiations with the Icelandic Government on the question of the extent of the fishing waters have now been completed; what agreement has been reached; and if he will make a statement on the present position.
  Mr. Heath: I regret that I cannot yet add to my reply to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 18th November
  Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for three years now our fishermen have been in jeopardy in the North Sea, because of the failure of our statesmen to come to an agreement on this problem? Is he aware that the Icelandic Government are meeting on Friday to discuss this problem, and will he intimate to them immediately that he is prepared to come with an open mind to discuss the question of the three-, six-and twelve-mile limit?
  Mr. Heath: Discussions are in progress about this very difficult problem. Each delegation is discussing the position it has reached with its Government. I have announced that we hope to resume discussions in the near future, and as soon as a date is fixed I will inform the House.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that these negotiations have dragged on for so long largely because Iceland has no alternative to the fishing industry? Does not he think that it might bring the negotiations to a head if the great maritime Powers of Europe were to offer some alternative, or finance some alternative industry for the Icelandic people?
  Mr. Heath: I must repeat that negotiations are proceeding. It is agreed that the delegates will meet again as soon as the actual date is fixed. We are ready to arrange the date, and as soon as it is fixed I will announce it.

  ISRAEL (GENERAL LASKOV)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he was consulted about the cancellation of the visit to London of General Laskov, the Israeli Chief of Staff; and what new arrangements are being made with the Israeli Government for such a visit.
  Mr. Heath: I was aware that General Laskov had been invited to lecture to a private organisation and that he had postponed his visit. As the visit was private the question of making new arrangements with the Government of Israel does not arise.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no member of Her Majesty's Foreign Service asked for this visit to be cancelled, because my information is that there is a deep feeling of disquiet in the State of Israel as a result of the cancellation of the visit? Is he aware that it is thought in Israel that it was a futile attempt to conciliate Cairo, and will my right hon. Friend agree that we shall not win new friends in the Middle East by letting down the friends we have?
  Mr. Heath: I can assure my hon. Friend that there was no question of conciliating Cairo. The Government of Israel have announced that discussions of an informal kind did take place, and I think that the position is perfectly well understood.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Portugal (Overseas Territories)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegates on the Trusteeship Council and General Assembly of the United Nations voted on the
    1104
    resolution that Portugal should supply information on her overseas territories without delay; and which delegates voted for the resolution on each occasion, which against, and which abstained.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Lord Privy Seal why the British delegate abstained from voting on the motion before the Trusteeship Committee on 13th November calling on the Portuguese Government to comply with the terms of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter.
    Mr. Heath: The United Kingdom Representative abstained on this resolution, which was adopted by 45 votes to 6, with 24 abstentions. Twenty-three delegations were absent. Full details of the voting are contained in United Nations document No. A/C.4SR 1048 of 16th November, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Brockway: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman correctly—that the Government abstained upon this issue? Is not Portugal the only Power which has territory in Africa now and which declines to make these reports—territory where there is forced labour and scandalous conditions which are arousing the opposition of fellow-members of the Commonwealth in Africa?
    Mr. Heath: As the House knows, we ourselves provide the information which is required. But Governments of both parties have taken the view that it is for the administering Power to decide what are its obligations under Article 73 (e) of the Charter, and that is the reason we abstained on this resolution.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the obligations include the obligation to
    "accept as a sacred trust…to develop self-government…and to assist…in the progressive development of their free political institutions"?
    How can he tell whether Portugal is doing that unless she sends in a report, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that Portugal is doing any of these things?
    Mr. Heath: It is not for me to discuss the policy of other countries in their own colonial territories. I am explaining the reason why we did not support this resolution.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does not Article 73 (e), which the Minister has quoted, say, in terms, that it is the obligation of every member of the United Nations to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes statistical and other information about the territory? Why did not we vote in favour of Portugal carrying out the Charter obligations?
    Mr. Heath: For the same reason that the Government in 1950, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, took the view that we take now, that it is up to the administering Power to decide the extent of its obligation.

    Security Council and Economic and Social Council
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations voted on the Nigerian motion that the election of three non-permanent members of the Security Council and of six members of the Economic and Social Council should be postponed; and which delegates voted in favour, which against, and which abstained.
    Mr. Heath: The United Kingdom Representative voted against the Nigerian motion which was adopted by 51 votes to 38, with 9 abstentions. Full details of the vote are contained in United Nations document A/PV.914 of 11th November, 1960, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Nigeria and other African countries voted in favour of this, because it was known that the United Kingdom and America were going to nominate Portugal for the Security Council? In view of the Answer to Question No. 5, does not this indicate that we are acting as allies of this dictatorship in Europe, this dictatorship in Africa and this dictatorship in India?
    Mr. Heath: I think there is a much wider question at issue here. We have taken the view that the two Councils need to be expanded. We have always taken that view. At the same time, we believe that the new elections should take place in the very near future. It is usual for them to take place at the end of the general debate in the Assembly,
    1106
    but this year that has not happened. The other view is that these elections should wait until the reconstruction has taken place, but we do not believe that to be practical in the present issue.
    Mr. Healey: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what progress the Government are making in seeking the reconstruction of the Security Council on these lines, which is long overdue?
    Mr. Heath: We have repeatedly made known our view that we should like to see this expansion.

    Force (Command, Planning and Deployment)
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will instruct Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations to move for an inquiry into the system of command, military planning and deployment of United Nations forces, including the adequacy of the weapons supplied for the various tasks involved, whether for police duties, rioting, or large-scale operations, and to examine the criteria by which commanders-in-chief and their staffs are selected, and to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government, while supporting the United Nations Organisation, is determined to secure the highest degree of efficiency of a military command which may be ultimately responsible for the lives of British soldiers.
    Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly advocated the idea of a permanent United Nations force, including a small planning section in the Secretariat. This would meet many of the points referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Thompson: Hon. Members are aware of this But would not the Minister agree that the Congo situation, even making allowances for its special geographical and political difficulties, has revealed serious weaknesses in the system of military planning and command? Will not he press for some discussion of whether the criteria governing the selection of national contingents are those of diplomatic expediency or military efficiency? May not it be necessary in future operations to tilt the balance in favour of military efficiency for the sake of the safety of the troops

    1107
    involved? Is he aware that it is becoming increasingly clear that successful United Nations action can be carried out only if the United Nations possesses an effective military force?
    Mr. Heath: We are most anxious that the United Nations force should be efficient. These are very interesting and important points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. So far we have failed to carry conviction with the points we have put forward about the nature of the force which would help the hon. Gentleman in the aims he is trying to achieve.

    Congo (Report)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has considered the report issued on 2nd November by the United Nations High Commissioner in the Congo; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal what action he proposes to take in the United Nations arising out of the Dayal Report on the situation in the Congo.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has considered the Report on the Congo issued by Mr. Hammarskjoeld on 2nd November; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heath: The United Nations debate on the Congo has been adjourned. If and when it is resumed we shall have to consider to what extent the Report is still relevant to the circumstances then prevailing. In the meantime there is no action for us to take on the Report, which was transmitted by the Secretary-General for information.
    I had Mr. Dayal's Report in mind when I spoke about the Congo on 4th November in the debate on the Address. I have nothing to add to the statement which I then made.
    Mr. Healey: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether Her Majesty's Government endorse the very serious allegations made in the Report about the behaviour of Belgian citizens in the Congo, allegations which were endorsed by the Indian Prime Minister in his Parliament a few days ago? Can he tell us, if he does endorse these allegations, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to discourage Belgium from
    1108
    allowing these men to stream back into the Congo?
    Mr. Heath: It is a large Report with a large number of statements in it. I could not make any general covering remarks about it. I made plain on 4th November in the debate what we believed to be the position. It is that Belgian citizens have a part to play in the Congo. The real problem is to match assistance which can come from those individual citizens with the assistance being provided by the United Nations, and we are hoping that that can be brought about.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that all reports confirm that the Belgians were guilty of criminal negligence before independence and are now attempting to gain control of the Congo through stooges? If any aid is to be given to the Congo from Belgium it must be through the United Nations. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Parliamentary representatives have been prevented from meeting by Colonel Mobutu's men, and that one of the prime objectives of U.N.O. policy must be to ensure that elected representatives are allowed to meet?
    Mr. Heath: I cannot accept the hon. Member's remarks about what the Belgians are trying to do at the moment. On the constitutional position, I have always made it plain that we believe that one of the first needs must be to try to get a constitutional organisation to emerge with which the United Nations can carry on negotiations.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does the Answer to the original Question mean that the right hon. Gentleman disputes what was said in the Report? Does he not agree with it? Has he a different view?
    Mr. Heath: What I said was that there are a large number of statements in this Report and, in question and answer, I cannot say that I accept every statement made in it or challenge particular ones.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the Report lists a very large number of actions by Belgian citizens in direct contradiction of the tasks of the United Nations forces in the Congo? While agreeing that it is desirable that Belgian citizens in the Congo should co-operate

    1109
    with the United Nations, is there not every day fresh evidence that Belgian citizens are frustrating the United Nations in the carrying out of its task not only in Katanga but in Leopoldville itself?
    Mr. Heath: If Belgian citizens do not carry out the law, of course they are liable to the same as everyone else; but I cannot accept the all-embracing statement that Belgian citizens are going there to frustrate United Nations action, because there are also tributes being paid to the work which Belgian citizens are doing in the Congo.

    Algeria
    Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct Her Majesty's Government's representatives at the United Nations to support discussion of the Algerian situation by the United Nations as a threat to peace.
    Mr. Heath: An item entitled "The Question of Algeria" was placed on the agenda of the General Assembly without a vote on 10th October. I understand that discussion in the First Committee of the Assembly will begin on 5th December.
    Mr. Healey: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what attitude Her Majesty's Government propose to take in this discussion? Is it not the case that in recent weeks the Algerian affair has taken on very serious international implications and that the rebel Government are now being recognised by a large number of members of the United Nations? Is it not highly desirable that the United Nations should at this time seize itself of the problem and use every influence it has in order to bring about negotiations between the French Government and leaders of the rebellion in Algeria? Would the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can in this direction?
    Mr. Heath: Of course, we must see the terms of the resolution on which the debate is to be carried on before we can define exactly our attitude towards it, but, as I said on 4th November, our attitude will be a constructive one to try to reconcile the differences which exist over Algeria.

    South-West Africa
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal why Her Majesty's Government abstained in the vote in the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations on 14th November on the question whether South-West Africa should be discussed by the Committee; and whether Her Majesty's Government accept the opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1956 that the supervisory functions in relation to the mandate previously exercised by the Council of the League of Nations are now to be exercised by the United Nations.
    Mr. Heath: The motion was that the debate on South-West Africa be adjourned on the grounds that the matter was sub judice.
    The United Kingdom Representative abstained on the motion. He explained our belief that the Committee should do nothing which might in any way impair the standing of the International Court of Justice. The text of this statement is being placed in the Library of the House.
    The finding of the International Court of Justice to which the hon. Gentleman refers is contained in the Advisory Opinion given in 1950, which Her Majesty's Government have accepted as a whole.
    Mr. Johnson: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, he does not add anything to what was said by the delegate at the Committee meeting. Will he say "Yes" or "No" whether he accepts the contention of South Africa that the matter is in fact sub judice? On the second part of his reply, in view of the adamant refusal of the South African Government to implement the Advisory Opinion of the International Court, which Her Majesty's Government now accept, will he consider recommending that the International Court be asked for its opinion on whether this wilful refusal of South Africa to accept supervision has changed unilaterally the status of the territory?
    Mr. Heath: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the view taken by Her Majesty's Government and the British delegation was that

    1111
    this matter was sub judice, but that in itself did not exclude all consideration by the Committee. On the second part of the supplementary question, I think we had better await the result of the present reference to the International Court.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that some British votes in the past have done great harm in South Africa? Is it not now desirable that Her Majesty's Government and their delegation in New York should do everything in their power to persuade the South African Government that they must accept the Advisory Opinion of 1956?
    Mr. Heath: That is a very much wider question.

    Victims of Nazi Persecution (Compensation)
    Colonel Beamishasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the result of his discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regarding compensation for Stateless victims of Nazi persecution.
    Mr. Randallasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent negotiations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on compensation for Stateless and other refugees who were persecuted by the Nazis by reason of their nationality.
    Mr. Heath: I am glad to say that agreement was reached on 5th October between the Federal German Government and the then United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for compensation for refugees who suffered persecution under the Nazis on grounds of nationality.
    Colonel Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken a keen interest in this question over the years will warmly welcome what is without doubt a generous settlement?
    Mr. Heath: We are very grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped us to get this agreement.

    Camp, Guatemala
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will draw the attention of the Security Council under Article 34 of the Charter to the camp in Guatemala where insurgents are being trained and armed with the proclaimed intention to attack Cuba as a circumstance tending to affect the good relations between nations and capable of endangering peace.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the camp in Guatemala is being conducted on a scale far beyond the financial resources of the Guatemalan Government, that the whole incident bears a striking resemblance to the intervention which set up the present Government in Nicaragua, with the help of the United States, and that President-Elect Kennedy has advocated a policy of intervention of this sort? Will he please do something before the situation blows up in our faces?
    Mr. Heath: I have seen Press reports of a similar nature, and I have also seen denials by the President of Guatemala of the truth of these reports.
    Mr. John Hall: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Security Council to the interference by Cuba in the affairs of South American Governments?

  DISARMAMENT
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Lord Privy Seal, without prejudice to the discussion of other proposals for tackling the disarmament problem, if he will consider the possibility that the Geneva disarmament talks should be resumed with the addition of representatives of other States, including India and China.
  Mr. Heath: We fully support the resumption of the Geneva talks. The composition of the negotiating body must be a matter for international agreement, and I would prefer not to comment on it while the whole subject is under discussion at the United Nations.
  Mr. Swingler: Apart from the Prime Minister's proposal for technical studies, what action are the Government to take to try to bring about this resumption?

  1113
  Do they agree that it can be done effectively only if both China and some representatives of the uncommitted nations are included? Can the Government get the conversations a stage further by agreeing in principle that India and China should be included in the resumed talks?
  Mr. Heath: We have stated in the disarmament discussions at the United Nations that we stand ready to resume them in the Ten-Power Committee, and we are anxious to do so. As to the composition, it is of course notable that the discussions did not break down because of the composition of the Committee, because it was bad or lacked any members, but because the Soviet delegation walked out.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is not it plain from the record of the discussions at Geneva that every day there was a need for some impartial voice to be heard and that it was unfortunate that the Commission consisted of ten members divided into two allied groups of five? Will the Government say that they are ready to accept the membership of India, China and other nations in whatever body may carry on the discussions?
  Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt exactly with that point in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 17th November, when he said that he did not exclude that possibility.

  MRS. LOUISA LIVINGSTONE (COMPENSATION CLAIM)
  Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will investigate the claim of Mrs. Louisa Livingstone, Shaw Street, Dunfermline, whose parents, sisters and brother were put to death during the German occupation of Poland and Austria, and their property confiscated; and why no settlement over compensation has yet been reached in this case, which was first submitted to the Foreign Office by her agents, the National Commercial Bank of Scotland Limited, on 5th March, 1956.
  Mr. Heath: Mrs. Livingstone's claim against the Polish Government was considered by the Foreign Compensation
  1114
  Commission in 1957. The property in question was situated in the Eastern territories of Poland, which were ceded to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1946. Since there was no evidence of any expropriation of the property by the Polish Government, the Foreign Compensation Commission dismissed the claim.
  Dr. Thompson: Is not the Minister aware that since then the claim has been referred to the enemy property branch of the finance division of the Board of Trade, and that the National Commercial Bank of Scotland has had no answers to letters, one written a year ago and one nine months ago, sent to this branch? Is he aware that this unfortunate woman's family, including a sister aged 12½ and the baby daughter of another sister, were slaughtered by the Germans; that her property was confiscated in turn by the Germans, the Poles and the Russians, and that the claim has been referred from one Department to another for four years? Is he aware that she has travelled to London for an interview without success and has received hardly any help or guidance——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member can abbreviate his supplementary question.
  Dr. Thompson: Will the Minister promise to consult these various boards, in view of the fact that the correspondence was originally addressed to his Department, and try to secure a settlement?
  Mr. Heath: This is a very sad case and also necessarily a very technical and complicated case. I have explained why it has not been possible to help Mrs. Livingstone so far, and I shall certainly inquire into what is happening.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION

    Spitsbergen
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal what decisions have been reached in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding the construction of bomber bases in the Spitsbergen archipelago.
    Mr. Heath: None, Sir.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Norwegian Government in a recent Note to the Soviet Government had to admit that last year surveys were carried out by an American-financed expedition with a view to the construction of aerodromes in the Spitsbergen islands; and that this was done without the knowledge of the Norwegian Government and contrary to its policy and to the Spitsbergen Treaty of 1921? Is not this a deplorable example of the way in which the Americans can implicate their N.A.T.O. allies in matters which might have very dangerous repercussions?
    Mr. Heath: As soon as the Norwegian Government heard of these incidents it recalled the expedition, and it has stated quite clearly that it has no intention of constructing airfields on Spitsbergen.

    Nuclear Force
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will oppose, at the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference, any proposals to set up a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the arming of N.A.T.O. with nuclear weapons would turn it into an offensive force, that the control of the use of nuclear weapons would for all practical purposes pass out of our hands, and that the net result would be to increase the danger of war, and—although this would affect the right hon. Gentleman differently from the way in which it would affect me—that it would greatly increase the opposition in this country to our remaining in this position?
    Mr. Heath: N.A.T.O. is already armed with nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the only information we have on this subject derives from the speech of the Supreme Commander, General Norstad, may we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that before any decision is reached by the Government the House will be consulted as to its views?
    Mr. Heath: I will certainly consult the Leader of the House about that.

  LAOS AND VIETNAM
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal what recent discussions he has had with the Soviet co-chairman of the Geneva Conference regarding the situation in Laos and Vietnam.
  Mr. Heath: None, Sir.
  Mr. Warbey: In view of the very grave disturbances which have taken place in South Vietnam and which are still taking place in Laos, in view of the failure to carry out the Geneva Agreement in those countries, and in view of the now admitted and clear American intervention in both those countries, is it not time that there were discussions about these matters? Would it not be a good idea to recall the Geneva Conference so that the terms of the Agreement can be carried out?
  Mr. Heath: There is a disturbing situation there, but I cannot accept the contentious statements made by the hon. Member. No request has been received from any of the parties concerned for action by the co-chairmen.
  Mr. S. Silverman: As the right hon. Gentleman admits what we all know to be true, namely, that there is a disturbed situation there, will he say to what extent the Government still accept any responsibility for the Geneva Conference and its decisions and whether they have abdicated all their functions as co-chairman of the Conference?
  Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a Question on that point, I will answer it.
  Mr. Silverman: The Question is on this point.
  Mr. Heath: It is an entirely different Question. This Question is about the action of the co-chairmen. If the hon. Gentleman wants a full statement about our responsibilities there, I will gladly give it to him in answer to a Question. At the moment, matters are being handled by the Governments concerned in their own countries.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, as joint chairman of the conference which appointed the control commission in Vietnam, he has considered the note sent to him by the liaison

  1117
  mission of the North Vietnam High Command about military collusion between the South Vietnam authorities and the Phoumi Nosavan supporters in Laos; and whether he will refer this matter to the Commission for their attention.
  Mr. Heath: No such Note has been received by my noble Friend, who is the joint chairman of the Conference. According to the North Vietnamese Press, the liaison mission did, however, address a complaint on this subject to the International Commission on 10th October.
  Mr. Rankin: Despite the fact that no Note has been received, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential to preserve the neutralism of the Government of Laos? Does he realise that attempts are being made to destroy that neutral position? During this month 16 million United States dollars have gone to General Phoumi Nosavan for that purpose. Where they came from is anyone's guess. In addition, 500 cases of ammunition and certain aircraft have gone. Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if neutralism in Laos disappears, a very grave situation will develop in South-East Asia if Laos and South Vietnam link up?
  Mr. Heath: The neutral situation under the Geneva protocols was itself qualified in certain respects, but the plain fact is that this matter is at the moment before the International Commission and therefore there was no need for us to take action in the respects of the hon. Gentleman's Question.

  ST. HELENA (BAHRAINI PRISONERS)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement about the release of the Bahraini prisoners now detained in St. Helena.
  Mr. Heath: I regret that at present I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 26th October.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Why is the Minister allowing this matter to drag on for so long? This is a very serious question. Does he not realise that these men were convicted, so-called, in a feudal court without having a proper trial and
  1118
  that the conviction was announced in the Official Gazette of St. Helena even before that fake trial took place? In view of all the unsavoury aspects of the case, will not he release the men forthwith?
  Mr. Heath: I fully realise all the facts. I am well aware of them. I am at the moment carrying out the undertaking which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the House when he was Foreign Secretary to ask all those concerned to look at this question again. I will tell the House as soon as the decision is reached.
  Mr. Healey: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that it is now nearly six months since the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave this undertaking? Is he not also aware that this type of intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign State and the acceptance of responsibility for imprisoning men over whose conviction we have had no influence whatever is one of the things which is causing most anxiety in the Middle East and is most responsible for Arab distrust of British policy in that area?
  Mr. Heath: The legal situation was clarified, and that was the original purpose of my right hon. and learned Friend's Answer. I, too, am anxious that I should be able to make a statement to the House as soon as possible.

  ARMAMENTS (EXPORT)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal what instructions he has given to attachés at British Embassies to encourage the sale of armaments abroad; how many attachés have been, or will be, specifically briefed in this way; how many such specially-qualified attachés have been, or will be, appointed; and what kind of relevant information is being sent to embassies.
  Mr. Heath: As the information for which the hon. Gentleman has asked is long and detailed I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Allaun: Is not this the one kind of export we do not want? Would it not be better to give more encouragement to peaceful exports instead? Will the Lord Privy Seal admit that British

  1119
  lives may be lost, as in the past, through the sales activities of these merchants of death, such as Vickers Armstrong, whose new office blocks, symbolically, will be the tallest in London and will overlook the Houses of Parliament nearby?
  Mr. Heath: We would welcome support from every quarter for increasing exports for peaceful purposes, and indeed we receive it from every quarter. As regards exports of arms, countries have a fully justifiable right of self-defence and to purchase arms for that purpose.
  Mr. Pavitt: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether such attachés are stationed in Prague, Moscow and Warsaw?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman will be able to see if he looks at the long and detailed reply which I am providing.
  Following is the information:
  In addition to their main duties as military advisers to Her Majesty's Representatives, Service Attachés are under standing instructions to take such steps as are appropriate in the circumstances to inform the Governments of the countries in which they are serving of the availability of British equipment.
  At present there are 20 naval attachés, 39 military attachés, 34 air attachés, and 24 assistant attachés serving at Her Majesty's Missions in foreign countries. There is also a supply attaché at Bonn.
  All Service attachés are fully briefed before taking up their appointments, on all aspects of arms sales which may be of interest to the countries in which they are serving. Such briefing includes visits to private manufacturers where appropriate. During the course of their appointments, Service attachés maintain close touch with their parent Departments and the Ministry of Aviation regarding all aspects of arms sales.
  Her Majesty's Embassies have had brought to their attention the Second Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, concerning the sale of military equipment abroad, and are acting upon those of the Committee's recommendations which were accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION
  Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation in Bangkok.
  Mr. Heath: The South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Council Representatives, most of whom are resident in Bangkok, meet there regularly at least once a month. In addition, the S.E.A.T.O. Military Advisers Committee met on 16th November. Such meetings take place about every six months and are the concern of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Defence.
  Mr. Johnson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, in view of the references made at the conference to the situation in Laos, will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will oppose any suggestion that S.E.A.T.O. should intervene in the domestic situation in Laos?
  Mr. Heath: The S.E.A.T.O. Council would have to consider any situation which arose in the light of its circumstances. I could not give a general undertaking of the nature for which the hon. Gentleman asks without knowing the nature of the circumstances.

  HOLIDAYS ABROAD (TRAVEL DOCUMENTS)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Lord Privy Seal what decisions he has taken which will simplify and reduce the cost entailed in the present passport system for holidays abroad and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Heath: No final decision has yet been taken, but I hope to make a statement shortly.
  Mr. Dodds: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for indicating that there will be a change. When he makes his statement, will he explain why on 25th July when I asked for a simplification for people going on holidays abroad the spokesman from the Foreign Office said that it was absolutely necessary to have passports? What has happened to alter that decision in such a short time?
  Mr. Heath: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await my statement and see whether it meets his needs. Then he need not argue about the past.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend make quite clear that a British

  1121
  subject has a right to enter and leave this country without a passport if he so wishes?
  Mr. Heath: I think that my hon. Friend is technically quite correct.
  Mr. C. Royle: On the question of the passport system, will the right hon. Gentleman say which documents were necessary for the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) to transfer from the back benches to the Front Bench?
  Mr. Heath: I think that my hon. Friend is here to assist my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

  POLARIS SUBMARINE BASE
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct the United Kingdom Ambassador in Washington to raise with the United States Government the question of that Government providing adequate compensation for British citizens who will be affected adversely by the agreement to establish a United States base on the Holy Loch.
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Surely the Government are concerned in protecting the interests of the people who live in this area? Is the Minister aware that there is considerable alarm in the area about the possibilities? Is he aware that the local authorities are asking urgent questions which are not being answered? If anybody suffers from radioactivity in this area, is he not to claim compensation from the American Government? What about the fishermen, whose interests are likely to be endangered? Does the Minister know that every time there is naval activity in the Clyde the fishermen's nets are torn up by mines? Does he intend to allow the Americans to come in without giving any satisfaction at all to the people who live in the area?
  Mr. Heath: When the Prime Minister made the original announcement he said that arrangements were being made for consultation with local authorities. That will give them the opportunity to raise any matters of this kind. In general, any questions of this kind will be covered by the existing arrangements for forces in this country.
  Mr. Manuel: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities are most dissatisfied? They had a consultation with certain Government or semi-Government people last week, I understand, with no satisfaction about the discharge of radioactive wastes and effluents? If local authorities are to have expense thrown upon them in keeping their areas clear—either the sewage systems or installations or the coastal waters adjacent to their shores—should not some compensation be given to them? Why are they not allowed to discuss the matters on this liaison committee which has been set up?
  Mr. Heath: If local authorities have problems of that kind, I am sure that they will bring them to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We can then examine each of the problems which the local authorities have.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Pneumoconiosis, Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour if he will take urgent action in the City of Stoke-on-Trent to eliminate pneumoconiosis from the pottery and mining industries; whether he will make available in the district increased temporary assistance for the factory inspector; when he expects that there will be complete dust control; whether he will introduce a safe code of practice and ensure its urgent application; and what further action he will take in this connection.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power share the hon. Member's concern to eliminate dusty conditions which may cause pneumoconiosis. All potteries in the Stoke district were specially surveyed by the Factory Inspectorate between 1956 and 1958 and the report of the survey was published in 1959. The problems to which the report drew attention are being dealt with by a special committee on which both sides of the industry are represented. Special regulations already exist dealing with the dust hazards in the industry. The allocation of inspectors between different districts is regularly

    1123
    reviewed. An additional officer is being attached to the Wolverhampton Divisional Office which covers the Stoke area.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: While casting no reflections upon the present Minister, may I ask whether he is aware that I have had similar Answers for many years? Has not the time arrived when some sense of urgency should be introduced into this problem in order to prevent this needless suffering? Has he seen the very serious observations made by the city coroner to the effect that a large number of the deaths from congested heart failure had been contributed to by silicosis? If so, will he give an undertaking that a sense of urgency will be introduced and that there will be a great drive to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Hare: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member, but I think that it is unfair of him to say that little or nothing has been done. A great deal of work has been done, as he must know from having read the survey report. We are not complacent. A great deal more work needs to be done and we shall press on to the best of our ability.

    Government Training Centres (Apprentices)
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Labour how many apprentice training schemes are in operation in Government Training Centres; how many firms have taken advantage of these facilities; and how many apprentices are now undergoing training in them.
    Mr. Hare: There are at present ten classes; 85 firms are participating; and 120 boys are in training.
    Mr. Albu: Is it fair to say that this scheme has failed and that small firms are not taking advantage of the Government's offer to provide the first-year apprenticeship in their workshops? Will not the Government have to take over apprenticeship training to a much larger extent if we are to deal with the bulge now coming out of the schools?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think the hon. Member is right. The scheme was announced in the House only in May
    1124
    of this year. It Is true that the expansion has been slower than I personally hoped, but now that we have it under way I have reasonable confidence that recruitment will improve next year.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, even in filling the 120 places, some of his officers in different parts of the country had great difficulty in getting firms to participate? Will he comment on this? Why should this be? Is it that employers are reluctant to accept a new idea, or are there other reasons?
    Mr. Hare: As I have said, the expansion has been slower than I expected, but now that we have it under way and firms are able to see what these classes are doing, I hope that recruitment will be better next year.
    Mr. Chetwynd: What is the geographical distribution of these centres? How many of these are in the North?
    Mr. Hare: It is rather a long list. If I send the list to the hon. Member it will perhaps save the time of the House.

    Lanarkshire
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Labour how many persons in Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire, respectively, were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Hare: At 14th November, 7,637 in the County of Lanarkshire, excluding the City of Glasgow. Of these, 6,936 were in North Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that these numbers are far too high, that they have been registering at the employment exchanges for far too long and that this is all due to the fact that the Government have done far too little? Will he abandon this negative approach and adopt a positive attitude by preparing effective plans whereby these unemployed persons can be absorbed in the near future?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member ought to be fair. The situation is not satisfactory, but it is very much better than it was a year ago. There has been an improvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] This shows that things are being done. The hon. Member can take some satisfaction from the fact that

    1125
    whereas the percentage of unemployment in North Lanarkshire a year ago was 6·6 per cent., it is now 4·9 per cent.
    Mr. Manuel: It is too high.
    Mr. Hare: I hope that the new jobs in the pipeline will help the situation.

    School Leavers, Clackmannanshire
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the prospect that in 1962 30 per cent. of the school leavers in Clackmannanshire will face permanent unemployment; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to improve the position.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): No, Sir. Although the increase in the number of school leavers in Clackmannanshire in 1962 will make the employment situation more difficult than at present, I expect that the great majority will find employment without excessive difficulty.
    Mr. Woodburn: Am I to understand that the Minister's information is different from that of the youth employment officer? When he answers "No, Sir", what does it mean? Is he contradicting the youth employment officer, or is he saying that he does not intend to take steps to improve the situation?
    Mr. Thomas: I am aware that a statement has been attributed to the Clackmannan youth employment officer, and "No, Sir" means that I certainly do not agree with that statement. I hope that any apprehensions that may have been caused by it will be dispelled by what I have said.

    Apprentices
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour in which areas of the United Kingdom the percentage of school leavers accepted as apprentices during 1959 fell appreciably below the national average.
    Mr. P. Thomas: In Wales and the Midland Region of England.
    Mr. Boyden: Does the Minister propose to carry out the recent recommendations of the Industrial Training Committee in relation to local development districts; namely, that firms already in the area should, with Government assistance,
    1126
    train supernumerary apprentices and, further, that firms coming to the area should receive special encouragement to set up training facilities in their factories?
    Mr. Thomas: Those suggestions, which we consider to be very interesting, will certainly be carefully considered.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the failure of nearly 5,500 boys to secure apprenticeships with the Services during 1959, he will take steps to arrange for a substantial number of apprentices to be trained supernumerary to Service requirements whilst the present difficulties in apprenticeship training persists.
    Mr. P. Thomas: The failure was due to the boys being below the required standard. There are vacancies for apprentices which the Services would be glad to fill if applicants of the right quality were available. The question of supernumerary training does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Boyden: Does not this point to a very considerable lack of propaganda to recruit the right types of boys? Surely, with the present pressure for apprenticeship, there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of boys who would want to do this sort of training?
    Mr. Thomas: As I have said, the Services did offer more vacancies to boys who sat the examinations than were, in fact, accepted by the boys.

    Selby
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers of unemployed men and women in Selby at the latest date for which figures are available; and what were the corresponding numbers on the same date in 1958 and 1959.
    Mr. Hare: At 14th November, 34 men and 8 women; at 17th November, 1958, 58 men and 19 women; and at 16th November, 1959, 46 men and 9 women.

    Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons registering at each of the employment exchanges in the area covered by the Easington Parliamentary division.
    Mr. Hare: On 14th November the numbers were 197 at Haswell Employment Exchange, 656 at Houghton-le-Spring, 627 at Horden, 622 at Seaham Harbour and 270 at Wingate.
    Mr. Shinwell: What does the Minister intend to do about it?
    Mr. Hare: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that, with the exception of Wingate, where unemployment is 3·2 per cent., all the others that I have mentioned—including Haswell, which has been added to the list—are on the list of places that should benefit under the Local Employment Act, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is doing all that he can to attract new projects to that area.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend has done nothing at all? Will he convey my compliments to his right hon. Friend, and tell him that the sooner he gets on with it the better, otherwise he will have trouble from me?
    Mr. Hare: From what I know of the right hon. Gentleman, he is very capable of conveying his own compliments to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    School Leavers, Stirlingshire
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Labour what are the prospects of providing employment for the increased number of school leavers in Stirlingshire in the next four years; and what proportion is likely to remain unemployed.
    Mr. P. Thomas: The employment prospects for school leavers depend largely on the general employment situation, which has improved in Stirlingshire in the past year. I do not at present foresee that the county's additional school leavers in the next four years should have much difficulty in finding work.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the Parliamentary Secretary call the attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to a part of Stirlingshire in the Slamannan Plateau which has not so far received any help in providing employment?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, I shall certainly convey that matter to my right hon.
    1128
    Friend but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, his Question related to Stirlingshire as a whole. The unemployment figure in Stirlingshire is 2·3 per cent. of the insured population, which is certainly below the Scottish average. There are parts of Scotland that require attention before many parts of Stirlingshire.

    Guild of Insurance Officials
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received from the Guild of Insurance Officials requesting that the Guild should be recognised by insurance employers as the employees' negotiating body; and what has been the nature of his reply.
    Mr. Hare: I have received no representations from the Guild of Insurance Officials. A number of hon. Members have, however, written to me following representations made to them. I have explained in reply that the question of recognition is a matter for settlement between the Guild and the insurance employers.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the negotiating machinery in this industry is very unsatisfactory? In view of the desire there is on both sides of the House to improve such negotiating machinery wherever it may be deficient, will he not take some initiative in trying to persuade the employers to mend their ways a little?
    Mr. Hare: The basic fact is that this is a matter for agreement between the two sides of industry. As regards conciliation, or any assistance that both sides of the industry want in setting up negotiating machinery, I have already said that I shall be only too willing to lend the services of my officials.
    Mr. Gower: In view of the fact that one or two of the larger insurance offices do recognise the Guild, could my right hon. Friend represent to the other companies the advantages of such recognition in all cases where a substantial body of the employees of a company are members of the Guild?
    Mr. Hare: I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says, but until we can get agreement on the side of the employers there is nothing more that I can do.
    Mr. Prentice: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be rather more positive on this matter? Does he subscribe to the statements often made by his predecessors that they wanted to see voluntary bargaining extended to new fields? If so, with banks, insurance companies and others lagging behind, cannot he make a firm statement that he wants to see them meet the demands of their staffs for representation, and offer the services of his officials to iron out the details?
    Mr. Hare: There is a considerable difference of opinion among the employers concerned, but I am sure that they will take note of the principle. Naturally, I am always willing to do what I can to improve relations in any way, but until we get both sides to agree to take action there is nothing I can usefully do.
    Mr. G. Brown: The Minister has not answered my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As the present Minister of Labour, does he subscribe to the repeated statements of his predecessors that, as Ministers of Labour, they wanted to see voluntary negotiating machinery extended to these fields? Will he say that this is now his policy? Will he then get the employers together, and see what he can do to get them to follow out that expressed wish?
    Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is my policy, and that it has been the policy of my predecessors. I think that it is the policy of hon. Members opposite, too, but he is knowledgeable in these matters and will apreciate that, until people agree, one cannot get them to do things—[Interruption.]—unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to use some form of compulsion, which I am sure is not in his mind.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister say categorically today that it is his wish that the employers should recognise the trade unions in this sphere of industry? Will he say that he desires them to do so?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think that that supplementary question is helpful. For instance, it is very difficult to say which trade union should be recognised.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister see the employers in this case and, even if he does not wish to say it publicly, will he assure us that he will in private—[Laughter.]—urge them to meet the Guild of Insurance Officials and enter into negotiations with them? Will he see the employers? Will he put to them what he has told us is his policy, and urge them to proceed to carry it out?
    Mr. Hare: If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman put a very "Irish" question to me. I have the views of the House, and hon. Members have my own views—that I do want a satisfactory arrangement. I hope that the House will allow me to do the best that I think can be done.

    Factories (Ionising Radiations) Special Regulations
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made following the publication last January of the second preliminary draft of the Factories (Ionising Radiations) Special Regulations; when he expects to lay these Regulations before Parliament in their final form; and when he expects to issue Regulations dealing with unsealed sources of radiation.
    Mr. Hare: I hope to publish early next year the statutory draft of the Factories (Ionising Radiations) Special Regulations dealing with sealed sources of ionising radiations and a preliminary draft of Regulations dealing with open sources. Unless any general objection is received, I shall make the Regulations dealing with sealed sources and lay them before Parliament after the completion of the period allowed for consideration of the statutory draft.
    Mr. Prentice: While acknowledging what the Minister has said about the Regulations concerning sealed sources, may I ask him to do all he can to expedite Regulations relating to unsealed sources? The matter has been hanging fire for some years. In view of the I.L.O. Convention, should we not have on the Statute Book as soon as possible a code of safety for people exposed to these risks?
    Mr. Hare: It would probably be better to publish both drafts together. This is a complicated matter, and we have

    1131
    had many consultations and comments. I hope to be in a position to have the Draft Regulations available for consideration in early March.
    Mr. Marsh: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate extending the scope of the Regulations to cover medical and educational institutions?
    Mr. Hare: I should like to consider what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

  DIVISION No. 6 (CORRECTION)
  Mr. Gower: Mr. Speaker, in columns 1067 to 1070 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for yesterday I am wrongly described as having voted in both Lobbies. I have a clear recollection of my visit to the Government Lobby, and I am just as sure that I did not then rush into the Opposition Lobby. In those circumstances, will you please direct that this mistake be rectified?
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I had observed that his activities had been duplicated. I will see that a correction is made.

