Sitting of 30 January 1964

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (by Order)
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    University of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when the unexpended portion of the contribution of £2,875,000 from Colonial development and welfare funds towards the University of Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be spent; and what part the United Kingdom is playing in the negotiations about the university's future.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): Of the unspent balance of the £2,875,000 Colonial Development and Welfare funds allocated to the College, £304,000 has not yet been committed to individual schemes. The British Government have recently released £110,000 towards the building of a Students' Union. I cannot at present say when the remainder will be made available.
    On the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I have nothing to add to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 23rd January.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the substantial contribution made by Britain towards this university, can the hon. Member say whether it is the intention that the British Government shall con-
    508
    tinue to be associated with the government of the University of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Can he also say whether, in these negotiations, the Government will ensure that the university is maintained on multi-racial lines?
    Mr. Hornby: I cannot commit the British Government in advance of the forthcoming talks on the future of the college. The details of those talks will come later. As for the general principles on which the college is run, I am sure that we have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member says.

    Economic Development
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what action is to be taken on the material dealing with economic development and its financing, prepared in accordance with the decision of the Commonwealth Conference held at Montreal in 1958; what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for a Commonwealth policy for economic expansion and co-operation; and whether the Government will now prepare an economic policy to be put before the next conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. John Tilney): I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the reports on economic development in Commonwealth countries published by the Commonwealth Economic Committee as a result of decisions taken at the Montreal Conference. These Reports provide part of the background for decisions taken by the British Government and other Commonwealth Governments from time to time on questions of trade and financial aid.
    I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statements issued by meetings of Commonwealth Trade Ministers last May and of Commonwealth Finance Ministers last September, of which I am sending him copies, and to the replies given in this House on 3rd December and on 5th December last.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister agree with me that some very fine documents have been prepared—among the best ever—and that a tremendous

    509
    amount of work must have been put into their preparation? Is it not logical, with the preparation of these documents, that we should adopt a policy in harmony with them? Does the Minister agree that the time has arrived when Ministers should be putting into the development of the Commonwealth the same energy as they put into the development of the Common Market?
    Mr. Tilney: I agree that the documents and the reports are extremely good. If, in the comparatively near future, there should be a debate on Commonwealth trade, the hon. Member may be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and develop the points that he wishes to make.
    Mr. Fell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the greatest disincentive to the development of trade is the breakdown in law and order in a number of Commonwealth countries? Would not it be putting first things first to call a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers as early as possible?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise out of the Question.

    Festival of the Arts
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what Commonwealth countries are participating in the projected Commonwealth Art Exhibition in this country.
    Mr. Hornby: I understand that the Question refers to the Commonwealth Festival of the Arts, which is planned for 1965. Invitations to participate in this Festival are issued by the Commonwealth Arts Festival Society whose Director-General, Mr. Ian Hunter, will shortly begin a tour of the overseas Commonwealth to discuss contributions. Until this tour has been completed, the Society will not be able to say definitely which countries will take part.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether all countries in the Commonwealth are being invited to give exhibits? Is our own financial assistance confined to £80,000, or are the Government prepared to go beyond that sum if necessary?
    Mr. Hornby: The participants cannot be known until this tour by the
    510
    Director-General has been completed. All Commonwealth countries through their High Commissioners here have been invited to the Festival. The British Government have promised a guarantee against loss of £80,000, and in addition have given £2,000 towards the preliminary expenses of the Festival. The British Government warmly support the proposal to hold this Festival.
    Sir B. Stross: In view of the fact that this proposal is highly imaginative and desirable and that a great number of local authorities who intend to participate will help to finance it with quite considerable sums, may I ask whether, if it be successful—as we all hope—it will become a regular feature of our life, and be held at least every five years?
    Mr. Hornby: I am sure it would be a very happy event if that should prove to be the general wish of the countries participating.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: If this proves successful, can the Minister say whether there are plans to do the thing in reverse and arrange a tour in the Commonwealth countries of some of the exhibits associated with this Festival?
    Mr. Hornby: We had better see how the Director-General gets on. Suggestions such as that made by the hon. Member may well be taken up at a later stage.