BILLS PRESENTED
  BETTING LEVY
  Bill to provide for contributions for purposes connected with the advancement of horse racing from persons engaged by way of business in effecting betting transactions on horse races; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. R. A. Butler; supported by Mr. Maclay, Mr. Vosper, and Mr. Renton; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES
  Bill to raise the limit on the interest in the shares of a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, which any one member may hold and to enable certain societies to make advances of money to members without security, presented by Mr. Rankin; supported by Mr. Oram, Mr. Darling, Mr. R. Edwards, Mr. Stonehouse, Mrs. Butler, Mrs. Slater, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Baxter, Mr. G. Roberts, Mr. T. W. Jones, and Mr. A. B. C. Harrison; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th December, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Bill to make provision for the protection of consumers, presented by Mr. Robert Edwards; supported by Mr. Oram, Mr. Darling, Mrs. Slater, Mrs. Butler, Mr. F. Noel-Baker, Mr. Owen, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Stonehouse, Mr. Willey, Dr. Dickson Mabon, and Mr. Pavitt; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th January, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
  MOTOR VEHICLES (PASSENGER INSURANCE)
  Bill to make it unlawful for any motor vehicle to be used on the road without there being in force a policy of insurance covering the risk of injury to or death of any passenger carried on the said vehicle. presented by Mr. Cronin; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Gresham Cooke, Sir A. V. Harvey, Sir H. Kerr, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Charles Pannell, and Mr. Probert; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th February, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  MOCK AUCTIONS
  Bill to prohibit certain practices in relation to sales purporting to be sales by auction, presented by Colonel Tufton Beamish; supported by Mr. Dodds, Mr. Doughty, Mr. Darling, Sir S. Storey, Mr. R. Edwards, Mr. Goodhart, Mr. Lipton, Mr. A. Royle, Mr. Cronin, Sir H. Lucas-Tooth, and Sir W. Wakefield; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th February, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  GAME LICENCES AND GUN LICENCES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS), ETC.
  Bill to restrict the use of guns, to amend the Game Licences Act, 1860, and the Gun Licence Act, 1870, and to enact provisions with respect to dealers in game and other matters, presented by Mr. B. Harrison; supported by Mr. Kimball, Earl of Dalkeith, Sir L. Heald, Major W. Hicks Beach, Mr. Hobson, Sir A. Hurd, and Mr. Deedes; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

  RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION)
  Bill to make further provision for maintaining or restoring the wholesomeness of the rivers and other inland or

  1133
  coastal waters of England and Wales, presented by Mr. Temple; supported by Colonel Tufton Beamish, Mr. Corfield, Mr. de Ferranti, Mr. Gurden, Sir L. Heald, Mr. Jack Jones, Sir H. Lucas-Tooth, Lieut.-Commander Maydon, Mr. G. Roberts, Mr. Short, and Dame Irene Ward; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

  HIGHWAYS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  Bill to make certain amendments to the law relating to highways, streets and bridges in England and Wales, presented by Mr. Aitken; supported by Mr. Corfield and Mr. Ronald Bell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th February, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
  CRIMINAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION)
  Bill to compensate those injured by certain criminal offences against the person; to provide for their dependants and for the dependants of those killed by criminal acts; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Carol Johnson; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Prentice, Sir G. Benson, and Mr. Mitchison; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th January, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
  PRINTERS' IMPRINT
  Bill to make provision for relaxing certain requirements of the Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act, 1869, presented by Mr. Chataway, supported by Mr. Pitman, Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Batsford, Mr. Berkeley, and Mr. Holman; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th December, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY
  Bill to amend the law relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners, presented by Mr. Kenneth Robinson; supported by Mr. Houghton, Mr. Kirk, Dr. Stross, Mr. Strauss, Miss Vickers, Viscount Lambton, Sir L. Plummer, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Scholefield Allen, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Sorensen; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th February, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
  POLICE FEDERATION
  Bill to amend the law relating to membership of the Police Federation, presented by Mr. T. W. Jones; supported by Lord Balniel, Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Dingle Foot, Lady Megan Lloyd George, Mr. C. Hughes, Mr. Idwal Jones, Mr. Morgan, Mr. G. Roberts, Mr. G. Thomas, Sir L. Ungoed Thomas, and Mr. Watkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
  HIGHWAYS (LIABILITY FOR ANIMALS)
  Bill to amend the law relating to the liability for injury or damage caused by animals to persons or chattels on the highway, presented by Mr. Probert; supported by Mr. Ll. Williams, Mr. Finch, Mr. Abse, Mr. Iorwerth Thomas, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. Ness Edwards, and Mr. Idwal Jones; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  ANIMALS (CONTROL OF INTENSIFIED METHODS OF FOOD PRODUCTION)
  Bill to authorise the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make regulations for securing humane conditions and practices in connection with the rearing and keeping in buildings of animals for the production of food, and the slaughter of such animals; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Dudgale; supported by Mr. Burden, Mr. Chataway, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Moyle, and Mr. Russell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
  ROAD SAFETY (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR)
  Bill to require the wearing of approved protective headgear by certain categories of road users; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor; supported by Mrs. McLaughlin, Sir D. Campbell, Mr. Stratton, Mills, Mr. Maginnis, Captain Orr, Mr. H. Clark, Mr. Snow, Mr. Bowen, Sir R. Glyn, Mr. W. Reid, and Mr. Kimball; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th February, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
  CARRIAGE BY AIR
  Bill to give effect to the Convention concerning international carriage by air known as "the Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague, 1955", to enable the rules contained in that Convention to be applied, with or without modification, in other cases and, in particular, to non-international carriage by air; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. R. Bell; supported by Sir Arthur Vere Harvey, Mr. de Freitas, Sir D. Walker-Smith, Sir W. Wakefield, Sir F. Soskice, Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir E. Errington, and Mr. G. Wilson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th February, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

  LIBRARIES (PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT)
  Bill to provide for the just remuneration of authors and publishers for books supplied to and issued by public libraries and lending libraries; for the better support of the public libraries by the making lawful of charges for admission to lectures and meetings, for notification that books and other material are available, for the retention of books beyond a prescribed period, and for the loan of books to be taken out of the said libraries; and for other purposes, presented by Mr. Teeling; supported by Mr. Fisher, Major
  1136
  W. Hicks Beach, Mr. Curran, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Channon, Mr. Strachey, Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Janner, Mr. Stonehouse, Mr. Rankin, and Mr. Shepherd; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th December, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

  HOME SAFETY
  Bill to enable certain local authorities in England and Wales to promote safety in the home and to make contributions to voluntary organisations whose activities consist of or include the promotion of safety in the home, presented by Mr. Costain; supported by Mr. Arbuthnot, Mrs. Cullen, Mr. Deedes, Miss Herbison, Dr. D. Johnson, Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Mrs. McLaughlin, Mr. Mathew, Mr. Owen, and Mr. L. Thomas; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th January, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE
  Bill to amend section two of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, presented by Sir G. Wills; supported by Mr. Hayman, Sir A. Hurd, Lieut.-Commander Maydon, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Wilkins; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress 22nd November].
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

    Clause 6.—(CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT, REPEALS AND EXTENT.)
    3.37 p.m.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after "day", to insert:
    "(not being later than the third day of February, nineteen hundred and sixty-one)".
    This Amendment seeks to remedy the really heartless feature of this Bill, which is the postponement of its benefits until the first week of April. I am sure that the Minister and the Committee as a while will be aware that there has been widespread criticism of the delay in bringing this relief to millions of those receiving social payments. The delay concerns the aged, the disabled and the sick.
    There has been criticism in the Press. There is criticism from organisations of old-age pensioners, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will have received individual letters from constituents and others protesting against the delay in bringing these benefits into operation. I myself have received many letters—appealing, pitiful letters—from people who believe that this overdue relief of their conditions should be brought into operation more promptly. When these people hear such slogans as "You've never had it so good", and of the problems and the excesses of the so-called affluent society, I am sure they feel that they are being mocked in their distress.
    On this occasion, the Minister cannot say that during the period of waiting those who may be suffering hardship can go to the National Assistance Board, because the improvements in National Assistance payments are being delayed as long as all the rest.
    Why are these benefits being withheld until April? It has nothing to do with the difficulty of administration. We shall listen to no excuses on that score, for
    1138
    two reasons. First, the beginning of April has been the date in the mind of the Government all along. I believe that this operation has been carefully planned and that the date of the introduction of the Bill has been governed by the operative date. The date fixed for the introduction of the Bill has been planned as part of the main operation, the introduction of the benefits, to coincide with the increase in contributions.
    The second reason is that when, in 1957–58, the Government wanted to move more quickly they were able to do so, and they boasted about it. In 1957, during the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, the Minister referred to the timetable. I ask the House to bear in mind that the date of Second Reading of that Bill was 13th November and the date for the operation of the new benefits was 27th January of the following year. The Minister said:
    "To do this by 27th January will, of course, involve very rapid moving indeed. One or two newspapers have made the comment on my statement of last week that we were being slow in getting these benefits into payment. That is the very converse of the truth. Normally, the time taken—and I have been into this in some detail—between an announcement in this House and the operation of the announced changes has rarely been less than between five and six months. From 6th November to 27th January is under three months. That is an indication that we are seeking to carry through this very large operation just as speedily as possible to give help as quickly as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 988.]
    The Minister was proud of the achievement which he was asking the Ministry to carry out. He referred to the much longer time which had been taken between the announcement and the operative date on previous occasions. This time, however, the Minister has slipped back to a period very approximate to the period of previous changes
    The truth is that this Bill could have been introduced at any time earlier than this if the Government had wished to bring the changes into operation any earlier than the first week in April next. I believe that the Government have willed it this way and that there are no accidental considerations about the timetable of the Bill. We can find the explanation for this delay in one word—"finance". This is a sordid exercise in accountancy. Since over 90 per cent. of the cost of the improved benefits is

    1139
    to be passed on to the contributors, the Government are not prepared to pay out the improved benefits until they can begin collecting the extra money from the contributors. That is the sum and substance of the matter.
    The National Insurance Act, 1959, fixed April as the beginning of the collection of graduated contributions. It is these contributions which are to be used to pay in substantial part for the new benefits. The Minister felt unable to bring that date forward, so that the pensioners and other beneficiaries have to wait for it. I agree that it would have been a great inconvenience on all sides to have changed the contributions earlier than the beginning of April, having regard to all the arrangements which are being made for the introduction of the new scheme. We recognise that it would be asking too much for contributions to be adjusted to the new benefits earlier than the first week in April, which had already been fixed.
    3.45 p.m.
    I want to ask whether the date of the introduction of the new contributions really stands in the way of an earlier operative date for these benefits. My conviction is that the money to bridge the gap is available to the Minister if only he would use it. As I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, there are huge reserves in the National Insurance Reserve Fund—well over £1,000 million. The present generation of retirement pensioners probably has contributed more to the building up of this reserve than any other section of National Insurance contributors. They were paying higher contributions than were necessary to pay for the benefits because the contributions were heavily loaded for a level of unemployment which, happily, we did not suffer. Because of that, only in recent years £300 million was transferred to the reserve fund from the accumulated balances in the National Insurance Fund.
    There are other resources available to the Minister. I sometimes wonder for what purpose this National Insurance Reserve Fund is to be used. I wonder whether it has been salted away and whether it is a phantom fund. One might even wonder whether it is a fraud. It seems to be a
    1140
    book entry which can never be translated into a tangible asset. This is the folly of the Government in investing in themselves. They can never pay out from their own investments without fresh borrowing or increased taxation. That is why I believe that this National Insurance Reserve Fund is a hidden reserve to the Government but a much more hidden reserve to the National Insurance beneficiaries.
    However, let us leave that aside. We do not need £1,000 million. I suggest that all we need to cover the few weeks between the date mentioned in the Amendment and the first week in April is about £20 or £25 million. That is the best estimate that I can make. From where can this money be drawn? I suggest that it can be drawn from the balance of £325 million which was made available in the National Insurance Act, 1954, and renewed in the 1959 Act. I explained on Second Reading that under the 1954 Act provision was made for payments to be made from the Exchequer in addition to the ordinary Exchequer supplement, and for a period of five years beginning April, 1955, sums not exceeding £325 million could be paid.
    "in such manner and at such times as the Treasury may determine"
    and, for later years, such sums as Parliament might determine. In the 1959 Act renewal of those provisions in modified form, was made. In the four years to 1959–60, only £39 million of the £325 million had been drawn. I estimate that at the end of the period of the 1954 Act about £286 million remain.
    Under the 1959 Act, provision was made for the Minister to draw upon the unexpended balance of the £325 million during the financial years ending in 1961 and 1962. That, I suggest, is where the Minister might go for the money to bridge the gap between the first week in February, which we suggest in our Amendment, and the first week in April, which otherwise will be the operative date for the new benefits.
    We have fixed the first week in February because we believe that that would be administratively possible even at this date. If 27th January is possible when the Second Reading of the Bill is on 13th November, I should hope that

    1141
    the first week in February would be possible with the Committee stage of the Bill taking place now and the final stage being reached tomorrow. I am sure that that is not too much to ask the Ministry to do, although I fully appreciate—none more so, I hope, in this Committee—the problems of administration in the public service. It would mean very hard work and very quick moving in the Ministry to do it, but I am sure that if the Minister gave the word for full steam ahead to have these benefits in payment by the first week of February it could be done. But he does not wish it that way.
    The Committee will realise, of course, that not only are the National Insurance benefits deferred for operation to the first week in April, but that nearly everything else hangs upon the same date. What is the saying?
    "For want of a nail the shoe is lost;
    For want of a shoe the horse is lost;
    For want of a horse the rider is lost;
    For want of a rider the battle is lost".
    Here, because National Insurance benefits are delayed until the first week in April, the Minister is deferring also the improvement in National Assistance benefits. Because the National Insurance benefits are to be deferred until the first week in April, industrial injuries benefits must be so deferred.
    Yet they have nothing basically to do with National Insurance benefits; they are not dependent upon the collection of increased contributions. In fact, the Minister is to reduce contributions to the Industrial Injuries Scheme. Also, we find that the war disability benefits hang upon the industrial injuries benefits. The whole thing is one operation, and the operative date is delayed until the same week in April.
    We take the strongest exception to the delay. We regard this Amendment as fundamental to the Bill and we shall certainly press it to the utmost of our power in Committee, because we believe that it is what the country would wish. We believe that it is what the various beneficiaries under the schemes badly need. We believe that this relief is overdue. I am sure that it would not be the wish of the Minister to send out, as a cynical message to all the retirement pensioners,
    "If winter comes, can spring be far behind?"
    1142
    We believe that these benefits should be paid as near as maybe at the coming of winter. We know that the opportunity to bring this relief by Christmas has now gone. The end of January and the beginning of February is the very earliest date at which it could be done, but better then than wait until the first week of April. I hope that the Committee will give serious attention to the Amendment and, from both sides, press the Minister to accept it.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I hope that my right hon. Friend will not see fit to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member very wisely agreed that it was an impossibility in administration to put up the contributions at the time that the benefits were put up, should the benefits be put up at the beginning of February, and then be altered again at the beginning of April. I think that that would be common ground between both sides of the Committee.
    The hon. Member said that if we were to increase the benefits earlier than the date proposed by my right hon. Friend this would mean very hard work and very quick moving in the Department. It would require extraordinarily hard work and extraordinarily quick moving, because we are not dealing here with just an increase in contributions and benefits as was the case in the 1957–58 operation. Then my right hon. Friend was able to halve the time that had been taken on previous occasions because he was dealing solely with an operation of increases in contributions and benefits.
    At this time, he is dealing also with the immense amount of work which has to be undertaken so that the graduated pension scheme under last year's National Insurance Act can be brought into operation. He has to see to the large numbers of schemes which are being submitted to him and to the Registrar by the various independent pension schemes. His Department, I know, is being overwhelmed by questions and requests for advice. I should have thought that it was virtually impossible for the graduated scheme to come in in April and for these benefits to come in earlier.
    It was a great tribute which my right hon. Friend paid to his Department—and

    1143
    to himself also, I think—when, in the Second Reading debate, he said that he did not base his argument about the timing of these new benefits upon the mere fact of the amount of work involved. I suggest that that is something we should not forget.
    The hon. Member for Sowerby agreed that we could not alter both benefits and contributions twice in the new year, and we should, if we followed the proposals of the Amendment, have a period when benefits had risen and contributions had not. Because he realised that benefits have to be paid for—although I sometimes wonder whether his views have very wide circulation on the benches behind him—he devoted part of his speech to considering whence the money should come. It is important to realise that the pensioner today is having a very good bargain indeed out of National Insurance.
    I think that it was my right hon. Friend, on Second Reading, who said that a pensioner today who had paid contributions for as long as was possible was drawing a pension with an actuarial capital value of £3,000, but that he himself and his employer together could not have paid in more than £300. So let us not start with the idea that people have, over the past ten, fifteen or twenty years, been paying to the Government more than they are likely to draw out in National Insurance benefits and retirement pensions in particular. We are dealing with a fund which has managed, with the aid of substantial Government additions or contributions, to provide a very good bargain indeed.
    The hon. Member suggests that either securities should be sold out of one of the National Insurance Funds or, alternatively, that the overall budget deficit should be increased. It is worth remembering that, whichever of the two processes were adopted, the ultimate result for the Chancellor would probably be the same. If the Government were to increase their overall Budget deficit, they would have to fund to a greater extent if that was not to be inflationary. One assumes that the Government would, for the extra money involved, have to sell gilt-edged securities held by the Department or raise money by the sale of further gilt-edged securities to meet the amount of the deficit accruing.
    1144
    4.0 p.m.
    Therefore, there is a very distinct aspect of this which reflects upon the aim of the Government not to create money and upon their desire thereby to do their best to hold the value of the £ steady. Over the few years I have been in the House of Commons, I have always done my best to oppose any proposals that have been made in regard to the National Insurance Scheme that I felt might have a contributory effect to putting up the cost of living.
    Let us take the National Insurance Fund by itself. This year, the Government are doing quite a lot towards financing deficits on the fund. If we look at the Government Actuary's Second Quinquennial Review, we see, in Table 14, page 20, that in the current year, ending April next, there is a deficit on the National Insurance Fund of £47 million. Turning back a few pages, to Table 10, we see that that deficit of £47 million is incurred after the Government's contribution of £123 million and also after an additional Exchequer payment of no less than £47 million. It is on top of that extra deficit of £47 million that the hon. Member for Sowerby proposes a further deficit, to be shouldered either by the Exchequer or by sales from the National Insurance Fund.
    Mr. Houghton: Was it not just for this that the 1959 Act authorised the Treasury to draw on the unexpended balances during the financial years 1961 and 1962?
    Mr. Freeth: Indeed it was. It is a question here, as in so many cases, of whether circumstances are such as to warrant one running further into debt than one receives from one's bank manager permission to do or further into debt than one had hoped to do a little while before.
    If the pension increases were being made because of increases in the cost of living—because, in fact, of hardship—I should be tempted to support the hon. Member in his Amendment. I agree with him that the National Insurance Funds, totalling £1,500 million, must exist for some purpose. We all agree that they exist to meet unforeseen contingencies and expenditure or to meet a grave crisis which might affect the nation. Therefore, I should only like to run them

    1145
    down if we met a grave situation of that kind.
    I would regard a substantial rise in the cost of living, necessitating an increase in benefits before contributions could be raised, as constituting such an occasion when the fund might be run down. That, however, is not what we are considering, because, according to the retail price index, the cost of living has risen by only 3 per cent. since January, 1958. If one takes some of the constituents of that price index—I have not yet seen the October figures—one finds that the prices of fuel and light are actually slightly less than in January, 1958, and that clothing and footwear is very slightly—1¼ per cent.—above the 1958 level.
    Therefore, what we are considering is, not a rescue operation, because the real purchasing power of the pension, as I hope my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will confirm, is higher today than when it was instituted at 26s. at the beginning of the scheme. I suggest, therefore, that as we are not here indulging in a rescue operation to relieve acute hardships, but are actively indulging in a campaign to raise the standard of living of the pensioner, these considerations, which alone would justify increasing the Exchequer deficit or a raid upon the National Insurance Fund, do not apply.
    Where these considerations of hardship or the need for a rescue operation do not apply, it is vital, if we are to continue to finance the National Insurance Scheme in a way which neither permits inflation nor endangers the future of the pension, that we should have firmly linked in the minds of people outside, and in our own minds, the close relationship between contributions and benefits and the close relationship that must exist between an increase in benefits and an increase in contributions. People should not be led to expect that an increase in benefits can be obtained without an increase in contributions also having to be put upon the shoulders of those still at work. It is because I do not here see a sufficient ground to depart from this important principle of National Insurance that I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accede to the request of the hon. Member for Sowerby.
    Mr. Harry Gourlay: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) has the
    1146
    one virtue, if such it can be called—consistency. He has opposed increases in pensions on a number of previous occasions. On 15th December last year, he is reported as saying in the House:
    "I do not believe that our industrial recovery has yet taken place to a sufficient extent to have created the necessary wealth to enable an increase in pensions to be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1959; Vol. 615. c. 1258.]
    That was immediately after an election, in which, I understand, the hon. Member also told his constituents that we in this country had never had it so good.
    After a further year of Conservative administration, when, one would have thought, we were having it still better because, according to Conservative Members, we have such a good Government, surely the pensions could be increased sooner than is proposed in the Bill. The hon. Member referred also to deficits on previous occasions, but he has not so far told us how the deficit arising from Blue Streak is to be met.
    While one must welcome crumbs as they fall from the master's table, in the same way as somebody who had been stranded without water in the Sahara for some time would welcome a drink, we must face the fact that even though some crumbs are to be given, they are long overdue. For this reason, I take pleasure in supporting the Amendment to advance the date on which the increases in pension become payable.
    Judging by the speeches of the Minister and of hon. Members opposite last week, they are completely removed from the reality of life as it is lived by the old-age pensioner. Last week, on Second Reading, the Minister said:
    "I would stress—I hope that hon. Members will give due weight, whatever their views on it may be, to this matter"—
    that is, the matter of the date—
    "that this is a change made in wholly different circumstances from those of the other changes. It is not in any sense a rescue operation designed to compensate pensioners for pensions whose value had already been eroded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 233.]
    I should like the Minister to recall that at about this time last year, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams), I went with a deputation to his room in the Ministry. That deputation comprised representatives of old-age pensioners

    1147
    from all over the country, not from any one section, but including people from as far apart as Aberdeen, in the north, and Wales and the south of England. A year ago, those people were pleading with the Minister to be rescued from their plight. Now, a year later, he comes forward with the claim that this is not a rescue operation.
    The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the cost of fuel is less today than it was two years ago. I should like to know where I could purchase a bag of coal or a unit of gas or electricity at less cost today than I could buy it two or three years ago.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I was quoting from the index the retail price of fuel and light, which is shown as a separate constituent of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, and which gave the figures, taking January, 1956, as 100, as being 115·6 in January, 1958, and 113·5 in September, 1960.
    Mr. Gourlay: Naturally, the hon. Gentleman and I can compute the figures. Nevertheless, I still say that I do not know where a bag of coal can be purchased at that price. Nor, I am quite sure, does the hon. Gentleman.
    The cost of fuel is only one of the costs. There is the question of the prices of all the consumer goods which an old-age pensioner requires to purchase, and those prices are considerably higher despite the percentage to which the Minister referred.
    In my own constituency, unfortunately, we have what is known as spoliation of the foreshore because of the bings, or heaps, near the port. It is a very distressing sight to see the beaches being spoiled, but, on the other hand, at present it is a godsend to the pensioners in my constituency, because day after day one can see them go down to the beach to gather coal for their fires, and they do it because they are not able to purchase coal. It is a very distressing and pathetic sight indeed to see those old-age pensioners carrying small bags of seacoal to their own homes, and to know that they are returning to places where they will lead lives of loneliness and poverty.
    In my opinion, the treatment of the pensioners by the Government in this so-called affluent society amounts, to say
    1148
    the least, to an attitude of complete, callous indifference. In supporting the Amendment to ensure not too long a delay in the operation of the Bill, I would again refer hon. Members to what the Minister said last week:
    "We come back to the question that what is in issue between us is only a very few weeks—say, for the purpose of argument, six weeks…. It clearly would not be a good idea to raise contributions, say, five or six weeks before they were to be altered again at the beginning of April."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1960; Vol. 630; c. 234.]
    I agree with the Minister in his second statement, that it would be completely wrong to raise contributions as he proposes, for, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said this afternoon, there is a fund from which the Minister could finance the payment of these benefits earlier, which is of tremendous importance to the pensioners who are living on subsistence level. From the arguments which are being adduced by hon. Members on the other side of the Committee one would assume that the pensioners had been living in a state of affluence since the Conservative Government took office.
    They are, I repeat, living on a purely subsistence level, the majority of pensioners, particularly those in receipt of National Assistance. The fact, which statistics reasonably bear out, that the period from September to March is the period of the highest mortality rate amongst the old people, adds to the force of the argument that more money should be given to the pensioners at this time so that they may sustain themselves from poverty, and to enable them to purchase sufficient fuel. It appears that it is completely proper to give back-pay to poverty-stricken judges but completely wrong to give any back-payment to the wealthy pensioners.
    This callousness, in my opinion, is matched only by the dishonesty of the Government in what they have done about increases in National Assistance payments. I shall try to keep within the rules of order as much as possible, but I would refer to this because it is tied up with the payments of pensions at an ealier date. It seems completely wrong that a reduction of National Assistance is bound to follow an increase in pensions. Along with the alteration in the National Assistance rate there is

    1149
    bound to be a reduction in the cost of National Assistance, and this cost is surely being transferred to the shoulders of the contributors to the National Insurance Fund, and, in the main, to the lower-paid wage earners who are bound to contribute to the Fund, and, instead of having a reduction of 1s. 7d., as promised in the 1959 Act, are to have to pay an increase of 1s. 5d.
    4.15 p.m.
    Those people, as has been said earlier, are actually being used to relieve the taxpayers of paying a fair share of the burden of looking after the aged. The Minister recognised last week that they have not been in a position, in the economic circumstances pertaining in this country in the years when his party has been in power, to save for their old age, and, therefore, are in greater need of relief and help. The burden of providing that relief and help is being transferred from the taxpayers and thrown upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it.
    The Minister seemed completely complacent last week in saying that this increase in National Assistance is the third one as against two increases in National Insurance, and those persons in receipt of assistance were reasonably well off, but the point is that the same pensioner in receipt of assistance with three increases is to be only 13s. 6d. per week better off than he was in 1957, whereas the pensioner as such is going to be 17s. 6d. better off. Since I think it is generally agreed that a person in receipt of National Assistance is the person in greatest need, it seems that he is in effect to have a reduction imposed by a very kind Government who say, "You have never had it so good."
    Therefore, I would again draw the Minister's attention to the plight of these old people and plead with him to have a change of heart even at this late stage because of the desperate position of pensioners in this country at present.
    A local authority not far removed from my constituency, a fortnight ago, advertised a part-time job, the duties of that part-time job being spread over the period from 7 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night, a period of 16 hours. The handsome sum of £3 a week was offered for this post. Despite the long spreadover of hours of duty and the
    1150
    miserable wage offered, eleven old-age pensioners in the district saw fit to apply for the job. That is an indication of the desperate plight many of them are in at present.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: Shocking.
    Mr. Gourlay: The Minister said that this was not a rescue operation. I would remind him of his own figures, that in the period between 1952 to 1957 only once——
    Mr. Arthur Tiley: Would the hon. Member please tell us which local authority that was and what the duties were, because it is a rather frightful story that he has told the Committee?
    Mr. Gourlay: The name of the authority is Cowdenbeath Town Council. I did not say that the duties were 16 hours a day. I said that it was a part-time job spread over 16 hours—
    Mr. Manuel: Shocking.
    Mr. Gourlay: —and that is shocking in itself.
    There has been a fair amount of publicity given to this and I think that the local authority is prepared to reconsider the hours of duty. But, the advertisement was as I said, and eleven old-age pensioners, even on that basis, applied for the job.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) satisfied now?
    Mr. Gourlay: The point I was about to make was that the Minister said on a previous occasion that only once in the period 1952 to 1957 had the value of the pension paid by the Government been in excess, considering 1946 prices, of the 26s. pension introduced by the Labour Government at that time. In my submission, that is a tremendous admission to make, when we are supposed to be living in a very affluent society.
    I would conclude by again appealing to the Minister to have a change of mind today, to accept our Amendment, to show the old-age pensioners that he really does understand the difficulties with which they are faced, and to allow them to grow old gracefully in conditions

    1151
    far removed from the horrors of poverty and want.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: In response to one statement made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), I must say that I have always found it impossible to understand why the plight of retirement pensioners is always deplorable and their condition so desperate under a Conservative Government whereas, apparently, that was never the case under a Labour Government, who paid infinitely poorer benefits.
    Mr. Gourlay: Surely the circumstances which the Labour Government faced were completely different. Even the hon. Member's own statements admit it, because he is always telling us that we have never had it so good.
    Mr. Gower: Nevertheless, I find it extremely difficult to understand their view of affairs.
    I am sure that most of my hon. and right hon. Friends would share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that benefits of this kind should be paid as soon as possible. Indeed, it is true, as has been pointed out already, that on a former occasion my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was able to arrange for benefits of this kind to be brought in much more quickly than may be the case at present.
    But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) reminded us so clearly, the operation on that occasion was solely the increase of benefits and contributions. It was not linked, as is now the case, with the even more ambitious launching of a graduated system of benefits. For that reason alone, anyone with experience of the work that the Ministry is doing and who makes a sober assessment must feel that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the whole operation, with its combination of these two things, to be performed earlier than at the date now fixed.
    It has been suggested, therefore, and very persuasively, that we should try to avoid the problem merely by increasing the benefits and not providing the means of paying for them, and that in a way which, I think, would be quite wrong and unjustifiable in all the circumstances.
    1152
    The fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke again reminded us, that on previous occasions there was a substantial need in most cases for an increase in the benefits solely by reason of the erosion that had occurred as a result of increases in the cost of living. Some hon. Members opposite have implied that this is also the case on this occasion. If I understood him correctly, that was the inference to be drawn from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) yesterday.
    The implication of one of his speeches last night was that we inherited from the party opposite a pension of 26s. per week in terms of 1946 prices. That implication is untrue. What we inherited was a 26s. a week pension in terms of 1951 for many and a 30s. pension in terms of 1951 for the rest. It is on that basis that we have had to try to improve these benefits. I think that when he comes to reply my right hon. Friend will be able to show quite easily that, in practice, every year since the Conservative Party took office the real value of benefits has been considerably better than it was during all the time that the Labour Government were in office.
    While it is true that on some previous occasions when we have introduced Bills of this kind the value of pensions has been largely eroded by changes in the cost of living, I think that it can be shown clearly that on this occasion that is not the case, and that the benefits now introduced—although many of us would like to see them bigger if that were practicable—constitute a substantial and real increase in the purchasing value of the pensions. This is a circumstance different from that which has prevailed before. Then the hon. Member for Sowerby suggests that it is unfortunate that this payment must be postponed, because it would also have the effect of postponing improvements in National Assistance and industrial injuries benefits.
    I would agree, perhaps, that the hon. Member's remarks would be somewhat more valid if they were related solely to industrial injuries benefits. I should not agree with him about National Assistance because, although perhaps there would be a case for increasing National Assistance before increasing the pension,

    1153
    I find that there is a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of recipients of National Assistance if, on a certain date, other people receive an increase and they receive none at all.
    I should not like to see an increase in National Assistance preceding an increase in the standard rates by a month or two. I should prefer to see them introduced together so that, in addition to some people receiving the full benefits of the Bill, those in receipt of National Assistance would receive an increase to add to that Which was given a year or so ago.
    Mr. Tom Brown: Will the hon. Member tell us on what date prior to the announcement made in the White Paper have National Assistance and basic pensions been increased at one and the same time?
    Mr. Gower: That would be the subject of another debate and it would be improper to enlarge upon it now.
    I would say, in passing, that as far as possible I should prefer the benefits to be introduced on the same date, otherwise there would be considerable misunderstanding on the part of those who received a small increase before but found on the material date that they were receiving nothing at all. We hope that the party opposite will reflect that these benefits constitute a substantial addition to our national liability under this heading. The size of that addition cannot be disregarded. It represents about £140 million or more. This is a great deal of money, even today.
    Mr. Manuel: Could the hon. Member turn his mind to the pledge which the party opposite made at the election, that these old people would receive their share of increasing prosperity? Does he think that these benefits reflect that pledge completely?
    The Chairman: Order. The Amendment deals with a date and not with these larger issues.
    Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I was perfectly well aware of the Amendment, Sir Gordon, but if the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) introduces these matters irrespective of the question of date without any comment from the Chair, I thought that I might have the
    1154
    same liberty to put a submission to the hon. Member upon them.
    The Chairman: Hon. Members sometimes go a little wide of the Question and I fail to discourage them, but I hope that hon. Members will try to keep in order as far as possible.
    Mr. Gower: I hope that hon. Members opposite will reflect that 1961 will be a significant year in the provision of benefits, because not only do the provisions in the Bill represent a real improvement in the value of the benefits in the basic scheme, but, at the same time, we are launching another scheme which, in due course, will provide even more for other people who have yet to arrive at retirement age.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. A. E. Hunter: I wish to support the pleas made by my hon. Friends for the Amendment to ensure that retirement pensions and other benefits shall be payable not later than 3rd February. I believe that all hon. Members welcome the increase in retirement pensions and in sickness and other benefits though many hon. Members must wish that they were higher. I urge the Minister to agree that the date for the payment of these benefits can be advanced. We have heard arguments about the great administrative difficulties for the Civil Service. We have very efficient civil servants and I am quite sure that they could get these payments out by 3rd February if the will were there.
    If the will were there, why could not the Minister back-date the increase? There is nothing to stop him from making 3rd February the effective date for the increase. It would at least be a good bonus for the retirement pensioners and the sick to get six or seven weeks' back-dated increase if they must wait until April. There is nothing to prevent him doing that.
    I hope that we shall not have arguments about the difficulties of administration in the Civil Service. Most hon. Members, especially those like my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who know the Civil Service, also know that it can rise to great occasions in emergencies. Football pool promoters such as Littlewoods deal with millions of coupons in a matter of days.

    1155
    If these promoters can get so many coupons out so quickly I am sure that the Civil Service could get these benefits out by 3rd February.
    My plea to the Minister rests on the fact that the hard winter months for the retired and the sick lie ahead. January, February and March are generally the severe, cold and wet months of the year. The old and the sick need more coal, more gas, more electricity, or other forms of heating. Old people especially cannot go out so much in cold weather and are indoors a great deal. Thus, their heating bills are higher than for the average household of a similar size. We have a very strong case in asking the Minister to pay these benefits before the spring.
    I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not hard-hearted. We have often disagreed with him and have sometimes supported him in some of the things which he has brought forward. I am certain that if the Whips were off, and a free vote were allowed on this issue, the Committee would vote for the old and the sick having these benefits on 3rd February. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will make a concession along these lines.
    I remarked earlier that there is nothing to prevent the payments being back-dated. In industry and in commerce, when there are arbitration awards, the increases are often back-dated not for weeks, as we seek in this case, but for eight or nine months. Surely we could make a big effort to see that this payment is made before the spring to the poorest section of the community—5½ million old-age pensioners, including more than 1 million on National Assistance. Winter is a hard period of the year for them. Not only do they need more heating, but they need warm clothing, shoes and boots and warm, nourishing food.
    The right hon. Gentleman has given this increase. Many of us wish it was more, but now that he has given it let him give it quickly. I make this final plea. We are getting near the end of the year and are entering soon the new year of 1961. Let him give the old-age pensioners a New Year's message—that Parliament will pay these benefits in
    1156
    February and that they need not wait until April. I ask him to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Twenty-two weeks will elapse between the announcement of the increase and the obtaining of the increase. It is heartless to keep the old people dangling on a string for so long. I am sure that we on this side of the Committee are voicing the feelings of millions of old-age pensioners in saying that.
    The particular question I wish to ask is: why wait until after the winter? For many old people this will be their last winter. They will never enjoy this increase. I have been to some pains to find out how many will die this winter, and I have to inform the Committee that within these 22 weeks approximately 130,000 pensioners will die. But more will die in these 22 weeks, because this is winter and deaths are above the average during that period. So for 130,000 old people this will be their last winter; they will never enjoy the benefits that they should. It is reasonable to say that some of these deaths might be prevented if they get the increase in time and have a little more to sustain themselves daring the winter months.
    Anybody who is in close contact with old people will know what a high proportion of their £2 10s. a week goes on coal. Ordinary coal is 9s. a bag, and if they live in smokeless zones the cost is probably 11s. The National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Associations states that many old people need two bags a week. I agree that that is above the average, but the cost is nearly £1 a week. It may be said that this is a purely seasonal matter—expenditure needed only in winter. Precisely! That is the point we are making. We are arguing about the date of the increase.
    This emphasises the point that the increase should be given before and not after the winter. The Minister may argue that in summer the expenditure on coal is less, which is true, but I do not think that he will argue that even in summer the old-age pensioner living on £2 10s. a week can save anything from his pension to put aside for extra expenditure in winter. He cannot save on the pension, even in summer.

    1157
    It means that in winter the pensioner goes short. I have been investigating budgets of old-age pensioners in Salford and I know what they go short of. They go short of food. In many houses the old-age pensioner is spending about 3s. 6d. a day on food. If he is buying in small quantities, food costs more than when he is buying it in large quantities. Though it may sound melodramatic, this winter thousands of old people, particularly those living on their own and who cannot share a family fire, will go to bed at six in the evening because they cannot afford money for coal.
    It is utterly wrong that people should spend the last years of their lives living like that. The price of coal has gone up since October by 1s. 8d. a cwt. That means 3s. 4d. a week extra if 2 cwt. a week are bought. That extra will make a fair-sized hole in the pension increase of 7s. 6d. a week, and will make an even bigger hole in the National Assistance increase of 3s. 6d.—indeed, it will leave only 2d.
    In a Written Answer to me on Monday, the right hon. Gentleman said that all but 6d. a cwt. of the recent change in coal prices was the normal winter increase. That is the point we are making. Does not this again emphasise the need to pay the increase to pensioners in February rather than waiting until April? The Minister told us on Second Reading that there were other reasons, possibly more important reasons, than the administrative one for delaying the increase, but I think that that was an admission that part of the delay was due to administrative causes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) said, if Littlewoods can deal with millions of clients in a few days, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Ministry of Pensions to solve this problem.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: I think that the hon. Member will admit that the administrative costs of Littlewoods are something over 25 per cent. If we had the same costs in the case of pensions, the poor pensioners would not get much.
    Mr. Allaun: The reply to that is that Littlewoods is dealing with a varying investment and a varying return each week, but the Ministry of Pensions deals week by week with hardly any change
    1158
    either in the contributions or the pensions received. Therefore, the Ministry has a far simpler problem than Littlewoods.
    February is the very worst month for old people, particularly in northern cities such as Salford, where deaths from bronchitis are among the highest in the country. That is due not only to the temperature, but the shocking air conditions of industrial cities. It would be an act of mercy, apart from anything else, if this increase were granted from 3rd February, as we are pleading for, rather than from April as the Minister proposes.
    Mr. John Rankin: I was rather interested to hear from the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) that the cost of running private enterprise was so high. We often contest the relative costs of public and private enterprises. The hon. Member has given us a very strong argument for spreading public enterprise more and more widely.
    Mr. Costain: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. The point I was making was that the cost of getting things done quickly—
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): I think that I might misunderstand things, too. So we do not want to go further along that line.
    Mr. Rankin: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe will realise, on reflection, that he made two points and I seized on one of them.
    I regret that the dialectical fodder on the other side of the Committee is so scarce. It seems strange that there is such a lack of support for the Minister in his decision about the appointed day. If we get so little to bite upon there is the tendency to repeat arguments which have been already advanced or perhaps to be driven back on the remarks of others who have previously spoken. I am certain that I am giving credit to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) when I say that perhaps he did not mean his arguments to be so harsh as they sounded to us on this side of the Committee. We pay respects to actuarial values, but he seems prepared to subordinate human values to actuarial ones. That is one conclusion I drew front his speech.

    1159
    4.45 p.m.
    I quite agree that we should not spend outside our income, but there are occasions, as the Government of the hon. Member have demonstrated during their period of power, when it is essential to do so. Nobody will suggest that if we accepted this Amendment to substitute 3rd February for the date nominated by the Minister the economy of the country would be prejudiced. I am certain that no one among hon. Members opposite would seriously entertain such an argument.
    The hon. Member for Basingstoke wondered how the deficit would be financed. He did not want it to be a further charge on Government expenditure, but the issue which presents itself is whether or not we are to increase, if necessary, the Budget deficit or to increase the death rate, the death rate particularly among the old people and those who are sick or unemployed. That is the choice we have to make on the argument as presented by the hon. Member for Basingstoke.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The hon. Member's phrases are very striking, but if we come down to the question whether or not 7s. 6d., because of the rise in the cost of coal in the last month, and so on, would provide the difference between people being alive and dead, let us not forget the National Assistance Board, with its many discretionary allowances. Is not the whole of this argument about Budget deficits versus death sheer nonsense? Are we not arguing whether we should have a fund administered honestly, or saying that pounds, shillings and pence are meaningless symbols which can mean anything, because one can always make an argument for spending?
    Mr. Rankin: I am not suggesting that pounds, shillings and pence are meaningless symbols but that they are more than actuarial symbols. They are also human symbols. In my view, they can represent the choice between life and death for a great many people.
    The increase in the cost of living has been used as a pointer. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) quoted 11s. as the price for a bag of smokeless fuel. This morning my landlady, as I thought, put some coal on the fire. I casually asked her, "What is
    1160
    the price of coal in London now?". I thought that it was around 9s. or 10s., as has been suggested in the debate, but she said, "That is not coal. That is Coalite, and it costs 13s. a cwt." This is within a stone's throw of this Committee.
    Old people will have to burn that Coalite or something like it, because the Government, through the local authorities, are creating smokeless zones all over the country. Those old people will require to burn that kind of fuel and to pay 13s. or thereabouts for each bagful they burn. My landlady said, "The trouble is not merely the cost of Coalite, but the speed with which it burns." I asked how many bags a week she used and she replied, "When I use it every day, and do not use the electric fire, I burn three and sometimes four bagfuls a week." That would amount to at least 39s. a week. It is evident that if the old people are to keep themselves warm they will be faced with far too heavy a charge for fuel on the meagre pension they are getting now.
    The position will not be greatly improved by the increase which is coming to them and it will be made even worse by the fact that the increase will not come in time. The time factor is essential because when one gets on in years warmth becomes very important. Any doctor will say that respiratory diseases amongst old people are very prevalent from January right on till the end of the spring period. Because of these diseases, the death rate amongst old people is high. This is not something new. Those of us who are familiar with the works of Burns know that on the 25th January
    "A blast o' Janwar win' blew hansel in on Robin".
    That is the one that kills. [Interruption.] Earlier, the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) went still further from this country and this Committee to say what he wanted to say. He ought to know as much about the Scots language as he knows about the French.
    Mr. Gower: I made a noise because the hon. Gentleman was making such an unworthy sort of statement about this matter. Why does he exaggerate like this? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not."] If what he says is right has he any evidence to show how many people were dying?
    The Temporary Chairman: I cannot see any reference in the Amendment to the Scots or the French. This is dealing with a date, and I should be glad if the debate were confined to that.
    Mr. Rankin: That date is important. I say that if it is delayed until the period that the Minister wants, and the date that we propose is not accepted, there is no doubt that the death rate amongst old people will increase more than it does now. If the hon. Member disagrees with my statement that that period of the year, which is a bitter period as to temperature, does increase the death, rate amongst the old, who find it more difficult than we do to resist the coldness, then he should consult any doctor, particularly some of the doctors who work outside the comparative mildness of the London climate, and he will get verification of what I am saying.
    I am using no language that is exaggerated when I say to the hon. Member for Basingstoke that here we have a choice between actuarial values and human values. The hon. Member for Barry himself said that this increased payment should be made as soon as practical. Therefore, why should he contradict what I am saying when at least he himself seems partly to be on our side and, as he indicated earlier in the day, might have been thought to have a foot in both camps, once again?
    I press this point upon the Minister. I am sure that he has been seized with the importance of this argument. If he says that it is quite impracticable because of one reason that has already been advanced, that it will cause very hard work in the Department—I am not against hard work for myself and I do not ban it for others—I suggest that it is not a very cogent argument to say that we cannot do this because it will cause work for someone. We do not want to impose unnecessary jobs on the Minister, or anyone in the Department—but that is not a reason. I am certain that the Department will be willing to do its best to carry out the Minister's wishes if he believes, as we believe, that, in the circumstances of this day and hour, it is essential that we should promote to an earlier period the day when this increase will take effect.
    I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, in the short time that still lies before him.
    1162
    will reconsider his attitude and agree with our view that 3rd February should be the date on which this increase will be paid.
    Mr. T. Brown: I have listened to many arguments in my Parliamentary experience, but I have never listened to one that leaves me more disturbed than the argument of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth). He applied his mind to the question before us from a Stock Exchange point of view. With all respect to him, I shall not follow that line of argument. I am not concerned with what Littlewoods can or cannot do. I would say, in passing, Mr. Williams, provided that you will allow me to, that if Littlewoods did a lot less this country would be better off. I leave it at that.
    I am concerned about the people on whose behalf we are pleading for bringing forward the date. If those people were living above the subsistence level, it would be a vastly different proposition. But let us occupy our mind with this fact: the people on whose behalf we are pleading are either on the subsistence level or below it. The evidence of that is to be found in the number of old-age pensioners who are forced by sheer economic circumstances to seek assistance from the National Assistance Board. Over 1 million people—one in every five pensioners—are now going to the National Assistance Board for supplementary allowances. Therefore, this plea applies in the main to the poorest section of our community.
    A great deal has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) whose city has one of the most wonderful welfare organisations in this country. When we read the reports of the welfare work at Salford, with its characteristic human approach, we discover that the winter months, particularly January, February and March, are the worst months. A short time ago, I had an opportunity of discussing this matter with a well-known medical man, who has two sons all possessing medical qualifications, and I put to him the question, "What are the busiest months in the year for your profession?" He replied, "Our worst months are January, February and March." Those are the busiest months, which is proved by the fact that February

    1163
    shows the highest death rate among old people of any month in the year.
    5.0 p.m.
    If by bringing forward the date from 3rd April to 3rd February we can help save these old people from experiencing grave hardship, let us do so. That is what we are pleading for. Let us not be hesitant in helping these old people who are either on the subsistence level or below it. We agree that the evidence shows that January, February and March are the three worst months. I do not know how the Department decided that the date should be 3rd April. It has been stated in many newspapers that this date would be administratively convenient, but we ought not to accept that. If the Minister has not the staff to do the job, he can call on the staffs of other Departments. We should remember that there was a time during the war when Departments which had little to do were called upon to help those Departments which had a lot to do. That was to help the war effort.
    Here we have another war, not between nation and nation, but between the old-age pensioners and the Government. It is a war against poverty which has been raging for a number of years. We wish to put a stop to it if we can and to benefit our old people. Ever since the Bill was published, together with the White Paper which accompanied it, nothing has roused the anger of old-age pensioners more than the announcement regarding the date of operation. In the last few weeks my postbag has contained more letters on that subject than ever I have received during my long experience as a Member of this House.
    The old-age pensioners are much concerned about the decision of the Government to pay this increase on 3rd April. I do not wish to weary the Committee, but it is as well that the Minister and his Department should know the feeling which exists in the minds of old folk. I can speak with great authenticity about what is in the minds of these people, because in my constituency there are 6,875 old-age pensioners and I have here a letter from the secretary of their organisation. It is dated 17th November. It states:
    "Sir, At a meeting of the above branch held on Wednesday, 16th, we viewed with grave
    1164
    concern the new Pensions Bill which proposes an increase in the basic rate which comes into operation on April 3rd, 1960 and the appalling, horrible delay in payment. The basic rate increases, but if in receipt of National Assistance many pensioners would have their amount reduced as much as 4s. for single and 5s. for a married couple. We…register our vigorous protest and ask you to help us to get the payment of the increased pension at a much earlier date."
    Similar letters have been received by other right hon. and hon. Members, and in view of the disturbed minds of the old people, I hope that the Minister will respond by accepting this Amendment.
    A great deal has been said about the conditions of the old people. We ought to remember, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, that one of the greatest burdens the old people have to meet is the cost of coal, gas and electricity which they have to burn during the winter months. These costs have increased to an extent higher than ever before in the history of this country. I will not argue that old people buy the best coal, because they cannot afford to do so. They buy cheaper qualities, but the prices are 8s. 4d. to 9s. 10d. a cwt. These old people do not live in new houses. Often the houses in which they live were built eighty, ninety, and sometimes 100 years ago. Therefore, they must spend more on coal, gas and electricity than do those who are fortunate enough to live in new houses. On that score alone, I think, the Minister should accept this Amendment.
    I repeat that if these people lived at the subsistence level, or above it, the picture would be entirely different; but they are the poorest of the poor. On Tuesday week I told hon. Members that I visited some of these old people—I know that there are hon. and right hon. Members opposite who may smile and think this funny—and I found that the days of riddling ashes from the fire are not over for them. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite know what is meant by "riddling". I do not suppose that any hon. Member opposite could tell me what it means. I am referring to riddling the ashes from the fire in order to use them the following day and in that way to obtain the utmost from the coal which is burnt. The right hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may glance at the Minister, but I

    1165
    am trying to put before the Department a picture of what these old folk have to do in order to get some warmth in their homes day after day.
    The Minister has the "brass"—they call it money in the South, but in the North we call it "brass"—and he has the necessary civil servants which we have boasted many times are second to none. Of course, there are exceptions, and the Minister knows it. They may turn a bit awkward if they are called on to do something out of their usual routine. The administrative machine is available to perform this work on behalf of a section of the community which is entitled to benefit from a little extra effort on the part of the Government Department concerned so that they may enjoy a little extra sustenance and warmth before extreme winter conditions descend upon them.
    There are, I know, some right hon. and hon. Members who regard what I am saying as sentimentalism. That is not so. It is prompted by a burning desire which dwells in the hearts of us all that the Government shall at least concede what is expressed in our Amendment. Today the cry comes not from Macedonia, as it did in the old days, but from the old-age pensioners. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment and bring a crumb of comfort and consolation to these old people as they travel towards the western shore of life.
    Mr. James Dempsey: I want to say a few words in support of the Amendment, which brings forward the operative date of the proposed increases from April to February. I have always understood that, quite apart from the contributors, the Government had some responsibility for pensioners, but we seem to be learning this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman, from the Parliamentary Secretary and from hon. Gentlemen that pensions must be dependent on the contributions paid. That is not good enough. After all, old-age pensioners and other persons who are entitled to National Insurance benefits today are the people who have made their contributions to society. Indeed, they have probably made a greater contribution to society than any other section of the community.
    1166
    Having listened to some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would think that merely because people pay contributions it means that no increased benefits can be introduced until they commence paying increased contributions. That argument cannot be accepted. It is not accepted by the Opposition. It is not accepted by public representatives or by anybody who has a sense of responsibility towards pensioners and other recipients.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gave the answer. He explained that there is an emergency fund, and anyone who has any experience of bookkeeping or accounting knows that such a fund is created for emergency purposes. Here is an opportunity to use that fund. It was created for exigencies such as this, and the operative date could conveniently be brought forward to the first Monday in February instead of April by using a part of this fund.
    Many of my hon. Friends referred to the conditions in which old people find themselves in the early months of the year. Before I came to the House I was a member of a welfare authority. Without fear of contradiction, I can confirm what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). We conducted research and discovered that the percentage of old people who died during the early months of the year was higher than at any other period. Surely that should be accepted by all responsible hon. Members. I am therefore surprised at the callous attitude adopted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in refusing to face this fact.
    I do not accept that it cannot be done at this time of the year. It has been done before. Benefits have been increased at this time of the year on previous occasions. If it could be done in the past, it can be done now. I do not believe that the argument put forward by hon. Gentlemen is fair or reasonable.
    It has been said, and it is a valid point, that nearly six months will elapse before people receive the increased allowances. Do the Minister and his hon. Friends know of any other section of the community which has had to wait six months before receiving increases which have been awarded? I do not. I know of certain sections of the community which

    1167
    may have had to wait but which received retrospective payments when salaries were increased. Sometimes those payments have been backdated several months. I know of no section of our community which has had to wait six months from the date of the announced increases before receiving something which is certainly not adequate, but which will be an improvement on the present lot of these people.
    It must be clear to everyone that the winter months are an important period of the year. It is the period during which these people have to overcome the hazards of our climate. Surely it is the period of the year when additional benefits are an urgent necessity.
    5.15 p.m.
    I urge the Minister to realise that it is his responsibility to face this problem. I believe that many right hon. and hon. Members have received representations from their constituents about this matter. I forwarded one representation to the Minister and received a charming reply from the right hon. Lady which was in the negative. The letter contained a long dissertation about the effective date and the nature of the increases, but I was rather interested in one sentence which read:
    "There are now nearly 5½ million pensioners and it is not, of course, the position that they are all poor."
    Also, it is not, of course, the position that they are all rich. Indeed, it is well known that the majority of these people are living in poverty. It is for that reason that the Amendment has been tabled. It is because of their economic conditions that we feel that the operative date for this increase should be brought forward.
    We have learned that thousands of pensioners are not likely to enjoy these increases because they will not live long enough. It reminds me of the old adage, very often used in my part of the country—I do not know whether it is used extensively in the South—"Live on old horse and you'll get corn." That seems to be the attitude of the Government; if these elderly people live long enough they may receive the benefit of this increase.
    I thought it rather ironic that it should be argued that all increases must be tied
    1168
    to contributions and that the Exchequer liability must be strictly limited while the workers' contribution is unlimited. It was said that we must be careful with our subsidies. I cannot help thinking about the subsidies paid to the agricultural industry, especially when I remember that part of the subsidies have been used to provide central heating for cattle. We want money for coal for fires for human beings.
    I live in a town where different forms of entertainment are organised to raise money in order to give old-age pensioners two bags of coal for the Christmas and New Year holidays. That is the state into which the old-age pensioners have been driven because of their meagre pensions. Surely the Government ought to reconsider their attitude towards the operative date. Unless it is altered, it will mean that the winter months will have gone and the old folks among others will not have enjoyed these increases at the time when they needed them most. It will also mean, according to the normal death rate among pensioners, that several thousands will have passed beyond the veil and will never have had the opportunity of receiving the increases.
    If the Government are convinced that there is a valid case for making these increases, there is no excuse for delaying six months. If they are necessary, as the Minister believes that they are, in April 1961, they must be equally necessary in February 1961. The logic is clear.
    It will be some time before allowances are reviewed, according to past precedent. During the interval the standard of living of these deserving persons will deteriorate. If we are to honour our responsibility to those entitled to these benefits, we should do so at once. There is no need to wait six months before granting these modest increases.
    I ask the Government to reconsider this and not to be intoxicated by the size of their majority. The eyes of the people, especially those who have the interests of the needy at heart, are on the Government. The Government may stand or fall by an attitude such as they are adopting at present.
    The Government have a responsibility to the nation, apart from their responsibility to those entitled to these benefits. The Amendment is clear, logical and

    1169
    reasonable, being based on the fact that if the increases are necessary in April 1961, they are even more necessary in February 1961. I hope that the Government will accept it, and let the pensioners and others have their increases long before April 1961.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: I intervene in this debate in order to discharge my solemn promise to do everything I can for the many Old Age Pensions Associations which I have had the privilege to visit. I shall now attempt to do this in a few words.
    I have heard it said that the spoken word is the most effective instrument of conviction. I have listened to most of the debate, and I have heard some sincere attempts to persuade the Minister. I am reminded of some words spoken soon after my recent arrival at the House by the late Member for Ebbw Vale, Mr. Bevan. I am delighted to see his successor here. Mr. Bevan looked at the benches opposite and said, "The problem is not how much of a majority the Government have, but what they intend to do with it".
    Shall we see the Government's large majority used tonight to defeat this simple Amendment, which seeks in simple terms to bring forward benefits for old people by a few months? Are we to see hon. Members opposite using their majority for that purpose? If they do, the country should take note of it.
    I have visited many Old Age Pensions Associations. How many hon. Gentlemen opposite have done so? How many of them have heard the clear and sincere appeal being made on behalf of old-age pensioners? If they have not been, they should go. If they had been, they would vote differently on the Amendment.
    I need not repeat many of the arguments which have been advanced. Some hon. Members have argued that this is an actuarial problem. Others have argued that it is an administrative problem. The truth is that it is neither. It is a human problem. Because it is a human problem, we on this side are continually rising to appeal to the Minister. I hope that he will heed our appeal and not shut his mind to the plight of old age pensioners. If he feels that there is sincerity in our appeal, he should heed it in the interests of democracy. He
    1170
    should do this, not merely for the sake of satisfying our appeal, but in the interests of the people for whom we speak.
    Many of us receive correspondence on this subject. There is one phrase which appeals to me in a letter I have received from the National Association of Old Age Pensioners:
    "How well-fed men and women can bear to think of such injustice is beyond comprehension…"
    I repeat it. It will be beyond comprehension if the Government with all their power tonight vote down this simple Amendment, which merely asks for the benefit to be paid a few months earlier. I therefore beg the Minister to heed our appeal.
    Mr. William Hamilton: I hope the Minister is now convinced that the silence or indifference of his own side will not expedite the proceedings. It becomes rather farcical when the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) gets down on his knees, as he inevitably does, and accepts every word that the Minister says and then disappears from the Chamber until the next Amendment is called, when he will, no doubt, reappear, make another speech, and disappear. It makes a farce of our proceedings when no convincing arguments, based on humanitarian grounds, are advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite why the Amendment should not be accepted.
    The Minister adduces two arguments. The first is the administrative convenience of introducing the increase in April. The second is the actuarial desirability of introducing it at the same time as the new scheme is introduced. There is another argument which the right hon. Gentleman probably dare not adduce, namely, that for every week he delays he saves £2 million. In the eight weeks the difference between our proposal and his is £16 million. That consideration is in his mind. He gives the impression in the country that this is a consideration in the minds of the Government.
    Eight weeks do not matter one way or the other to me or to the ordinary worker receiving a wage increase, but it is a substantial proportion of the remaining life of the average old-age pensioner. They coincide with the period when, as has been pointed out very forcibly by my hon. Friends, expenses are at their heaviest.

    1171
    I want to mention one or two points which have not been mentioned so far. Many old people receive help from their families because of the inadequacy of the pension. Many of those from whom they receive help are unemployed in the winter motnhs, because unemployment figures inevitably rise then. Help which would normally be received from the family is not easily come by in winter months.
    Another point which has not been mentioned is that there is more ill health in winter months and, consequently, more prescriptions are needed by old people. Each time they go for a prescription they have to pay the 1s. which this Government put on. From all these points of view, their expenses in the winter months are increased.
    Industrialists are saying that the period of stability in the cost of living is coming to an end. There is every indication that prices will rise in the next few months. The price of coal has already risen. Gas, electricity, transport and haulage will cost more. That must have repercussions in other parts of the economy. By next April the increases being given in the Bill will have been filched away by the rising cost of living.
    I do not believe that it would be administratively impossible, as the Minister alleges. If the Minister had a real desire to do this he would order his civil servants accordingly. That is what civil servants are for. He would compel them to accede to the desires of the House of Commons. Apart from the hon. Member for Barry and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth), no arguments have been adduced from the benches opposite against our proposal.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has twice referred to the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). Would he not agree that there are hon. Members on his side of the Committee who, having made a contribution to the debate, have temporarily left the Chamber, all no doubt, like my hon. Friend, for excellent reasons?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am not complaining about the hon. Member's absence. I am complaining about his consistent subservience
    1172
    to his own Front Bench. He accepts every word that is spoken from the Government Front Bench. When we get that situation, it really makes a farce of our debates, and, of course, he makes matters worse by his disappearance. I am not sure that in five or ten minutes' time, according to the length of time that the debate goes on, the hon. Gentleman will not be back again to make his contribution on the next Amendment and will then disappear again, for good or bad reasons.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: He will certainly be back for the Division.
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, he will certainly be back for the Division, as he was reported to have done yesterday.
    The House is coming into disrepute precisely because of the kind of debate that we are having today. The best answer that the Minister could give would be to say, "All right, we will give the old-age pensioners the increase in, say, a month's time." We should be prepared to accept March rather than April as the date for the commencement of the increase—or even February—which would be a compromise between the two. Let the Minister make an effort to introduce a little humanitarianism into his attitude towards the matter instead of arguing on the grounds of administrative convenience and actuarial necessity.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): We have had yet another of these debates in which a considerable number of speeches have been made attacking Her Majesty's Government on the ground that they have not, in the particular aspect involved, done conspicuously better than did right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were responsible. This becomes extremely material when the attack is made—and it has been made on this Amendment—not on the basis that there is a disagreement on the merits and details of the proposal, but on the basis, to quote the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that it is a really heartless feature, or that we have mocked the pensioners in their distress, or when it is made on the lines of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) or the

    1173
    hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), when they said that it will cause the death of a number of pensioners.
    When hon. Members speak in those terms, they really put in question the sincerity of their charge, and, indeed, invite the comment that when they were themselves responsible they managed these things in much the same way. The other day the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) objected to what he called a "stale statistical labyrinth". Unfortunately for him, HANSARD printed "State statistical labyrinth". But we have all suffered from that. He indicated the hypersensitivity that hon. Members opposite reveal when reference is made to what they themselves did.
    Hon. Members opposite must appreciate that if they base their attack on the Government on the grounds of heartlessness, callousness and the driving of people to their deaths, they are in the dilemma that either they did the same themselves or that they are making an attack in which they do not believe.
    Let me remind the Committee of what, in fact, right hon. Gentlemen opposite did in respect of the only increase in pensions which they made after the original Act came into force. They took, from the announcement to the operative date, twenty weeks in respect of some pensioners and twenty-four weeks in respect of others. This operation which we are conducting is to take twenty-two weeks from the date of the announcement to the date of operation. Let us analyse, therefore, the suggestion that this is callous and heartless, and all the rest of it, and compare the problem.
    The 1951 change was made at a time when the pensions of 4 million retirement pensioners had to be uprated. Now there are 5½ million. It was at a time when no other fundamental changes were made. This change, as my hon. Friends have reminded the Committee, is being made in the context of the fundamental change that was introduced by the 1959 Act into National Insurance, with all the inescapable complexities that a change of that sort involves.
    I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) that I do not regard it as so surprising, as he appears to do, that hon. Members on this side of the Committee agree with
    1174
    each other. That is perhaps one of the distinctions between the two sides of the Committee. However, I will not carry that interesting theme further in the presence of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).
    Let us again take the contrast between the two operations, that between 1951 and 1961, from the point of view of the pensioners and from the point of view of the degree of urgency. At that time, as the Committee knows, the value of the pension—at the time when the announcement was made in 1951—was very much below its original value in real terms. Today it stands at about 5s. 6d. above that original value. Not only was that the case, but at the time of that change right hon. Gentlemen opposite were proposing a change which would not have restored the original value of the pension even when it came into operation at the end of the twenty and the twenty-four weeks.
    At the time of this change we are starting on the basis of an existing pension whose real value is higher than at any time previous to January, 1958, and which, broadly, has retained its 1958 value—in contrast to the state of affairs which I have described at the time of the 1951 change. If it is really a true and genuine charge of callousness and so on, what is the language that it would have been appropriate to use when right hon. Gentlemen opposite took the same time in those very different and far more compelling circumstances of 1951?
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: Why not go back to before the war?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am going back to the time when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible in order to test the sincerity of the charges which they have made for two hours this afternoon.
    What happened after the orginal 26s. rate started? In 1947 the cost of living rose 3·7 per cent., more than it has risen since January, 1958. In 1948, it rose 4·6 per cent., in 1949, 3·6 per cent., and in 1950, 3·9 per cent. No proposals of any sort or kind were brought forward to improve the rate of pension, and it was only in 1951, a year in which the cost of living index rose 13 per cent., that a proposal was brought forward. It is

    1175
    material to this discussion on alleged delay that in that period of 22 to 24 weeks between the announcement and operation in 1951, the index rose 7 per cent. How it lies in the mouth of the hon. Member for Sowerby and his hon. Friends to introduce, as he sought to do, these emotional considerations into this debate is a matter for their own consciences. In the words of the late Lord Birkenhead, I can only congratulate them on their courageous consciences.
    Let me say a word or two upon the task which we have in operating this change. I dealt with this on Second Reading, and I then drew to the attention of the House what I thought were the reasons why we were right, a long time in advance, as we had to be in planning an operation of this sort, in fixing the beginning of April for the commencing date. At this stage, our preparations are well under way. If they were not, we could not pay the benefits in April.
    I must say to the Committee that at this stage, at any rate, if would not now be possible to advance the date to 3rd February or anything like it. The Committee will realise what a very considerable operation this is, involving as it does the alteration of retirement pension order books, 100,000 of them in each week and 5½ million of them in all, and involving, as it will on this occasion, five successive weeks in which, after due notice, pensioners will be asked to bring their books to our offices for the higher values to be included in them. This is a very elaborate operation in which we should have failed our duty if we had not planned it well ahead and for a particular date. Therefore, I must say to the Committee before I proceed to justify, as I shall, this decision, that—as the hon. Member for Sowerby understands very well—if would be impossible without risking dislocation and further delay to alter the procedure now planned and indeed in operation.
    Mr. Hunter: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot say 3rd February, could he not date back the increase to 3rd February and let the pensioners have the increased amount in April?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that that is the right way to treat an insurance scheme, nor, as the hon.
    1176
    Gentleman will appreciate at once, would it meet the main argument which has been made that there would be suffering between February and April. Payment made in arrear in April, whether good or bad, would not meet what I certainly understood to be the major point on this Amendment.
    I should like to make this quite clear. At this stage, the date in the Amendment is not practicable. I will, of course, as it is my duty to do, justify the decision taken, and will deal with the suggestion that has not been made very forcefully this afternoon but which was made at Question Time the other day, that we should drop the procedure for the calling in of pensioners to the offices for the proper up-rating of books. That was dealt with very well by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) when this suggestion was made on the occasion, of which I have reminded the Committee, in 1951. She then said:
    "All these orders must be replaced either by orders for the new rates, or by amended orders, properly authenticated, before the Post Office officials can pay the new pensions. I would ask hon. Members to remember that. Some of them have suggested that this money might be paid out without our taking the usual precautions. I think it would be agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that that would be an entirely irresponsible approach to this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 592–3.]
    I fully agree with what the right hon. Lady said.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Did the right hon. Gentleman agree with her then?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Most certainly. There has been so much that the right hon. Lady has said with which I have disagreed that I am happy to recall one measure of agreement.
    Now I come to the justification of the decision. First, on the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) made, which has a very real bearing on the allegation of great urgency, this is overwhelmingly an operation not to catch up with a diminished value of the pension but to raise its standard. Quite obviously, therefore, there must be a lesser element of urgency than if the situation were as it was in 1951, when an attempt was made to catch up with a diminished value. It is accepted, and even the hon.

    1177
    Member for Sowerby accepts that it is not practicable or reasonable to raise contributions between now and April. In the light of that, I feel that there is very great force in what was said by my hon. Friend to the effect that, unless a very extreme situation arises, it is very wrong from the point of view of the long-term future of this Scheme to separate increases in contributions from increases in benefit.
    5.45 p.m.
    This is an insurance scheme, and it involves, as I said on Second Reading, a quite considerable sacrifice from those who are at work. If we are to preserve the contributory nature of the Scheme, and therefore its feature that payment of benefit is made as of right, we must not undermine this contributory basis—as we should do by separating the payment of contributions and pensions.
    Thus, we come to what the hon. Member for Sowerby called—I do not know why—the sordid question of finance. When one is dealing with a National Insurance Scheme which next year will pay out some £1,200 million of public money, it is necessary to look at questions of finance with very considerable care. I make no apology for the fact that we do attach importance to the financial side of this. I must remind the Committee that already in this year, in order just to maintain the current rate of benefits, we are facing a deficit on the Scheme of no less than £94 million——
    Mr. T. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has a Reserve Fund.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —£47 million of which will come from the Exchequer and £47 million by running down the Fund. I should like to say a word or two about both those matters. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sowerby is not here, though perhaps it is for perfectly good reasons, but I must deal with his argument, and I should be discourteous if I did not. He said that because the Act of 1954 gave authority for the expenditure in respect of deficiency payments of £325 million for a number of years, that £325 million was available for this purpose. The hon. Member and the Committee know perfectly well that there is a very real distinction between obtaining Parliamentary authority for expenditure
    1178
    and the wisdom or unwisdom of incurring it in any one year. Expenditure under that Section of the 1954 Act, which has now been amended by the 1959 Act, as the hon. Member for Sowerby reminded us, an expenditure of £47 million, is already being used this year for the purpose of maintaining the benefits even at their present level.
    As to the running down of the Fund, the Fund is held in gilt-edged securities, and what is involved there in running down the Fund is a sale of the Government's own securities. That, of course, is equivalent to Government borrowing. It is not a painless method of paying for benefits, and if the Committee would like a most admirable exposition of the economic effects of this proposal, I would refer them to the only Budget speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, made in 1951.
    We come therefore to this position, that in order to meet the date suggested in the Amendment, there would have to be an additional expenditure of £24 million directly or indirectly falling upon the Exchequer. When the Committee appreciates the very large financial load involved in meeting the current year's deficit, I should have thought that that was a proposition which would at least disturb hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We are here dealing with substantial sums of public money, and I do not regard it as sordid that we should exercise the care which any Government would have to apply when dealing with substantial expenditure.
    We then come to the argument as to whether we should, none the less, advance the time of payment because of the onset of winter. I accept, as everyone does, that winter is naturally the most difficult time for all of us, and for old people in particular. But what really determines the standards of the poorest section of our people is not the National Insurance benefit rate but the National Assistance scales and the supplementary payments which may be made with them. They are the determining factor, and for that reason some of the arguments about hardship in the context of National Insurance benefits were off the mark. The point was made that the new National Assistance scales

    1179
    would operate only from April. The very good reason for that, as those who have experience of this matter will recall, is that the greatest disappointment and confusion are caused if the increases are separated in time.
    What the Committee has not realised, apparently, is that whereas the Bill will provide as from April an improvement in real standards for recipients of National Insurance, recipients of National Assistance are already enjoying, as the result of the improvements made in September, 1959, a large part, or instalment, of the rising standards. I would be out of order if I reminded the Committee of the debates which we had in the summer of 1959 on the Regulations by which those improvements were brought about. The Committee will recollect, however, that I put the argument, and was not challenged on it, that those improvements represented the first real, substantial increase in National Assistance scales, as opposed to adjustments to meet cost-of-living changes, which had been made since the Board was set up in 1948. In this winter, during the time to which hon. Members have devoted so much of their speeches, that improvement in standards for the poorest section of the people, already in force, will be available. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no use hon. Members saying, "No". It is a fact, and a fact of the greatest importance for the poorest section of all.
    On top of that, there are the discretionary additions paid by the National Assistance Board in two-thirds of the supplements to retirement pension. There are payments in respect of rent and rates; in assessing the requirements of householders, full rent and rates are provided for in 99 per cent. of the cases. And, quite apart from the cost of fuel being taken into account in assessing other provisions, there are allowances for exceptional fuel requirements which, at the height of last winter, were being paid by the Board in 293,000 cases.
    We, therefore, come to the point that the argument as to the winter, and as to the problems imposed on old people by the winter, is not an argument which bears very directly or very strongly on the question now before us, namely, whether the National Insurance rates should operate from February or April.
    1180
    For that reason, after very careful thought—and I hope that the Committee will do us the credit of accepting that these are matters which no Government, whether one agrees with them or not, would decide without a great deal of thought—we came to the conclusion, and set the machinery of Government to work on that basis, that the right time to make these improvements was at the beginning of April.
    We took account of the various factors which I have mentioned and in particular that a large instalment—the larger part—of the improvement in real standards for the poorest of the poor—the recipients of National Assistance—would be in operation throughout that period. The conclusion we reached, for the reasons I have given, cannot be sincerely criticised by hon. Members opposite when one recalls that what we are doing is to raise the highest level of pension value ever to a still higher level in the same time as hon. Members opposite took not even to restore the original pension to its original value.
    Mr. William Ross: I cannot speak for every hon. Member, but I am sure that I am expressing the opinion of my hon. and right hon. Friends when I say that the Minister's reply, or defence, was singularly unsatisfactory. Very nicely, he based everything upon the question of hardship, linking that up with something which had been done ten years ago. Instead of justifying his proposals, he spent most of his time attacking the Labour Government for something that happened ten years ago. He missed out one of the series of increases of benefit, that which he himself introduced in 1957–58, when he took great pride and preened himself—as did his hon. Friends—on quickly introducing an increase of pensions and National Assistance scales. All his arguments today about the winter not really mattering were the very reverse of what his hon. Friends said on that occasion when they praised him for making the improvements simply because of the coming winter.
    However reluctantly it has been prised out of them, and however gradually they have honoured it, hon. Members opposite gave a pledge to the old people—before the election—that the old people would share in the good things that the great prosperity of Britain would bring.

    1181
    Hon. Members have used that pledge in by-elections since the election. Did any of them think that the Government would take anything from a year to eighteen months to honour that pledge? When that pledge was made, did hon. Members opposite think that the increases—however inadequate as we think they are—would be dangled before the old people and the unemployed and the sick for five months?
    I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) made his comment about the unemployed, which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer. During the corresponding period covered by this lapse, last winter there were more than 100,000 unemployed in Scotland and, in view of the Government's present performance, there will not be many fewer this winter.
    The Government are asking the retirement pensioner, the sick and the widows to accept £2 10s. as their social security benefit and make do with that until April. That is what was behind the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman—nothing more and nothing less. If he thinks that there is no hardship among the millions of people who will be affected by the Bill, he is quite wrong—and he knows that he is quite wrong. I sometimes think that before Ministers come to listen to debates like this the Treasury issues them with special earplugs. It may be that after a time they do not need them, although I would not say that about the right hon. Gentleman.
    The right hon. Gentleman based much of his case tonight on administrative inconvenience—it came to the impossibility—of making the increases earlier than proposed in the Bill. On Second Reading, he made it plain that he did not rest his case on the administrative bottlenecks which would arise because of the simultaneous introduction of the graduated scheme. The graduated scheme has not exactly come as a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman. It was dealt with in Committee two years ago, and so two years ago the right hon. Gentleman knew that it would start in April.
    6.0 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman also said that this was a calculated plan. That is what we object to. It was calculated
    1182
    to be introduced at the same time as the graduated scheme. This is the real reason which the Minister did not explain to the Committee. The Government proclaimed before the workers that they were introducing a great new scheme, but they explained very little about it. The story that went about was that the lower-paid workers in the scheme are to have a reduction of 1s. 7d. in the contribution. What are the Government doing now? We heard from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) yesterday how wonderful it was that all this would be done, that there would be an increase of 7s. 6d. for a single person and 12s. 6d. for a married couple, and that the contribution would be reduced. What has happened is the reduction of 1s. 7d. has now become a reduction of 2d.
    By introducing these changes at the same time as the graduated scheme the Minister has sunk an increase which is costing the contributors more than £130 million—1s. 5d. per week for each individual. The real reason for this is Treasury convenience. The Minister talks about the solvency of the scheme. Does he suggest for one minute that the National Insurance Reserve Fund would be ruined and that the great economy which the Conservatives say they are building up, thus enabling us to afford an extra 7s. 6d. a week in pension to the single person, would be destroyed if we gave the increase for an extra few weeks? It would cost just over £24 million, and the Reserve Fund amounts to more than £1,000 million.
    Does the Minister expect the House of Commons to accept that? Where are the hon. Members who support him? They are elsewhere hiding their faces in shame, for this is more than they can listen to. We heard about it from the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth). The hon. Member did not talk about his aunt today. He reserves for debates on the Finance Bill what happens in relation to the investments of the aunt from Basingstoke. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not consult a few pensioners from Basingstoke, for he would then have realised that what my hon. Friends have been saying about hardship is right.
    The hon. Member said that we must not do this. He said that there might be

    1183
    a time—the Minister said the same thing—when we could use the Reserve Fund, but this was not the time. Would there ever be a time when the Tories would be prepared expeditiously to use such a fund in order to benefit the people rather than putting the burden upon the taxpayer? The burden goes on the taxpayer every time. The hon. Member also talked about inflation. He visualises, if the Amendment is accepted, rampant inflation because the old-age pensioners would get an extra 7s. 6d. What will they spend it on?
    Mr. Jack Jones: Ford shares?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member has found places where he can buy coal cheaper than anyone else in the country—provided one buys it according to some index or other in a Government Blue Book. About the only thing which has not gone up in this country is the cost-of-living index, and the sooner something is done about that the better. Rent costs are rampant all over the country. The first things that the old-age pensioners have to pay are rent and rates, and what they can buy after that is dependent upon the amount which is left to them. A first charge upon that is the cost of their fuel. A retirement pensioner gets, with sickness benefit, £2 10s., and that is all.
    I have not been satisfied with anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I am sure that my hon. Friends have not. In his own interests the Minister ought to accept our proposal to bring forward the date as much as possible. We have given figures to show the real increase in values which it would mean. Since we have been told of the figures, 6d. has been knocked off the 7s. 6d. because the cost of living has gone up a point. Already a pension of £2 17s. 6d. is worth only £2 17s. Would the right hon. Gentleman venture a guess as to what the cost-of-living index will be in
    April? All the indications are that it will go up even further than it is now. Therefore, even before the retirement pensioners get the benefit of this, as it is proclaimed, great advance, part of it will have been eroded by inflation.
    I am not one of those who are prepared to accept the wonderful stories about what the Conservatives have done for the old-age pensioners. I am very glad that I got under some people's skins last night by what I said. Today the figure of 5s. 8d. has been quoted, which is at today's prices. The value of the tobacco coupon is now 2s. 6d., and that leaves 3s. 2d. At today's prices, that is the increase since 1946. This is the proclaimed Tory advance.
    There is one other thing which the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten. We had two revolutions in the early days of the Labour Government, one in social security and one in the National Health Service. The National Health Service meant more even than increased pensions to retired people. What have the Government done about that? For most of the retirement pensioners the 5s. increase has gone because of the charges for prescriptions which were imposed.
    The Government have nothing to be proud of. If hon. Members opposite are prepared to accept in silence what the Minister has said and walk sheepishly through the Lobby in support of him, refusing to recognise that the Minister could have done what we suggest if he had wanted to, then I shall be deeply disappointed. Hon. Members opposite have the opportunity of bringing their pledge into practical effect two months earlier if they support us. For the sake of their own reputations and Britain's reputation for being generous to her old people, I sincerely hope hon. Members opposite will support our Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 174, Noes 225.

    Division No. 7.]

    AYES

    [6.10 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Albu, Austen

    Benson, Sir George

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

    Boardman, H.

    Callaghan, James

    Awbery, Stan

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Bowles, Frank

    Chapman, Donald

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Boyden, James

    Chetwynd, George

    Beaney, Alan

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Doug'as

    Rankin, John

    Crosland, Anthony

    Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Reid, William

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Ross, William

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kelley, Richard

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Dempsey, James

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Diamond, John

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dodds, Norman

    King, Dr. Horace

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Lawson, George

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Small, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke S.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lipton, Marous

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Evans, Albert

    MacColl, James

    Stones, William

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mclnnes, James

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Fitch, Alan

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mackie, John

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Foot, Dingle

    McLeavy, Frank

    Swingler, Stephen

    Foot, Michael

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Sylvester, George

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mapp, Charles

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mason, Roy

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mellish, R. J.

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Grey, Charles

    Millan, Bruce

    Thornton, Ernest

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Timmons, John

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Monslow, Walter

    Tomney, Frank

    Grimond, J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Gunter, Ray

    Morris, John

    Warbey, William

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Weitzman, David

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Mulley, Frederick

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Healey, Denis

    Oliver, G. H.

    Whitlock, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oram, A. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Padley, W. E.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Holman, Percy

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Howell, Charles A.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Peart, Frederick

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pentland, Norman

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Probert, Arthur

    Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

    Janner, Barnett

    Proctor, W. T.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Fell, Anthony

    Aitken, W. T.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Allason, James

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Arbuthnot, John

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Cole, Norman

    Freeth, Denzil

    Balniel, Lord

    Collard, Richard

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Barber, Anthony

    Cooke, Robert

    Gammans, Lady

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Barter, John

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Godber, J. B.

    Batsford, Brian

    Cordle, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Corfield, F. V.

    Gower, Raymond

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Costain, A. P.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Coulson, J. M.

    Green, Alan

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Critchley, Julian

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Gurden, Harold

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hamilton, Miohael (Wellingborough)

    Box, Donald

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Deedes, W. F.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    de Ferrantl, Basil

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Braine, Bernard

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Doughty, Charles

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Bullard, Denys

    du Cann, Edward

    Hastings, S.

    Burden, F. A.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Eden, John

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

    Elliott, R. W.

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Emery, Peter

    Hiley, Joseph

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Farr, John

    Hobson, John

    1186

    1187

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Shaw, M.

    Holland, Philip

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Hollingworth, John

    Mawby, Ray

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hopkins, Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R.

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Mills, Stratton

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Talbot, John E.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    More, J.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Morrison, John

    Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Teeling, William

    Jackson, John

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Temple, John M.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Noble, Michael

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Partridge, E.

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Kirk, Peter

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Turner, Colin

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Leavey, J. A.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Quennell, Miss J.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Ramsden, James

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Watts, James

    Longbottom, Charles

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Webster, David

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Rees, Hugh

    Whitelaw, William

    McLaren, Martin

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Maddan, Martin

    Robertson, Sir David

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Maitland, Sir John

    Roots, William

    Woollam, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Russell, Ronald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Marten, Neil

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Mr. Bryan and Mr. Sharples.