    Economic Aid
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why economic aid from this country to independent Commonwealth countries fell to a total of £23·1 million in the first half of the current financial year, compared with £29 million in the preceding six months, and £33·2 million in the six months before that.
    Mr. Tilney: The figures quoted by the hon. Member represent the sums of money actually disbursed. The rate of disbursments necessarily fluctuates as it is governed by the need of the recipient countries to draw on the aid available to them, under contracts into which they have entered.
    Mr. Prentice: Are we not in a rather paradoxical situation in that the Treasury White Paper last September

    511
    forecast an increase in aid both to Commonwealth and other recipient countries, but figures so far in this financial year seem to have indicated a large drop? Are the Government satisfied that the types and terms of aid are sufficiently in line with the needs of the recipient countries? Are they looking at this matter in the light of the apparent fall in the disbursement of aid?
    Mr. Tilney: We hope that our aid takes into account all circumstances of the recipient countries. I think it as well to remember that our aid has doubled in the last five years.
    Sir C. Osborne: Have the Government any plans to increase and stabilise the prices of raw materials which these countries send to us? This could be the best economic aid we could give them. What are we doing about that?
    Mr. Tilney: Should there be a debate on Commonwealth trade in the near future, this, no doubt, is a matter which could more easily be dealt with then than by Question and Answer, but I have much sympathy with the point of view of my hon. Friend. Of course, because there has been in recent years such a decline in the prices of raw materials, the terms of trade have turned against them.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Are not these figures provided to the House by the Government very unsatisfactory? Does the hon. Gentleman remember that at the end of last year we discovered that the Government had underspent by about £12 million what they had announced to the House as their aid programme? This year they look like being very much more underspent. Do the Government intend to revise the figures in order to get a more accurate idea of what are our commitments?
    Mr. Tilney: One must remember that commitments are very different from disbursements.

  CENTRAL AFRICA

    Federal Public Servants (Pensions)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has now considered the representations conveyed to him regard-
    512
    ing the pensions of Central African federal public servants; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hornby: Yes, Sir. A reply is being sent today to the representatives in London of the Federal Public Services Association. It has not been possible to accept suggestions for a general compensation scheme in addition to the terminal benefits, but arrangements for dealing with cases of hardship have been agreed between the Governments. It is our intention to deal with a number of points raised by the Staff Association in the Public Officers Agreement which is shortly to be concluded between the Governments concerned.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that, of course, I cannot comment on the Answer, because I do not understand exactly what it means, may I ask my hon. Friend whether there is a guarantee that in default of any of the undertakings by the Governments concerned, the British Government will accept responsibility? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that these men have served Central Africa and the community and this country very well indeed? Is he aware that it makes me absolutely livid when we do not accept our proper responsibility and cause anxiety to those who have served our interests so adequately? Is he aware that I hope that this guarantee is in this Answer, and that I should like to know?
    Mr. Hornby: Of course, I accept what my hon. Friend says about the great service which has been done by these public servants on behalf of this country and the territories concerned. I should like to remind my hon. Friend that this was an agreement reached jointly between all the Governments concerned, including the British Government, and it has been the intention by this agreement to arrive at arrangements which shall seem to be fair to all the Governments concerned and the public servants involved.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of sympathy among hon. Members on this side of the House for the civil servants because of some of the anomalies that have arisen out of these negotiations? Can he say something about the permanent

    513
    machinery to be set up to deal with hardship? Will the Government be fully involved in dealing with the hardship cases?
    Mr. Hornby: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the point about hardship. As I said, we hope to be able to make satisfactory arrangements covering the hardship cases. Details of these will be embodied in the agreement to be announced shortly.

  TANGANYIKA

    British Military and Civil Residents
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what communications he has received from the Government of Tanganyika in respect of British military or civilian residents in Tanganyika; and what steps that Government has now taken to ensure the security of those residents.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have nothing to add to the statements I made to the House on 20th and 27th January.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state approximately the number of British civilian and military personnel in Tanganyika and whether he can confirm my belief that since the independence of this country there has been no kind of criticism or complaint against military or civil personnel? Under the circumstances, would he impress on the Government of Tanganyika the need to avoid generating animus against the British?
    Mr. Sandys: I gave the figures of population in the statement to which I referred. There are quite considerable numbers, including a large number of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are not of United Kingdom origin—Asian population. Regarding the question of ill-feeling between the races, I fully endorse the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and I know that President Nyerere feels the same way. There have been occasional departures from the intentions which I know animate the Government of Tanganyika in these matters and I am
    514
    sure that that Government regrets it as much as we do.
    Mr. F. Harris: Would not security and confidence be best ensured by discussions about the future of the military bases in Africa in conjunction with the Kenya and Tanganyika Governments to see whether a long-term solution may be found to give confidence to people of all races in this regard?
    Mr. Sandys: In any case, we are due to have some talks with the Kenya Government on defence matters. These were always envisaged to take place before independence. Regarding the wider consultations, I think the recent events in East Africa have made it desirable that we should have talks with those Governments about the future and the problem which has arisen and in which we have become involved during the last few weeks.