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    First Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)
    Mr. R. E. Prentice: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, column 4, to leave out "97 shillings and 6 pence" and to insert "105 shillings".
    The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with the first Amendment, we took the following eight Amendments: in page 7, line 10, column 4, leave out "87 shillings and 9" and insert "95 shillings and 3" line 12, column 4, leave out "78 shillings" and insert "85 shillings and 6 pence"; line 13, column 4, leave out "68 shillings and 3" and insert "75 shillings and 9"; line 15, column 4, leave out "58 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "66 shillings"; line 17, column 4, leave out "48 shillings and 9" and insert "56 shillings and 3"; line 19, column 4, leave out "39 shillings" and insert "46 shillings and 6 pence"; line 20, column 4, leave out "29 shillings and 3" and
    1188
    insert "36 shillings and 9"; and line 22, column 4, leave out "19 shillings and 6 pence" and insert "27 shillings".
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir William. This group of Amendments relates to the rates of disablement benefit paid under the Industrial Injuries Act. They are designed to increase those rates, and could be described as part of the design of hon. Members on this side of the Committee to increase all social insurance benefits covered by the Bill.
    Perhaps naturally, in discussing social insurance benefits, a greater part of the emphasis in the debate has been on the retirement pensioners, and we shall be returning to their problems later in Committee. I welcome the opportunity, offered by this group of Amendments, to speak specifically about those covered by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts. It seems to us that they, equally with retirement pensioners and other groups of people who receive National Insurance benefits, are being left behind in our modern society. We are not making provision for them on the scale that we should. The provision

    1189
    which we make is falling behind that which is made in many other industrial countries, and we ought to do better.
    Let me turn to one or two special points relating to those who receive benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts. It is comparatively easy to think in terms of higher rates under these Acts, for one feature of the Industrial Injuries Fund from the very beginning has been that only a fairly small contribution has been required in order to pay rates of benefit which have always been higher than those paid under the National Insurance Acts. The reason for this is that the numbers of industrial casualties are very small compared with the numbers of retirement pensioners and those in the other groups covered by the main National Insurance Acts. This is borne out by the fact that the Fund now has a healthy surplus—so healthy that within the Bill the Government propose to reduce the industrial injuries contribution by 1d. a week from the employee and 1d. a week from the employer.
    When we speak of higher rates of benefit for those who have suffered industrial injuries, therefore, it is a demand which the Government could meet more easily than the demands which we have made for retirement pensioners. They cannot offer the same excuse—that the cost is such that the nation cannot afford it. We do not accept their excuse in relation to retirement pensioners, but in this case they cannot even make the excuse, because it would be financially easy to meet the figures we have set down in the Amendments.
    The next point which I want to make on behalf of those who have suffered industrial accidents is that the industrial accident, generally, hits a man very suddenly. Retirement is something for which people can prepare up to a point, because they can anticipate it. An industrial accident, however, often strikes at someone in the prime of life, perhaps a man with family responsibilities, who is buying a house on mortgage and who has many hire-purchase commitments. Suddenly he is deprived of his earning power, and in many cases, unhappily, deprived of it for a long time, sometimes permanently. In this respect, the industrial injuries benefit is different from some other benefits paid, such as sickness
    1190
    and unemployment benefits, which are more often paid for a limited period and are described as short-term benefits. The benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts are often paid for a very long time indeed.
    I believe that the community owes a special debt to those who are injured in industry. There is an old saying in the mining areas. "There is blood on coal". Fortunately, that does not apply as much now as it did in the past, because there are fewer accidents in mining, but there are still many accidents in mining and in many other industries. We still pay a price for our heritage in terms of industrial casualties in many of our basic industries.
    The Report of the Chief Factory Inspector covering 1959 showed that there were more industrial accidents than had occurred in the previous year. It is an unhappy fact that the number of industrial accidents increased last year. Indeed, the Report of the Ministry of National Insurance for the year showed an increase in applications under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts. According to the Chief Factory Inspector's Report, 174,000 industrial accidents were reported during last year. This Report does not cover mining or some other industries in which there are a large number of accidents.
    This is a serious question. The community owes a special debt to the people concerned, and particularly a debt to those who work in dangerous industries. A man who becomes a miner or who goes in for structural engineering work on high buildings is running a special risk. The chances are fairly high that in a normal working life he will sustain an industrial accident. We ought, therefore, to make special provision for that man if he is injured or for his dependants if he is killed, and the Committee and the Government ought to consider very seriously whether we cannot aim much higher in terms of benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts.
    The Amendments relate to industrial disablement benefits of 100 per cent., 90 per cent., and down to 20 per cent. For some reason we have missed the assessments under 20 per cent. and we have missed industrial injuries benefits, but I can assure the Government that we

    1191
    intend that these should be increased, and, if the Government meet our point, we hope that they will withdraw those parts of the Schedule, too. We are arguing for a general upgrading of benefits for those who suffer industrial accidents.
    The first Amendment relates to the 100 per cent. disabled. I should like the Committee to consider for a moment what that involves. In the original benefit Regulations, produced in 1946 under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, certain specific categories were laid down as relating to 100 per cent. disablement. A man who loses both legs is 100 per cent. disabled, as is a man who loses one leg and the other foot, and a man who is made completely blind and a man who is made completely deaf. Similarly, a man who suffers severe facial disfigurement is 100 per cent. disabled. These people are classified as being 100 per cent. disabled. The category relates, in other words, to very severe cases of industrial disablement.
    In such cases the Government propose a benefit of £4 17s. 6d. a week. In our Amendment we propose a benefit of £5 5s., but we are not tied to that figure; we put the figure down in order to frame the Amendment. All we are saying is that we ought to aim higher than the Government have aimed and to provide something better. This is a benefit for loss of faculty of the nature I have described.
    I submit that it is impossible to state a financial figure which will precisely compensate a man for that sort of disablement. We cannot say what the loss of two eyes or two legs is worth in terms of money. Nevertheless, legislating as we are, we must attempt to do so, and I suggest that the Government's figures are not good enough in our present day society and that something better could be attempted.
    We may be told, when the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies, that people with 100 per cent. disablement very often qualify for supplementary benefits and that they will not have to live on £4 17s. 6d. a week. In many cases that is true. The whole purpose of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts was to try to find a figure which would compensate them for the loss of faculties, not for
    1192
    the loss of earning power for a long period, and the indication is that for the rest of their lives they will not be able to lead a normal life. The Fund provides something for them in those circumstances.
    The 90 per cent. disabled man is one who loses both feet, or who loses one leg, amputated at the hip. If he is amptuated lower down the percentage is lower. This is a grim category which we have to consider, but it is necessary for those who made the Regulations to deal in those terms. Incidentally, a 90 per cent. disabled man does not qualify for the unemployment supplement which a 100 per cent. disabled man can get, yet the man who is disabled to the extent of 90 per cent. is very likely to be unemployable or to find it very difficult to get suitable work. We are pointing out that, compared with the normal, healthy man of the same age, he is 90 per cent. disabled. It is a very severe form of disability indeed, for which the payment proposed by the Government is £4 7s. 9d. a week; and we say that that proposal is not good enough.
    6.30 p.m.
    One can go down the list, and as one gets lower down the list there is another factor that can come into the argument. It is said that these rates of benefit are to compensate people for loss of faculty and not for loss of earnings, but if we are to be practical about it we have to realise that many of the people who have had industrial accidents certainly do suffer a considerable loss of earnings for which the Industrial Injuries Act only gives a very partial compensation.
    For example, a man who is 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. disabled and can work only at a job that will earn him lower wages than his former employment may well qualify for the special hardship allowance under the Act, but that allowance can only be paid up to a present maximum of 34s. a week, or 39s. under the proposals in the Bill. Many people lose several pounds a week because of an industrial accident. Therefore, in practice, although the rates shown in the Amendments are for loss of faculty, there is the element of partial loss of earnings as well—and they may be considerable—which the Act does not cover.
    Hon. Members will recognise that, in many cases, a comparatively small injury

    1193
    can lead to a very large loss of earnings. A man who has earned his living as a compositor will, if he should lose one finger or even the tip of one finger, lose considerably in earnings. Or the concert violinist—to take an extreme case—who lost the tip of one finger could lose many thousands of pounds per year as a result. Throughout industry there are all kinds of examples of people who suffer accidents which lead to small assessments under the Industrial Injuries Act but cost enormous losses of earnings.
    For all those reasons, we on this side believe that such people should be dealt with more generously. We feel that this year, particularly, when the Fund has this surplus, and when the Government are bringing forward a proposal to reduce the contributions to the Fund, some more generous arrangements should be made.
    Strictly speaking, we are only discussing benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act; in practice, we are discussing war pensions as well, because, since 1948, the rates of war pensions have been tied to the rates paid under the Industrial Injuries Act. For example, the rate for 100 per cent. disablement in this case is the same as the rate that will probably be included in the Royal Warrant. We cannot debate the Royal Warrant, so I would not be in order to pursue that point, but hon. Members should bear in mind that these things are tied together and that, although we are discussing justice for the casualties of industry and aiming, as we on this side do, at higher benefits for them, precisely the same arguments apply to the war disabled.
    Mr. Freeth: I think that someone on this side of the Committee—and even myself at the risk of incurring further ire from hon. Members opposite—might say something about these proposals. One should begin by finding a measure of agreement, which one certainly can, in that industrial injuries benefits should be higher than retirement benefits because the injuries are totally unforeseeable. It is, therefore, impossible, or virtually impossible, for the injured person to look ahead and to make even such provision as his means allow him.
    Having said that, I think that the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has opened up a very wide field indeed by almost questioning the
    1194
    principle of the Industrial Injuries Scheme as against the old workmen's compensation scheme, because this series of Amendments proposes to add to graduated benefits a flat increase all the way through. Under the proposals of the Schedule as printed, a 20 per cent. disabled person will receive a benefit rising from 17s. to 19s. 6d., while a 100 per cent. disabled person will receive a benefit rising from 85s. to 97s. 6d.
    This series of Amendments proposes a flat 7s. 6d. increase all the way up the scale. As a percentage increase, which, I think, highlights what hon. Members opposite are trying to do—to the 100 per cent. disablement benefit in the Schedule they propose an increase of 7·7 per cent., whereas to the 20 per cent. disablement benefit they propose an increase of 38·4 per cent.
    There is, of course, a lot of truth in what the hon. Member said about loss of earnings being nowhere near the same as loss of faculty, but it is with loss of faculty that the Industrial Injuries Scheme is concerned, and I cannot help wondering whether this is the moment to start that argument over again. It may well he that we should have another look at it, and that the graduations proposed in the Schedule should not be so steep between the 20 per cent. disabled and the 100 per cent. disabled. It may be that they are too far apart today, bearing in mind that a lost limb amounts to only 90 per cent. disablement, and that, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out as an example, a compositor depends on touch.
    On the other hand, we have today an Industrial Injuries Scheme firmly based on the idea of loss of faculty, and if we have the Scheme based in that way and have accepted it as being right, it seems to me, quite frankly, that one should make some distinction in the increases one proposes for the 100 per cent. disabled and those proposed for the 20 per cent. disabled. I therefore find that this series of Amendments gives rise to wider questions than the mere amount of benefit.
    These increases in benefit are being made with a reduction of 2d. in the combined contribution. My right hon. Friend is able to do that because, in at least one quinquennial review, the Government Actuary has pointed out

    1195
    that the Industrial Injuries Fund was building up at an unnecessary rate; that the value in perpetuity of the assets exceeded the corresponding value of the liabilities by about £617 million pounds. Bearing that in mind, I think that everyone will agree that my right hon. Friend had to take some action when other benefits in the National Insurance Scheme, in its wider sense, were being considered.
    He is now making proposals in the Schedule that will reduce the excess value of the assets in perpetuity to about £70 million. This is explained in paragraph 6 of Command Paper 1197—the Report by the Government Actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill. The Government Actuary there says:
    "This represents only about 3 per cent. of the value of liabilities."
    From that, I take it that the Government Actuary inclined to the view that we were getting somewhere near the safety limit—though other hon. Members, of course, may read it differently—and in considering the series of Amendments one is in a certain difficulty in not knowing what they would cost. I hope that whoever replies to the debate for the Government will begin by telling us what that cost would be.
    If I am right in my assessment that the reduction in the contributions and the increases in the benefits proposed in the Schedule use up the safety margin in the Industrial Injuries Fund, I would very much like to know—and hon. Members opposite have given me credit for being consistent, even though hard hearted—where the money is to come from to pay for this. I would have approached this series of Amendments with much more enthusiasm if they had been preceded by an Amendment to omit Part I of the First Schedule. If they had been so preceded—I think it would have been in order to have put down such an Amendment—then the whole operation would have been arguable, although, because of the increase in the flat rate as opposed to an increase by graduation, not necessarily the most desirable way of spending the money.
    However, until one knows what it would cost and whether the Fund could afford it, it is hard to say definitely
    1196
    whether one would oppose it. If the Fund cannot afford it, I will follow—whether sheeplike or goatlike I do not know—into the Lobby with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stan Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the old Workmen's Compensation Act the workman made no contribution at all? The whole of the contribution was made by his employer. Now the employee has to pay 7d. and the employer has to pay 8d. So the workman is called upon to carry the responsibility for any accident that may happen to him, which he did not have to carry before the introduction of the Industrial Injuries Act.
    Mr. Freeth: I fully agree that there is that difference between the Schemes. The only reason I omitted mentioning it was that it did not seem germane to my argument. By proposing a series of Amendments with a single flat-rate increase, irrespective of the percentage of disablement, the hon. Member appeared to be raising the question whether we should not go back to considering, in some degree or other, loss of earnings as well as loss of faculty.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Bernard Braine): I am sure the Committee will agree that the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has discussed this series of Amendments with customary moderation and with great clarity. That makes my task somewhat easier.
    First, let us see what the Bill does. I am not in any way referring to anything that the hon. Member said, but I have the impression that anyone coming into the Committee from outside might have lost sight of what the Bill proposes, and might even have gone away feeling that the Bill not only added nothing but, in fact, took away certain advantages.
    The hon. Member for East Ham, North cited the case of the 100 per cent. totally disabled man, and it might be of interest to the Committee if, as an example, I were to show what the present position is and what it will be after April, 1961, if the proposals in the Bill are accepted. Let me take the case of

    1197
    the totally disabled man who is unemployable, who needs constant attendance, who has a dependant wife and two children. He draws, in addition to his 100 per cent. disablement pension of 85s. a week, unemployability supplement or sickness benefit of 50s. Assuming that he gets the maximum constant attendance allowance—which he may not—he gets 70s. The comforts allowance does not apply. He gets an allowance of 30s. for his wife, 15s. for the first child, 7s. for the second child and a family allowance of 8s. The total is £13 5s. a week. As a result of the proposals in this Bill, the total of all these allowances would go up to £15 5s. a week. So the Bill does something substantially to improve the lot of the worst kind of case that the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
    6.45 p.m.
    The Amendments which we are now discussing seek to raise still further what the Bill proposes. These Amendments make three curious distinctions, the reasons for which I do not think have altogether emerged so far from our discussions. The first distinction is this. The first Amendment seeks to increase the 100 per cent. rate of disablement pension from 85s. a week to 105s. instead of the 97s. 6d. proposed in the Bill. Subsequent Amendments provide for increases in the rates from 20 per cent. to 90 per cent., scaled down from the suggested 100 per cent. but not in the same proportion as those in the Bill. I had better explain this because it is a little complicated.
    Mr. Houghton: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but when the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) was speaking I was almost on the point of asking permission to intervene. I do not think the Minister need dwell on that discrepancy. It is purely accidental. I think it would assist the Committee if I were to say that all the hon. Gentleman need concentrate upon are the main benefits and the corresponding changes to match.
    Mr. Braine: I fully accept that. My difficulty is that I must draw attention to these matters because my task is to tell the Committee what would be the effect of these Amendments. I fully accept
    1198
    that in this case this distinction is unintentional. The second distinction is, I think, important, although, again, this may be unintentional too. Nothing has been proposed by hon. Members opposite, above what is in the Bill, for those recently incapacitated who draw injury benefit. If this is an oversight I would regard it as an odd one because if there is one time when a family faces particular stress, anxiety and uncertainty as to the future I should think it would be immediately following a serious accident when the full significance to the family of the accident cannot be assessed. The wife and children are naturally thinking the worst. The Bill makes provision because the rate of injury benefit increases. But I accept, again, that this is quite unintentional.
    The third distinction is also significant, and I feel bound to mention it. The Committee will know that disablement benefit is paid by way of pension where the disablement is assessed at 20 per cent. or more. But for assessments below 20 per cent. the normal form of disablement benefit is by way of gratuity, except in cases of disablement by pneumoconiosis or byssinosis, where a disablement pension is paid, and in certain cases where special hardship allowance is paid. Yet there are no Amendments before the Committee for increasing the maximum disablement gratuity. I think the Committee is left in some doubt as to whether he Opposition are satisfied with what my right hon. Friend proposes for those whose disability is assessed at below 20 per cent., or are seeking to widen deliberately the differential between the more seriously disabled and the less seriously disabled. Here, again, this may have been an oversight.
    Mr. Prentice: We do not wish to leave those people out. I realise that there are perhaps illogicalities in our drafting here. We think that the best way in which the hon. Gentleman can meet our point is by withdrawing all the parts of the Schedule to which he has referred and by drawing up higher rates of benefit.
    Mr. Braine: I accept completely what the hon. Gentleman says. What I emphasise is that the Bill does not leave these people out. It makes provision for them.

    1199
    I have wondered whether the thought behind the Amendment was really indicated by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in his speech on Second Reading when he claimed, making a very strong point of it, that an industrial worker
    "completely knocked out by injury or disease is given under the Bill…£6 12s. 6d. in all, which is less than half the average earnings of an adult worker in 1959."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 15th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 248.]
    Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was taking this as a criterion, and that was the example he cited.
    Mr. John McKay: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it correct that the Industrial Injuries Fund is worked on the same principle as the National Insurance Fund, and that we shall now be acting in accordance with the pay-as-you-go principle?
    Mr. Braine: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No". The Fund is on an actuarial basis. I am coming to the matter of finance, but, at this stage, I wish to discuss an important point in a previous speech by the hon. Member for Sowerby, to whose speeches for many years I have always paid a great deal of attention. I hope that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) will not mind if I do not pursue his question now.
    The hon. Member for Sowerby was struck by the example of an unfortunate man
    "completely knocked out by injury or disease"
    who was given only 132s. 6d. in all under the Bill, which, he said, is less than half the average earnings of an adult worker in 1959. Frankly, I hesitate to question facts and figures adduced by the hon. Member, who has a very formidable reputation in these matters, but the example he cited was clearly that of a married man with no children who was drawing injury benefit—a case which would not be helped by any of the Amendments we have before us today. There are no proposals before us for increasing injury benefit beyond the new levels proposed in the Bill. We are here concerned with disablement benefits which are paid where disablement continues beyond the period for which injury benefit may be drawn, except—I
    1200
    remind the Committee of this again—in cases of industrial disease such as pneumoconiosis or byssinosis where disablement benefit is paid from the outset.
    The Amendment's suggested increase of 20s. in the 100 per cent rate of disability benefit may well have been prompted by the criterion used by the hon. Member for Sowerby of existing rates being less than half the average earnings of an adult worker in 1959. I think it is important that that calculation should be examined, because I should not want the Committee to accept that it was the case if the reverse were true.
    I am advised that the Ministry of Labour's half-yearly inquiry covering manual wage earners in industry gave a figure of 271s. 1d. a week for October, 1959, while the latest figure revealed by the inquiry in April, 1960, is 282s. 1d. The Amendment does nothing at all for the man who, under the Bill, will draw less than half this amount, that is to say, a married man with no children who is drawing injuries benefit. On the contrary, the first Amendment proposes further to increase the benefit for the 100 per cent. disabled pensioner for whom, if he is married, the Bill proposes a total of 190s. If any hon. Member wishes me to break these figures down, I will. That is well above half average earnings. I wish to put the record straight on that matter, and I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member.
    I say at once that I do not criticise the hon. Member in any way for wanting us to be more generous to this class of seriously disabled man, but I am sure that he would be the first to agree, on reflection, that increases in benefits should have some regard to the principle of equity. I do not suggest that this is the hon. Gentleman's thought, but if the thought at the back of the mind of some hon. Members is that the Amendment really seeks to meet dissatisfaction on the part of higher-paid workers in respect of the long-term rates payable for disablement compared with the loss of earnings that they may sustain, I am bound to say that it is wrong in my view, and in my right hon. Friend's view, to try to deal with this issue by adjustments to disablement benefits in isolation. Such an attempt could lead only to anomalies and an imbalance in the Scheme.

    1201
    The hon. Member for East Ham, North thought that financial considerations—I do not remember his exact words—did not really enter into the argument, and we could quite easily concede what he and his hon. Friends ask for in the Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) asked if I would give some details of what the Amendment would cost. I understand that the Amendment would cost £3·1 million in 1961 rising to £4·9 million in 1981 and, if a corresponding increase were proposed in injury benefit which, I think, would have to follow from what I said a little earlier, it would cost a further £1¼ million a year.
    Although, of course, we are not discussing war pensions, the thought of war pensions can never be far away. I am bound to say that the matter would not end there. One could not increase the 100 per cent. disablement pension for the industrially injured without making similar provision for the war pensioner.
    Mr. Prentice: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Braine: Of course, we are all agreed about that. No doubt, the hon. Member had it in his mind, but, because it was not strictly relevant, he did not mention it.
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, I did mention it.
    Mr. Braine: I am sorry.
    Mr. Bernard Taylor: It is the fact, of course, that for war pensioners the cost is on the Exchequer and not on the Industrial Injuries Fund.
    Mr. Braine: That is perfectly true. The hon. Member makes my point for me, because the total cost of all industrial injuries benefit increases proposed by the Amendments is about £8 million in 1961–62, rising to £12 million in twenty years. If we were to apply similar increases to war pensioners, the cost to the Exchequer in 1961–62 would be between £9 million and £15 million according to exactly how one applied the increase.
    On the subject of finance, I say simply this. We have to deal with the Amendments as they appear. We have made our estimates accordingly. The Government
    1202
    Actuary's Second Quinquennial Review of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, published last July, showed that the future financial position of the Scheme was likely, in the light of current trends, to be more favourable than previously expected. That is true. In paragraph 43 of the Report, it is said that
    "at no stage will the expenditure exceed the income and a very large fund will be built up, none of the interest income from which will be required to help meet the expenditure."
    To take account of this surplus, which is offset to some extent by the benefit increases proposed, the Bill proposes to reduce contributions, for men and women.
    The cost of the Opposition Amendments would increase the burden on the Fund. As I have previously said, if the Committee were to accept all these Amendments to improve a wide range of industrial injury benefits the cost would be about £8 million in 1961–62, rising to about £12 million in twenty years. But the total capital value of the suggested improvements is a little over £300 million. This is substantially in excess of the £70 million quoted by the Government Actuary in paragraph 6 of his Report on the financial provisions of the Bill as the amount by which, after taking into account the reduction in contributions and increases in benefits proposed by the Bill, the value in perpetuity of the assets exceeds the liabilities.
    7.0 p.m.
    These proposed improvements could not be financed from the existing surplus of the Fund. If similar increases to those proposed for industrial injuries were applied to war pensioners, the cost to the Exchequer for 1961–62 would be about £15 million. There is no doubt that the cost would be substantial, and it would throw the whole scheme out of balance.
    I do not think that any other points arise. To summarise, the reasons why the Committee should reject the Amendments fall under two heads. First, they depart from the principle which has always been followed and which I am perfectly certain is fair, namely, that increases in rates for assessments below 90 per cent. should be directly proportional to increases in the 100 per cent. rate. Secondly, as the Amendments are

    1203
    not accompanied by corresponding proposals to increase the rate of injury benefit or the maximum amount of disablement gratuity, they would seriously dislocate the present pattern of benefit rates.
    Thus, the equivalence which my right hon. Friend seeks to maintain between the 100 per cent. disablement pension and the rate of injury benefit merely reflects the close association which, I think, should always be maintained between disablement and incapacity for work. The man receiving a high rate of disablement pension has always been at an advantage under the Industrial Injuries Scheme because sickness benefit with dependency allowances is payable in addition if he is incapable of work, or, if he is working, he may also receive wages.
    The result of the acceptance of these Amendments would be to change the relationship between the higher rates of disablement benefit and incapacity for work. The man receiving injury benefit, while incapable of work, would be left at a serious disadvantage compared with those receiving disablement benefit at the higher rates who may be receiving sickness benefit in addition or may even be working.
    For those reasons, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendments, although one fully understands the spirit which prompted the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, North.
    Mr. Awbery: The hon. Gentleman has said that the man who has a 100 per cent. disability, with the additions, may receive up to £13. What would be the position of the man with a 50 per cent. disability who does not get the additions? What would be his income?
    Mr. Braine: I am not sure that I can give an exact answer to that question, but if we take the totally disabled man over 65 years of age——
    Mr. Awbery: Fifty-five.
    Mr. Braine: I am not sure that I can answer the question. I am saying that the totally disabled man over 65 who is unemployable and who needs the constant attendance allowance and has a dependent wife, assuming that he got the maximum allowances, would have an income of £10 a week at the moment.
    1204
    I am talking of a man without children but with a dependent wife. Under the proposals in the Bill he would get £11 10s. However, I think that it is difficult to give an answer off the cuff to a question like that. I may be able to arrange to get the information during the debate if the hon. Gentleman wants it.
    Mr. McKay: I feel rather diffident in this matter, but I have a duty to perform though I may perform it rather badly. The suggestion of the Labour Party is that the Government's proposals concerning help for the man in the factory and in the mine are weak. The real question is whether the Government are doing a fair job under the circumstances. Are they trying to please the man in the mine and those in dangerous occupations, or are they simply trying to economise on a petty scale rather than help those who are performing dangerous jobs in industry? It seems to me that the Government's inclination is to bring about petty economies rather than help men who have dangerous occupations. The Government say, "We will help these poor men by taking a penny off the contribution".
    Put yourself in Gilligan's place. I think that the Government can do that if they wish, but the trouble is that they do not wish to do so. The spirit is not there to help the ordinary man working in dangerous occupations. It is proved by the attitude you adopt. The whole Industrial Injuries Fund has been in a favourable position and will remain in a favourable position for a long time. You will not help these men by reducing their contributions by 1d. Surely you as Minister——
    The Temporary Chairman (Commander C. E. M. Donaldson): Order. The hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair and not directly to the Minister. That is the custom of the Committee.
    Mr. McKay: I did not intend to address my remarks to the Minister in reality. I am trying to deal with the general principles of the Government's policy. That is the thing which matters. We know that Ministers sometimes have to do things which they do not wish to do. I feel sure that what has been done is not in accord with the Minister's own

    1205
    wishes. I will give him that credit. anyhow.
    If one were to ask the ordinary workman in industry whether he would rather have a more substantial benefit if he were injured or would rather pay this 1d. per week, is there any question in any reasonable man's mind that he would ignore the Government's 1d.? The whole thing is ridiculous. What these men want and what the Labour Party wants is something which will substantially help these men who are so subject to serious accidents. If the financial position is so favourable that it is possible to reduce the contribution, something worth while should be done for these men. We all have human weaknesses, but, if we were objective and took a psychological look at this problem, then I think that it would be admitted that the amount of money in the Fund is such and the circumstances financially are such that it is possible to do something on the lines suggested in the Amendments.
    There is another thing I want to remark upon, Commander Donaldson, if I am allowed to do so. I would not put you in a difficulty. When the Government have changed their financial policy to pay-as-you-go on the great and much larger section of National Insurance, why is it that on the question of industrial injuries they stand firm to the old routine and the old, out-of-date method and calculate for years ahead what will happen and what is to be the great financial burden to be placed upon the people 20 or 30 years ahead? Why do the Government keep to that old, out-of-date principle for industrial injuries when for the much greater Fund—it is ten times as large—they make an up-to-date decision and put their finance on a modern basis? Why cannot they do the same for industrial injuries?
    To the extent that the Government were to do that, there would be no question whatever that if a position was reached in which the Fund was overflowing with money, the main idea of people would not be to take 1d. off the contribution, although we are getting to the stage where contributions will be a vital matter. Nevertheless, if there is justice and common sense in applying to a much greater sphere of insurance, a principle that is thought to be good, it should be
    1206
    applied also to industrial injuries. If that is done and we have a situation which is still more favourable to the National Insurance Fund, it would be possible to do even more than the Labour Party has suggested. I have stated my objections to the Government's attitude and I have pleasure in supporting the Amendments.
    Mr. Houghton: It will be clear to the Committee that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has in recent days been attending the Departmental glee club, where he has heard many songs about the omissions from our schedule of Amendments. I apologise for unintentional omissions from our Amendments to which the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary, quite properly, to draw attention. I shall deal with that aspect presently.
    I want first, however, to turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth), who chided us with leaving Part I of the Schedule—that is, dealing with industrial injury contributions—unamended. The hon. Member said that he would have been more enthusiastic about our proposals to increase benefit had we moved to delete Part I of the Schedule which deals with reduced contributions. We were not unmindful of that.
    Unhappily, however, nearly everything is the wrong way round when we come to the business of this Committee and of the House. There are some curious quirks in our procedure. When we move to delete something, we usually vote, not on whether it should be left out, but whether what is proposed to be left out shall stay put. Here, the contributions come before the benefits. Had we moved to leave the contributions as they are, it would have been necessary to have asked for the Minister's assurance before putting the matter to the vote that if our Amendment to leave contributions as they are were accepted, he would agree to our Amendment to improve the pensions. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, understand our difficulty.
    7.15 p.m.
    On the generality of the Amendments, I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who moved this block of Amendments, that it might be better at some time to move an Amendment

    1207
    to the key benefit in a complicated Schedule and to declare that that was our starting point and everything else would fall into line if the Amendment or anything like it were accepted. I know that that would not be absolutely complete and tidy from a procedural viewpoint, but we all realise that if the Minister felt able to move towards meeting Amendments of this kind, he would have to produce a properly drafted Schedule of his own at a later stage in the Bill. That, perhaps, is something we must bear in mind.
    That would save the Joint Parliamentary Secretary from having to do a lot of quite unnecessary home work in drawing attention to the things we have left out when we did not intend to do so. In any case, it would not worry either the hon. Gentleman or the Minister, because they are not accepting anything that we propose. We are realists. These proceedings are not with the hope of getting Amendments. These proceedings are for debate, for the ventilation of points of view about important matters of policy. They may or may not be influenced by arguments from either side.
    The question in this batch of Amendments—and it is the same in other Amendments—is how well the nation will treat its industrially injured. It must, of course, be translated into amount. Reference has been made to my Second Reading speech. I stressed then that a distinct improvement in the way in which the casualties of industry are treated is now, in my judgment, a fresh and increasing charge on the prosperity of the nation. This is one of the new social wants that we desire the country to have and the country to insist on being fulfilled.
    When one considers even the maximum benefits that are possible, the price that these men have to pay for being hurt or contracting terrible diseases in industry is a very heavy one. The whole of the nation's wealth is built upon their willingness to run these risks. If they run them and suffer from them, one would say that there is nothing too generous that the nation can do to assist them during their suffering.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has drawn attention to our unintentional
    1208
    omissions from the schedule of Amendments to improve the injuries benefit. Of course, we did not propose to leave them out—
    Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman is, I believe, doing me a slight injustice. The main purpose behind my drawing attention to these matters was to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole Committee kept these increases in some sort of proportion having regard to the principle of equity. I fully accept the implication behind what the hon. Gentleman has just said. If, however, he is to keep in mind the principle of equity, surely he cannot limit his argument to industrial injuries but must extend it to cover the war pensioner, and he must ensure that the whole range of benefits is brought into line. Therefore, my purpose in drawing attention to these matters was to ensure that the hon. Gentleman, as well as myself and members of the Committee, kept very much in mind the whole question of equity.
    Mr. Houghton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to keep in balance things that should be kept in balance. I do not necessarily accept that war disability pensioners and industrial injuries benefits should be tied together. For example, our policy of dealing with the industrially injured could take the form of full pay for a considerable period after injury, a principle which, I have said before, is fully accepted in many vocations. I think that it would be possible to pursue that as a policy without regarding war disability pensions as necessarily tied to the same principle.
    I believe there is much consideration ahead for both sides of the Committee on how we are going to deal with this problem in the future. There will be differing views as to whether loss of faculty, by itself, is a satisfactory principle, or loss of earnings, by itself, is a satisfactory principle, and on how the two can be brought together at present under the special hardship allowance to avoid the catastrophic drop of earning capacity of many people from a comparatively light loss of faculty. I want to keep things in mind; I want to keep them in balance; but I do not want the Minister to keep on asking about the war pensioners every time I mention the

    1209
    industrially disabled, because we are dealing now with the industrially disabled, and if we cannot move forward on a narrow front without seeing the whole network of social security moving with it, it will be extremely difficult to make any progress at all.
    I want to refer for a moment to industrial injuries benefit, because, as the Minister said, it is most important. On average, so the Government Actuary tells us, 750,000 men are each year drawing injury benefit, and something like 400,000 women. Those are large numbers. If we were to see 750,000 men in Trafalgar Square and were to say, "Those are the casualties of industry for only one year who had been completely laid off for long or short periods on account of industrial injury or disease", it would look a very impressive battalion indeed.
    The Actuary draws attention to the fact that for five years in combination the number of awards to men was 3,298,000. That is five years of casualties in industry; as I say, for long or short periods; but they are people suffering total disablement for a time on account of a hazard beyond the normal risk of sickness. Curiously enough, when the numbers of industrially injured fell it was during a period when Asian 'flu knocked them out in even larger numbers; and a fewer number of people at work reduced the number of accidents. What an extraordinary commentary on the risk to health and limb both in industry and in other quarters. So we on these benches would certain not wish to overlook the industrially injured as distinct from those who suffer a long period of 100 per cent. or lesser disablement.
    I am not going to keep the Committee for more than a moment or two longer, because we have a lot of work to do and I think we ought to come to a conclusion on this Amendment. We would have preferred to have discussed National Insurance benefits first, because that does happen to be one of the foundation stones of this structure, but, even so, industrial injuries can and do stand apart, and there is no necessary reason why industrial injuries benefit should not be improved more than the corresponding increases given through National Insurance
    1210
    and at different times and for different reasons.
    Looking at the industrial injuries benefit for a man, his wife and two children, it seems to me, if my calculations are correct, that at present we pay £7 5s., and the amount proposed in the Bill is £8 7s., and the amount proposed in our Amendments is £9 4s., inclusive of the family allowance for the second child. We have to consider those amounts in relation to supposed earnings, not only wage rates but the total earnings of the injured person, and it does seem to me, when talking of equity, that there is something wrong in a society which will guarantee its clerks full pay for 26 weeks on account of injury or sickness but by contrast throw the industrial worker immediately back on National Insurance benefit during sickness and on industrial injuries benefit when he is injured, and in both cases pay him an amount manifestly below his earning capacity and manifestly below the earnings he has been averaging.
    What is there to justify this disparity of treatment? Why should there be some pampered people with vocational claims of this kind, while the industrial worker is regarded as something separate and something different. He has a wife, he has children, he has a home to maintain, he wants to live a normal life; when at work he is probably earning more than the clerk; but there is no reason why he should suffer a heavy drop in family income when he sustains an accident which takes place at work. I know that some hon. and learned Member yesterday mentioned the possibility of getting damages from the employer and so on. We know that that is so in certain cases, but usually those damages are for some irreparable damage done to health or body, shortening life, certainly diminishing the power to enjoy life. Those compensations are really quite inadequate because there is only one life to live and we cannot really give people money compensation for that which they have to suffer.
    So on this side of the Committee we feel that the central issue in this block of Amendments and in others which follow is whether the nation is ready to treat its industrially injured and disabled more generously. If we had put that down merely as a proposition, I

    1211
    have no doubt that the Minister would have got up and asked, "How much?" We put in an amount as a guide, something which it is not unreasonable to aim at, something which it would not be unreasonable to grant now, and adjust the contributions if necessary to reimburse the Industrial Injuries Fund. Those contributions for what they cover are astonishingly small, 8d. at present for a worker, 9d. a week for the employer.
    When one thinks that that is the insurance which the State provides for accident and disease, I wonder that the trade unions do not rise up and say, "Double them and treble them and let us have some decent benefits for once in our industrial injuries scheme, and remove the fear of accident and make it possible for men to go to their jobs in the morning feeling that if they do suffer an injury by the time their working day is finished at least their family income will still be such that their families will be adequately taken care of."
    Mr. Awbery: The Minister made a statement a few moments ago which may convey a wrong impression. I want to get the matter clear. I put a question to him. I do not think he gathered the import of it. He said that a man receiving full benefit could receive 14 guineas a week. That may be so: £4 17s. 6d. benefit, constant attendance allowance, 40s., more serious cases 80s., and unemployability supplement 57s. 6d., special hardship allowance 39s., making a total of 14 guineas. Those were the figures he was working on. He gave the impression that the whole of those men were receiving 14 guineas a week. A large number of those men do not receive any of those benefits except the first £4 17s. 6d., and I want him to get this clear in his mind, and, indeed, I
    want it to be clear in the minds of the people of this country, that the men who are receiving this benefit are not receiving 14 guineas a week as he said.
    Mr. Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and giving me an opportunity to clear away any misconception. I was, of course, quoting the example of the totally disabled man who was unemployable, who needed constant attendance, had a dependent wife and two children. I said that at present he might draw £13 5s. a week which, under the proposals of the Bill, would go up to £15 5s. a week. Where I made my mistake was in not being able to provide the hon. Gentleman with the answer to the question which he asked me there and then, about such a man who is 50 per cent. disabled. Of course, such a man may be in work and earning, or if he is not earning might get various allowances under the scheme totalling 144s. a week. That is the figure that I would have given to the hon. Member had I had it ready to hand when he asked the question. I am sorry that I misled him.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Awbery: The man concerned was a man with 100 per cent. disability and making the other four claims totalling 14 guineas. The hon. Gentleman conveyed the impression that every man with 100 per cent. disability would be receiving 14 guineas. I want to make it clear that all these men do not and that the man suffering 50 per cent. disability receives possibly only 47s. 6d. I wanted that matter cleared up for fear of any misunderstanding.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 204, Noes 151.

    Division No. 8.]

    AYES

    [7.33 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Allason, James

    Braine, Bernard

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Cole, Norman

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Collard, Richard

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Bryan, Paul

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Balniel, Lord

    Bullard, Denys

    Cordle, John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Burden, F. A.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Barter, John

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Costain, A. P.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

    Coulson, J. M.

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Bingham, R. M.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Critchley, Julian

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Box, Donald

    Chichester-Olark, R.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Deedes, W. F.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    du Cann, Edward

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kirk, Peter

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Eden, John

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Elliott, R. W.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Roots, William

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Farr, John

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Russell, Ronald

    Fell, Anthony

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

    Finlay, Graeme

    Longbottom, Charles

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fisher, Nigel

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Shaw, M.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Shepherd, William

    Gammans, Lady

    McLaren, Martin

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Godber, J. B.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Goodhart, Phillip

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Gower, Raymond

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Maddan, Martin

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Green, Alan

    Maginnis, John E.

    Talbot, John E.

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Maitland, Sir John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Gurden, Harold

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Teeling, William

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Marten, Neil

    Temple, John M.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Mawby, Ray

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Hastings, S.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R.

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Mills, Stratton

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    More, J.

    Turner, Colin

    Hiley, Joseph

    Morrison, John

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Noble, Michael

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Hobson, John

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Holland, Philip

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Hollingworth, John

    Partridge, E.

    Watts, James

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Webster, David

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Profurno, Rt. Hon. John

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Quennell, Miss J.

    Woollam, John

    Jackson, John

    Ramsden, James

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Rees, Hugh

    Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Sharples.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Dempsey, James

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Albu, Austen

    Dodds, Norman

    Hilton, A. V.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Holman, Percy

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Houghton, Douglas

    Awbery, Stan

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Howell, Charles A.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Beaney, Alan

    Evans, Albert

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Janner, Barnett

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Fitch, Alan

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Benson, Sir George

    Fletcher, Eric

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Blackburn, F.

    Foot, Michael

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Boardman, H.

    Forman, J. C.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Bowles, Frank

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Kelley, Richard

    Boyden, James

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Ginsburg, David

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Callaghan, James

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Grey, Charles

    Loughlin, Charles

    Chapman, Donald

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Chetwynd, George

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    MacColl, James

    Collick, Percy

    Grimond, J.

    McInnes, James

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mackie, John

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    McLeavy, Frank

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Healey, Denis

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Manuel, A. C.

    1214

    1215

    Mapp, Charles

    Reid, William

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Ross, William

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Moody, A. S.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Morris, John

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Mort, D. L.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Timmons, John

    Moyle, Arthur

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Warbey, William

    Mulley, Frederick

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Watkins, Tudor

    Oliver, G. H.

    Small, William

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Whitlock, William

    Padley, W. E.

    Snow, Julian

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Peart, Frederick

    Stones, William

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Pentland, Norman

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Probert, Arthur

    Swingler, Stephen

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Proctor, W. T.

    Sylvester, George

    Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead.

    Rankin, John

    Symonds, J. B.

    Mr. Prentice: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, column 4, to leave out "Fifty-seven shillings and sixpence" and to insert "Sixty-five shillings".
    The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss with this Amendment the next one on the Order Paper, in line 31, column 4, leave out "Thirty-two" and insert "Thirty-seven".
    Mr. Prentice: That would be convenient, Commander Donaldson. In the debate on the last Amendment we were deploying arguments for a general improvement in the benefits paid to industrial casualties in general. Unfortunately, we failed to carry our point and I suppose that, being realists, we might expect to fail again. Yet we could say in relation to this very small group of industrial pensioners that there are special points to be made.
    The two Amendments now before the Committee deal with those who are in receipt of unemployability supplements. In the Report of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for 1959 there was a definition of those who can receive this supplement:
    "…disablement pensioners who, as a result of their disablement, are incapable of work and likely to remain so permanently."
    In other words, we are dealing here with people who have suffered very badly indeed from industrial accidents. Not only are they incapable of work, but they are likely to remain permanently so.
    This is a very tight and severe definition and it applies to very few people. Indeed, I see from the following page of
    1216
    the Ministry's Report that the numbers are as follows: at the end of October, 1959, about 720 unemployability supplements were being paid. Of these, about 230 were paid to persons receiving workmen's compensation, and about 160 to beneficiaries under Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Schemes.
    We are thus dealing with very small numbers. This is relevant to the question put just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), because, in reply, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave an example of a 100 per cent. disabled man in receipt of unemployability supplement. These figures show that only a very small proportion of those who are 100 per cent. disabled can qualify for unemployability supplement.
    Whatever the financial arguments which the Government were able to deploy against the last Amendment, they cannot redeploy them against this one. We are dealing with about 720 people to whom we propose to give an extra 7s. 6d. a week. I have not worked out the total sum over a year, but it must be small enough for the Government not to be deterred. We are speaking here of people who have made a very great sacrifice.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out in the last debate that injuries are an essential part of the industrial process, and no doubt the sacrifices will continue to be made. If our argument last time related to a large class of persons, then this argument relates to a special class, and we ask the Government to accept our Amendment.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Braine: As the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, these two Amendments propose increases in the adult rate of unemployability supplement by 15s. instead of 7s. 6d. and the juvenile rate by 9s. instead of 4s. As he also said, unemployability supplement is payable to disablement pensioners and in old workmen's compensation cases where the person is, and is likely permanently, to remain incapable of work.
    Happily, there is not a very large number of these cases, but they do exist. In a sense, the supplement is an alternative to sickness benefit under the main National Insurance Scheme, or, as may well be the case with the older workers, an alternative to retirement pension. One might argue, of course, that the workman who has not qualified for sickness benefit under National Insurance, and is getting unemployability supplement, is receiving an unconvenanted sickness benefit or, if he is of pensionable age, retirement pension. The unemployability supplement really serves the same purpose.
    In practice, therefore, the 700 or more persons who draw a supplement are people who, for one reason or another—usually due to a contribution deficiency—are not entitled to sickness benefit or to such benefit at a reduced rate. But, of course, I must again remind the Committee—though it should not be necessary—that we are not leaving these people out in the cold, and in this Bill we are proposing an increase.
    The Opposition, in the spirit of generosity which has governed their speeches throughout the debate, think that the proposals are inadequate and wish to increase them still further. I must resist this Amendment. I am a little puzzled by one figure in it. The 65s, selected for the Amendment is 2s. more than the 63s. set for the corresponding supplement for a war pensioner in the Royal Warrant. It is 3s. 6d. less than the 68s. 6d. proposed by hon. Members opposite as the standard rate of sickness benefit.
    I do not want to quibble about this, but I must say that this would set up a differential between sickness benefit and industrial injury unemployability supplement which, for many years, as
    1218
    the hon. Member said and as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) knows, have been recognised as alternatives at the same rate. It would represent a relative worsening for the comparatively small group who draw the supplement. I do not believe that that was the intention of the mover of the Amendment.
    I shall also say something about the provision for juveniles. All employed persons are covered by the Industrial Injuries Acts, including even schoolchildren below minimum school-leaving age who are engaged in some part-time occupation. But, of course, no contributions are payable in respect of such children. One hopes—and this has been expressed several times during the debate—that generally the number of industrial accidents will decline.
    One knows that modern medical science performs miracles where seriously injured person are concerned, and I think that we should all want to pay tribute to what is being done in that way. However, it could happen that a young person on the threshold of adult working life—a young miner or an apprentice—was involved in a serious accident. He would only just have started work and would not have been in the Scheme long enough to qualify for sickness benefit. It is imperative that some provision should be made for him. I mention this because the Scheme covers him, and the Bill increases the help which can be given.
    Mr. Houghton: I suggest that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should now stop picking holes in our Amendments and tell us what he has to offer. Then we might be able to make progress. All he has said amounts to, "There are one or two flaws in the Amendment, and I am not proposing to put them right or to improve upon the proposals in the Schedule".
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) drew attention to the grave plight of the comparatively few people covered by the benefit. Without getting worked up on the general question of how we are to treat our industrially injured and disabled, our society ought to be able to take care of these people on a more liberal basis than we do now. That is the essence of our proposal. However, I will not bandy

    1219
    words further with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and will ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee on the Amendment.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 150.

    Division No. 9.]

    AYES

    [7.54 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Aitkon, W. T.

    Gurden, Harold

    Noble, Michael

    Allason, James

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Arbuthnot, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Partridge, E.

    Balniel, Lord

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Barter, John

    Hastings, S.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hiley, Joseph

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Box, Donald

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Rees, Hugh

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hobson, John

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Braine, Bernard

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Holland, Philip

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Hollingworth, John

    Roberts, Sir peter (Heeley)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hopkins, Alan

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Bullard, Denys

    Hornby, R. P.

    Roots, William

    Burden, F. A.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Russell, Ronald

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Sharples, Richard

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Jackson, John

    Shaw, M.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Shepherd, William

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Stodart, J. A.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Cole, Norman

    Kirk, Peter

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Collard, Richard

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Talbot, John E.

    Costain, A. P.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Tapsell, Peter

    Coulson, J. M.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Teeling, William

    Critchley, Julian

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Cunningham, Knox

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Longbottom, Charles

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Deedes, W. F.

    McLaren, Martin

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Turner, Colin

    Duncan, Sir James

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Eden, John

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Elliott, R. W.

    Maddan, Martin

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Emery, Peter

    Maginnis, John E.

    Watts, James

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maitland, Sir John

    Webster, David

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Farr, John

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Wills, sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Fell, Anthony

    Marshall, Douglas

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marten, Neil

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Freeth, Denzil

    Mawby, Ray

    Woollam, John

    Godber, J. B.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mills, Stratton

    Gower, Raymond

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Mr. Gibson-Watt and

    Green, Alan

    More, J.

    Mr. Whitelaw

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Morrison, John

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Albu, Austen

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Benson, Sir George

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Blackburn, F.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Awbery, Stan

    Boardman, H.

    Callaghan, James

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leios, S. W.)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Bowles, Frank

    Chapman, Donald

    Beaney, Alan

    Boyden, James

    Chetwynd, George

    Collick, Percy

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Ross, William

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Kelley, Richard

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Dempsey, James

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Dodds, Norman

    King, Dr. Horace

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Lawson, George

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Small, William

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Snow, Julian

    Evans, Albert

    MacColl, James

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McInnes, James

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Fitch, Alan

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mackie, John

    Stones, William

    Foot, Michael

    McLeavy, Frank

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Manuel, A. C.

    Sylvester, George

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mapp, Charles

    Symonds, J. B.

    Ginsburg, David

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Grey, Charles

    Millan, Bruce

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Moody, A. S.

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Grimond, J.

    Morris, John

    Thornton, Ernest

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Timmons, John

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Warbey, William

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Mulley, Frederick

    Watkins, Tudor

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oram, A. E.

    Whitlock, William

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Padley, W. E.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Holman, Percy

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Peart, Frederick

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pentland, Norman

    Ziltiacus, K.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Janner, Barnett

    Proctor, W. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rankin, John

    Mr. Howell and Mr. Probert

    Mr. B. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, column 4, to leave out "Thirty-nine" and to insert "Fifty".
    No doubt by now the Minister is getting used to our requests for more. However, I am sure that he is not surprised at the many requests that we are making.
    First, I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in the new and very important note which he has struck, that in respect of industrial injury and disease we should revise our social values. We need an entirely new approach to this question. We should divorce it from mathematics because it is, after all, a very great human question. It concerns people who are stricken down by accident or disease without notice—and many of them are disabled for the rest of their lives—and the bottom falls out of their world. I join my hon. Friend in the very resounding and important note that he has struck in saying that the time has arrived in these days when social values are changing—and we hope they will continue to change—when we should make a fresh approach to this
    1222
    great human question of industrial injury and disease.
    My purpose in moving the Amendment is to increase by 11s. per week the proposed benefit of 39s. proposed by the Minister. At the moment the allowance for special hardship is 34s. per week. The Minister proposes an increase of 5s., bringing it to 39s. The Amendment seeks to increase it to 50s. This is a benefit of very great importance to the workers, particularly to those who work in the heavy, dangerous, dirty industries where the incidence of accidents and disease is very high. Many of the recipients of special hardship benefit return quite quickly to work, but others are away from work for a long period, and it is sad to relate that many will not go to work again because of the nature of their disability.
    In the early days of the Industrial Injuries Act, when this benefit emerged, it was to bridge the gap between pre-and post-accident earnings. Looking back over the past twelve years, I am forced to the conclusion that this benefit for special hardship has saved the industrial insurance scheme. I do not

    1223
    know what the position would have been in those industries where the incidence of accident is very high—I am thinking particularly of mining, which I know most about—had it not been for this attempt to bridge the gap between pre-and post-accident earnings.
    The time has arrived when we should give more attention to this matter than we have done hitherto. This is one of the features of the Bill where the Minister can afford to be more generous than he is proposing to be. Some day—I hope in the not-too-distant future—we may have an opportunity of discussing the conditions which qualify for the receipt of special hardship benefit. The scheme has now existed for twelve years and we have not yet seriously studied not merely the benefits but the structure of the scheme. I know that I would be out of order to pursue that line, and I immediately turn to the question before us, the amount of the benefit.
    Whatever the Minister may say about our proposals to increase other benefits, this proposal to pay 50s. for special hardship is very modest. Let us consider what the benefit is for. I take a case typical of many thousands, especially in heavy industries. Let us suppose that a man is earning £15 a week as a piece-rate coal miner working underground. If he is subsequently certified to be suffering from pneumoconiosis, he may get a 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. assessment. But, whatever the size of the assessment may be, he will probably be medically advised not to return to work in dusty conditions.
    Whatever the assessment of his disablement, his earnings will immediately drop from £15 or more a week to only £10 5s. if he continues to work underground or, if he has to work on the surface, as so many pneumoconiotics do, where there is the minimum of dust, he will get the miserable wage of only £9 5s. a week.
    If his assessment is 10 per cent., he will get 8s. 6d. a week, and 17s. a week if the assessment is 20 per cent.—on the present figures. He will also get a special hardship allowance of 34s. Under the Minister's proposals, he would get 9s. 9d. for a 10 per cent. and 19s. 6d. for a 20 per cent. disablement, plus 39s. for special hardship allowance. But it is simple to calculate that his wages will fall by between £5 and £10 a week. That
    1224
    is why, as I said earlier, the special hardship allowance was envisaged—so that it could bridge the gap between pre- and post-accident earnings, or, at any rate, make it smaller.
    As the Minister knows, the whole of the trade union movement is concerned about this benefit. I am informed that the National Union of Mineworkers recently sent a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman to discuss not so much qualifications and conditions for the receipt of special hardship allowance as its amount.
    The Ministry's latest report in connection with this benefit, for the year ending October, 1959, shows that 98,000 men were then in receipt of special hardship allowance. The Minister will not underestimate the significance of the fact that 87,000 of those 98,000 received the maximum amount. The point of that is that for shorter or longer periods, or for the remainder of their working lives, those men were unable to return to their pre-accident work, or to work of equivalent standing. That is the position for the victims of accident and disease who receive this special hardship allowance.
    8.15 p.m.
    I do not think the Minister will say that he cannot accept this proposal because the Fund cannot stand the cost. I credit him with more wisdom than that in view of the state of the Industrial Injuries Fund. The special hardship allowance, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree, is a kind of compensation to make up the difference between pre-and post-accident earnings. I have been in the House of Commons a long time, and I have developed a great regard for the right hon. Gentleman's oratorical ability. One thing about the right hon. Gentleman is that not only does he believe in the principle of compensation but, as his arguments in our debates on the nationalisation Measures show—for both coal and railways—he demonstrates great tenacity in arguing for compensation to be adequate.
    The right hon. Gentleman may argue that he is taking a penny off the contributions—this is rather like Daz and Tide, "3d. off this week". The right hon. Gentleman may say, on the advice of the Government Actuary, that the decrease of 1d. from contributions

    1225
    means a loss to the Fund of £8½ million. He may say that his proposals to increase the benefits will cost £7½ million. Although that is true, it is also true that in 1959 the Fund made a surplus of £31½ million.
    Assuming that there is the same financial pattern this year, and allowing for the decrease in the income due to the reduction of 1d. and allowing for the increase proposed by the Minister, while not being much of a mathematician, I calculate that there would be a surplus of £15 million for the coming year.
    We started the Industrial Injuries Fund de novo twelve years ago, and since that time, I am pleased to say, it has reached a surplus of £205 million. The annual cost of increasing the benefits which the Minister proposes by 11s. for 100,000 cases—and in the last year for which we have figures there were 98,000 cases—would be £60,000. A fund in so healthy a condition that it has a surplus of £205 million with the prospect of an annual increase of £15 million in addition can well afford to meet what we propose. An increase of 11s. over and above what the Minister proposes is very modest.
    Who are these people about whom we are talking? They are the severely disabled. Much has been said about them, and I do not wish to play on emotions. However, every month I go to the miners' council meeting—I went last Saturday—and there is scarcely a month when we do not stand sub silentio for someone who has passed away as the result of an accident. These are the kind of people about whom we are talking—people with fractured spines, people who have had a leg or legs or arms amputated, and people who have lost their eyesight. In addition, there are the pneumoconiotics.
    We have been talking about people with serious disabilities, but there are people who are disabled to a lesser degree. That disablement may be 20 per cent. or less, but the important point to remember when considering the less severely disabled is that the nature of their pre-accident work, or the nature of their disability, however slight, or a combination of both, prevents them returning to their normal occupations or to one of equivalent standing. The result is that the wage packet is reduced by £5, £6, £7, £8, or perhaps £10 a week.
    1226
    The Minister is not unsympathetic by nature. He sometimes gets engrossed in, and deceived by, mathematical calculation, but I put this to him, and I am sure that in his heart he will agree with me, whatever argument he puts up for the rejection of the Amendment. To ask for a sum of 50s. to bridge the gap between pre- and post-accident wages is not outrageous, and with a surplus of the size that I have mentioned the Minister can well afford to grant it.
    In the interests of these people, the bottom of whose world drops out when they are disabled, I ask him to look again at this. Whatever he thinks about our other proposals, I ask him to accept this modest proposal embodied in what I regard as an important Amendment.
    Mr. Dempsey: I wish, briefly, to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). I come from an area where we have heavy steel works and some coal mines. It is in a community of that nature that one can see the effect on an individual of a loss of faculties and how it affects his potential working ability in subsequent years.
    The proposal in the Amendment might seem to involve a large sum of money, but it is infinitesimal compared with the loss of limbs and faculties which the working person has to suffer for the rest of his life. I have had experience of adjudicating in these cases and of representing appellants. Over the years I have formed the opinion that this contribution which working people make to our society is not adequately recognised.
    I must give credit to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It takes great pains to give an appellant every opportunity to appeal. Indeed, the Ministry bends backwards to try to accommodate working people seeking to further their interests. On the other hand, the Ministry goes to considerable pains, by engaging medical advisers and medical adjudicators to guide it as to the extent of loss of faculties, and to protect itself against abuses. The Ministry will be thoroughly protected if the modest increase for which we are asking is granted, because if there is a loss of faculties it has to be conclusively proved by the individual that he has suffered such a loss before he is granted any special hardship allowance.

    1227
    When one visits heavy steel works, iron works, and tube-making works, and when one sees the risks which the ordinary man runs not only to meet domestic needs but to meet the needs of the export market, one realises that we are not asking for an unreasonable amount.
    If we consider the incidence of disease contracted by people in all types of plants and in all kinds of works, we must remember that the diseases which they contract are not those which last for a week or for a month, but diseases which afflict them for the rest of their lives.
    When one considers all those factors and when one sees men who were once sturdy, strong and healthy deteriorating because of the loss of faculties due either to industrial accidents or to disease contracted in employment surely one should try to do everything one can to ensure that they are adequately compensated.
    There are other sections of the community and other types of employment in which men and women are compensated to a greater extent for the degree of risk they run in the course of their duties than are the people about whom we are concerned. Even in the sporting world one finds that adequate compensation is paid to football players if they are injured. A benefit match is arranged in their favour, and more can be gained from a benefit match than the granting for the remainder of the injured worker's life of the sum set out in the Amendment would cost.
    When one realises the extent to which people are compensated for loss of office, apart from loss of faculties, surely a case can be argued for the Minister to accept the Amendment which seeks to give the worker who has suffered a loss of faculties reasonable compensation for the consequent loss of earning capacity.
    When we talk of the loss of faculties, we must remember that we are talking about a person, or persons, who, as a result of an accident, or because of a disease which he has contracted in the course of his work, is prevented from earning his former wage, his former salary or his former remuneration.
    The purpose of the special hardship allowance is to compensate the
    1228
    individual for such loss. But how does it work out? Let us consider a worker in an area which is bedevilled by unemployment pockets. When such a person, engaged in heavy industry, sustains an injury or develops a disease which results in a loss of faculty, he is automatically told that in his own interests he should accept work of less responsibility entailing less risk. But where can he find it in such an area? It is impossible for him to find reasonably comparable employment. Therefore, many of these men, who have given of their best in the coal and steel industries, find themselves compelled to take ordinary watchmen's or park rangers' jobs at very low wages.
    8.30 p.m.
    Even if the 50s. were agreed to, these individuals would still be well under the sum which their former ability would have earned. The Minister should try to realise the extraordinary difficulty with which these people are confronted if they happen to work in an area where there is a high unemployment rate. It is very difficult for them to find any sort of employment which will not result in a very substantial reduction in their wages.
    The Minister is inclined to be influenced by general circumstances and to overlook particular situations which make this issue very important, but he now has an opportunity to do something worth while for these people. I know that the Ministry gives them advice and helps them in their form filling. It puts staff at their disposal to guide and help them. But what they require is money—a reasonable sum which, if it does not bridge the gap between their former and present earnings, at least goes some way to compensate them for their previous services to the country.
    I do not regard the Minister's proposals as reasonable. I think that they are meagre. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, because it is a step in the right direction. It not merely gives these people an indication of our appreciation of their service to the community; it also gives them an indication that the House of Commons is conscious of the sacrifice that they have made on behalf of the nation and is doing its best to try to compensate them for doing so.
    Mr. T. Brown: I want to support the cogent arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friends in support of the Amendment. It is not my intention to go into the history of the hardship allowance. The name indicates why it is paid. When the administration of workmen's compensation was largely taken from the Home Office and given to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance the need for this allowance was proved. Even in 1925 provision was made for hard cases to be reviewed, subject to the person concerned being under the age of 21.
    I do not wish to argue whether that was a good or a bad move, but we are now talking of bridging the difference between what a man earned before his accident and what he is able to earn afterwards, if he can earn anything at all. It will take more than 39s. to bridge the gap because the gap is very large, both from an economic point of view, and to a large extent from a social point of view. There is not much between the two sides of the Committee on this issue, and the Minister, who has not conceded much so far, can make this concession to us on behalf of those men who are totally disabled as a result of accidents at work.
    I crave the indulgence of the Committee briefly to refer to two cases. I could mention names and addresses and, if I were a little nearer my own home, I could mention dates. Mr. A worked in the Lower Hall Colliery, Leigh, and he met with a very serious accident to his left hand. The social loss to this man was enormous, for he was a brilliant pianist, and immediately the accident happened, that ability and enjoyment went out of his life. Previously he had had the musical talent to perform at both social and other concerts, but afterwards that ability disappeared. When a man who has loved music, and has had the power to express himself in music, loses that power, it is a very serious social loss.
    He was also a brilliant left-handed cricketer, top of both batting and bowling averages, and he was a brilliant player. This enjoyment, too, he lost. He had been a good musician and a good cricketer, but he lost all that and was given only a meagre compensation.
    I have said before, and I repeat, that no man, however clever, can express in
    1230
    terms of £ s. d. the loss of a limb or an eye or a life. One faces great difficulties in seeking truly to express the value to be put on the loss of a limb or an eye.
    The man of whom I have spoken suffered extreme social consequences as a result of his accident. Life has gone out of him. He has no interest in it. This is all because adequate compensation, both socially and economically, has not been paid to him.
    I know of another instance of a man who had a very serious accident. This man had no talent for music but he, too, was a fine cricketer. When he lost the use of the lower part of his body, he had to forfeit the enjoyment of playing cricket. He had won many medals and other trophies as a cricketer. Think of the great loss to that man and what the loss of social and recreational values meant to him. All he can do today is to sit at the front door. Because of his accident, for years he has been unable to participate in the social life of the village.
    I have mentioned those two cases because I think that they should explain to the Minister why we are trying to improve the economic circumstances of these unfortunate men. I know that we may be accused, as those of us who represent mining constituencies often are, of having in mind the high incidence of accidents in the mining industry. We do so because we are convinced that we are doing the right thing. If the Minister, or representatives of his Department examined the incidence of accidents in the mine, they would find that the greater number of those accidents happen to the men at the coal face—the kenchers, as we call them.
    The wages paid to those men are the highest of any paid to underground workers. When any of those men who work at the kenches as contractors, or strippers, brushers, and coal face workers have a disabling accident, their wages come down from £13 or £14 a week to a small compensation or allowance. Thereafter, these comparatively young men find themselves taken out of the normal run of life, social and otherwise. I am sure that we are justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to apply his mind to this subject. We are not asking

    1231
    too much. We think that we are doing the right thing by at least seeking to ensure, in these days when we are again boasting of our high prosperity, that some of that prosperity goes to these men.
    It is not my intention to go over the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), but the amount involved is comparatively small. Surely the Minister can go some way in our direction and say, "Here I am, possessed of all this money—£230 million. I will try to bring some degree of happiness to these people. I shall try to help them enjoy life a little more fully than they have been able to in the last few years". If he will do that, if he will concede this Amendment, which asks for only 11s. over and above what the Department is prepared to pay, he will earn for himself and his Department the eternal gratitude of these unfortunate victims who have been broken on the wheel of industry.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Amendment raises a narrow but quite important point. We are agreed on both sides of the Committee that an improvement should be made in the maximum scale of the special hardship allowance. The difference that arises between us is that the Bill provides for an increase which is in proportion to the other increases in industrial injury benefits, whereas the Amendment proposes an increase in the special hardship allowance quite out of scale with the general scale of increases under the Bill.
    In view of the particular nature of this allowance, that raises a very important point. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), who was in at the birth of it, very rightly said that it is a rather peculiar part of the Industrial Injuries Scheme—which, for better or worse, is on a loss-of-faculty basis, irrespective of earnings. The special hardship allowance is the one exception to that general principle, and, indeed, it sometimes seems to some observers that there is something of a clash between the main principle of the Industrial Injuries Scheme and the principle represented by this allowance.
    I think that you would rule me out of order, Sir Gordon, if I went into the wider issues that have been raised in
    1232
    connection with the conditions applicable to the allowance, but perhaps I can say, in reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield, that I have had deputations on this subject, though the most recent one was not from the National Union of Mineworkers but from the T.U.C. It is fair to say that the N.U.M. was pretty strongly represented on that delegation. These issues do not arise either on this Amendment or on the Bill where we are concerned with the narrower point of the actual amounts. But there is an important point that does arise from the proposal to make a disproportionate—I use the word in no offensive manner—distinction in this allowance as compared with the others.
    8.45 p.m.
    As the Committee knows, there is a condition covering this allowance under which, however much of it is paid, it shall not exceed together with the benefit the equivalent of the 100 per cent. rate. The 39s. proposed in the Bill is equivalent to 40 per cent. of the maximum rate, with the result that it is possible, where the maximum rate is payable, to make up an assessment of 60 per cent. to the equivalent of 100 per cent. If we are going to increase the amount of this allowance out of proportion, we do not, because of the operation of the rule, benefit anybody whose assessment is 60 per cent. or above. Only those whose assessments are below 60 per cent. can benefit fully by the change.
    That difficulty illustrates the main point that I was trying to make, namely, that there is a certain clash between the considerations behind this allowance and those behind the Scheme as a whole. I am not sure that it is a particularly good use of the very substantial sum of money involved. Nor do I think that it is going to lead to a helpful solution of some of the difficulties affecting this allowance as a whole, of which I am very well aware.
    The cost which I mentioned is very much bigger than the hon. Gentleman suggested. The cost of the Amendment as it stands would be £3,100,000 next year, rising to £4,800,000 in some twenty years' time. It therefore represents getting on for half the total cost of all the Amendments which hon. Members opposite have put down to this Schedule, and

    1233
    that illustrates the difficulty of fitting them into the present structure of the Scheme.
    On the question of cost, I should like to take up a point which the hon. Gentleman made. He referred to what he called the surplus on the Fund. The Industrial Injuries Fund is not, as the National Insurance Fund will be after next April, on a pay-as-you-go basis. It is on an actuarial basis. Like all schemes on that basis in their early years, it must have a considerable excess of income over expenditure in order to build up resources to meet the maximum calls upon it when they become due.
    Obviously, in the case of a scheme only twelve years old, we are nowhere near, and will not be for many years, the maximum calls upon it, and we are advised by the Government Actuary as to the contributions necessary to build the Fund up to the level at which it will require to be when the maximum demands are made upon it. Therefore, to speak of a surplus at this stage, although it may be true as a matter of mathematics, is not very helpful.
    Mr. B. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman seems pretty optimistic about the finances of this Fund in the light of his proposal to reduce the contributions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows that if I am optimistic, I share that optimism with that not necessarily over-optimistic functionary, the Government Actuary. The hon. Gentleman, has no doubt, studied his Quinquennial Review of the Scheme which, as I explained on Second Reading—I do not want to repeat it now—we have followed in respect of contributions. I have dealt with that point because I thought that the hon. Gentleman in his speech—coming from him particularly it might have carried a good deal of persuasion—was giving, perhaps, a rather misleading impression of the general finances of the Scheme.
    While it is obvious that, with so large an additional expenditure, the Amendment must give rise on that ground alone to a good deal of objection, as I see it, the objection to the Amendment is still more one of principle. I do not think that one can deal with these quite difficult questions of the clash between the principle of loss of faculty and the principle
    1234
    of loss of earnings simply by an adjustment of this sort. I rather sympathise with what the hon. Member far Mansfield said. I think these are interesting and important matters to be discussed on some occasion, though you, Sir Gordon, would not let us do it now.
    I am quite sure that the Amendment would certainly not help, and might indeed hinder, a solution of these problems and, taking the scheme as it stands, it would, apart from its substantial cost, disrupt the main structure of these improvements, since it is quite out of line with the general measure of the increases proposed and, so far as any benefit of the Amendment is concerned, it would go only to those men whose assessments were below 60 per cent.
    For those reasons, although the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield was so appealing that few people could resist it, I must say that I feel bound to advise the Committee to adopt the spirit in which Mr. Molotov dealt with matters in the period before his translation to the Outer Mongolian Republic.
    Mr. Houghton: When my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) referred to the Minister's heart of hearts, I was willing to concede that he had a heart, but I never suspected a heart of hearts. Although the right hon. Gentleman has brought to bear on this Amendment a reasonable amount of understanding, I do not think that the Committee will consider his response over-generous in sentiment or in any other way.
    This particular benefit stands out. It has many distinctive features. As the Minister says, he is well aware of them. So am I. So is the Trades Union Congress. It is six years since the Minister sent a Memorandum to the Trades Union Congress telling it of his worries about the special hardship allowance and saying that there were important issues to be faced sooner or later, although, perhaps, further experience was necessary before a full review of this allowance could properly be undertaken. It is significant that in the report of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress for last year, which I have before me, a considerable amount of space was devoted to this particular allowance.

    1235
    What is important is that the Trades Union Congress pulled out this allowance from all others and went to the Minister and asked him to increase it. He knows that. The T.U.C. asked him to increase it to one-half of the maximum disablement benefit rate, that is to say, an increase from 34s. to 42s. 6d. That was at a time when there were no proposals to increase the rest of the benefits under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, which shows that the Trades Union Congress attached special importance to this benefit quite apart from the general level of benefits. The figure of 50s. which we have put in the Amendment is, as near as can be, one-half of the proposed new maximum disablement benefit.
    It would not be in order for me to examine some of the problems in the administration of this allowance which undoubtedly constitute the Minister's main anxiety but, clearly, in any allowance which recalls from the scheme of the past loss of earning capacity and grafts it on to the new scheme which is governed by loss of faculty, there are bound to be difficulties in marrying the two.
    Two features of this allowance stand out. They can be seen quite clearly from page 41 of the last Report of the Ministry of National Insurance, Command Paper 1133. The first is the extraordinary rise in the number of allowances in payment. The graph shows a rise from less than 20,000 in 1949 to just short of 100,000 in 1958. What is the explanation for that? I think that the difference is due largely to the widening gap between the level of wages in industries in which workers are most susceptible to injury and the level of benefits. I think that that is the main explanation. In the mining industry and the steel industry, in industries where the incidence of industrial injury is highest, wages happen to be the highest, and rightly so. But the earning capacity of many men after injury is seriously impaired, and that is why I believe that a growing number of special hardship allowances have come into payment.
    The next important point which has a bearing on the Amendment is the proportion of allowances at the maximum
    1236
    rate. The extraordinary thing is that the average allowance payable is 95 per cent. of the maximum rate. This shows that by far the overwhelming number of these allowances are at the maximum rate. When the Minister increases this allowance by 5s., the number will be as large at the maximum rate. That seems to show that the difference between the present 34s. and the proposed 39s. in the Bill does not give the Minister enough room adequately to meet the claims of those whose earning capacity has been seriously impaired after injury.
    A rather surprising case came to my notice the other day. It concerned a woman in my constituency who, for very good reasons, worked part-time. She was a skilled worker. She suffered an injury to her fingers which prevented her from following her occupation. After she had recovered from her injury she was fit enough to do a less skilled and less well-paid job, but with the same hours of work she could not earn as much money at that job as she earned at her skilled job. In those circumstances, the Ministry say, "But if you work a full week on this lower-paid job you can earn as much as you previously earned for a smaller number of hours on this skilled job. Therefore, no hardship allowance for you". On appeal that view was upheld and umpires' decisions and commissioners' decisions were quoted in support of it. I can see that some of my hon. Friends know this story better than I do. This shows how closely the special hardship allowance is administered.
    I do not complain about reasonably close administration, but there are times when it seems that the spirit of administration is somewhat lacking in dealing with an allowance which, by its name, is designed to meet special hardship due to a serious decline in earning capacity consequent upon injury.
    9.0 p.m.
    It is a pity that the Minister has not accepted the strong request, oft repeated, of the Trades Union Congress to have a Departmental inquiry into the operation of this allowance when the amount of it, as well as the conditions attaching to it, could be considered. The Minister has rejected that suggestion. The T.U.C. has made specific proposals to him,

    1237
    some of them attaching to the conditions of award as well as the one which I have mentioned relating to the amount, and yet he has rejected them all. We must, therefore, take a serious view of the Minister's refusal to accept the Amendment.
    I was not present at the interview to which the Minister referred, but I have been present at other interviews. I shall embarrass the right hon. Gentleman no more in that connection. He remembers the last one which I attended, to which I shall probably refer tomorrow, when the T.U.C. asked him to be frank and even to confide in the Congress. The Minister said, "That would be embarrassing in the presence of the hon. Member for Sowerby. After all, he is my political
    opposite number and you would not expect me to tell him my secrets in your presence." Of course, if I had not been there, the Minister would not have said any word more. It just happened to suit his book that I was there and he was completely let out of coming clean on whether he would propose any increase in National Insurance benefits. The secret has now leaked out in the Bill, but it has not leaked out on the special hardship allowance. I ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
    Question put, That "Thirty-nine" stand part of the Schedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 147.

    Division No. 10.]

    AYES

    [9.2 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maddan, Martin

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Allason, James

    Freeth, Denzil

    Maitland, Sir John

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Godber, J. B.

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Balniel, Lord

    Gower, Raymond

    Marten, Neil

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Barter, John

    Green, Alan

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Mawby, Ray

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R.

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

    Gurden, Harold

    Mills, Stratton

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Bingham, R. M.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    More, J.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Morrison, John

    Blank, Sir Cyril

    Hastings, S.

    Nanarro, Gerald

    Box, Donald

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Neave, Airey

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Noble, Michael

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hendry, Forbes

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Braine, Bernard

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Partridge, E.

    Bryan, Paul

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Bullard, Denys

    Hobson, John

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Burden, F. A.

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Holland, Philip

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hollingworth, John

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Cole, Norman

    Jackson, John

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Cooper, A. E.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Costain, A. P.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Roots, William

    Coulson, J. M.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Kirk, Peter

    Russell, Ronald

    Critchley, Julian

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Cunningham, Knox

    Leavey, J. A.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Sharples, Richard

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Shaw, M.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shepherd, William

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Duncan, Sir James

    Longbottom, Charles

    Stodart, J. A.

    Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Elliott, R. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Emery, Peter

    McLaren, Martin

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Talbot, John E.

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Farr, John

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)

    Fell, Anthony

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Temple, John M.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Webster, David

    Woollam, John

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Whitelaw, William

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Tilney, John (Wavartree)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Turner, Colin

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Mr. Chichester-Clark.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Oram, A. E.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Padley, W. E.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Grimond, J.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Awbery, Stan

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hannan, William

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Beaney, Alan

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Peart, Frederick

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pentland, Norman

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Benson, Sir George

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Probert, Arthur

    Blackburn, F.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Boardman, H.

    Holman, Percy

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Rankin, John

    Bowles, Frank

    Hoy, James H.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Boyden, James

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Ross, William

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Janner, Barnett

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Brown, Thomas (Inoe)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Chetwynd, George

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Small, William

    Cliffe, Michael

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Collick, Percy

    Kelley, Richard

    Snow, Julian

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    King, Dr. Horace

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Sylvester, George

    Deer, George

    Loughlin, Charles

    Symonds, J. B.

    Dempsey, James

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Dodds, Norman

    MacColl, James

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    McInnes, James

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Mackie, John

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Evans, Albert

    Manuel, A. C.

    Timmons, John

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mapp, Charles

    Warbey, William

    Fitch, Alan

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Fletcher, Eric

    Marsh, Richard

    Whitlock, William

    Foot, Michael

    Mason, Roy

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Millan, Bruce

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Moody, A. S.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Ginsburg, David

    Morris, John

    Zilliacus, K.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mort, D. L.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Moyle, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grey, Charles

    Mulley, Frederick

    Mr. Howell and Mr. Lawson.

    Mr. B. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 7, line 48, column 4, to leave out "Forty" and to insert "Fifty".
    The Chairman: It will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss also the Amendment in line 52, column 4, to leave out "Eighty" and to insert "Ninety".
    Mr. Taylor: These Amendments raise some of the greatest human problems of all among the cases with which the Bill is concerned. The people whom the Amendments affect are all 100 per cent. disabled. They are not only disabled and severely handicapped but many of them
    1240
    are really helpless. They are not only unable to provide for themselves but they are unable to look after themselves. Even the most menial tasks have to be done for them.
    I remember visiting only three weeks ago a man who was terribly burned in a pit explosion in Nottinghamshire about twelve months ago. He was forlorn and feeling hopeless. Medical science had certainly made a very good job of him by skin grafting and other treatment, but everything had to be done for him. In that case and to a lesser degree in all the 14,000 cases where a constant attendance allowance is made the person concerned

    1241
    is entirely dependent upon somebody else every moment not only of the day but in many cases of the night as well.
    The repercussions of these cases are not confined to the individual victim. Perhaps the greatest burden rests upon a mother, a wife or some other member of the family. Whilst it is a job of love and affection, nevertheless as the days, months and years go by it imposes a great burden upon relatives and means a great amount of sacrifice on their part.
    What do some of them get now? They get 35s. a week. It is true that if they are in receipt of the maximum payment they can receive 70s., but we say that, in the first case, the increase should be not to 40s., as is proposed by the Minister, but to 50s., and in the extreme case it should be not 80s. but 90s.
    I have mentioned the number of these cases, and I appeal to the right hon. Lady, if she is to reply, not to say "No" this time, because this is a great human problem. I hope that something will be done for these very severely disabled people who are quite helpless. Many of them have lost hope altogether.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Morris: We cannot make too strong a plea for raising the allowances for these people who are in need of constant attention. Many of them who are paraplegics are casualties of the mining industry.
    Earlier, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that it was hoped that the number of accidents in industry would decline, but that is not happening in the mining industry. Indeed, in that industry today, with increased mechanisation, there is an increasing number of accidents because of acceleration in the speed of work. These people are paying the ultimate price for working in heavy industry.
    The standard of safety—I shall not enter into it now—is very different under the Mines and Quarries Act, which provides that precautions shall be carried out as far as is reasonable, compared with the Factories Acts. Factory inspectors would collapse if they saw conveyors unprotected in factories as they are in the mines. But men are working in these conditions. That is the nature of their occupation. Because of the proximity of their work to these new machines they frequently
    1242
    suffer terrible injuries. The risks are great, particularly in the mining industry.
    Who are these people who have suffered in this way? If they go at common law to the courts to seek some compensation from the National Coal Board for injury, this category of injury is valued highest by the High Court judges. The compensation obtained at common law for these injuries can be as much as £16,000 or even £18,000. That is also given for cases of paraplegia. Indeed, the amount of valuation is far higher than in cases where death occurs. The prevalent figure of about £16,000 which is placed on these injuries at common law is an indication of the importance of the terrible tragedy that such an injury can bring to a man.
    The burden is on the family. These people cannot carry out even the simplest motions. The most menial of tasks—I cannot describe them to the Committee now—have to be carried out for them. They have suffered far more than the ultimate price because they have worked in this industry. With the general increase in earnings in industry generally—and in the steel industry in my division in particular—if a man suffers an injury of this kind it is far worse even than when earnings were far lower. When he sees his neighbours and friends gaining bigger and better salaries year by year, he is frequently in the corner, often unable to go out or to move, and he sees his standard of living falling day by day and week by week.
    I cannot make too strong a plea for these people who have paid a very high price indeed for working in heavy industry.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) and Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for the manner in which they have spoken. We all share their sympathy with these very severely disabled people. We recognise the tremendous difficulties which they face. I certainly join in the tributes which the hon. Members paid to the devoted wives and other relatives who are constantly in attendance upon these very severely injured people.

    1243
    I think it is fair to say that we have recognised the very particular claims which this type of pensioner has. The constant attendance allowance is an additional provision made to lessen the hardship imposed on these most seriously disabled people, of whom at the present time there are some 2,000. Without doubt, they are among the most grievously disabled. The allowance is payable, if they need constant attendance, to disablement pensioners who are assessed at 100 per cent., to old workmen's compensation cases and to certain police and fire pensioners who fulfil the basic conditions for the allowance.
    It is also only fair to say that we should not take the increase in this allowance in isolation, because the severely disabled pensioner who is entitled to this allowance will almost certainly be entitled to sickness benefit as well, besides his 100 per cent. disablement pension. Therefore, he gains under the Bill—very rightly so—by three increases and not by just this individual increase.
    I think it is fair to point out what those three increases will amount to. To take the single man first, he is now receiving in respect of the three allowances £8 10s., and he will receive £9 15s.; or, if he is exceptionally seriously disabled £10 5s., which is more than double the 1951 rate and, in real terms, £3 14s. 3d. higher. Therefore, I do not think anyone can suggest that we have not, over the various increases, given special consideration to this type of case.
    The married man with two children at present gets £11 10s. With the four increases which he will get—sickness benefit, the allowances for his wife and children, his disablement pension and his constant attendance allowance—he will get £13 5s.; and the increase is 10s. greater if he is exceptionally severely disabled. The £13 5s. compares with £6 7s. 6d. in 1951 and represents an increase in real terms of £4 15s.
    It is fair to say that we have given particular consideration to this type of case with every increase which has come before the House, and rightly so. These people will not merely enjoy just this one increase; they will qualify for at least three
    1244
    increases. I believe that it is a worth-while and not ungenerous increase. It makes the rates substantially higher than they have ever been, and to change them would throw them out of parity with the comparable allowances which are available to war pensioners, which are to be raised on the same basis as is recommended in this Bill. For these reasons, and because I do not think our treatment has been ungenerous, I must ask hon. Members not to support the Amendment.
    Mr. Loughlin: I am sure that the right hon. Lady does not wish to convey an entirely wrong impression. Here we are dealing with an allowance which is absorbed in the main by the payment to the person who is in constant attendance. Therefore, it is entirely fair to suggest that the whole allowance should be taken into consideration when dealing with this specific issue. If the daughter of a recipient of the constant attendance allowance is spending her life looking after her father, the constant attendance allowance is more than absorbed. At the same time, the daughter who is looking after her father is entitled to a higher standard of living in accordance with the increasing affluence of society. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that this type of allowance is dealt with in isolation because it is in this type of case that greater hardship can be experienced as a result of the Government's unwillingness to give an increase. Will the right hon. Lady deal with that point?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but, in general, in most of these cases the family income is taken as a whole. Just as in the case of a war pensioner or any other pensioner, the beneficiary in his own right draws the particular allowances or benefits to which he is entitled. It is a personal payment to the man and is not in any sense, nor was ever intended to be, a wage for a third party. It is an allowance to the man and is part and parcel of the allowances paid because of his disability. It is in the main made for some easement for the member of the family who may be called upon to look after him—generally the wife, less frequently the mother and occasionally another member of the family—but it is paid directly to the injured person as the sole claimant and beneficiary.
    Mr. Loughlin: I want to deal with this point because I feel sure that the right hon. Lady does not appreciate in toto the significance of this allowance. I have had considerable experience of cases of industrial injuries and constant attendance allowance. This allowance cannot be studied solely in terms of an allowance to the particular individual, although it falls within that category under the terms of the Act.
    There are two real reasons why this allowance is in existence. The first is the reason that I tried to outline to the right hon. Lady, who does not appear to have grasped the full significance of the points that I made. The second—which is of equal importance—is that in many of these cases, owing to the insured person being constantly in his bed and having constant attendance, there is a far greater incidence of replacement of family or household equipment—bedclothes, even carpets, and other things that are worn out more quickly because of his being constantly in the house or bedridden. It is because of this that the special attendance allowance exists at all. We should be a little more generous in our approach to this problem. I have gone beyond expecting the Government to make any attempt to meet even legitimate arguments from this side of the Committee. I sometimes wonder what kind of arguments we can use to get some departure from the rigid attitude of the Front Bench opposite. We are in Committee to see whether it is necessary and equitable to make improvements in the Government's proposals and, if we are to do our job as a Committee, the Ministers in charge of the Bill will have to show far more elasticity.
    I ask the right hon. Lady to reconsider the constant attendance allowance issue which has been responsible for a great deal of hardship for people who have been injured while making their contribution to society and doing a useful job of work and who have a right to expect far more consideration that they are getting.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: May I reinforce the plea of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Lady said that, generally speaking, it was the wife who
    1246
    was called upon to look after these cases. Has she considered that it is very likely that the wife herself had been earning money to keep a home going and that, because her husband is in need of constant attendance and is bedridden and needing every simple task to be done for him, the wife has to give up her job, so that the household is doubly penalised because the husband has had an accident which has resulted in his becoming a permanent invalid?
    There are many cases in which the wife is dead, or in which she prefers to go out to work to earn a little more to make up for the things which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) mentioned, so that it is the daughter who stays at home. Do we all appreciate the burden which is placed on a young woman in circumstances like that? I am now concerned with a case in which a girl has given up her job and will never be able to go out to work again as long as her parents live.
    The alternative is to put the man in hospital at a cost to the State very much higher than paying a little more money in this allowance. Not only is a girl in these circumstances prevented from having a job, but she has her whole life ruined. If she is the only daughter in the house, she is prevented from going out and enjoying herself as a young person should. She is even prevented from getting married, because she does not have the opportunity to meet people. She also feels that she is morally responsible not to get married and to continue to look after her parent.
    We have been told repeatedly that we get emotional and sentimental about these things. We do, because those of us on this side of the Committee come into closer contact with these people than do hon. Members opposite. We live with them and we have been reared with them. They are part of our blood, part of our lives. These cases are all around us and we have grown up with conditions like this. We are right to feel emotional and sentimental about these people, because this is a human problem.
    I ask the right hon. Lady as a woman to make a very special plea to her right hon. Friend and his advisers, for the sake of the wife or of the daughter in these cases who is compelled to make

    1247
    what I consider to be a supreme sacrifice in the interests of someone who has suffered at the hands of industry, to be a little more forthcoming than they have shown themselves prepared to be.
    Mr. George Sylvester: I support what my hon. Friend has said, especially in view of what the right hon. Lady said about constant attendance allowance not being intended to pay wages to someone outside the family. My two hon. Friends quoted cases of daughters being involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) said, we live among these people.
    Then there is the case of the mother who is probably approaching 60. She has probably had a hard struggle to bring up her family, and she has probably aged beyond her years. Her husband is her all to her. She cannot look after him day and night. The only thing she can do, instead of sending her husband to hospital which would cost more, and in any event he probably would not go, is to engage outside help.
    It is now accepted by everybody that getting outside help means that the family has to pay more than it had to pay a few years ago. The wife has to look after her husband during the night. I will not go into the details of what she has to do. It is well known to my hon. Friends, even if it is not known to hon. Gentlemen. During the day the wife engages a younger person to look after her husband.
    I add my plea to that made by my hon. Friends to the Minister to give way on this Amendment. These men gave their all to industry in their younger days, and they have met with a fate which is really worse than death because it is a long, lingering deathlike existence.
    Mr. Ross: When looking through this long series of Amendments, if anyone had asked me to pick out one Amendment which I thought the Government would accept, this would have been the one, for those reasons. Firstly, because acceptance of the Amendment would not bankrupt the country—we are dealing with fewer than 2,000 cases—and, secondly, because of the kind of cases with which we are dealing. Let me quote the words of the Schedule. They are
    1248
    sufficiently descriptive to convey to anyone with imagination the kind of people with whom we are dealing:
    "Maximum amount…of disablement pension where constant attendance is needed…in cases of exceptionally severe disablement."
    They are now being paid 70s. For exceptionally severe disablement demanding constant attendance they receive 70s. The Government propose to raise it to 80s. We say that it should be raised to 90s. In the other cases where constant attendance is required, they are at present being paid 35s. a week. The Government say it should be 40s., but we say it should be 50s.
    Let us consider the extreme cases first, and when we say extreme cases my hon. Friends are not exaggerating when they quote these cases. These are actual cases. Constant attendance in these cases does not mean constant attendance only during the day. It means constant attendance day and night. It does not mean the services of one person. It may mean the services of two or three people. Most of us have experienced it in our own homes and within our own families where there has been a case of illness which eventually proved fatal. It may have lasted only a week, but we know the distortion of family life that meant for us at the time. Many of us know cases where it has gone on year after year. As my hon. Friend said, the man may be suffering an actual living death. Think of the martyrdom suffered by the family.
    The right hon. Lady said: "You cannot isolate this business. This is something that is paid extra, not for the full payment of the attendance but just towards it". This is where she is so wrong. It is paid simply because the man requires constant attendance. The need is isolated. That being so, we say that it should be met to a far greater extent than is proposed. Even our figure of 90s. is not a full and proper assessment of what should be given. A loss of earnings is involved here. It may concern a daughter or a wife who is able to earn far more than the 90s. we suggest. The right hon. Lady knows that this is true. She brought in the question of the war disabled, as others have done so readily.
    When I first came to this House I served for many years on the old Ministry

    1249
    of Pensions Committee. I am sure that a previous Minister of Pensions would not have accepted many of the rates embodied in the Bill, and certainly would not have been satisfied with this one. I am referring to George Buchanan. We would not have got the kind of speech from him that we got from the right hon. Lady. I do not know whether she meant it, or realised it, but in her last intervention she projected a lack of sympathy which obviously aroused my hon. Friends.
    If we should do anything, and if we can do anything, here is our chance to do it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Lady to let us do something here. I am quite willing to suggest to my hon. Friends that we should give the Minister a chance to say that he will think about this. Does the
    right hon. Lady appreciate that if the people concerned were in hospital instead of at home the nation would have to pay out far more than it does? In return for the selfless devotion of families, and for the distortion of the whole lives of the members of those families, the Bill is providing an increase of 5s. and 10s. in respect of the severely disabled. Surely Britain can do much better than that.
    If the right hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Lady cannot give us any more satisfaction we shall certainly divide in support of the Amendment.
    Question put, That "Forty" stand part of the Schedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 148.