  GHANA

    Dr. Dennis Osborne (Detention)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement about the detention of Dr. Dennis Osborne, who is a United Kingdom citizen, by the Ghana Government.
    Mr. Tilney: Dr. Osborne was arrested on 17th January and was released on 24th January subject to certain restrictions. The reason given for his detention was that the Ghana Security Service wished to question him in connection with alleged subversive activities.
    Despite repeated requests by the Acting High Commissioner no representative of the British High Commission in Accra was allowed to see Dr. Osborne during this period. This is contrary to widely accepted international practice and especially to Commonwealth practice as we understand it. We should never deny the Ghana High Commissioner access to a Ghanaian citizen arrested in this country. My right hon. Friend is pursuing this point further with the Ghana Government.
    Mr. Bottomley: As one who appreciates some of the difficulties under which the President has to work, may I join

    515
    with the Minister in condemning this action? May I ask the Minister whether immediate steps were taken, or was some time allowed to elapse before our Acting High Commissioner made representations?
    Mr. Tilney: I would rather not go into great detail about this. I think that this is an incident which is liable to damage Anglo-Ghanaian relations. It is unfortunate, and in many ways the less said about it at the moment, the better. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. Bottomley: With due respect, this is a United Kingdom citizen who is still detained. I think that representations should be made asking for his immediate release.
    Mr. Tilney: Representations were made as soon as possible.

  EAST AFRICA

    British Nationals (Safety)
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what prior warnings he received of the danger to British lives caused by the recent overthrow of the Zanzibar Government and the recent mutiny in the Tanganyika army.
    Mr. Sandys: The situation in Zanzibar has for a long while been known to be unstable and at different times there have been rumours of trouble. We had no prior knowledge of the mutinies in East Africa.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, on the whole, there is more danger to British lives and property in many Commonwealth countries than there is in foreign countries? Is it not, therefore, vital that we should have the fullest possible information concerning future happenings in those countries? Is he fully satisfied that we have had such information and, if not, will he take steps to see that in future we have it?
    Mr. Sandys: Responsibility for internal security and intelligence in that connection is a matter for these independent Governments—[Hon. Members "No."]—of course it is. They are responsible for their own security and for taking the steps necessary to ensure
    516
    it. If we do receive information so much the better, But we cannot make ourselves responsible for keeping in touch with every subversive activity which goes on in any Commonwealth country throughout the world.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we are equally responsible for the safety of our own people in those Commonwealth countries as we are for those in foreign countries? Surely our intelligence in those countries should be as efficient as it is in foreign countries?
    Mr. Sandys: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. We are responsible for the safety of our citizens in Commonwealth countries to the same extent, but not more, than we are for those in foreign countries. As to our information about pending coups and other troubles in foreign countries, we may hear about them or we may not. We cannot keep a tab on every trouble-maker throughout the world.
    Mr. Fellasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will take all possible steps to protect British lives and property in those East African countries that have asked the United Kingdom for military help, when the Governments concerned request the withdrawal of United Kingdom forces.
    Mr. Sandys: Our concern for the safety of British lives and property in these countries, and our ability to provide help if needed, have been clearly demonstrated during this last fortnight. But the primary responsibility for law and order is and must remain that of the Governments of the countries in question.
    Mr. Fell: Is it a correct assessment of the position that as soon as these Governments ask us to withdraw our troops we are in fact at any rate, if not in theory, bound to do so? It is this period immediately after the withdrawal of our troops which holds the greatest danger to the lives and property of British people in these countries. Therefore, while everyone admires the way in which the Commonwealth Secretary has handled the situation so far, will he be careful to see that we do not withdraw

    517
    troops until we are pretty confident that the position is safe for British lives and property?
    Mr. Sandys: Not just British lives and property, but the general situation in these territories is very much in the mind not only of Her Majesty's Government but, even more so, of the Governments concerned. That is why I said earlier that it was my hope to arrange for consultations with the various Governments to see where we go from here.

  ZANZIBAR

    Miss D. N. Smith
    Sir P. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has as to the where-abouts of Miss Diana N. Smith, a British subject employed as a nursing sister in a hospital in Pemba, Zanzibar, whose last known address was P.O. Box 98, Wete, Pemba, Zanzibar, in view of the fact that Miss Smith was last heard of when a cable was received by her father on Wednesday 15th January, 1964.
    Mr. Sandys: I understand that she is now working in a hospital in Zanzibar, and that she is safe and well.
    Sir P. Roberts: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I am sure will be appreciated by my constituent, may I ask, arising out of what he said earlier, whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient authority in the island of Zanzibar to protect British lives and interests there?
    Mr. Sandys: I give no assurance about the Government of Zanzibar. We have taken precautions quite some time ago to deal with the possibility of the need, which might arise, as I explained to the House, for a rapid evacuation of our citizens in Zanzibar, and there is a naval vessel available for that purpose.

  CYPRUS

    Consultations
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations he has had with Commonwealth countries with a view to their assisting the British troops in Cyprus.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what conclusions were reached at the London conference on the future of Cyprus.
    Mr. Sandys: After the opening session of the Conference I held a series of separate meetings with the representatives of Greece and Turkey and of the two Cypriot communities, with a view to finding a common basis for the discussion of the problem.
    Although the approaches of the two communities remained radically different, some useful progress was made on a number of points.
    However, it soon became evident—as was expected—that the task of reaching agreement was going to be difficult and protracted. In the meantime the situation in Cyprus has been growing extremely tense, which inevitably increases the danger of a renewal of the earlier disorders.
    In these circumstances we felt it desirable that the present peace-keeping force should be enlarged by the participation of additional countries. Negotiations to this end are now proceeding. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not go into greater detail at this juncture. I will make a further statement as soon as practicable.
    Mr. Bottomley: Whilst recognising the need for some international force to assist in keeping the peace in Cyprus, may I ask the Secretary of State to direct his mind to my Question, which asks what consultations he had with the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Sandys: All possible sources were considered.
    Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman had endorsement from Cyprus of any arrangements which have been made for an international force? Particularly, will he say whether this matter has been discussed with U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with a view to getting United Nations authority for any steps which are taken?
    Mr. Sandys: I have been in fairly constant touch with all the Governments concerned, but I have not yet had a formal reaction from the Government of

    519
    Cyprus about this proposal. With regard to the United Nations, as the hon. Member knows we have throughout wanted to keep the United Nations fully informed about the state of the problem and of the situation in Cyprus. As evidence of that, we have arranged with the Secretary-General to have a representative in Cyprus, General Gyani, who is there as this moment.
    Mr. W. Yates: Having seen the matter at first hand, may I ask if the Secretary of State will please convey to the High Commission in Cyprus the thanks of this House, as well as to the Army, for the work they did in exemplary and prompt fashion in December last year?
    Mr. Sandys: I am sure that will be appreciated.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA

    Mr. Winston Field (Talks)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what decisions were reached in the official discussions with Mr. Winston Field, Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, regarding the future of that territory.
    Mr. Sandys: My talks with Mr. Winston Field were confidential.
    Mr. Brockway: I appreciate that, but is it not desirable that as a result of these discussions the Government should now declare their intention in relation to Southern Rhodesia? Is there not great danger in allowing the situation to drift on? Is it not important that we should make clear that sovereignty for Southern Rhodesia will not be recognised until a majority of the population has the right to control the Parliament and the Government?
    Mr. Sandys: I will make a statement when I have something more to say.
    Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia is held in great regard by many people in that country for his common sense and sagacity? Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to help him in this difficult matter?
    Mr. Sandys: As I have said, I have been having talks with the Prime
    520
    Minister of Southern Rhodesia. This is obviously a most difficult and delicate subject, and I think that until any conclusion is reached it is better that I should not make partial statements about these matters.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, as the result of these discussions, no departure has been made from Government policy already stated in the House?
    Mr. Sandys: There has been no change.

  INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Yorkshire (East and West Ridings)
    Mr. Merlyn Reesasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development (1) how far he has proceeded with the delimitation and designation of a Yorkshire regional planning area;
    (2) if he is aware that, despite the present economic position of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, between 1951 and 1961 there was a net loss of population of 92,000, mainly young skilled workers, from this area, which contains a relatively small proportion of the modern growth industries; and what regional plan he has made to deal with these long-term problems.
    The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): In developing the new machinery for regional development I must at present concentrate on those parts of the country where the most pressing problems exist: but I am aware of the general situation, prospects and problems of the East and West Ridings, and I am now considering the position.
    Mr. Rees: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 3rd December last he stated that he was concerned with planning for the country as a whole? Is he aware that it is very important for us to know whether the East and West Ridings will be put together with Lincolnshire or Derbyshire and that this would at least be a first step?
    Mr. Heath: Yes; I appreciate the importance of the point the hon. Gentleman has raised. I was able to discuss this with many of the local authorities and others in the East and West Ridings during my visit before Christmas.
    Mr. Mendelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement he made during his recent visit to Yorkshire has been critically received in many quarters in industry? Will not he reconsider his position? Is it not true to say that there are certain parts of Yorkshire, particularly in the West Riding, which are mainly dependent upon old industries, some of which will need less labour in future years? Is not now the best time for future planning to bring diversification of industry to these areas, rather than waiting until there is a gross level of unemployment in Yorkshire as well?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, that is why we are considering the results of the discussions we had before Christmas.