    Division No. 11.]

    AYES

    [9.43 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Farr, John

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Allason, James

    Fell, Anthony

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Arbuthnot, John

    Finlay, Graeme

    Longbottom, Charles

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fisher, Nigel

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Balniel, Lord

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Barlow, Sir John

    Freeth, Denzil

    McLaren, Martin

    Barter, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Godber, J. B.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Goodhart, Philip

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

    Gower, Raymond

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Maddan, Martin

    Bingham, R. M.

    Green, Alan

    Maginnis, John E.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Maitland, Sir John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Box, Donald

    Gurden, Harold

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marten, Neil

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Braine, Bernard

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W. H.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Mawby, Ray

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R.

    Bryan, Paul

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Mills, Stratton

    Bullard, Denys

    Hastings, S.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Burden, F. A.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    More, J.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Morrison, John

    Carr, Compton (Barone Court)

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Neave, Airey

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Noble, Michael

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hobson, John

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Cole, Norman

    Holland, Philip

    Partridge, E.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hollingworth, John

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Costain, A. P.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Coulson, J. M.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Critchley, Julian

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Cunningham, Knox

    Jackson, John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Curran, Charles

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ridsdale, Julian

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Deedes, W. F.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Kimball, Marcus

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kirk, Peter

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Roots, William

    Elliott, R. W.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Emery, Peter

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Russell, Ronald

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Seymour, Leslie

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Shaw, M.

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Stodart, J. A.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Storey, Sir Samuel

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Turner, Colin

    Woollam, John

    Talbot, John E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Teeling, William

    Watts, James

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Temple, John M.

    Webster, David

    Mr. Sharples.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Whitelaw, William

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Albu, Austen

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Grimond, J.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Awbery, Stan

    Hannan, William

    Peart, Frederick

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Pentland, Norman

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Beaney, Alan

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Probert, Arthur

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Benson, Sir George

    Holman, Percy

    Rankin, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Redhead, E. C.

    Boardman, H.

    Hoy, James H.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Bowles, Frank

    Hunter, A. E.

    Ross, William

    Boyden, James

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Janner, Barnett

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Small, William

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Snow, Julian

    Chetwynd, George

    Kelley, Richard

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Collick, Percy

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    King, Dr. Horace

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sylvester, George

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Deer, George

    MacColl, James

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Dempsey, James

    McInnes, James

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Dodds, Norman

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Mackie, John

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Timmons, John

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mapp, Charles

    Warbey, William

    Evans, Albert

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Fernyhough, E.

    Marsh, Richard

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fitch, Alan

    Mason, Roy

    Whitlock, William

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Foot, Michael

    Millan, Bruce

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moody, A. S.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Morris, John

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mort, D. L.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Ginsburg, David

    Moyle, Arthur

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Oram, A. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gourlay, Harry

    Padley, W. E.

    Mr. Howell and Mr. Lawson.

    Grey, Charles

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, column 4, to leave out "Seventeen" and to insert "Twenty-two".
    I understand, Sir William, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we took that in page 8, line 13, column 4, leave out "Nine" and insert "Fourteen".
    The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Yes, I think that would be convenient to the Committee.
    Mr. Houghton: I hope to deal with this matter quite briefly. The Schedule proposes to increase the allowances for the children of disabled and other persons covered by the Industrial Injuries Scheme. At present, the allowance for the first child is 15s. a week, the Schedule proposes to increase that by 2s. 6d. to 17s. 6d. a week, and the Amendment proposes to increase it to 22s. a week.
    In the case of other children, for whom, of course, the family allowances are payable in addition, the existing allowance

    1253
    under the Scheme is 7s. a week, the Bill proposes to increase that to 9s. 6d., and we propose to lift it to 14s. a week. This is really in line with our general approach to the level of benefits under the Scheme.
    We have already tried to improve the major benefit. We have not proposed to increase the allowance for a wife, but we do think that, irrespective of the Minister's judgment on other matters, some increase could be made in respect of children. There is no doubt that among the principal sufferers in many ways from the inadequacy of social benefits, are the children. I do not say that they go short of food, although, equally, I am not sure that they get enough of everything.
    Under present conditions, many children are having a very good time—and we like to see it so. The parents are able to indulge their parental affection and give their children things today which many of us never saw in our own childhood. At school and at play many children whose fathers are suffering from industrial injury or sickness are not able to keep up with other children in many ways. I heard recently a touching story of a child who wanted to know why he was the only boy in the class who was not going away for a holiday. His mother had to explain that his father had been off work through sickness and that they could not afford a holiday. That is the sort of thing that I am referring to, as well as other matters connected with clothing, general welfare, entertainment and so on.
    The proposed increases in the child allowance that we include in our Amendment are paltry enough, as are the proposals in the Schedule. We think that the Minister should depart from his rigidity on all these proposals in respect of children. I know that moving pleas have been made in the last few hours on behalf of other categories of beneficiary under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. Only a few moments ago, we heard of those who have to have constant attendance. Earlier, we heard of those who are so badly injured that they have to receive unemployability supplement.
    We hope that the Minister is going to do something somewhere before we part with this Bill. This is surely one of the
    1254
    most deserving categories. They are themselves the innocent victims of the misfortunes of their parents, and we want to insulate them from the economic consequences of the disasters that have overtaken the family. Under the most favourable circumstances, the benefits under the Scheme will be much less than the average earnings, and it follows that everyone in the household will have to suffer. They will have to go short of something. They will not live the sort of lives that the children of parents in full employment are able to do. I sincerely hope that nothing of the force of this plea will be lost by the brevity of the speech with which I have made that plea.
    Mr. Braine: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has moved his Amendment with the moderation and feeling to which we have grown accustomed in the course of this debate. I shall try to emulate that brevity.
    The hon. Gentleman has accused my right hon. Friend of rigidity. I cannot accept that suggestion. The Bill makes provision for increases in injury benefit for children and, where unemployability supplement and hospital treatment allowance is payable, it provides also for an increase of disablement pension, as well as for general and enhanced rates of death benefit increases for children.
    It is pertinent to remind the Committee, although I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows of it, that under the Industrial Injuries Act, but not under the National Insurance Act, the technical way in which the rates for widows' children are made up is somewhat complex. Section 21 of the Industrial Injuries Act lays down rates of death benefit for all children of a deceased person's family, while the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1956, lays down an increase in the rates for children of those widows who are entitled to industrial death benefit. Such widows, therefore, receive their benefits for their children technically under two Statutes, but, of course, on the same pension book.
    I mention that because the rates of National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits for children are the same, and they have been since the start of the scheme.
    It being Ten o'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

    First Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)
      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

    NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
    Again considered in Committee.
    Mr. Braine: At that point, when I was given a short breathing space, I was drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that the rates of National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits for children are the same and they have been so since the start of the Scheme. They would continue to be so under the Bill. This is obviously right. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, when painting a picture of the needs of children in this unhappy position, the need in both cases is exactly the same. I am bound to say that, under the Amendments proposed, the National Insurance rate would be lower than the industrial injuries rate, and it has always been thought right that they should coincide. There does not seem to be any justification for introducing discrimination now.
    On the other hand, children's allowances for war widows have always been payable at a higher rate than the rate for industrial injuries widows' children. At present, war widows get 25s. for each child, soon to be raised to 29s. The rates proposed in the Amendment would reverse this established differential by increasing the rate of industrial injuries death benefit payable to a widow for her first child to 35s. The 1946 Act provided from July, 1948, a dependency increase of injury benefit and in certain cases a disablement pension of 7s. 6d. for the first child but gave nothing for subsequent children. I see the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in his place. He was a pioneer in the matter of National Insurance and he will remember that. The rates in the Bill, on the other hand, plus family allowances, represent an increase of 133 per cent. for the first child, 250 per cent. for the second, and 290 per cent. for
    1256
    subsequent children, during a period in which the Index of Retail Prices has risen by 58 per cent.
    I did somewhat resent a little earlier the idea that members of the Committee on this side had no feeling in these matters. The inference was that we did not live among the people we sought to represent, and so on. I must bring the Committee back to a sense of reality. Translated into real terms, the increases since 1948 are of the order of 47 per cent., 121 per cent. and 146 per cent. respectively for these child allowances, and the increases proposed in the Bill. of course, will take those figures further. That reflects in striking fashion, also, the way in which the emphasis has shifted in social provision during recent years in favour of larger families.
    Those figures—I emphasise this again—represent a real advance in standards. With the improvement generally in industrial injuries and National Insurance benefits, they represent a real advance since the original schemes were mooted by Lord Beveridge. The Committee will remember that in his Report he said that social insurance
    "should aim at guaranteeing the minimum income needed for subsistence",
    but, he added,
    "the determination of what is required for reasonable human subsistence is to some extent a matter of judgment; estimates on this point change with time, and generally, in a progressive community, change upwards".
    Of course this must be so, and I accept a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said, not only on these Amendments, but throughout the debate. If the criterion of subsistence were Beveridge's standard of basic needs, the whole range of benefits is far more adequate today than it was in 1946. It has been substantially improved since that time.
    The 1946 Act provided industrial death benefit at the rate of 7s. 6d. for the first child only, and there was no enhanced industrial injuries widows' rate, which, incidentally, was not introduced until 1956. The rates in the Bill, plus family allowances, represent increases of 233 per cent. for the industrial injury widow's first child, 400 per cent. for the second and 440 per cent. for the third and subsequent children.
    In short, one would like to do more, but this represents——
    Mr. James Griffiths: I wish the Minister would realise that in putting forward these pleas under the Industrial Injuries Act my hon. Friends are proposing to change the contributions. The Government seem to have missed this point all the time. In 1948 it was very difficult to estimate what would be the cost of this Scheme, and, perhaps, one was over-cautious. The Government, in this affluent age, are letting the employers pay 1d. less. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember that these increases could easily be doubled if the contribution were left as it is. For the first time in our history the worker is to pay a very substantial part of the cost of the benefit paid to him when he is injured in the employment of his employer. That point ought to be considered. If the Government left the employers and the workmen to pay the same contribution as they are now paying the improvements which are proposed could be paid. No one would have to pay any more than he is paying now. Surely what I have said is a material consideration.
    Mr. Braine: I am not certain that the right hon. Gentleman is right—that these improvements could be made happily without any difficulty if contributions
    were left exactly as they are. We can speculate a great deal about the future of the Fund. All that I would say is that it was open to the right hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends to table Amendments to that effect. They did not do so. There may have been perfectly good and technical reasons for that. I am not complaining about it.
    I am concerned with the Amendments on the Notice Paper. They are what we are discussing. I am concerned with the effect which the cost of them will have upon the Fund. The industrial injuries benefits proposed by hon. Members opposite would put the Fund out and, even if the contributions were left as they are, they would create difficulties. The Industrial Injuries Scheme is on an actuarial footing.
    I conclude by saying that the Bill makes substantial provision for families in this category, and I hope that the Committee will not lose sight of the real and substantial advances which the Bill proposes.
    Question put, That "Seventeen" stand part of the Schedule:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 120.

    Division No. 12.]

    AYES

    [10.11 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hobson, John

    Aitken, W. T.

    Dalkelth, Earl of

    Hooking, Philip N.

    Allason, James

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Holland, Philip

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hollingworth, John

    Balniel, Lord

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hopkins, Alan

    Barlow, Sir John

    Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Barter, John

    Elliott, R. W.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Emery, Peter

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Jackson, John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Farr, John

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Fell, Anthony

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Bishop, F. P.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Box, Donald

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Freeth, Denzil

    Kirk, Peter

    Braine, Bernard

    Gammans, Lady

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Leavey, J. A.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Godber, J. B.

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Bryan, Paul

    Goodhart, Philip

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Bullard, Denys

    Gower, Raymond

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Green, Alan

    Longbottom, Charles

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Gurden, Harold

    Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McLaren, Martin

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Weillngborough)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Maddan, Martin

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hastings, S.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Costain, A. P.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maitland, Sir John

    Coulson, J. M.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Critchley, Julian

    Hiley, Joseph

    Marten, Neil

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Curran, Charles

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Mawby, Ray

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Mills, Stratton

    Roots, William

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Ropner, col. Sir Leonard

    Turner, Colin

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Russell, Ronald

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    More, J.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.

    Morrison, John

    Seymour, Leslie

    Webster, David

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Shaw, M.

    Whitelaw, William

    Neave, Airey

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Noble, Michael

    Stodart, J. A.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Pilkington, Capt. Richard

    Talbot, John E.

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Tapsell, Peter

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Taylor, E. (Bolton, E.)

    Woollam, John

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Teeling, William

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Temple, John M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Mr. Sharples.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Albu, Austen

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hannan, William

    Peart, Frederick

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Pentland, Norman

    Awbery, Stan

    Hayman, F. H.

    Probert, Arthur

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Rankin, John

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Beaney, Alan

    Houghton, Douglas

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hoy, James H.

    Ross, William

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Boardman, H.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Boyden, James

    Janner, Barnett

    Small, William

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Snow, Julian

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Kelley, Richard

    Swingler, Stephen

    Cliffe, Michael

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Sylvester, George

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    King, Dr. Horace

    Symonds, J. B.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Deer, George

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Dempsey, James

    MacColl, James

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    McInnes, James

    Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mackie, John

    Timmons, John

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Warbey, William

    Fitch, Alan

    Manuel, A. C.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mapp, Charles

    Whitlock, William

    Foot, Michael

    Marsh, Richard

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Forman, J. C.

    Millan, Bruce

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Morris, John

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Ginsburg, David

    Oram, A. E.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Padley, W. E.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Pargiter, G. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grey, Charles

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Mr. Howell and Mr. Lawson

    Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 48, at the end to insert:

    Section 22 (4)

    …

    Weekly rate of pension payable to a parent—

    (a) for period for which parents are living together and are both entitled to pension.

    Fifteen shillings.

    Thirty shillings.

    (b) for any other period

    Twenty shillings.

    Forty shillings.

    Section 23 (4)

    …

    Gratuity and weekly rate of pension payable to a relative—

    (a) weekly rate of pension payable in circumstances specified in the subsection (2) of this section.

    Twenty shillings.

    Forty shillings.

    (b) amount of gratuity payable under subsection (3) of this section.

    Fifty-two pounds.

    One hundred and four pounds.

    (c) weekly rate of allowance payable under subsection (3) of this section.

    Thirty-six shillings.

    Seventy-two shillings.

    Section 24 (3)

    …

    Weekly rate of allowance payable to women having care of a deceased's children.

    Twenty shillings.

    Forty shillings.

    This Amendment takes in a series of benefits which were contained in the 1946 Act but which, I understand, have not been changed since. There is in Section 22 of the 1946 Act a provision for a benefit to be paid to the parent of a deceased if at the deceased's death he or she was being to a substantial extent maintained by the deceased or would but for the relevant accident have been so maintained. Under certain conditions there is provision for a death benefit payment to be made.
    As will be seen from the Amendment, for the period during which parents were living together and both entitled to pension the amount of benefit was 15s. and for any other period 20s. Then in Section 23 of the 1946 Act there is provision for benefit to be paid to a relative under certain conditions. Again, the condition of being wholly or mainly maintained by the deceased is written into the Section. In that case, under certain conditions there is a benefit of 20s., under other conditions a gratuity of £52, and under still other conditions a benefit of 36s. Then in Section 24 of the Act there is a benefit to be paid for women having the care of deceased's children.
    All these benefits were provided for in the 1946 Act and for a reason which I cannot explain they have not been attended to since. That is why we propose to include them as an addition to the Schedule. Having regard to the failure of the House of Commons to improve these benefits in past years, we have thought that to increase them by 100 per cent. would be appropriate now Probably the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell us a little more about these benefits of which very little is usually heard but which presumably are still claimed.
    If they are so claimed and are still applied to conditions which I feel sure they are, and which occur from time to time when a worker gets killed, perhaps the right hon. Lady will tell us why the Government have done nothing about them and if there is any reason why these benefits should not now be increased. I think that I have said enough about them to convince the Committee that here are benefits which
    1262
    have been left unimproved for a long time and which should be increased now.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), unusually for him, has expressed the view that he does not know why certain things have happened, a view which he need rarely express in the light of his vast knowledge of all our insurance topics. The Amendment, as he has rightly said, seeks to double the present rates of industrial benefits payable to parents, relatives and women having care of the deceased's children, but it does not change the other benefits under the same part of the Scheme, the pension payable to a childless able-bodied widow and the parent's gratuity. I am not quarrelling about that.
    This type of payment is essentially derived from the old workmen's compensation scheme, which, as hon. Members know, pre-dated by very many years the modern schemes of social insurance. It has not any real parallel in the main insurance legislation. These payments were based not on the principle of a subsistence allowance but on the principle, originally, of lump-sum compensation. Their introduction into the modern Industrial Injuries Scheme represented a continuation of this compensation element.
    When the Workmen's Compensation Acts were repealed in 1948—and I would mention that the maximum payment under the old workmen's compensation was £400—in order to meet an obligation which had hitherto been met by employers, this new provision was made in industrial injuries. Instead of a lump sum, provision was made for a weekly payment of 15s. each for two parents living together or of 20s. for one parent or relative.
    As hon. Members will appreciate, there are other and wider provisions today for the elderly and the sick than those compensation payments. These wider provisions are improved by this Bill. In value, the £1 a week, or 30s. for a couple, is not ungenerous in comparison with the £400 lump sum compensation which would have been payable had the old workmen's compensation scheme not been repealed.

    1263
    For example, if the recipient mother was as old as 60 when she started drawing a parent's pension of £1 a week, the actuarial value would be about £700, and for a father at 65, about £600—with, of course, progressively higher values should parents at ages younger than those I have quoted come within the ambit of these provisions. There are at present 386 parents, 77 relatives and 66 women who receive the allowances on the ground that they have the care of the deceased's children.
    Any change in these rates would have repercussions on the corresponding benefits payable under the Royal Warrant for the dependants of war pensioners, which makes parallel provision. This is a legacy of a scheme which is now outmoded. It was introduced in the 1946 Act to take the place of a provision that had been made by employers in the form of lump sum payments, and it is now, and always has been, purely a compensation payment and not a subsistence payment.
    As the hon. Member for Sowerby rightly says, for this reason no Government have ever changed its basis since it was incorporated as a compensation payment in the 1946 Act. Although other insurance rates, from which most of these beneficiaries will be gaining and for which most of them will qualify, have been increased very much, this particular type of payment is not one which, strictly speaking, has any connection with the insurance rate for the provision either for old-age or for unemployment or for sickness. For that reason, I hope that the Committee will resist the Amendment.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. B. Taylor: I do not follow the logic of the right hon. Lady's argument. But before coming to that, let us look at this problem in terms of existing values as compared with those of 1948. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, these beneficiaries have had no increase at all since 1948, yet monetary values have changed considerably since then. The right hon. Lady tries to justify her argument by saying that these weekly payments, which are gratuitous, are based on payments made under the old workmen's compensation scheme.
    1264
    The right hon. Lady mentioned, correctly, that the maximum lump sum payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act pre-1948 was £400, and that the existing benefits bore some relation to that. Does she believe that had it not been for the introduction of the Industrial Injuries Act the Lump sum compensation for a fatality today would be £400 as it was in 1948? That argument is totally illogical. These people should be treated no less generously and humanely than the other beneficiaries under the Industrial Injuries Act. The trade union movement—I speak particularly on behalf of the National Union of Mineworkers—feels very strongly on this point in respect of dependent relatives.
    Aside from the illogicality of the right hon. Lady's argument, I hope that the matter will be looked at again and a longstanding grievance rectified by restoring the value of this benefit to that of 1948.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this be the First Schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. B. Taylor: I wish to make an observation about industrial widows' pensions. It is a small but very important one. I will not say anything about the first 13 weeks of widowhood of an industrial injury widow, nor anything about the widow after the first 13 weeks.
    The Bill is one of exclusions and omissions. It is like the curate's egg—it is not all bad; it is good in parts. At the commencement of proceedings yesterday we asked about the exclusion of the old workmen's compensation cases and the time-barred pneumoconiotics. Here is another exclusion as I see it—the industrial injury widow who is under 50, not incapable of supporting herself and with no dependent child or children. The existing pension for that widow under the Industrial Injuries Act is 31s. I cannot understand why one should include the widow over 50 and the widow under 50 who has a child or children and is incapable of self-support and yet leave out the other widow who might be any age from 49 down to 25.
    I hope that we may be told why this widows' benefit of 31s. is not to be increased as are the benefits for the two other types of widow. I am sure that this needs an explanation. We shall go

    1265
    back to our constituencies and meet widows of this type, and they will say, "My next-door neighbour, because she is over 50, has an increase. The other next-door neighbour has an increase because she has a child or children, or because she cannot look after herself".
    Will the Minister say why this type of beneficiary is excluded from the proposed increase? It is a serious matter, and I hope that at some other stage of the Bill this type of industrial injury widow will receive some consideration, and that her benefit will be increased.
    Mr. Braine: I will do my best to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), although it is rather a new one to me.
    I understand that the lower rate of pension payable to the young able-bodied widow without children has remained unaltered since inception of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946, and I take it that that is the category of widow to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. Since I have been in the Ministry I have discovered that there are a wide variety of widows and some, perhaps not altogether in this context, more fortunately placed than others.
    Mr. B. Taylor: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary look closely into this, because, if my memory serves me right, this kind of widow received 20s. at the inception of the scheme, and she now receives 31s.? It is, therefore, not correct to say that there has not been any increase since 1948.
    Mr. Braine: I think I can say this, that the lower rate of pension payable to the able-bodied young widow without children has never been regarded as a subsistence payment. It was provided partly as a replacement of a lump sum payment—the lump sum of £400 under the Workmen's Compensation Acts—and partly as compensation on the analogy of war pensions, which makes similar provision of a 20s. pension for a young widow of an ex-Service man. May I say in passing that the war pension 20s. rate is not being increased either, so the argument of the hon. Gentleman would apply to the war pension rate as well.
    Actuarily, the value—
    Mr. Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point—
    Mr. Braine: I have not developed it yet.
    Mr. Taylor: —I want to be certain about this. If one looks at Section 19 (3) of the 1946 Act, it says:
    ". . in any other case"—
    that is referring to widows under 50 not incapacitated nor having a child or children—
    "shall be twenty shillings."
    The existing rate is 31s. I want to be clear about the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, that there had not been an increase since 1948.
    Mr. Braine: I do not think I can be positive on that point at this stage. I would not like to say anything that I would have to retract later. It is clear that this point is causing the hon. Gentleman some anxiety, and I will undertake here and now to find the answer and get it to him as quickly as possible. After all, our deliberations will not end tonight. They will go on tomorrow, and I will give him the answer as soon as I can.
    I would like to add to what I have said, because I think that it is relevant to the point. Actuarily it is estimated that the 20s. pension is worth more than the lump sum payment under the Workmens' Compensation Acts, the actuarial benefit for a widow at 49 being about £800.
    I am bound to tell the Committee that any increase in the rate of industrial injury widows would bring into contrast corresponding widows under the main National Insurance Acts who receive nothing if they have not got a reserved right to an underlying 10s. pension under the old scheme.
    I think that I must leave it there. I will have the matter looked into and get the information to the hon. Gentleman as quickly as possible.
    We have had an extraordinarily interesting and extensive debate ranging from the proposals in the Schedule to the increase of a whole range of industrial injuries benefits. I wish to conclude by saying that, though the general burden of the arguments from the Opposition benches is that we ought to have done much more for those who come either under the full scope of the Industrial Injuries Scheme or for those for whom special provision is made out of

    1267
    the Industrial Injuries Fund under the benefit schemes, nevertheless the fact is that the Bill brings substantial new advances to bear in this field of social provision, and I recommend the Schedule to the Committee.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Second Schedule agreed to.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    With, I think, very good co-operation and good will we have made a reasonable measure of progress tonight, and I am therefore able to move this Motion which I hope will obviate the necessity for hon. Members to continue with their deliberations until an inconvenient hour. I hope that with the same spirit of good will and co-operation tomorrow we shall be able to reach the Third Reading proceedings at a reasonable hour.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

    FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Maclay.]
    Question agreed to.
    Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

    FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
    [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
    [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the councils of counties and burghs in Scotland to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of flooding of non-agricultural land in their areas, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

    (a) in respect of expenditure incurred by a local authority in carrying out flood prevention operations in accordance with a flood prevention scheme made under any provision of the said Act of the present Session, or in making payments under any such provision relating to contributions by a local authority towards expenditure incurred by others or relating to compensation, of such sums as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury direct;

    (b) of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the passing of the said Act of the present Session; and

    (c) of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Maclay.]

    Resolution to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow.

    UNEMPLOYMENT, CAERNARVONSHIRE
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
    10.44 p.m.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I rise to draw once more the attention of the House and of the Ministers concerned to the continued high rate of unemployment in the County of Caernarvon. The latest figures available are for 10th October. They show that on that day 5·3 per cent. of the insured population of the county were without work. The November figures should now be available, and I hope that the Minister will quote them when he replies to the debate.
    I am quite certain that these figures already show a substantial increase and one which will continue with the onset of winter. These figures mean that some 1,500 families in Caernarvonshire face yet another Christmas on the dole and on National Assistance. The percentage of unemployed in the county is four times the average for the whole of Britain, and but for considerable emigration, which has proceeded for many years and which is draining our population of its youngest and most energetic elements, the figure would be far higher. During the past 20 years, in fact, our population has barely risen at all, the natural increase being entirely offset by emigration.
    Another factor is the situation which disguises the full import of the statistics is the number of pupils who stay on after reaching school-leaving age in our secondary schools, many of them after having done very well in the General Certificate examination. They stay on simply because there is nothing else for them to do—no jobs for them if they leave school. At one grammar school—an excellent school which I know very well—out of a register of about 460 pupils no fewer than 103 are penned up in the sixth form. The normal sixth form intake for a school of that size would be about 20, but it has over 100 pupils, because so many of these boys have nothing to go to once they leave school.
    1270
    To understand the true nature of our problem we should recognise that the County of Caernarvon is, in reality, two distinct regions—two ridings, one might say—the area north and east of the City of Bangor and the area to the south and west of that city. It is in the southern part of the county—the Snowdonian massif and the Lleyn Peninsula—that the real problem lies. It is there, in the small, picturesque towns of Caernarvon, Pwllheli and Portmadoc, and in the rural districts of Gwyrfai and Lleyn that 62 per cent. of this chronic unemployment is concentrated. That is to say, it is in the central and southern part of the county that we find two-thirds of this unemployment, and it is for that area and the people living there that I speak primarily tonight.
    What is the reason for this high and persistent unemployment? It is that for generations—indeed, for centuries—this part of Caernarvonshire has depended economically on two great industries which, for different reasons, have provided fewer and fewer jobs over the past 20 years or so. I refer, first, to agriculture, in which automation has meant that a farm which only 20 years ago employed two, three or four workers can now be run entirely by the members of the family. That is very widespread in our part of Wales, and it is a good thing from many points of view. Nevertheless, it means that there are fewer jobs on the farms for our young people.
    Secondly, there is the quarrying of slate and granite. There technical difficulties and the competition of cheaper though inferior materials have caused a serious decline in the employment provided by these great opencast workshops.
    Even in 1938—not a particularly good year—the quarries of Caernarvonshire and Merioneth employed about 9,000 men; today the number is barely 3,000. As the old industries have declined very few new ones have come to the rescue. That is the crux of the problem—the decline of the old and the reluctance of the new industries to come into the area. The result is this persistently high level of unemployment, and the weakening of the cultural and social life of some of the finest communities in the country.

    1271
    It is clear, therefore, that this area presents a special case meriting special attention. Indeed, when I raised the matter recently at Question Time, the President of the Board of Trade agreed with that view, for he said,
    "The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this is a special problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 1202.]
    He did not, however, propose any special measures to tackle what he agreed was a special problem, beyond the Local Employment Act, 1960, which he seemed to think would be enough to cope with the situation. But is it? How far is this Act helping south Caernarvonshire, an area which it is prescriptively intended to assist? Or, more precisely, how far does the Board of Trade Advisory Committee, B.O.T.A.C., which administers the Act, realise that, in the words of the President of the Board of Trade, this is a "special problem"?
    In answer to another Question on 15th November, the Parliamentary Secretary said that six applications for assistance under the Act had so far been received from Caernarvonshire, adding that of these, one had already been rejected—and I rather think that a second has since been rejected, too—and that none had so far been successful. That is not a very promising start for an Act which was supposed to come to the aid of precisely this kind of difficult area on the periphery of our territory and our economy.
    There is, in fact, very considerable uncertainty about the criteria which B.O.T.A.C. applies to these applications. No reason for rejection is given, even privately, and there is no unanimity among Government spokesmen as to the tests which applications must satisfy. I have here a letter from an industrialist who wishes to expand in the Caernarvon district, and this is what he writes:
    "We heard last week that our appeal to B.O.T.A.C. has been rejected. It would seem that the reported statement of Lord Brecon that 'the criterion was whether they provided employment' is his opinion and not that of the Board of Trade. We are now in the unhappy position of refusing orders from builders' merchants".
    That is the case of an existing industrialist who put up what I think was
    1272
    an excellent application for assistance in order to develop and to take on more men in a very hard-hit valley.
    Let us take another case, of an industrialist who wants to enter the area and to start something new, a managing director who has had years of experience in the London area and who wishes to start a new industry in the county. He has an excellent team of workers ready, a certain amount of capital and an assurance that certain empty buildings are available where he can make a start. He has been told that unless he can now produce a full order book he cannot be assisted. When one hears of cases like this—and other hon. Members could produce other and very similar examples—one wonders whether B.O.T.A.C. and the Government are in earnest about applying the 1960 Act to help places like Caernarvonshire.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Can the hon. Member say who told this industrialist that he must produce a full order book?
    Mr. Roberts: Persons who interviewed him when he had put forward his first statement of application.
    I wish now to put forward some suggestions for the improvement of this situation. They are based on the knowledge and experience of those who know the area best—local authorities, trade union leaders, chambers of trade, employers and others. First, we strongly urge the construction of an advance factory in the Pwllheli-Portmadoc district, which the Minister for Welsh Affairs has often visited and knows well.
    I particularly want to press that suggestion on both Ministers as it is supported by expert opinion as the only effective way to break the deadlock in the district, a deadlock which may continue unless this kind of action, which has proved successful elsewhere in North-West Wales, is taken. Sites are available, so is labour in varying grades of skill and, what is just as important, an abundance of clean water, which modern industry so often needs.
    Last year, an advance factory, one of three for the entire kingdom, was sanctioned in Holyhead as part of an experiment, so we were told by the then

    1273
    President of the Board of Trade, which would
    "demonstrate whether or not vacant premises in difficult areas are an attraction to industrialists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 56.]
    That question has been answered. That experiment has proved conclusively successful, because the Holyhead factory was snapped up by an excellent firm almost before construction began. We are convinced that exactly the same result would be obtained if an advance factory were sanctioned for Pwllheli.
    The two cases, the two districts and the two problems are very similar. I beg the Minister and his colleagues to consider this suggestion, to consult the local authorities, which are themselves in touch with industrialists who are interested in the county, and to consult also trade union leaders, who have investigated the position in this part of the county and who have themselves advanced this as a proposed solution. The Minister will, I think, find that informed opinion is unanimous on the proposal. This is precisely the kind of area where an advance factory is the answer, or a substantial part of the answer.
    The second suggestion is this. We feel that Ministers should make a fresh review of the slate industry, its needs and potential, or, at least, go into conference with leaders from both sides of the industry. This industry is far from dead, although it is greatly reduced. It has had ruthlessly to rationalise itself over the past 25 years or so, but it is now led by keen, young, vigorous minds who are looking to the future. They are eager to develop, they are experimenting with new techniques and machinery and new uses for slate, both artistic and utilitarian, and they are developing an aggressive marketing campaign. They have even begun exporting slate—I think for the first time since before the war. In all, there is here a very gallant attempt to bring an old and honoured industry into line with modern requirements; but they need help, encouragement and advice.
    I sometimes wonder, how much do Ministers know of this industry, the slate industry, and its problems and its possibilities? They know far too little, I fear. I want to invite them now, to invite the the President of the Board of Trade—I know that the Minister for Welsh Affairs
    1274
    has already visited the area more than once—and the other Ministers at the Board of Trade to go to Caernarvon, and to take a good look at the quarries there—they are worth looking at, those gray, gaunt quarries, cut out of the Caernarvon range—and to meet the leaders of these fine men who work there, and to investigate the possibilities of giving this old industry new assistance to face the modern period.
    I understand that assistance of this sort has been rendered to the slate industry in Scotland. Why has it not been done for the Welsh industry? I hope that when Ministers do go to Caernarvon they will explain to the Welsh slate quarriers why, although we have a Minister for Welsh Affairs and the Scots have only a Secretary of State, there has been this discrimination.
    What I have said about the slate industry is also true of the granite industry, the great granite quarries of Penmaenmawr and Trevor. I think that a review is required in relation to the problems of that section of the quarrying industry also.
    Thirdly, we feel that there is scope for afforestation in the county, particularly in the Lleyn Peninsula, where suitable land and labour are available for the purpose and where new plantations might serve to help arable farming, providing badly needed shelter. Very few acres have been planted in this part of the county by the Forestry Commission, and we cannot understand why this is so. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if the Commission has any plans for this in the future in south Caernarvon.
    Fourthly, our county council wishes the Minister to consider the establishment of a nuclear research station related to the atomic power station in Trawsfynydd.
    There are other points I should have liked to raise, but I think it would be well to give the Minister a chance to deal with the points I have actually made. I will close by saying that if he has any hard information he can give us, for instance, about some of the promising signs of advance in the county, the proposal to set up a big new factory in Caernarvon district, the possibilities of expansion in Penygroes, the possibilities of utilising the former Air Ministry premises in Llanberis, we would welcome

    1275
    the information. If, more than that, he is able to give to this hard-pressed county, one which has sustained a very high level of unemployment for far too long a period, aid and assistance, so that our young people in particular are able to find livelihood and sustenance in their own county, he will be doing something more than contributing to its economic rehabilitation: he will also be assisting in the preservation of a way of life which we feel—and others agree—is well worth preserving.
    11.5 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) for the courtesy with which he has raised this question. It is a pleasure to listen to his Welsh voice. This being the first occasion on which I have had to deal with Welsh affairs, I should like to say how pleased I am to have tonight the support of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, both of whom are so vitally interested and do so much for Wales.
    I should like to thank the hon. Member right away for his invitation to visit Caernarvonshire, which I shall have the greatest pleasure in accepting. I should be happy to see not only the quarries which he suggested I should see but also other problems in his county and not only in his constituency. First, the hon. Member asked me about the current figures of unemployment. The November figure for Caernarvonshire is 6·1 per cent. as against 7·6 per cent. last year. Normally one has to expect some seasonal increase at this time of year and there has been an increase, as the hon. Member expected, of 0·8 per cent. since last month's count. This represents 276 on the roll.
    The annual average is 5·6 per cent. As the hon. Member rightly said, this figure masks a considerable difference between different parts of the county. The north-east, relatively near the big markets of Merseyside and not I think in the hon. Member's constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, has an annual average of 3·2 per cent. while the south has an annual
    1276
    average of 5·5 per cent. and the north-west an annual average of no less than 7 per cent.—that, of course, is a serious figure, but it represents a considerable improvement.
    If I may say so, I thought that the hon. Member was a little too gloomy about the position of youth. The youth employment officer for Caernarvonshire said the other day, I am informed, that the prospects for young people in the county are better now than they have been for many years. That, at least, is cheerful. As for the seasonal aspect, the area which the hon. Member represents is one of great beauty and it therefore attracts tourists. Inevitably it attracts them more in the summer months. Hence the area is liable to suffer from seasonal unemployment. Nevertheless, I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that it would be a great mistake not to do everything possible to make the most of the tourist trade.
    I agree with the hon. Member's essential analysis of the problem of Caernarvonshire, and of course it is not an unusual one. It is that of an area with one dominant industry, apart from agriculture, and that industry has been declining over the years. I am told that the slate industry once employed as many as 16,000 and the hon. Member mentioned 9,000 employed before the war. Now there are 2,700 employed. It is not that the industry is turning away labour, I understand. In some cases firms have difficulty in getting the labour they need because of the alternative employment offered, for example, at the hydro-electric and nuclear power station schemes.
    The hon. Member suggests a review of the whole industry. I thought that he was a little unfair in suggesting that Ministers do not know about this industry or have not shown sufficient interest in it. My right hon. Friend assures me that both he and the Minister of State have been in touch with the industry and that there have been conferences.
    I was glad to hear from the hon. Member, and it rather confirmed information that I have received, that there is a new outlook in the industry. There is good reason to hope that the present labour force will remain roughly at its present level and might even rise. There has even been some tendency to export

    1277
    this year—to Trinidad and Canada. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has tried to help the industry by encouraging local authorities to use slates on at least a proportion of their houses, and I believe that the authorities in Caernarvonshire are doing so. The Minister has said that the extra cost due to the use of slate will not be a reason for withholding loan sanction.
    The hon. Member also mentioned the granite industry. I hesitate to try to pronounce these names, but I believe that Penmaenmawr—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. G. Roberts: That effort deserves an Alpha.
    Mr. Macpherson: —I am obliged—I believe that Penmaenmawr is flourishing. I wish that I could say that the prospects at Trevor are as good. This also is an industry in which my right hon. Friend is taking a particular interest.
    The hon. Member also mentioned, in passing, assistance being given to slate quarries in Scotland. I am not certain where he gets this information from. I am sorry to say that the main slate quarry in Scotland is completely derelict and closed down. The only one I know of is a small one on an island which, as far as I know, is not getting any assistance.
    I agree that what Caernarvonshire needs is new industry. That, of course, is exactly what the Government have been trying to provide. But it is not just new industry but new industry with a good prospect of giving employment on a growing scale for a long time to come that is needed. The county has already attracted some, and the Board of Trade is trying its best to steer such industry there.
    The Board of Trade has suggested Caernarvonshire to 43 firms since January last, and 24 of them have visited the county to inspect sites and premises.
    1278
    Some of these firms, and some firms already established in the area, have made application for Board of Trade Advisory Committee assistance—B.O.T.A.C. assistance.
    The hon. Member was quite right when he quoted the Minister of State as saying that the purpose of the Local Employment Act was to promote employment. Indeed, that is in the Preamble to the Act. But it would be of no service to his constituency if encouragement and assistance were given to firms which, in a few years or few months, had to close down or lay off their employees. Nor would it be right to give Exchequer loans, the taxpayer's money, to firms with little prospect of paying them back. For both these reasons, it is essential that applications should be most carefully scrutinised by B.O.T.A.C.
    I should add, in passing, that it is not always B.O.T.A.C. that refuses assistance. It is sometimes the applicant who refuses assistance which B.O.T.A.C. offers. I was a little puzzled by the hon. Member's reference to a full order book, and I wonder whether what his possible constituents had in mind was the standard question which I believe is put to all applicants, "What do you estimate your trading prospects to be for the first three years?" The reason for that question is to judge whether and how soon the firm will be able to service the loan for which it is probably applying.
    As I told the hon. Member the other day, five applications are before B.O.T.A.C. at present. He thought that one had already been refused. If that is so, I am not, aware of it. These applications are being dealt with as quickly as possible.
    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 fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Training Council
  Industrial Training Council
  Polaris Submarine Base, Scotland
  Polaris Submarine Base, Scotland
  Dearne Valley
  Dearne Valley
BRITISH ARMY
  Medium Tank
  Medium Tank
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
POST OFFICE
  Postal Charges
  Postal Charges
  Stamp Machines
  Stamp Machines
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Selby
  Selby
  Barry
  Barry
TRANSPORT
  Road Safety (Dogs)
  Road Safety (Dogs)
  Road Accidents—Vehicles
  Road Accidents—Vehicles
ROADS
  Clearways (Right-hand Turns)
  Clearways (Right-hand Turns)
  Toll Roads
  Toll Roads
  Gants Hill, Ilford
  Gants Hill, Ilford
  Roundabouts and Flyovers
  Roundabouts and Flyovers
  Borrowash By-pass
  Borrowash By-pass
  Long-term Parking
  Long-term Parking
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Motorways
  Motorways
  New Roads (Traffic Lanes)
  New Roads (Traffic Lanes)
  Middlesbrough—Marton Road
  Middlesbrough—Marton Road
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  South Circular Road
  South Circular Road
  Holmes Chapel, Cheshire
  Holmes Chapel, Cheshire
RAILWAYS
  Coal Wagons (South Wales)
  Coal Wagons (South Wales)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
HOSPITALS
  St. Nicholas Hospital, Gosforth
  St. Nicholas Hospital, Gosforth
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Evacuation
  Evacuation
  Green Belt, South Hampshire
  Green Belt, South Hampshire
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Students, United Kingdom
  Students, United Kingdom
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  students, united kingdom
  students, united kingdom
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M.S. "Blake" (Gunnery Trials)
  H.M.S. "Blake" (Gunnery Trials)
EDUCATION
  Art Education (Report)
  Art Education (Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Members (Visits Abroad)
  Members (Visits Abroad)
SCOTLAND
  Bridge, Salsburgh
  Bridge, Salsburgh
  A.80 Road (Stepps)
  A.80 Road (Stepps)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell

VISCOUNT WARD OF WITLEY
The Center Honourable George Reginald Ward, having been created Viscount Ward of Witley, of Great Witley in the County of Worcester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

AFRICAN BIG GAME RESERVES
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the increasing emergence of African States to independence, they will take steps to safeguard the future of the African big game reserves,, either toy attempting to organise some central authority or by using their influence to see that the United Nations can be prevailed upon to accept ultimate responsibility.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have much sympathy with the noble Viscount's wish that the big game reserves in Africa should continue to be adequately safeguarded. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to this important matter.
The responsibility for protecting wild life in any sovereign State is, of course, a matter for the individual Governments concerned. Nevertheless, an organisation for co-ordinating efforts to protect wild life already exists, in the form of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The United Kingdom is represented on this body by the Nature
802
Conservancy. The International Union works in consultation with two specialized agencies of the United Nations, U.N.E.S.C.O. and F.A.O., and also with The Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara.
As the noble Viscount is probably aware, the International Union will be holding a conference on the conservation of African wild life in September, 1961. Her Majesty's Government welcome this initiative and hope that it will lead to the formation of a voluntary international forum engaging the support of all races in the African continent. I should like to add that Her Majesty's Government greatly value the efforts made by the Fauna Preservation Society and other kindred societies of the United Kingdom in furthering the cause the noble Viscount has in view.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for that full reply, but I should like to ask whether he is aware that there is increasing concern among naturalists of all races regarding the future of wild life in Africa, particularly since so many of these animals are unique to the African Continent. I should also like to ask whether the noble Marquess does not agree that the wild life of Africa is really a heritage of the whole world and ought not in the future to be left as the complete responsibility of the African people. I was glad to hear from the reply that Her Majesty's Government are concerned over this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount's first question, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the dangers of the situation. In answering his second question, I would call his attention to the fact that U.N.E.S.C.O. have taken up this matter seriously; and recently, as the noble Viscount probably knows, Sir Julian Huxley was sent out to Africa to make a careful survey of the situation. I should perhaps call attention to two admirable articles in the Observer of last Sunday and the Sunday before, in which I think it is made perfectly clear that this matter is being carefully studied; and the desirability of its being regarded as a matter of international importance is also being borne in mind.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON:My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office have any real reason to believe that the United Nations are seriously concerned to preserve the wild life of Africa? May I also ask whether, before handing over control of the national parks and other reserves to new Governments, Her Majesty's Government will obtain guarantees that these reserves will survive?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should have thought that the reply I have already given answers the noble Marquess's first Question: that, as no doubt the noble Marquess is well aware, U.N.E.S.C.O. are taking active steps. In reply to his second question, the answer must be, No; because it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to obtain any advance guarantees from Governments which will be sovereign. On the other hand, my center honourable friend the Colonial Secretary has told me that in the British African territories there is a structure of legislation and practice which it is hoped will set a pattern for the future; but, as I have said, no guarantees can be obtained in advance.