    Pedigree Livestock (Export to Russia and Eastern Europe)
    Mr. Hendryasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what was the amount of exports, of pedigree livestock to Russia and the Eastern European countries in the last 12 months; and what steps he is taking to encourage this trade.
    Mr. Heath: Separate figures are not available of exports of pedigree livestock but exports to Russia and Eastern Europe of cattle for breeding and dairy purposes amounted to £29,000 in 1963.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I encourage this trade through the Livestock Export Council and we are supporting the British Agricultural Exhibition in Moscow in May.
    Mr. Hendry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, which will give a great deal of encouragement to those engaged in this trade. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all steps are being taken to make known to the Governments of these countries the availability and quality of British pedigree livestock?
    Mr. Heath: We are doing a great deal to make this known. Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture
    522
    and I are very anxious that exports of this kind should be increased. There will be further opportunities at the Moscow Exhibition. We are publicising this in the Board of Trade Journal this week. We are also, as I have already announced embarking on a series of talks with the representatives of the Eastern bloc countries in addition to the Soviet Union. This will give us an additional opportunity of bringing this to their notice.

    Monopolies Commission's Report (Electrical Equipment)
    Mr. Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what decision he has come to on the recommendations in paragraph 1066 of the Monopolies Commission's Report on the Supply of Electrical Equipment for Mechanically Propelled Land Vehicles.
    Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the right hon Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 16th January.
    Mr. Darling: If I remember rightly, the Answer was that the Government were doing something about three of the recommendations and considering the fourth. As there was no indication as to which the recommendations were, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing about the recommendation that the Battery Association should bring to an end the price information agreement on which the members of the Association have been working?
    Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend's Answer made it clear that the recommendation that Lucas's interest in certain companies should be made known was dealt with by the publication of the Report. The other two recommendations about resale price maintenance and information agreements were covered by the statement that I made to the House the week before last announcing the legislation which we propose to introduce. I am now considering the last recommendation about publishing prices and terms.

    Electrical Plant (Commonwealth Schemes)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what action he

    523
    has taken, in accordance with the Montreal Conference of 1958, to encourage British finance and electrical plant manufacturers jointly to tender for the plant and equipment, or specifications and designs required for the harnessing of tidal power in Western Australia, the Snowy Mountains Scheme, and other similar schemes in Australia, India, and New Zealand, and for the New Zealand Geothermal Schemes.
    Mr. Heath: With encouragement from the British Government, British manufacturers have been supplying well over half of Australia's and New Zealand's imports of heavy electrical plant and about one-third of India's.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister agree that the potentialities for large-scale electrical plant are greater in the world now than they have ever been? Is he aware that there is a French consortium now preparing specifications and designs for the harnessing of tidal power in Western Australia? As Britons, at Manchester University and at Trafford Park, were the pioneers of these things, will the Secretary of State take a special interest in this in order to ensure that we keep in the forefront of this type of development?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, indeed. Of course we will do that. As to Australia in particular, we are in the current year carrying out a very large programme of British Weeks and the great Exhibition at Sydney. We shall take every opportunity of pressing on with this trade.

    B.O.T.A.C. Assistance, Blyth
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will state the number of firms in the Blyth constituency which made applications for Board of Trade Advisory Committee assistance in the last two years, the number of requests granted, and the number of applications still being dealt with.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): During 1962 and 1963 seven applications were received for financial assistance for projects in the Blyth and Seaton Delaval employment exchange areas, which broadly correspond with the development districts in the hon. Mem-
    524
    ber's constituency. Two of these were later withdrawn. In one of the other five assistance has been offered and two are under consideration.
    Mr. Milne: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. What steps are now being taken to point out to industrialists that the development district outside the growth zone is still eligible for aid and that the grants available within the growth zone are also available in the development district of Blyth itself?
    Mr. Price: This is made clear in our publications, but I will give the further information to the hon. Gentleman that in the six months for which standard grants, as distinct from loans, have been available seven applications have been received for the two employment exchange areas in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and all but one have been approved in principle.

    British Lion Films Ltd.
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he will give details of the way in which the shares of British Lion Films Ltd. have appreciated in such a way that payment of £795,000 is being made to the five directors who purchased a half share in the company in 1958 for £9,000; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heath: From 1958 onwards, the then deferred shareholders, who were also the executive directors, effectively had a a half interest in British Lion after the £600,000 of preferred shares held by the National Film Finance Corporation. In last year's capital reorganisation, after 591,000 of the preferred shares had been repaid, the Corporation and the executive directors were each left with a half interest in the company. From April, 1958, to March, 1963, British Lion, under the management of the executive directors, made profits totalling £1,195,829. British Lion has now been independently valued at £1,590,000 and the executive directors have been bought out for half that sum.
    Sir C. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend two supplementary questions? First, is not this an outrageously big tax-free profit to make in such a short time, particularly when they were dealing partly with Government money

    525
    and with Government restrictions? Secondly, if the company is now doing so fabulously well, why sell it?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]
    Mr. Heath: I do not know why my hon. Friend should refer to these as being tax-free profits. They were profits made by British Lion and dealt with in the normal way. The tax loss which existed at the time when British Lion was created has not been used and, therefore, these were profits made in the normal way. The reason why the Government bought out the five executive directors was because, as a result of the arrangement for the five directors to continue to manage this company, they had three options. The first was that the Government should buy out. The second was that they should buy out. The third was that the Government should be forced to buy them out. As the five directors did not exercise their options, the Government had no alternative but to buy the company. The success of the company was due to the management of the five directors, and the National Film Finance Corporation had a holding of the 600,000 deferred shares which were repaid. Moreover, the Government have shared to the extent of 50 per cent. in the success of this company.
    Sir C. Osborne: My right hon. Friend has not got my point. Is he assuring the House that the difference between the £9,000 that they paid for half the capital and the £795,000 that they are now getting will be subject to tax; or will it be tax-free? In any case, if they are making all that money, I still do not understand why the company should be sold.
    Mr. Heath: If the company is to be sold and if satisfactory arrangements can be made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] then, of course, the Government will be in receipt of the full value of the company.—[HON. MEMBERS "Why sell it?"] It is being sold because Governments of both sides, including the one of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member, have firmly declared that it is not the Government's intention to go into film production or distribution. That remains our view, as I have stated to the House.
    Mr. Jay: Is not the Secretary of State aware that this agreement was made by the present Government in 1958 and was
    526
    severely criticised by my hon. Friends? As the capital profit on these shares is tax-free, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, surely the right solution is, as the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) said, not to sell these shares out of public ownership?
    Mr. Heath: I cannot accept the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. This company must be managed if it is held by the Government. When it was previously managed part of the terms were those to which the right hon. Gentleman now objects. As a result of successful management it has gone from a company making a considerable loss, a heavy tax loss, to one in which the Government's money has been repaid as to the deferred shares, and it has taken half of the results of that operation of the capital in which we each had 50 per cent The right solution is, with the proper safeguards, to sell the company into hands which will work independently on distribution and production.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I would not have got to my feet had the right hon. Gentleman not referred to me. Does he recall that this highly successful operation, which was begun with a decision of the Labour Government to create the National Film Finance Corporation, received the most bitter criticism from Conservatives when they were in Opposition? The whole operation has shown that public enterprise, even in this difficult sphere, can work very successfully. Will the right hon. Gentleman now take it that the interests of the film industry demand a continuance of the good service which has been given under the aegis of public enterprise?
    Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman will look back to the speeches which he made when introducing the Bill he will see that he was not contemplating that the Government or the National Film Finance Corporation should have a holding in production or distribution companies. He made that plain at the time. We are pursuing exactly the same policy now.
    Mr. Wilson: But does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the situation then arose of the growing power of the monopoly in distribution in this industry under the Conservative Government? It

    527
    was the Conservatives who then had to go still further into public enterprise, with our considerable support. Would the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that in the wrecking policy on which he is now engaged he will not allow control to pass directly or indirectly into the hands of any American company?
    Mr. Heath: The reason why the National Film Finance Corporation supported British Lion by taking a shareholding was not because of monopolistic tendencies in the industry but because of the great losses suffered by British Lion, and the N.F.F.C. wished to find some way of recovering its money. The monopolistic tendencies were brought about because of the decline in the requirements of the cinema-going public and of the industry itself, in which, obviously, the duopoly has been strengthened. I have given an assurance regarding the sale of British Lion, that it will maintain its present policy towards independent producers.
    Mr. Wilson: What about my further point; about it passing into American hands?
    Mr. Heath: I have given a full undertaking to the House, and the matter is now being negotiated with those who wish to buy the company.