HISTORY OF PRISONERS OF WAR DEPARTMENT
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a history of the Prisoners of War Department of the War Office during the 1939–45 War has been written, and, if so, when it will be published.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, a history of the Prisoners of War Department of the War Office during the 1939–45 War, which was part of a series dealing with administration and staff work, was written to preserve experience gained during the Second World War. Neither this nor the other works in the series were ever intended for publication outside the War Office.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his
804
reply, could he answer this question, or bring it to the notice of his center honourable friend: if a research worker on the matter of prisoners of war wishes to consult this report, would it or would it not be available?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the report is available for official use in the War Office library.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I was not
referring to official use: I was referring to the case where a research student might want to write a book on the subject and asked for permission. Would he be given it or not?
EARL BATHURST: Permission may or may not be given, according to the wisdom of my center honourable friend with regard to that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, what was the object of writing the history, if it is not going to be of some general assistance to the public; and what was its cost? It seems to me an astonishing position.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I want to assure the noble Viscount opposite that there was no question of that. It was cleanly written in the directive to the officer who wrote this particular report that it was to be purely an internal War Office report for this particular department which administers the prisoners of war. There was never any question of the report being published. It is not a story, or anything of that sort. It is purely a factual report for use in this particular department of the War Office.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That seems to me all the more astounding. Have not a Prime Minister and Minister of Defence and all kinds of senior Staff Officers, written exactly what they like about it, relying upon official facts supplied to them? Was not the experience of the prisoners of war one of the greatest aspects to be considered in the history of the war? What is the use of spending all this public money if use is not going to be made of this report—if it is not going to be available to research people who want to look into this question?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I assure the noble Viscount that this report has nothing to do with actual prisoners

805
of war or their personal experiences. It is purely to do with the particular department which administered the prisoners of war during the war, and I am sure the noble Viscount himself has been responsible for many similar types of report in his Department.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I plead with the noble Earl to make strong recommendations? There are far too many important documents and despatches which would be of tremendous interest but which, for some reason that has never been given, never see the light of day—documents with which some noble Lords in this House have perhaps been concerned. I would ask whether some consideration might not be given to the wider aspect at the same time.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am sure consideration will always be given to any request made by the noble Lord opposite. But I assure him that this particular report is not one of the sort which he has in mind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Has the noble Earl read it? What is the assurance based on?
EARL BATHURST: I have seen a large amount of the contents thereof. It is extremely technical and relates entirely to administration of prisoners of war from his department in the War Office. It has nothing to do with prisoners of war as such.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that what one Prime Minister wrote was exceedingly technical in places? I sometimes wonder how much it is going to assist the international chess players in Moscow in the future. Surely, there is nothing against its being published just because it is technical?
LORD SHACKLETON: Would it be too technical for Penguin Books?
EARL BATHURST: No, my Lords; certainly it would not be suitable for Penguin Books. On a more serious note, I do not think I can say anything more to the noble Viscount opposite than what I have already said.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, is it not perfectly normal procedure for memoranda and special studies to be prepared in Departments for the information of Ministers and for record in the Department, without any thought or intention of publication?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, for that intervention. I understand that that is the position.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Perhaps the Minister might be aware that we have often, as Cabinet Ministers, been totally dissatisfied with the amount of information issued by the Foreign Office to Ministers.

STAMP DUTY ON SHARE TRANSACTIONS
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in the absence, through indisposition, of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their desire to encourage widespread shareholdings in private and public companies and, if so, whether they will reduce the 2 per cent. stamp duty generally or on small transactions.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Government recognise the economic and social importance of the wider ownership of industrial shares, and it would be in keeping with our policy to take such steps as may from time to time be reasonable to remove obstacles from the path of the small investor. I will pass on the noble Lord's suggestions to my center honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should, however, point out that proposals for abolishing or reducing the 2 per cent. stamp duty in the case of small share transactions have been considered in the past but have been rejected as impracticable, since there would be no effective means of ensuring that the relief was confined to bona-fide small transactions.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful reply.

NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE SITE
2.57 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether permission has been granted for any change of use of the land in Northumberland Avenue now occupied by the Constitutional Club.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, my center honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government held an inquiry into a proposal to redevelop this site in 1957, and he subsequently granted permission for the erection thereon of a new composite building comprising seven storeys of offices above ground level, with three further storeys above to be used by the Constitutional Club, and the basement to provide garage space.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer, and ask him this further question? In present circumstances, do not Her Majesty's Government agree that any development of this site which would increase the numbers of those compelled to travel daily into and out of this area would be contrary to the public interest? In these circumstances, since the development has not started, could not Ministers use all their legal powers to see that the public interest shall prevail?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this planning consent, as I informed my noble friend in my Answer, has been given, and my center honourable friend now has no further powers in this matter. Of course he took the considerations which have been mentioned into account when he gave that decision.
LORD SILKIN: Is the noble Earl aware that it is not correct that, once planning permission has been given, that is final? In proper circumstances, planning permission can be revoked. I should like to ask the noble Earl, further, whether this permission was unconditional, or whether, as is quite
808
common, it was subject to a condition that development must commence within a certain period?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think that this permission did not impose a condition that development must start within a certain period. I am not sure on that point, but from my memory of reading the very long consent letter I think no such condition was imposed.

SERVICES' RETIRED PAY AND PENSIONS
3.0 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to call attention to the retired pay and pensions of members of the Fighting Services, in particular the pensions of officers who retired before 1st February, 1960, and of other ranks who retired before 4th November, 1958, and the pensions and children's allowances of the widows of all ranks whose husbands died before 4th November, 1958; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion to-day I should make it clear from the outset that I am unfortunately not materially interested myself in the question of pensions, because I belong to that perhaps somewhat distinguished band of retired officers who are pensionless and known as castaways. A few weeks ago when I began to study the intricacies of Service pensions I soon became astonished at the chaotic state into which they had got. I think it would surprise many of your Lordships to learn that an able seaman or private soldier or equivalent rank in The Air Force discharged in 1922 gets a considerably higher rate of pension than one discharged in 1938. In the case of officers it is the other way round. What an astonishing display of muddle headedness and inconsistency!
The gravest case of all to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is the plight of officers' widows whose husbands died before November 4, 1958. This date line has already created two classes of widows, the first class whose husbands fought in one or both world wars and the second class whose husbands died after November 4, 1958. The second class of widows have quite recently had their pensions raised to one-third of their husband's retired pay, and this was very welcome indeed. But the

809
first class of widows have been left on what the Grigg Committee described as "ludicrously low pensions" except for a small rise of about 15 per cent. Since 1952 The cost of living has risen 24 per cent., so the widows have been worse off for those eight years. I know of a case of an officer of lieutenant-colonel rank who died in 1951 whose widow receives the princely sum of £161 14s. a year and has no National Insurance Pension. This officer fought in the Boer War and the First World War, signed up for clerical assistance in the Second World War, and did extremely well indeed. Is it justice that this poor and aged widow on a miserable pittance of £161 a year should have to Jive like that? It is all very well to talk of date-lines, but justice should and must come before such excuses, and I feel that the national conscience should be aroused so that this matter can be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. Incidentally, this aged widow of 81 years of age lives on a pension of £161 a year which is far less than what is paid, I believe, to a Sandhurst cadet on joining. He receives, of course, lodging' and food, and £291 a year.
I would remind your Lordships that National Insurance widows have had an increase of 77 per cent. since 1952, as against 15 per cent, for Service widows. Out of 9,900 widows in receipt of Service pensions, 5,348 are over 71 years of age, and therefore receive no National Insurance pension. As your Lordships will remember, no serving officer could contribute to National Insurance before June 6, 1948, and if they were over sixty years of age at that date they could not join it at all. A widow with one child receives, under National Insurance, £241 10s., but not so the Service widow, who receives only £198 4s. This difference is most unfair, and I think it is inconceivable that this position should be allowed to drift from year to year with an occasional debate upon it in your Lordships' House and another place.
Only recently in another place the Minister of Defence indicated that the direct cost of bringing the pensions of existing officers' widows up to the 1960 code would be only £350,000. What a paltry sum to bring justice to these unfortunate widows! I hope that the Minister who is to reply for Her Majesty's
810
Government will give some indication that this matter is under active consideration and that something will be done in the near future.
I should like to deal for a few minutes with the retired pay of Regular personnel. Under the 1945 code a private soldier or equivalent rank in the Navy or Air Force receives; 26s. 4d. a week. But if he is retired under the 1956 code he receives 33s., and under the 1959 code 44s. It is all very well to improve the position of Regular personnel retiring now and in the future in order to stimulate recruiting, but what about those under previous codes who have suffered severely from inflation and have been caused grave hardship? Surely pensions of retired personnel should be reviewed biennially, and all ratings and other ranks should receive pensions closely comparable to the pensions paid to-day irrespective of their date of retirement.
I should now like to take the opportunity of congratulating Her Majesty's Government on the increases in war widows' pensions which were announced quite recently: they are certainly most welcome. Perhaps I might be allowed to remind your Lordships that these awards are of course made to widows of officers, ratings and other ranks who were killed on service or have died from causes attributable to service. They are paid by the Minister of Pensions, and they must not be confused with widows' ordinary pensions with which we are dealing to-day. Widows ordinary pensions are awarded to those whose husbands have died from natural causes, and the Minister of Defence is responsible for payment out of the Defence Budget.
I have already mentioned the ordinary pensions of officers' widows, and I should like now to deal with those of ratings and other ranks. I think I should perhaps point out that no ordinary widows' pensions were available for ratings and other ranks before September, 1950, just ten years ago, except in the case of warrant officers, Class I, who had held that rank for five years. On the other hand, widows of ratings and other ranks discharged between September 1, 1950, and November 4, 1958, receive very small pensions indeed provided the husbands had completed 32 years, in the case of a private, or 27 years, in the case of a sergeant. What are these princely pensions? The

811
widow of a corporal with 32 years' service receives 11s. 7d. a week; the widows of a sergeant, or equivalent rank in the other Forces, with 27 years receives the same amount, 11s. 7d. a week.
When we look at the pensions of widows of ratings and other ranks discharged on or after November 4, 1958, however, we see that the position is considerably improved: they can all receive pensions at the rate of one-third of the husband's pension, provided that the husband has served 22 years. Why cannot all widows of ratings and other ranks be treated in the same way, regardless of the date of the husband's discharge? Surely it is the only fair thing to do. If the husband has completed the necessary service to qualify for a pension, I maintain that his widow should receive one-third of her husband's pension in accordance with the new code.
What about officers' retired pay. Again the position is very complicated. Officers retired before 1956 have had their pensions raised by 12 per cent., provided that they are over 60 years of age. Officers retired on the 1956 code have received a 4 per cent. rise, and these increases have been very much appreciated. But when we come to the 1960 code we find that the improvement is more marked still. This has, however created a differential of between 20 and 41 per cent. in comparison with the pensions of retired officers under the 1956 code. And, of course, the differential between the 1960 code and that of codes earlier than 1956—the 1919 code, for instance—is still more pronounced. It is this differential which is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction among officers who have had equal lengths of service and many of whom have served in both wars. Another cause of grave dissatisfaction is the age of 60 bar to pensions increases. I think it is true to say that officers' pensions have been geared to the requirements of the Civil Service. In the case of the Civil Service the age of 60 has been adopted as the qualifying age for pensions increases, because this is the normal retirement age for the great bulk of the Civil Service. On the other hand, Service officers have in the past been retired when their services were no longer required, and
812
frequently at a much earlier age man 60. In fact, I believe there has never been an officer of the Royal Air Force on the Active List after the age of 60.
Her Majesty's Government have frequently argued that all public service pensioners should be treated the same in all respects, and that those who retire before reaching the age of 60 should take up other employment. The fact is that neither of those arguments will stand close examination. In the first place, the argument is invalidated by the difference between the retirement ages of Civil Service and Service officers; and, secondly, I would say that experience shows that the great majority of retired officers endeavour to find civilian employment, and no inducement is necessary by the somewhat niggardly business of withholding a pension increase until the age of 60. It is true, of course, that the new career structure introduced into the pay code of 1960 may produce a different situation, but that has nothing whatever to do with officers' retired under previous codes.
I would repeat that the conditions of service and retirement are entirely different between the Service officers and the Civil Service. In fact, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on November 13, 1958, in your Lordships' House used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212, col. 548]:
"I would say that of course Service pensions are of an entirely different character from Civil Service Pensions."
I do not think it could have been put more plainly than that. The Pensions Acts designed to cover civil servants, school teachers, police and fire services and so on, are fully debated in Parliament, but not so the pensions of the Armed Forces, which are dealt with by Royal Warrant and are awarded arbitrarily. It is also, I think, just as well to remember that retired officers receive retired pay with a liability to recall in the event of mobilisation. That is not quite the same thing as a normal pension with no strings attached.
My Lords, I would sum up by saying that I feel that insufficient consideration is given to the entirely different conditions of former members of the Forces, and that retired officers should have their retired pay brought up to the level of those of the same rank and service

813
on the latest retired pay code. I would again emphasise that retired officers under 60 years of age should not be excluded from receiving pension increases for the reasons I have mentioned to your Lordships. Last, but not least, officers' widows who lost their husbands before November 4, 1958, and their children, should be granted pensions equatable to pensions granted to those bereaved on or after that date. In the case of other ranks and ratings, similar provision should, I think, be made; and all widows should be treated in the same way, regardless of the date of the husband's death or discharge—provided, of course, that those husbands had completed the necessary service. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take another look at the pensions situation as a whole and especially as regards the plight of existing widows, which is deplorable and should be put center at the earliest possible moment. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.14 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, everyone in your Lordships' House must feel indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for bringing this matter before your Lordships this afternoon. I find myself, not necessarily on every point of detail, but in general, completely in line with him, especially in the effort to prod Her Majesty's Government into action in this matter along lines which I think will commend themselves to your Lordships' House as a whole.
It is extraordinary how muddled the whole situation with regard to pensions for officers or for other ranks is. I believe that there are no fewer than half a dozen codes now operating in regard to pensions for officers, the latest of them being that announced in the early part of this year. As regards other ranks, there are a vast number of pay warrants, pensions warrants, pensions increase orders and a certain amount of legislation. It would be a great service if Her Majesty's Government were to find it possible—and it is possible—to include in one single, compendious, intelligible document the whole of the provisions relating to officers and those relating to other ranks. Flow little intelligible these documents may be struck me very much as I was listening to the noble Lord just now.
814
As we know, and as his speech gave evidence, he has spent much time and thought upon this problem. I cannot profess to have either the same detailed knowledge or to have given to it the same study; but I have taken some care in the matter, and I am bound to tell him that some of my figures differ from the figures that he has given. I do not say that in any way in criticism of the noble Lord; I mention it to show how difficult it is, even for people who have various sources of information open to them, to arrive at a solid conclusion as to what this vast medley of muddled, subordinate legislation actually means. How difficult, therefore, is it for officers or other ranks to find out exactly what it is to which they are entitled!
If this whole complex scheme of pensions were comprised in a single-document, I think it would become clear, first to the draftsman who attempted the task, and then to those in the Services who bad to study, read or administer the Scheme, how many inconsistencies there are and how difficult it is really to justify, in the year 1960, codes of pension going back to 1919. For that is what the position is today—half a dozen codes going back to 1919, all of them in operation to-day according to the date at which an officer was retired from the Forces. To me that seems an extraordinarily unsatisfactory situation. If there were a single comprehensive code, that should of course be designed so as to deal with the circumstances as they are at the time of the creation of such a new code—in other words, to deal with the facts and people as they are to-day. I must say frankly— and it is center that I should do so—that the 1960 code involves a great improvement. It is a code applicable to officers after April of this present year, 1960; and it certainly mitigates the position a great deal so far as those who retired after that date are concerned. But that code affects not at all those who retired before that date: they stand where they stood before. They stand where they stood before in a way that I think is perhaps little comprehended by certain of your Lordships who have not studied this matter.
The Government have stated that they accept the recommendation of What I

815
may call the Grigg Report as regards a biennial review of pensions, but that undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government is now, as I understand it, interpreted administratively so as to apply only to post-1960 rates and not to the earlier rates. If that be so—and, as I say, I understand it to be—it seems to me clear that officers who retired earlier still have to stand upon the earlier codes, depending on the date of their retirement and without any prospect of remedial action as a result of biennial or periodic reviews. If I should be mistaken in my information on that point, no doubt the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he replies, will put me right. But I understand Chat what I have said is the interpretation which those responsible to the Government for the administration of these codes actually put upon the agreement which they published with a recommendation in this behalf of the Grigg Report.
I believe that it is very necessary we should ask ourselves what is the right question to put with regard to these matters. I believe that the question should be not whether an adjustment should be made, but what adjustment and how it should be made, whether we make it by asserting and maintaining that pension rates are immutable, or whether we accept the view that periodic reviews should be made to bring pensions into line with current economic conditions. Which of those two courses is preferred matters but little, I think, because when the calculation is done the pension should be very much the same whichever course is adopted. But that the Government should commit themselves to taking one or other of those courses, either abandoning their contention that pensions are immutable or giving an undertaking for a biennial review throughout the whole range of the codes, seems to me am inescapable obligation falling upon the Government.
It is not merely a matter, under this or that code, of justice to those who suffer harsh economies because of the changed economic circumstance since they retired. It is also a matter much to the public interest that this should be done; for we are all well aware of the great difficulties in finding recruits,
816
whether for the commissioned ranks or otherwise, for the Armed Forces. Every day one may find in the Press advertisements urging young men to seek commissions in Her Majesty's Forces and stating the good conditions that are offered to them. As many of your Lordships know, I would support any effort of that kind that I felt I honestly could support, and I am most anxious to see the ranks, both of commissioned officers and of other ranks, fully filled in each of the three Services comprising the Armed Forces of the Crown.
I am bound to say, however, that I think we make it as difficult as possible for ourselves and for the nation if prospective recruits or young men, soon after they have joined the Armed Forces, come across—as they must inevitably do, for they cannot help it—so many instances of former officers and other members of the Armed Forces who are living in greatly restricted conditions, perhaps on the poverty line, because of the smallness of the pensions which they now receive after a lifetime of service—many years, comprising the whole of their working life. That has a very deleterious and detrimental effect on the whole prospects of recruiting and on the morale of those actually in the Armed Forces of the Crown. As many of your Lordships know, I have taken over a period of years (at one time more than now, perhaps, but age tells) an active part in trying to obtain recruits for the Armed Forces and I must say gravely to your Lordships that I feel we are placing obstacles in our own way by not taking a wider, longer view of the repercussions of niggardly pensions upon those who will have served the State; because all these recruits and young men are, we may hope, people who will in time have served the State; and they look to what is going to happen in the future.
I associate myself warmly with what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said with regard to pensions for widows. I believe I am center in saying that widows' pensions are not part of what I will call, not very accurately, the contractual obligation between the Service and the officer or other rank, but I know what a good employer should do—at least, I hope I do. A good employer not only must have regard to the contractual

817
obligations which are restrictive upon his employees (and that is why he enters into those obligations) but must be prepared to disregard or modify other restrictions he has imposed in favour of himself if he wishes to have, in circumstances such as these, the reputation of a really good employer. I see that every day and I try, in my own small way in my own firm, to practise it. Where the pension contracted for is manifestly inadequate for the changed circumstances of the time, then a private person or a single firm must survey the situation and put their hands in their pockets and make good, so far as they feel they can, the deficiency between what has been contracted for and what they feel their employee should have. That is how I believe the good employer should function. I feel, and I am sure your Lordships do too, that Her Majesty's Government, especially in relation to the Armed Forces of the Crown, should not do less than the good employer might be expected to do by his own good sense and the judgment of his fellows without the same obligations resting upon him as upon the Government.
I know that the widows' pensions have been granted to widows only latterly. The widows of other ranks discharged before September 1 this year (1950), except the widows of certain warrant officers whom I believe the noble Lord has mentioned, receive no widow's pension. The only State pension received by many of these widows is the old 10s. a week pension which has never been increased, the pension which the older ones among us remember being introduced in the early days of the century.
Then there are the widows of other ranks discharged between September 1, 1950, and November 4, 1958. I really do not know why such dates as these are selected, for they are difficult to remember and difficult in calculation. Those widows receive very small pensions, and then only provided their husband has completed long service. I want to tell your Lordships what these pensions are. Long service is 32 years for a private or corporal and 27 years for a sergeant. The widow of a corporal with 32 years' service (which may be assumed to be the whole of his active working life) receives 13s. 11d. a week; the widow of a sergeant with 27 years' service
818
receives 10s. 6d. a week; and for a child the pension is 3s. 6d.
Now I come to my last figure for widows of other ranks discharged on or after November 4, 1958. They can all receive pensions at the improved rate of one-third of the husband's pension, provided that the husband had completed 22 years' service. Thus, the widow of a corporal with 22 years' service receives 18s. 4d. a week, or with 32 years' service 35s. a week; and that of a sergeant with 27 years' service receives 34s. 8d. a week, with a children's pension of 11s. 8d. When you consider that the pension these widows thus receive may be their sole source of support, I cannot help but feel that your Lordships will share my view that the pensions are inadequate, are painfully low for the widow of a man who has spent 22, 27 or 32 years in the service of the State and has been open to all the risks of being a member of the Armed Forces of the Crown, to be sent hither and thither as circumstances may require.
My Lords, I end as I began. I should like to see one single code applicable to officers and a single code applicable to other ranks. They should take into account the circumstances of the time in which we live; they should take into [account future circumstances as they may change. Everyone should know, on entering the Forces, or when within the Forces, or when retired, beyond a per-adventure what they may expect to receive from the State for the service which they or their husband or their father will have given to the State. I support the Motion.
3.33 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I must begin by joining the last speaker in expressing my warm gratitude and the gratitude of many others to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for putting down this Motion. I am not in a position to discuss in detail the nature and terms of Service pensions generally. May I be allowed for a moment—I shall be very brief—to look at the pensions question generally, as illustrated by what has been said by the noble Lords who have preceded me? A pension is a sum of money on which people depend for livelihood when they are past work, or which their dependants depend on when they are dead and gone. We all know that the value of a pension in terms of a sum

819
of money has been altering continually and, on the whole, becoming less and less as prices have gone up and up. That does not apply only to Service pensions. When the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was notified I received a number of communications from people interested in pensions of all kinds, urging me to take what opportunity I could of mentioning that people other than serving officers were also finding themselves in growing want through inflation. I am not going to talk in any detail about those others. I need give, perhaps, only a couple of instances of other forms of retired people.
It is interesting to notice that, to some extent, the pensions of those in the Fighting Services are said to be related to, or fixed with some reference to, what has been done for the home Civil Service, or, it may be the Indian Civil Service—I do not know which. I know this about the Indian Civil Service: that the £1,000 a year my father ended by enjoying as an Indian Civil servant, after it had been fixed at that sum was unaltered until 1954, and since then it has been raised to £1,370. That means, broadly, that the pension went up 37 per cent. while the prices between, shall we say, 1938 and 1958 went up 180 per cent. There is the destruction of the value of a pension in that particular Service—and it applies to all sorts of other pensions—through inflation.
I know about the home Civil Service in the same way. May I say that I am not making a breach of privilege in talking about the home Civil Service on the grounds that I was for a time a civil servant in the home Service I am, indeed, a retired civil servant. There is no breach of privilege in my talking about the pensions of the home Civil Service because, as it happens, I have no pension from that Service. I worked for ten years as a civil servant, but the Treasury decided that if one left after ten years one could get a pension only if one proved one was either physically or mentally incapable. I never discovered why they thought I had not proved I was mentally incapable by leaving the Civil Service before I had to, but that was their view and I was unable to alter it. I compare 1938 with 1958 because it so happens that in 1958 a number of us made a careful study of
820
how prices had moved in those twenty years. They had gone up by about 180 per cent, in those twenty years while Indian Civil Service pensions went up 37 per cent, and the pensions of those in the home Civil Service went up about 50 per cent. There, again, we have inflation destroying the value of pensions and the thing upon which people and their dependants live.
I suggest that that makes it necessary for the State to be continually reviewing its pensions of all kinds, for the Services, as proposed in this Motion, and for all the other pensioners. The State must not say, "We cannot afford to give more pensions because prices have gone up. We are too poor." The answer to that is that, after all, the State is getting taxation on the basis of present prices and the present value of money. Therefore, it is in its own interests and in the interests of justice to humanity to see that pensions of all kinds are adequate in relation to the value of money at the time.
The trouble is that these continual renewals and revisions of pensions do not lead anywhere. If we revise pensions most thoroughly to-day and then allow inflation to go on destroying the value of money, we have to do the same thing all over again in three or four or five years' time to do justice to those receiving pensions. I suggest that in dealing with pensions and in making a tolerable and intelligible system of any kind we should take some power to put an end to inflation in order to avoid this perpetual review and muddle about pensions.
There is another, and for me much more important, reason: that is, that reasonably stable money is a condition of the freedom of the individual in planning his own life and in deciding how he will spend his money—whether he will spend it now, keep it for his old age or keep it for his dependants. If he does not know whether it is going to be worth the same amount, or only a half or a quarter of the amount, twenty years hence, he cannot plan his life. So I regard stable money as an essential condition to the liberty of the individual to manage his own life. It has been the natural desire of Britons ever since they had any money at all. For 300 years there was a fairly stable level of prices, until Henry VIII started on his inflation.

821
After that, they had another long period of stable prices until there was the inflation that followed full employment.
I suggest that, with pensions, the important thing is not strictly to deal with pensions, but somehow to deal with inflation, on the ground that reasonable stability of money is a citizen center next in importance to the five other, possibly more important, citizen centers. Next to freedom from war, freedom from disorder, freedom from want, freedom from needless disease and freedom from needless ignorance, there must be freedom from inflation. There must be stable money if there is to be freedom. As I said in another place once, and as I said again recently, I hope that employers and employees will find the means to get that freedom from inflation. But if they do not, then I suggest that the most important thing the Government can do about pensions is themselves to bring in the necessary controls that put an end to making nonsense within the next few years of any pensions scheme they fix to-day. I want to suggest that that is the ultimate moral not only of this debate but of all other debates about the spending of money and about the allocation of the resources of the State to prevent poverty, want and misery of all kinds to people after they have finished work.
3.43 p.m.
LORD FREYBERG: My Lords, I am sure that we all are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Teynham for bringing before us this afternoon this important matter. Lord Teynham's Motion calls the attention of your Lordships to the anomalies that exist in
"…the retired pay and pensions of members of the Fighting Services, in particular the pensions of officers who retired before February 1, 1960, and of other ranks who retired before November 4, 1958, and the pensions and children's allowances of the widows of all ranks whose husbands died before November 4, 1958."
As your Lordships all know, the conditions of retired members of the Armed Services, and especially those of their widows, are far from satisfactory; so I hope that your Lordships will once more lend your valuable support on their behalf.
As to pay and pensions, the Advisory Committee on Recruiting recommended in 1958, and the Government agreed, that
822
there should be an automatic biennial review of pay and pensions that will take into account the movements in civilian earnings. The first review has been completed, and the results have been announced. The White Paper, Service Pay and Pensions (Cmnd. 945) introduced considerable increases in serving pay and in the future retired pay for officers of the Armed Services, in order to overcome the serious shortage in officer recruitment. But no provisions are included for officers already retired, or for existing widows. On December 11 last, we, the Officers' Pensions Society, wrote to the Minister of Defence and proposed improvements in pay and pensions for the retired officers and their widows. We were, however, informed that at present the Minister of Defence felt there was no possibility of our request being met. Then on February 18—two months after that reply—the Minister received a deputation at which he said he would give consideration to the views they expressed.
Unfortunately for us, our President, the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, who has worked so hard for the Officers' Pensions Society, and who fully supports us, is not well enough to be able to attend here in your Lordships' House and take part in this debate. I will therefore give you a summary of the representations that have been made to the Minister, and I should be most grateful if your Lordships could see your way to supporting these requests during the forthcoming debate on Defence.
There are three requests made by the Officers' Pensions Society on behalf of retired officers and officers' widows. The first is that the retired pay and pensions of existing retired officers and widows should be reviewed at the same time as serving officers' pay and future pensions, thereby ensuring appropriate and automatic compensation for falls in the value of money to retired officers and widows, as in the case of officers on the Active List. The second request is that officers' widows who lost their husbands before November 4, 1958, should be granted pensions equivalent to the pensions of widows bereaved on or after that date. The third request is that retired officers under 60 years of age should not be excluded from receiving increases to compensate them for the fall in the value

823
of their retired pay. As yet, improved rates have been refused, to officers already retired and to widows, because the Government have contended that pensions are immutable and that, once awarded, they are not normally subject to change, even though there has been devaluation and inflation.
Now, a word, my Lords, on the Report on Defence. We are now in the third year of the five-year plan on which our defences are being organised, and no major change has taken place except one—a very important one: that the Women's Services are now an integral part of the Armed Forces of the Crown. Women are now employed on many tasks in the Services which are traditionally done by men; for example, as skilled vehicle mechanics, airframe mechanics, engineer draughtsmen and instrument makers, just to mention one or two. By releasing men for more active duties, they are making an essential contribution to the efficiency of the Services.
On the future of the Services, I agree that, whatever change may come about in defence policy as a result either of technical development or of disarmament, no Government can foresee a time when this country will not need highly trained, professional forces to help us play our part in world affairs. For a more peaceful world, these forces might eventually take on a wider, international role, but the need for them will remain. I ask your Lordships to support Lord Teynham's Motion.
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, in taking part in this debate on retired pay and pensions of members of the Fighting Services, I think I should first declare an interest, in that I am myself a retired officer on the 1945 scale. I am also one of those who are excluded from eligibility for the most recent code, the 1960 code, because I retired before 1st February, 1960.
I think the first question we all want to know is: how do Her Majesty's Government justify the setting of an arbitrary date in the grant of increases of pensions? The principle of an increase has been recognised by the various Pensions Increase Acts; in fact, I have
824
benefited by something to the extent of a 12 per cent. increase in my retired pay since I retired. Whether that has kept pace with the rise in the general cost of living, or the fall in the value of money, I should not like to say; I think that is a matter for the economists. But it has been calculated by competent people that in the case of persons such as myself who, with the increases, are now drawing a matter of £800 a year, if this were to compensate for the fall in the value of money it should be £1,000 a year, 25 per cent. more than it actually is. My Lords, it is not necessary to labour this point. The Government, on the advice of the Grigg Committee, considered that officers' retired pay should be at a certain level; and that level is now known as the 1960 rate. Can we be told how the Government justify leaving officers on earlier rates at a lower level?
Turning now to the case of the widows' pensions, which I think we shall all agree deserves priority, we have this same extraordinary situation: that widows whose husbands died before a certain date are excluded from the benefits of the more recent codes. The figures, I am told, are that the existing widows—that is, those whose husbands died before 1958—number 8,741. Those widows, even widows of officers of the higher ranks, colonel and brigadier, have a pension of some £250–£280 a year, including all increases. The pension of many widows of majors and captains goes down to £3 a week, or less. But if they were widowed after 1958 they would have got a minimum of £225 a year and a maximum of nearly £500. Wondering how Her Majesty's Government could justify this difference in treatment, I looked, first of all, at the Government's comments on the Grigg Committee Report, and then at the Grigg Committee Report itself. The curious thing I noticed was that in the Grigg Committee recommendations, in paragraph 256, which concerns family pensions, they say:
"Existing scales of family pensions result in widows receiving ludicrously low payments. This is bad for recruiting, and we recommend (Recommendation (vi)), that future family pensions should be increased"—
and so on. The word "future" has been inserted there in the recommendation by the Grigg Committee, though I

825
must confess that suspicion crept into my mind that it was perhaps the Government who had inserted that word. Then I noticed that it was in the recommendation of the Grigg Committee themselves.
My Lords, I find it very difficult to understand, if They say that widows' pensions are "ludicrously low", and if they say elsewhere that the lowness or meanness of some of these pensions is a direct disincentive to persons to join the Army, why they put in that word. Can the Government give us any indication why that recommendation was drafted in that way? For, reading the Report as a whole, I see every justification for saying that the recommendations should be retrospective or should be applied equally to all categories of retired persons and their widows.
So, my Lords, I think we can say that the burden of this debate is all too simple and all too familiar. It is that, by the working of the machinery, some categories of persons in the Armed Forces, and their families, come off badly. Apart from the question of equity—whether it is center in equity that servants of the State should be treated in this way—we have the fact that the Grigg Committee found that nowadays parents are probably a paramount influence in young men's deciding on their future career, and your Lordships will appreciate that the parent, more than a young man, would know the effects of pension conditions in later life. It is, indeed, as if, as my noble friend Lord Nathan said, we are putting obstacles in the way of getting an ample supply of The best material for the Armed Forces. Finally, I should like to quote another sentence from the Report of the Grigg Committee. It is:
"The Government must not only be a good employer, but must be seen to be so."
3.59 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have already spoken this afternoon, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for raising this subject yet once more in your Lordships' House. He has, I think, performed a very considerable public service by so doing. I do not want to keep the House long, and therefore in what I say I should like to devote myself to that portion of the Motion
826
which refers to pensions for retired officers and retired officers' widows. I do this not because the somewhat wider issues raised by the Motion are not equally important, but because it fell to my lot on a number of occasions in the past, when I was still leading your Lordships' House, to have to answer debate on the particular subject of retired officers' pensions.
In those days I gave the Government's view, as indeed I was bound to do; but I confess—and I believe that I said so at the time—that I never felt great enthusiasm for doing so. I always had to give endless explanations about the machinery under which the original rates of pension had been drawn up at the end of the First War, how those pensions were fixed at what at that time (1935) was a generous level, and how all this past history governed and limited any action the Government could take now. But I always had an uneasy feeling, as no doubt other noble Lords had, that we were approaching this problem from the wrong angle.
After all, surely all that past history, though no doubt extremely interesting historically, is largely irrelevant to the present situation. That is what I felt. I felt that Parliament ought not now to be concerned in its care for these old servants of our country with that historical course of events, which has led to the present situation, but rather with how those schemes, which were drawn up with such care and sympathy with those who were to receive the pensions, have worked out in practice. In short, I feel that Parliament ought to be concerned more with the results of the policy than with the origins of the policy.
And on the results, what is the hard, simple bare truth which we all have to face? It is surely this: as they have worked out in practice, the older a retired officer happens to be—and the less likely he is to be able to supplement his pension by his own earnings—the smaller the pension he receives. That is the position with which we are faced today. To take only one example, if an officer under 60 retired with the rank of major under the 1919 code—that is to say, if he belongs to what might be called the oldest category of retired officers, those who retired between 1914 and 1945—he would get to-day £448 a

827
year. If he retired as major under the 1945 code—that is to say, if he retired between 1945 and 1950, if he was in fact a younger and more vigorous man, he would get £475 a year. If retired as a major under the 1956 code—that is to say between 1956 and 1960, when he was much younger and presumably still able to earn, he gets £625 a year. Finally, if he retires now under the 1960 code—that is to say, from 1960 onwards—he will get £875, or nearly £300 more than a man of the same rank who was pensioned under the 1919 code and who must be at the present time 60 years of age or over.
That cannot be center. I do not care what the principle was on which the original pensions schemes were based, that cannot be center. One would have expected, in all reason, that it ought to be exactly the other way round. I know that I shall probably be told that, although all these things are extremely unfortunate and things were not intended to work out as they have, it is inevitable that these pension schemes should have worked out in this way because they were brought into operation under Royal Warrants and, as we have often been told in your Lordships' House, a Royal Warrant is immutable. Like the laws of the Medes and Persians, it cannot be changed. I do not think that that is in the strictest sense of the word correct, because I believe that I am center in saying that the rates of pension under these codes have been readjusted from time to time. But what is true is that differentiations between the various codes and the various rates of pension which exist under those codes have always remained. Those differentiations have never been swept away and it is still true that the older and the more infirm retired officers get less than the younger and more active ones. That is the main anomaly and it is still with us.
That being so, one cannot help wondering sometimes whether a Royal Warrant, if it is as rigid as that, is really the best basis for schemes of this kind. Conceive of Parliament adopting a scheme, say for old age pensions, based on a machinery under which a man of 85 always receives less Chan a man of 70, just because he first received his pension under earlier legislation. How
828
very strange people would think that was, and how the older pensioner would protest, and centerly, that "My pension may have been granted under earlier legislation than the other man, but my costs of living are just the same as his now." Actually I should have thought that, in all equity, many of us might well feel that the pensions of these older officers who can no longer fend for themselves, as they once were able to do, should be higher, not lower, than those of men younger than themselves and still of working age.
We realise, of course, that that is impossible. That would be asking much too much. But certainly they ought not to be lower. If it be suggested, as I believe it has been suggested in the past, that to make a concession of this kind and bring up the pensions of older officers to the level of the pensions of officers retired under the latest code would start another pensions race, I really do not think that that is a reasonable or defensible argument. I do not for one moment believe—I do not think that any of us believe—that we shall start a pensions race merely by raising the pensions of older men to the level—and no higher—of that which will be received by the younger men under the 1960 code. I am sure that to do that would be regarded by the general public as merely plain justice.
And that raises another point which I think your Lordships ought to consider. It does not seem that there is at present adequate machinery for continuous review of these pensions in the light of changing conditions. I should have thought that it ought to be possible to devise some machinery to enable the pensions of retired officers to be reviewed automatically at stated periods, in the light of changes in the standard of living in this country. I should have thought that some machinery of that kind was essential if we are to have an equitable pension system. But it is clear, at any rate so far as retired officers are concerned, that such machinery does not exist to-day or pensions would certainly have been reviewed in February of this year when current serving pay, as has been mentioned, and future pensions were considerably increased but when, as we know, nothing was done to improve the pensions of existing retired officers.