  SMOKING (YOUNG PEOPLE)
  Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the actions of the Minister for Science, the Minister of Health and the Postmaster-General in securing an agreed programme of action to prevent young people acquiring the habit of smoking.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): My three right hon. Friends and the other Ministers concerned already work closely together in this matter.
  Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Ministers are working with singularly little effect? Does he recall that the Government declared their policy on this matter on 27th June, 1957, and that we have now reached the stage when £32,000 is being spent on dissuading people and £10 million on advertising to persuade people to smoke?
  528
  Will he not give a lead and try to get some real action in response to his own Government's policy?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we have taken a lead and action. Local education and local health authorities do a great deal and, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the other day told the House how 440,000 posters carrying the slogan "Cigarettes cause lung cancer" had been distributed for display. I do not think that there is any excuse for anyone not to know the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer.
  Mr. John Hall: Could not hon. Members who feel strongly on this subject perhaps help to set an example by suggesting that smoking should be banned throughout the Palace of Westminster?
  Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that neither the medical profession nor the public will take this campaign seriously until the Government do something about cigarette advertising? Will he discuss this with his right hon. Friends?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am always willing to discuss this with my right hon. Friends.

  PUBLIC SERVICE (PUBLIC AND PERSONAL INTERESTS)
  Mr. Loughlinasked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider standardising the law and practice relating to the exercise of responsibility by individuals in public life in cases where there may be a conflict of public and personal interests.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The main principle is clearly understood—that no conflict must be allowed to arise between private interests and public duties—and I do not see that the existing arrangements require any comprehensive review.
  Mr. Loughlin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that increasing concern is being expressed about the way in which Ministers can receive pecuniary gains from policies which they themselves pursue? Does he know that his right

  529
  hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said last week that members of councils should not vote on matters which manifestly affect their own pockets? If this dictum applies in the case of councillors who are council house tenants, should it not apply also to Ministers and, if not, should it apply to councillors?
  The Prime Minister: Ministers have all sorts of responsibilities and Ministers in the Cabinet have overall responsibilities for every kind of policy. I do not think that we can have a rule more effective than that which all Governments have observed up to now.
  Mr. Loughlin: But if it is true that it should not apply to Ministers, would the Prime Minister give further consideration to the position of local authority representatives who are inhibited in this way in the work of the local authorities? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the local authorities should achieve a greater importance in the shaping of future Governments, and will he kindly have a look at this matter with a view to standardising the practice?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will put down a Question—
  Mr. Loughlin: I have. It is on the Order Paper.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member's Question asks me if I
  "… will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider standardising the law and practice relating to the exercise of responsibility by individuals in public life in cases where there may be a conflict of public and personal interests."
  If the hon. Member wants me to answer a specific question about local authorities he should put one down.
  Mr. Loughlin: I have done so.

  MR. RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
  Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister why permission was given to Mr. Randolph Churchill to see a Cabinet Paper.
  The Prime Minister: As I informed the House on Tuesday, no such permission was given.
  Mr. Jay: Does not the Prime Minister know that the Official Secrets Act forbids not merely the showing of papers to unauthorised persons, but the giving of information? Is he not aware that this particular paper was circulated to the Cabinet under the initials of the previous Prime Minister, and was formally considered and endorsed by the Cabinet? In these circumstances, will he confirm or deny the persistent report that this information was given to Mr. Randolph Churchill by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan)?
  The Prime Minister: I have already answered that question, and have said that Mr. Randolph Churchill divulged nothing of the advice given to the Queen. I have also said that I did not intend to give to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and this applies to his right hon. Friend, any information whether or not there was a Cabinet Paper.
  Mr. Jay: As, a year ago, Miss Barbara Fell was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for showing a rather minor official document to an unauthorised person, are we to have one law for civil servants and another for Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: I have already said that no paper of any kind was shown improperly to anybody.

  CYPRUS
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister which regional agency has the responsibility for seeking a peaceful settlement of the dispute over Cyprus, in accordance with Articles 33 and 52–54 of the United Nations Charter.
  The Prime Minister: The Treaty of Guarantee between Britain, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus constitutes a regional arrangement, rather than a regional agency, within the meaning of Articles 33 and 52–54 of the United Nations Charter. It provides for certain steps calculated to contribute to the maintenance of peace and security in the area.
  Mr. Warbey: Now that the attempt to secure a purely pacific settlement of the dispute appears to have broken down, and enforcement measures in the