829
This brings me finally to the other main subject mentioned in the Motion, which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Teynham and others—that is, the pensions of the widows of retired officers. I would beg the Government, as did the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to consider in particular the pensions of widows of officers who lost their husbands before November 4, 1958. For some reason, which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, very naturally described as "extraordinary", a differentiation, as we all know, was made last year between those ladies who lost their husbands before November 4, 1958, and those who lost them after that date. Those who were bereaved after that date receive an increased pension, but those who were bereaved before that date receive no such increase. I do not know what is the reason for that differentiation Is it supposed, for instance, that the expenses of a lady bereaved after that magic date are greater than those of a lady bereaved before that date? If so, we ought to be told so; and if that is not the reason, we ought to be told what is the basis for the calculation that was made. For, if there is not an equitable reason for the differentiation, it seems to me extremely hard that these earlier widows should be gratuitously penalised.
My Lords, retired officers and the widows of retired officers are very defenceless people. For one thing, there are comparatively few of them; and, moreover, they are as a class extremely public spirited and proud. They are not the kind of people who make a fuss; they would much rather suffer in silence. But that, to my mind, makes the responsibility of us who have to protect their interests in Parliament all the greater to see that they get justice. I am not for a moment saying that they deserve more justice than other members of the community; but they deserve quite as much. These retired officers have given their lives to the service of their country, and the provision which the country has made for them in their declining years has not, I think, kept pace with the increased provision which is made, and rightly made, for other pensioned sections of the population. Were that differentiation to continue, I am sure we should all agree that it would be a slur on us all; and therefore, like other noble
830
Lords to-day, I appeal most earnestly to the Government to take urgent and adequate steps to remove it.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for bringing forward this Motion. Most of us who have spoken already on this subject, and those who will speak later on, have done so many times before. We see in the Motion the objects of this debate. I think that what all of us who have spoken or are going to speak are trying 'to do is to get the Government to do away with hardship and to arrange that ex-Service personnel should have the means to live up to the general standard of life, which they cannot do under present conditions. As I have said before, I am convinced that dissatisfaction with pay and pensions has a very bad effect on recruiting, especially as the people about whom we are talking, the Service families, are one of our biggest recruiting areas (if one can call a conglomeration of Service families an area) from which we get our officer recruits. We must remember that point.
I feel that we should congratulate the Government on the 1960 code. As has been said already, the chief cause of dissatisfaction has been, and is being, caused by all these different codes. In cricket there are six balls in an over; and a slow bowler, I understand (I am not a cricketer), makes a different type of delivery with each ball in order to muddle the batsman. Here we have, both in regard to the officers' retired pay and the long service pensions of other ranks, six codes. Whether they are meant not only to muddle all of us but to muddle the poor pensioners as well, I am not certain; but, anyway, it causes these differentials about which other noble Lords have spoken. The differential between the 1956 and the 1960 code is, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has already said, between 21 per cent. and 40 per cent.; and if one compares the earlier codes, the differential is even more pronounced. Officers in these codes—that is to say, those of 1956 and earlier—find it impossible to understand why they, who have given exactly the same service, and possibly most of them in two world wars, should be treated differently from those of this later code. Certainly it seems extraordinary that they should be so treated.

831
The other dissatisfaction is on the question of the age of 60. It seems strange that an officer under 60 who has to retire when his services are no longer required and there is no job for him (he has no option but to retire; and, in fact, some 62 per cent. of the present officer pensioners are under 60) should get no increase such as he would get were he over 60. In many oases, as I say, it is not the officer's fault that he has to retire; there simply is no job for him. The old argument about the Civil Service cannot be said to be applicable, because the civil servant can, if he so desires—and "if he so desires" is, I think, the operative phrase—go on working until he is 65. During the time he is in the Civil Service he has learned what might be called a trade, whereas in many cases an officer who retires has not learned a trade. Some do learn trades, in the technical branches, but many do not. These officers who are under 60 are probably going through a period when their expenses are just as great as at any other period of their lives, yet they cannot get any increase.
We must remember that the sons of these officers are those to whom we look for recruits. These sons may say to themselves: "Well, these pensions look all center at the moment, but look what they did to our fathers in their day. When they had to retire they were not given any increases, although the standard of living had gone up and things were much more expensive. What will happen to us?" They may even say: "This 1960 code is all center, but will it be reviewed; and if things go up, what will happen to us?" That surely must be a deterrent to recruiting.
The next point I want to make has been touched on before, and it is the question of the widows. As has been said already, here the situation is very bad indeed. The difficulty occurs over this date-line which has been talked about. I think that reference to these date-lines is rather like having a committee of a club trying to fix the distance beyond which a member can live and pay a country subscription. These datelines always cause trouble; they cause a lot of ill-feeling, and in most cases I think they should be put on one side as being unfair. In the case of pensions, for widows and for everybody, the
832
Government cannot afford to be unfair. Nor is it center that they should be. I should like to see the 1958 date-line abolished.
Turning to the long-service pensions for other ranks, here again the position is extremely complicated and, I think, unfair. Again, there are six different codes. As we know, all men who receive a pension have completed 21 or 22 years service. Almost all of them have done active service overseas, and I consider— and I think it is generally considered—that within their own ranks they should be treated alike. But that, as your Lordships have already heard to-day, is not so. With a few exceptions, those drawing pensions under the pre-1945 rate are eligible for a higher rate than a man provided for at any age by the codes of 1945 to 1950, or 1956. Privates retired under the 1959 code are worse off than those under the pre-1945 code, though sergeants and warrant officers are better dealt with under both the 1956 and 1959 codes.
Apart from the figures I have given your Lordships—and you have already been given others—it looks as if the six codes produce a muddle on this point, with some being paid more than others—for no apparent reason. I believe that we all consider that there is definite hardship in the Service pension schemes. There is hardship for the more elderly retired officers, as the noble Marquess has told your Lordships. There are hardships because of differentials. One man may say of another: "I cannot understand why he should be paid more than I am. We did the same amount of service, but we are one year different in age." There is bitter feeling, and I feel that even if pensions cannot be raised to the present 1960 code, they should at least be brought as close to it as possible
4.23 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I will endeavour to make my remarks as brief as possible, for two reasons: first, so as not to be repetitive to any great extent owing to the fact that in the early stages of this debate I was sitting on a Commitee upstairs; and secondly, as I propose to touch only on the question of Service widows' pensions. Before going any further, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Teynham for initiating such an appropriate

833
Motion. To the word "appropriate" I might add "timely", for on November 2 last the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance indicated increases with regard to war pensions. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government and say that I warmly welcome the proposals for increasing war widows' pensions, whether it be for the widows of privates, non-commissioned officers or officers, and I should also like to congratulate the Government for increasing the rent allowance for widows with children.
The Government have also accepted proposals put forward by the National Assistance Board for increasing the scale rates of National Assistance. With all that, I am in complete agreement. But no proposals have been put forward for increasing Service widows' pensions. More than 50 per cent. of existing widows bereaved before November 4, 1958—a date which has been mentioned a number of times—are over 72 years of age and are, therefore, too old to qualify for National Insurance pensions. It is mainly to the case of the existing widows bereaved before that datum line that I especially wish to draw your Lordships' attention this afternoon.
I believe I am center in saying that they number 9,243, a not inconsiderable figure. Of that number. 8,741 receive pensions ranging from £127 2s. 0d. to £288 6s. 0d.: that is, from a lieutenant's widow's pension to the pension that a brigadier's widow would draw. The low figures I have mentioned take in the 15½ per cent. increase which has taken place since 1952. But during the same period the cost of living has gone up by 24 per cent. Why this discrimination when, since 1952, National Insurance widows' pensions will, by next April—that is, taking the present proposals of Her Majesty's Government into consideration—have increased by 77 per cent. and National Assistance widows' pensions will have been increased by 53 per cent.?
I have included the latest Government proposals referred to by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on November 2, for he also said on that day [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 529 (No. 2), col. 172]:
"This implements the policy of the Government that they should share in the rising standards of the nation."
834
Why is it that these widows should not also be entitled to share in the rising standards of the nation? It is surely unjust not to allow these 9,000 elderly ladies to share in these rising standards. Some 2,800 officers' widows receive less pension on account of their husband's service in the Armed Forces than a widow drawing a National Insurance pension, and 8,741 of these widows are drawing a pension which is less than the pay of an 18-year old cadet at Sandhurst who receives, I believe, £291, and who is fed and housed free. Surely, it is not just or center that the widow of a man who has devoted a great part of his life to the service of his country should receive less in the latter part of her life than the widow of a man who has been mainly concerned during his lifetime in serving only his pocket. After next April a National Insurance widows' pension will be £149 10s. 0d. (I believe I am center in saying it is now £130) and a captain's widow's pension is only £127 2s. 0d. if the widow was bereaved before November 4, 1958.
To stress this question of hardship, I should like to quote two examples. The first one concerns an elderly lady of 90, living with her widowed daughter, who has great difficulty in making ends meet and who is a widow of a promoted ranker officer, a major with over 35 years' service. This lady of 90 receives a Forces family pension of £127 2s. per annum, plus £98 8s. National Assistance, a meagre total of £225 10s. But apart from the question of low income—and that is an important one—is it center that the widow of a member of Her Majesty's Forces who has served his country for so long, in this case over 35 years, should have to ask for National Assistance? Surely a system or a method of supplementary allowance could be devised so that the recipient did not have the impression that she was asking for or living on charity.
I should like to quote an extract from a letter which was written from Cornwall on November 4 last by a lieutenant-colonel's widow, aged 72, drawing a pension of £207 18s. per annum, who is not entitled to National Insurance pension. She writes:
"I have one grandson (19) in this country who I hoped would continue a family tradition which began 150 years ago. He has not done so and his father simply replies—'Look how they have treated you. It is the old

835
Service families who are hit by the injustice to widows whose husbands died before November 4, 1958. It now applies to myself, my sister and my sister-in-law. The increase in war pensions means that the private's war widow will get £3 16s. a week and 10s. extra if over 70, and the widow of a lieutenant-colonel (Regular) gets £4 a week and no extra 10s. if over 70. It seems incredible that the only economy this alleged Conservative Government can think of is at the expense of a few thousand aged women of all ranks. No answer expected. One gets too old and tired now to care what happens in the 'affluent society'."
It is a sad case when a widow, part of a family which has served this country 150 years, has to write a letter along those lines.
That brings me now to the question which has been mentioned by other noble Lords of this dual code; in other words, the difference between the pensions of those widows who were bereaved before November 4, 1958, and those who were bereaved after that date. It is surely unjust and illogical that the widow of a lieutenant or captain bereaved before that date should receive £127 2s. when a similar widow bereaved after that date and who is on the 1960 code should receive a pension of £225. Why this differentiation I cannot understand. What logic or fairness can there be in granting two rates of pensions for similar rank and similar service by the husband? I would stress that it was for service to this country. Why should those 9,000 elderly ladies be forgotten? Why should they not also be entitled to believe in the Government's motto, "You never had it so good"? It seems quite wrong that those ladies, over 50 per cent. of whom are over 72 years of age, many of them probably living alone and therefore lonely, and having great difficulty in making ends meet, should be overlooked. It surely cannot involve a great expenditure of funds to provide that those 9,000 widows should be granted the provisions of the 1960 code—that is, that they should receive one-third of their husband's pension.
It seems to me also quite wrong that there should be this differentiation with regard to widows of other ranks. If the husband of another rank's widow happened to be discharged before September 1, 1950, she receives only 10s. per week. If the husband was discharged between September 1, 1950, and November 4, 1958, the widow receives 11s. 7d.
836
per week. Widows of other ranks whose husbands were discharged after November 4, 1958, in the case of a sergeant's widow with 27 years' service, draw 34s. 8d. per week. Why this fantastic differentiation I certainly cannot understand. The husbands have served the same period; they have served their country the same way. Why they should not be entitled to draw the same amount is quite beyond understanding. It is therefore with those remarks that I very sincerely support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Teynham.
4.38 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, is not here to lend his powerful voice to the case that has been so very strongly put by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and other noble Lords. I shall not myself attempt to repeat the very complicated arguments. This is an extremely complicated subject, and it is difficult for us all to keep in our minds the different categories. I should, however, like to make a few remarks, conscious of the fact that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government is no doubt at the moment busily preparing his reply and will have the last word—apart, of course, from the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who will have the final say; and I am sure that he will make good use of it. It is one of the difficulties about these debates that the Government spokesman has the last word, and I only wish that we could have reversed it and given the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the opportunity to have the last word.
I hope that the arguments which I suspect will come from the Government spokesman will not include those which have been already referred to, like the argument of immutability. We know perfectly well that there is no such thing as immutability. One of the problems of this whole subject of pensions is the fact that successive Governments are continually inventing, I might say, principles to justify ad hoc decisions. These are administrative conveniences which help to explain away what they are compelled to do because of the political policy of the Government and the Treasury. I am not necessarily singling out this Government for condemnation in this matter, although in

837
view of some of the things they have said about the prosperity of the country it is worth while recalling the rather bitter words the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has uttered, and particularly those he quoted from a correspondent.
Looking at the Motion, we are concerned with three main categories. There are officers' pensions; other ranks' pensions, and the pensions of widows' and dependants of both officers and other ranks. The Grigg Committee view (I rather Think that this was also the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Eraser of Lonsdale, in an earlier debate on that subject: I hope that I have not misinterpreted him) is that, by and large, officers' pensions have been all center, and would be about center, were it not for the fact that the Government and Governments reckon that they are not necessarily center for the future. What we object to is the fact that so many different scales should be applied. It is perfectly possible to argue that the terms and conditions under which particular officers served cannot be related to modern times: that is a perfectly fair, first-stage argument. But it does not really meet the case, and it is demonstrated to us all that it is unjust that there should be this sort of differential.
If it should be argued that the Government have accepted the main recommendation of the Grigg Report—namely, that there should be this biennial review of pay and pensions—surely most of us (and we have perhaps deceived ourselves) had a sort of feeling that it would be related to the past because we are not at the moment worried about the future. We are content for the time being with what appears to be being done; but what we are not content with, and what all the argument and controversy has been about, is the past and those who have retired under earlier rates and for whom so little has been done. The fact that it may not be possible to apply these scales retrospectively is not valid in other fields. The old age pensioner's retirement pension, which, goodness knows is not high enough, has gone up, and certainly has not been related directly to his contributions in terms of cash: it has been related to the old age pensioner's contribution in his working life. What we are saying is that the contribution of these officers and
838
men in their service to their country, even though their rate of pay at that time was different, was of the same order as those who will make a contribution in the future. I think, therefore, that the argument for looking again at these different codes in relation to officers is valid, although it is far less pressing than the argument with regard to other ranks.
Here Sir James Grigg was much more specific. He made quite clear, I think, that he and his Committee thought that the retired pay of other ranks was not good enough, and this view has been reflected in improvements which were put forward by Government Departments. One of the interesting and rather depressing things is that a good deal of what Sir James Grigg recommended was in fact already on the stocks in the Service Departments. The Service Departments knew quite well what ought to be done. It was merely that this Committee had to be created as a device for getting round the Treasury. I do not doubt that the Service Departments know what they would like to do, even for those who are not benefiting under the new arrangements.
The Grigg Committee, as we know, recommended an improvement in pensions for other ranks. To that extent, the need for doing something about the pensions of those who do not come under the new rate is even greater. And when we come to the widows and dependants, both of officers and of other ranks, the situation is really quite deplorable—it is indeed, I think, contemptible that we should allow it to continue. Many widows who are receiving—and some are not receiving them at all—some of the pre-1950 pensions, or even the post-1950 pensions, are receiving negligible amounts when compared with what they can get under National Assistance. I am sure we are all glad that National Assistance has improved, and that generally National Insurance schemes are improving, even though they may still be inadequate. But in comparison with what we give to the widow of another rank, pre-1958 National Assistance is princely. That is a situation which I think we ought not to tolerate much longer.
We come here to the difficulty that is argued: that one cannot provide for the past; one cannot provide for the

839
consequences of inflation. On this aspect the Grigg Report was rather ambiguous. The Committee pointed to the erosion and the derisory rates, but when they came on solemnly to facing their responsibility a little later they came to the conclusion that the only ultimate answer was the ending of a continuous period of inflation. Yet they themselves suggested the biennial review; and they further said that it would be wrong to attempt to bring Service pensions up to the current code without doing it for all State and local government pensions. I do not know where their terms of reference allowed them to make this particular suggestion. They were considering recruiting. I hope that the Government will not use this argument—because this is a matter for Government decision and policy.
I think it is one of the tragedies that, as one noble Lord said, in the affluent society we still have these pockets of misery and of ill-treatment. It is an astounding thing, and it is an evil that could fairly easily be removed if we were really to face up to our responsibilities—this applies to all political Parties. It is no good the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, coming to us and saying that he is a reformed character now that he no longer sits on the Government Front Bench. The noble Lord who is going to reply may himself subsequently become a reformed character no longer sitting on the Government Benches. What we want is a Minister who has no need to reform. We appreciate the difficulties in which Ministers may be in this matter. We understand that the noble Lord who is to reply will be as uncomfortable as the noble Marquess said he was when he was replying. But what we want to convey to the Government is the strength of feeling that exists in this House, and I believe in the country at large, in regard to this matter. It is something that we do not feel we ought to put up with much longer.
We do not expect an immediate improvement—when I say "an immediate improvement", I mean a complete solution. What we expect is that some steps will be taken towards bringing into line with those who will be so much more comfortably off in the future those
840
who have borne the burden in the past. I hope, therefore, that when the Government come to consider this matter—I suspect that it will be the subject of many debates in the future until we get some justice—they will realise that, somehow or other, they have got to persuade the Treasury and their colleagues that this matter ought to be dealt with center away.
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, I have to declare at least a technical interest, in that I receive retired pay under the 1919 code. I do not propose to put forward my own case any further this afternoon, if only for the reason that it is necessary for the Government to reconcile my substantive rank of captain with my honorary rank of major-general, a position which arises in few other cases. But I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Teynham, who has done such a service to the House in moving this Motion, is pleased, as indeed I am, at the uniformity of views expressed in all parts of the House on the Motion this afternoon. If my noble friend Lord Jeffreys had been here—we are all sorry that illness has kept him away from the House—he, too, would have felt that this debate was worthy of the occasion and of the cause that is so dear to his heart. We are also sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carew, who speaks for the British Legion and had intended to come this afternoon for that purpose, was obliged at the last moment, owing to illness, to be absent.
My noble friend who moved this Motion planned it in such a way that it covered the whole field of pensions and retirement pay—officers and other ranks, serving people themselves and their widows—and I am quite sure that that is the way in which this subject ought to be handled in this House. That is much better than having a sectional debate about officers, widows, other ranks, or anything of the kind, because all questions of pensions and retirement pay are interconnected and, so it appears, are all dealt with by Her Majesty's Government or the Treasury or whoever is responsible, in much the same way. The figures are quite well known. They are known to those of your Lordships who are taking part in this debate and to the Government

841
Departments concerned, because those who are concerned with societies like the British Legion, the Officers' Association and the Officers' Pension Society never weary in working for the cause of those whom they represent, and produce these figures with great regularity and skill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, in his speech earlier this afternoon, defined a pension as a sum of money on which people depend for their living when they are past work (I hope I have quoted the noble Lord rightly). I am sure that that is a sound definition and forms a background against which this afternoon's debate can be considered. As everybody knows, there are various ways of dealing with this question of pensions. We could go to one extreme and say the pension ought to be tied to the cost of living, or take another view and say it should be related to the standard of living. I see that in another place the Minister for Pensions and National Insurance, my center honourable friend Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, said on November 3, 1960 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 629 (No. 2), col. 171]:
"Thanks to the high degree of stability of prices in recent years. these levels have in large measure been held. These further changes"—
and here the Minister was talking about National Assistance grants and National Insurance pensions—
"constitute, therefore, a marked improvement in the standard of those receiving these benefits. This implements the policy of the Government that they should share in the rising standards of the nation."
I believe that those words are quite important and very center. If anybody should share in the rising standards of the nation, surely the ex-Service men and their widows and the ex-Service women should be as much entitled to share as anybody. I am certainly not suggesting anything so extreme or, I think, so foolish as that retirement rates of any kind should be tied to the cost of living. Anybody who knows what happened in Australia a few years ago when wages were linked with the cost of living will know what damage that decision, while it lasted, did to the economy, and will also know how hard it was to reverse. But I think we are not now living in a time when prices are stable. They have been stable or relatively stable for a year
842
or two, but there are signs now that they are going to rise. Therefore, if we take the longer view, whatever the ups and downs of life may have been since the war, we find a steady rise in the cost of living and, therefore, a steady deterioration in the value of money. That, I believe, is one of the governing factors of the consideration of problems of this kind.
Another governing factor, I am sure, is that because Service pay (certainly for officers) and therefore retirement allowances depend on the Royal Prerogative and thus are bound to be ex gratia they do not fit into arrangements for regular review. That was a point made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has just spoken. It is a point that various ex-Service societies are always making. My noble friend, Lord Salisbury, made it too, and therefore it is an even stronger argument than ever for this House to keep these matters constantly under review. If we do not have debates here it is perfectly possible for Government Departments to bury their heads in the sand and say that because we have not had a debate, therefore everything must be all center, That is why my noble friend took the view that a debate like this was necessary and why we have supported him this afternoon.
A great many important points have come out of this debate. Many noble Lords, among them the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, all referred to the complicated structure of the various pay codes. The 1958 code is an extremely complicated one. There are six different codes for people of the same kind. No doubt the various dates on which different people are entitled to various pensions all have their origins in extremely good reasons, but, as noble Lords have said this afternoon, the wood is now becoming completely obscured by looking at the trees; and whatever may have been the reasons in the past, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury said, they have little meaning nowadays for anybody outside the back rooms in Government Departments where they are worked out. I believe it was the noble Marquess who said that in the public

843
mind, at any rate, whatever they may be in the mind of the Government, they are completely irrelevant to the present situation.
Then we get the other point made by so many noble Lords—the differentials in codes for war widows. The other day I came across a curious quotation from a speech which was made by the center honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, in 1954 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 530, col. 1480]:
"Nor did we repeat the contemptuous gesture of September, 1951, of creating a division between the existing pensioners and the future pensioners."
Whether that applies in detail to this particular case or not, that, at least, shows that the idea of a differential is not universally accepted in all circles; and therefore I feel our case is that much strengthened by arguing that it should not be accepted in this circle.
But, as has already been said in the debate, there may be a theory that a pension, once fixed, cannot be changed. That may or may not be so. If it is so in theory, it certainly does not follow that it should be so in practice. Taking the analogy of the pensions scheme in a bank, insurance company or commercial firm for its employees, it will probably be found that the scheme is secured by a trust deed and that the only rights of the employees under the trust deed are the rights which were established in the deed When it was signed. This was a point made earlier, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. Because that is the letter of the Jaw, tit does not mean that equity, justice and common sense do not demand that it should not be altered from time to time. There is no big concern in the business or professional world operating a pension scheme of any size which does not have to bring its scheme, however immutable it may be in theory, up to date and in line with the needs of the time, so as to follow out the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, of what a pension is.
Another point has again been brought out—I am conscious that I am saying nothing now—which is that the treatment of the retired personnel of your concern, whoever they are, must be looked at from the public relations aspect to see what
844
effect the treatment of those people will have on those who are serving now in the concern and those Whom you wish to recruit at some later date. Not only my noble friend Lord Merrivale but many other noble Lords have made that point this afternoon, and I should like to reinforce it in a few words myself.
We know that Her Majesty's Government have recently finally embarked on a policy of all-Regular recruitment. That, in itself, I would say, is a course not unattended by danger, but we are not debating that subject this afternoon. I mention it only in order to make the point that this is the very last time, the very last moment, when any risk should be taken with morale and support of the Services from those who have retired or their widows. Whatever the actual steps the Government decide to take, or whatever they decide to do, I do not think they can possibly divorce this aspect of the matter from their considerations. The family element, especially in parts of the Services like the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, is very strong, and any unhappiness in family quarters there or anywhere else is bound to be felt. Of course, the Grigg Committee, who may be thought (as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, thought) to be there to whitewash the Treasury, did not go back on the old Treasury principle of immutability of settlements once made. That would have been a great deal -to expect from Sir James Grigg. But, equally, they never said in their Report that it would be wrong to take ex gratia action to bring those affected by immutability up to date.
Let me come back for one moment to the inflationary aspect, because if we go back to the older people this is what we find. Take a lieutenant-colonel who retired in 1935. I am not going to give many figures at this late hour. He had a pension of £543. That would correspond, so I am told, at 1959 rates to £1,675. The 1960 code gives the same individual an annual pension of £1,075 plus a terminal grant of £3,225. That terminal grant invested at an interest of 6 per cent. (which is a reasonable figure, I think) will give an extra amount of just under £200. So one has far short of the purchasing power which the £543 would have given in 1935. So, my Lords, as this debate has gone on the complication and, if I can use the word, the

845
messiness of the arrangements have, I think, appeared.
The question of early retirement age has been mentioned. It is a matter well within the Government's power to solve. Many times in this House have I suggested that it would be solved if, when any individuals joined the Forces, they could be assured of a career in Government service up to the age of 60 or 65, whichever is the center age I can see no reason why that should not be done. I can see prejudice, but not reason. Then, one should not leave this debate without just touching on National Assistance. This is a subject always handled very gingerly in these pension debates, because there is sometimes a suggestion that National Assistance is there in order to make up deficiencies of existing pension schemes. I cannot pinpoint any case where that has been actually said rather than suggested; nor do I think it should be. When I was looking up the Report of the Committee which sat under the late Lord Rushcliffe in 1924, I saw that the opening words of the Report were:
"National Assistance is clearly expressed as a successor of the poor law."
Admittedly, I have not followed my researches to see exactly what was said at the time the Bill was introduced in 1948, but I doubt whether it would be very different. One comparison with National Assistance, possibly more valued, is that, so far as I know, there has never been any suggestion of differential scales for anybody affected by National Assistance. If we are to have differential scales as a principle, then surely that principle should extend to other fields besides Service pensions. But I am not at all sure whether it does; and if it does not, then surely ex-Servicemen and their widows are not the center people to apply it to.
My Lords, the hour is getting on. We have covered the field I think fairly adequately; at any rate, I hope so. Everybody knows that one cannot expect to get everything, even if anything, from a debate like this. But I think that if priorities have to be considered—and of course they do—two things have stood out from this afternoon's debate. The first is the case of the widows, and I will say no more on that because it has been so eloquently expressed. The second is
846
the case of the older men, both officers and other ranks, who are now on pension scales which bear little or no relation to the present cost of keeping alive, and no real relation, as some noble Lords have said, to National Assistance. This debate has shown my noble friend Lord Carrington, in front of me, the strength of feeling in these matters, and I think that he will feel, as we all do, how center it is that this House should keep these matters under constant and earnest review.
5.7 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the question of Service pensions which we have been debating this afternoon is one which has been raised on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House, the last time, I think, some two years ago when it was replied to by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. As a matter of fact, I have checked up: it has been raised eight times in the last seven years. I make absolutely no complaint about that. Indeed, as the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, it only goes to show the importance which your Lordships attach to the subject and the strong feelings which it arouses.
I would say at the outset how sorry I am that my noble friend Lord Jeffreys, who has been more active in this sphere than anyone else, is unable to be here this afternoon. Looking down the list of speakers gives some indication of the wide experience of those who have spoken, starting with my noble friend Lord Teynham, who introduced the Motion; supported by so many of your Lordships who have spent a lifetime in the Services and who now give so much voluntary help in the cause of ex-Service men and women, and aided, too, by such formidable House of Lords figures as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I might say, in passing, that if the noble Lord, Lord Shaekleton, wants me to reform, his chiding of the noble Marquess does not lead me to believe that I should he received with the fatted calf when that occasion arises.
But no one can have listened to the debate without a feeling of sympathy at the examples which many of your Lordships have given; and certainly nobody

847
could doubt the sincerity with which this subject has been tackled. And so it is all the more difficult for me to have nothing very new to say to the House this afternoon; and it is impossible for me, as an ex-Service man and now as a Service Minister, to conceal my sympathy from your Lordships. I wish indeed that I were able to give some other answer, because when dealing with a matter of this kind one is very conscious that, however center the principles upon which a decision is based, there are sometimes cases which make all of us sorry that something cannot be done.
The Government's case has been made on a number of occasions, but I wonder Whether the principles are really understood. Certainly listening to some of the speeches this afternoon I felt that they were not. I think, therefore, that for a moment or two I should re-state the Government's case, in the hope that, if I cannot satisfy those who criticise it, I may at least be able to persuade them that it is founded on principle and not on lack of sympathy for those who have given loyal service to the Crown.
The Government's attitude to an increase in pensions, whether they be those of officers, other ranks or their widows, has been upheld for many years by successive Governments of different complexions—not least the Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was an ornament, and which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, zealously supported. The fundamental principle (and here I am going to disappoint the noble Lord) on which the Government's policy is based is that of the immutability of public service pensions; that is to say, the principle that a pension, once it has been awarded, should not normally be subject to change either upwards or downwards. This principle applies without distinction to both Armed Forces pensions and to the pensions of the Government's civilian employees. The first point which I should like to make, therefore, is that there is no question of any discrimination against members of the Armed Forces, and that the problem of Service pensions cannot be taken out of the context of the Government's policy for their servants as a whole.
848
Why have so many Governments insisted so firmly on this apparently hard-hearted and ungenerous principle? To begin with, the Government are not alone in their unwillingness to revise existing pensions. It is a common feature of all occupational pensions that they are regarded as being a part of the rewards for which an employee contracts to give his services. I believe—and I think this was borne out by my noble friend Lord Teynham—that some, at any rate, of the discontent over the pensions awarded in previous years has been caused by the successive improvements which have been made in the current pension codes of the Armed Forces. Certainly the most recent increases—in 1959 for other ranks, and in 1960 for officers—which have been warmly applauded by your Lordships this afternoon, have served to highlight the disparity between old and new Service pensioners.
I do not think that the Government—or, indeed, any employer—could accept that improvements in current pension terms must be held, in themselves, to justify comparable improvements in the conditions of service of former employees whose contract of service was completed, perhaps, many years ago. I say "in themselves" because I recognise that these former servants of the Crown, living as they do very largely on incomes fixed at a time when money values were much higher than they are now, have suffered at the hands of inflation, which has seriously eroded the worth of their pension. Here, indeed, they are on much firmer ground, and I fully share the sympathy which noble Lords—and, especially, the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who I am sorry to see is not in his place—have expressed this afternoon.
But public servants, whether civilian or of the Armed Forces, are not the only ones to have suffered in this way. Inflation is a national problem: it affects each and every one of us. No section of the community, however deserving, can contract out of inflation. Yet the effect of increasing the pensions of former Crown servants to keep pace with the cost of living, or with improvements in current pension terms which may be made for this and perhaps other reasons as well, would be to insulate these

849
pensioners, as a class, from any form of inflation. And they would be protected in this way at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers who may enjoy no such advantage themselves, and who may themselves be living on fixed incomes or savings.
My Lords, that is my second point, and it provides the most convincing reason why the Government cannot concede an automatic or regular adjustment of past pensions. As I have said, the problem of Armed Forces pensions cannot be divorced from that of all other public service pensions. To bring all past pensions up to current rates—and, if the principle of immutability were to be abandoned, there would be no logic in stopping short of this—would cost many millions of pounds each year; and this burden would fall upon other sections of the community who might be as little able to afford it as the public service pensioners themselves.
But, of course, the Government are not blind to real hardship. Like any good employer, they have always been pre-prepared to meet it when it comes. Since 1944, there have been no fewer than six pensions increase measures, designed to ease the consequences of inflation for public service pensioners. I must emphasise that these measures are not designed to restore the purchasing power of the original pension, nor to give yesterday's pensioners pensions at today's level. To do that, as I have said, would be to take public service pensioners out of the national situation. These increases are special measures to relieve hardship, and their frequency shows clearly that the Government are aware of their special responsibility for retired public servants.
Of course, it is entirely consistent with the purpose for which these increases are given that their payment should be limited to those pensioners who are most in need of assistance—that is to say, to incapacitated pensioners, child pensioners, widows over 40 and other widows with dependants, and to pensioners reaching the age of 60. The answer to those who argue that these increases ought to be paid to all Armed Forces pensioners, regardless of age or condition, is that it would mot be center to use public funds to help pensioners who might reasonably be expected to help themselves. Although the Services
850
are now offering longer careers than hitherto, it remains true that the age of retirement from the Services is lower than that in most civilian occupations. Retired Service men below the age of 60 are generally able to find further employment and, by their own work at prevailing rates of pay, to offset any rise in the cost of living; and so they can usually avoid the hardship which pensions increases are designed to alleviate.
I come now to the main topic which has been aired this afternoon—that is, to the pensions of widows whose husbands died before November 4, 1958. It is true, I think, that widows' pensions schemes generally, whether in private or Government employment, are a comparatively recent innovation. Ten years or so ago very few private firms would have included widows in their superannuation schemes; and it is only in recent times that some of the better employers have begun to do so. I do not think that the Government have lagged behind in this development, and certainly not where Armed Forces widows are concerned. In 1952, when the whole of the Armed Forces family pensions structure was reviewed, all officers' widows received the new rates which were then introduced. Admittedly this new scheme did not include the widows of other ranks whose husbands died before 1950; but, as I have said, it was—and still is—quite common throughout the country for widows whose husbands died before 1950 to have no pension, beyond what might have been arranged privately for them, to supplement the various State systems of insurance and assistance.
For example, the Civil Service scheme was not introduced until 1949, and those for the National Health Service and in local government are even more recent. I know that the rates introduced for Service widows in 1952 were a smaller proportion of their husbands' pensions than those paid under the Civil Service scheme, although that is no longer true under the latest code. But there was, and there is, a most significant difference between the two schemes, in that the Armed Forces scheme—alone among all public service and, I believe, the majority of private schemes—is non-contributory. The Service man pays nothing whatever towards it.

851
When the family pensions of the Armed Forces were improved in 1959, the Government considered very carefully whether these improvements could be extended to those who were already widows. They concluded, however, that it was quite impossible to distinguish between these widows and any other category of existing pensioners, and that to re-assess their pensions, except on the basis of hardship, would not be justified unless all other public service pensions were to be re-assessed as well. Indeed, the principles which apply to other public service pensioners clearly apply equally to widows.
I explained a moment ago that occupational pensions are a part of an employee's contract, which cannot be altered retrospectively. So, too, is that part of his pension arrangements which covers his widow. I said that no section of the community had the center to be protected against inflation at the expense of other sections who had no such safeguards themselves. That is true whether they are pensioners or the widows of pensioners. By the same token, of course, widows are entitled to receive the benefit of pensions increase measures, and in fact the rates paid to them have been improved: by 5 per cent. in 1956, and by a further 10 per cent. in 1959.
I have often heard it said—and I am not quite sure that my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, was not saying it this evening—as though there were some disgrace attaching to the receipt of National Assistance, that the pensions of many Armed Forces widows are below National Assistance level. My Lords, even if that were true some time ago, it certainly is not true now that there is some disgrace attached to receiving National Assistance. Many widows in this country take advantage—
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It was I who made the remark, but I did not say that there was any disgrace at all. I did not mean anything to do with disgrace. I said that it was a question that they felt they were drawing charity, and I asked: could not the Government devise some means whereby they would not have that feeling?
LORD CARRINGTON: I was trying to say that I did not think it was charity.
852
Many widows in this country take advantage of the Government's policy that no person should he living below subsistence level, and I know that the National Assistance Board deals very sympathetically with all deserving cases.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may pursue this point a little further, may I say that of course there is no disgrace; but a large number of people strongly object to-day to submitting themselves to a means test. We accept that the means test is necessary but it means that many who may have some savings from which they are deriving income have to submit themselves to a process which is inevitable with National Assistance. And for that reason a very large number of people in civilian life who would he entitled to National Assistance in fact refuse to take it.
LORD CARRINGTON: I absolutely accept that, and I hope the debate which we are having this afternoon will convince those people that there is no disgrace, and that there is no question of taking charity when they accept National Assistance.
There is one special class of Service widows whom I should like to mention—my noble friend Lord Merrivale mentioned them in his speech. I refer to those whose husbands did not contribute under the National Insurance Scheme which was in operation before 1948, and who did not live long enough under the present scheme to qualify their widows for National Insurance benefits. They are a class for whom we all have special sympathy. But their problem is shared by countless other widows. Indeed, there are, I believe, something like one million people now who are over the minimum pension age, and who do not draw National Insurance pensions.
It is one thing to suggest that some form of compensation should be paid to all people in this class. I do not know if that is what noble Lords are asking me to do. If so, I would ask them to consider what would be involved. It would mean breaking the contributory principle of National Insurance, which is the only defence that the taxpayer has against the imposition of an extremely heavy financial burden. It has been estimated that to pay retirement pensions to all those people who do not satisfy

853
the conditions of entitlement under the National Insurance Scheme would cost the National Insurance Fund over £100 million a year. That is a bill which the Government cannot possibly face at the present time.
But, if once the contributory principle of National Insurance were abandoned, how could the Government justifiably stop short of this? My Lords, this is not a question of increasing a Service pension, or of increasing an occupational pension where differences of employment can be taken into account; it is a question of augmenting a scheme of National Insurance retirement pensions which has hitherto applied without distinction to every citizen of this country. Much as I sympathise with this particular class of person, I really do not see how it is possible to make out a special case for them merely because they are Armed Forces widows. As I said earlier, there is no question of their being left with an income below subsistence level, and to the extent that the occupational pension by itself is insufficient, National Assistance is available.
My noble friend Lord Teynham quoted an example of an officer's widow receiving a pension less than the pay of a Service cadet. Unfortunately, this can be said equally of large numbers of civilian widows up and down the country in relation to the pay of an 18-year old youth or girl, and in this respect Service widows are no worse off, I think, than anybody else.
My Lords, as I said at the beginning, I am afraid I have had nothing new to tell you, any more than your Lordships had anything new to tell me. All I have tried to do is to set out as clearly as I can what the position of the Government is, and to deal as fairly and as objectively as possible with a subject which affects the lives of a great many people whose service to the Crown is remembered with gratitude. I have tried to show that the Government have not lagged behind in this matter of Service pensions, and I think that in many respects they have shown a lead to private employers. I have tried to show that, although it would cost £20 million annually to raise Armed Forces pensions in the way which has been suggested, it cannot be done in isolation, and
854
over the whole range of Government retired pensions the cost would be at least £60 million a year. All these, I think, are weighty arguments of which your Lordships should take account; and, disappointed though I know my noble friend will be, I hope he will find it possible to withdraw his Motion this afternoon.
5.27 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I certainly appreciate the sympathy which I have received from your Lordships and from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but I do not see any sympathy coming from Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and I must say I am very disappointed at the reply we have received to-day, especially in view of the support we have received from all quarters of the House. I really do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has refuted my arguments in favour of improved pensions for widows, and I consider it is a very bad state of affairs. He mentioned the word "hardship". Does he really mean to say that he is willing to consider hardship in the case of widows' pensions?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, in that case I am afraid there is nothing one can do; one cannot grant a widow a pension bigger than she is entitled to expect. What I will do is to see in any case the noble Lord brings to my attention that the widow is getting as much pension as she is entitled to receive.
LORD TEYNHAM: I cannot help feeling that the fact is that Service pensions granted before the 1960 code are not meeting the rising cost of living, as promised by Her Majesty's Government. That is the main point and one of the most important points which has come out of this debate to-day, and that is what I really charge the Government with. Although I do not propose to press this Motion to a Division to-day, we cannot allow these pension matters to stay as they are, and we will certainly return to the charge at no distant date. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ACCIDENTAL DROWNING FIGURES
  ACCIDENTAL DROWNING FIGURES