  531
  form of outside military forces are contemplated, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government will abide strictly by the terms of Article 53, which lays down that no enforcement action may be taken without the direct approval and authorisation of the Security Council? Secondly, in view of this, will the Prime Minister agree that it is the responsibility of the Security Council to determine that the composition and character of the forces introduced into Cyprus shall be such as to ensure a pacific settlement?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is really making too many assumptions. First of all, he assumes that any attempts at settlement are at an end. Secondly, he assumes that we are contemplating enforcement measures. What we are aiming at is the introduction of an international force into Cyprus by agreement between the parties.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be widespread support for the idea of an international force as a stop-gap operation to keep the peace while other arrangements are being made? Is he aware that we would, at any rate, recognise the value of this not being a N.A.T.O. operation, for reasons that the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we do—and I do not want to trespass on some very difficult negotiations; and that whatever countries are invited to serve in this very vital task of preventing tensions from flaring up on the island, the sooner it is possible to give that force a United Nations status—recognising the difficulties and delays involved in this—the better it will be for peace keeping, and the reputation of the United Nations?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties here, because we have, of course, to get the agreement of Greece and Turkey as well as that of the Cyprus Government in these matters. We are trying, as he wishes—and as I think the whole House wishes—to organise an international force which will, so to speak, hold the ring while negotiations go on. I would rather not answer today the right hon. Gentleman's Question about the United Nations umbrella over the forces, if he does not mind.

  PUBLIC INQUIRIES
  Mr. Rossasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied that the rights of the individual to appear before statutory public inquiries of all kinds are safeguarded and are not frustrated by being made difficult and expensive to exercise; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any cases in which persons concerned are not given a full opportunity of being heard before a tribunal or other public inquiry, although the costs of doing so will naturally be greater in some cases than in others. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to consider it.
  Mr. Ross: Does the Prime Minister think it right that objectors to the closure of the lines from Inverness to Kyle and Inverness to Wick—the only railway links in an area of 6,000 square miles—should be asked to travel to one centre? Does he not realise that anyone objecting to the closure of the Kyle of Lochalsh to Inverness line and living in the north of Skye will be faced with a journey of 140 miles each way to exercise his rights? Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his own constituents, in respect of this kind of thing, to travel from Perth to Newcastle?
  The Prime Minister: I have made inquiries on this point. The Transport Users' Advisory Council has told me that written representations are given just as much attention as any other—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that it is not necessary for a person actually to go to the committee meeting.
  Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  MINISTERS' AND MEMBERS' SALARIES (COMMITTEE)
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister on what date the Committee which he appointed to inquire into salaries of Ministers and Members of Parliament and related matters first met; and how many meetings they have held.
  The Prime Minister: I do not consider that I am responsible for the arrangements this Committee makes for its meetings.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that until at least a few days ago the Committee had not even met? As he is responsible for setting up the Committee, can he tell us who is responsible for seeing that it meets? What is the purpose of having a Committee that does not meet?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that the panel has had several discussions, met formally yesterday, and saw the Committee this morning.
  Mr. Lewis: That is only since I put down the Question. Are we to take it that every time we want a meeting of the Committee I must put down a Question?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman puts down a lot of Questions, anyhow.

  THE PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Prime Minister why he will not introduce legislation to provide that the office of Prime Minister shall in future only be held by a person who has secured a majority of votes in the House of Commons voting for that purpose.
  The Prime Minister: I am against unnecessary legislation.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—and I guess he is—that the present Prime Minister was not elected by any persons, either in this House or in the country, when he was appointed; and that some people doubt whether he even had the support of his hon. Friends? Surely, there should be some method whereby British democracy can work, and is not this a good way of seeing that it does so?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I dealt with that matter the day before yesterday.
  Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people are getting heartily sick of all the rubbish that is being spoken—[Interruption.]—and has been written about his selection as Prime
  534
  Minister; and that most people believe that the process of that selection was as democratic, as dignified and as expeditious as the process employed by the party opposite in selecting its leader a year ago.

  TANGANYIKA (NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister by what authority a Government intelligence officer gave an interview concerning Tanganyika which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 23rd January, 1964.
  The Prime Minister: No authority was given for an interview, and I have no reason to suppose that the article in question was based on information supplied by a Government official.
  Mr. Healey: Would not the Prime Minister agree that statements made in this interview were mischievous, irresponsible and untrue, and can only damage co-operation between Commonwealth countries, particularly in security matters? Is he in a position to assure the House that he knows for certain that no Government servant was responsible for this interview? He will realise how important this could be for Commonwealth co-operation in future.
  The Prime Minister: I have tried to say that, to the best of my knowledge, no Government official, certainly, was responsible for this. That is what I said in my original Answer. It really is not for me to comment on the article, or on the internal affairs or personalities of other countries.
  Mr. Hastings: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is every merit in the public of this country being made fully aware of the Communist menace in Africa and that this article went a long way to enlighten them?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Healey: If the Prime Minister will not answer his hon. Friend's supplementary question, will he at least assure the House that certain statements about Mr. Kambona's residence in Moscow were untrue, and known to be untrue, and that no service is done to the cause of the Commonwealth or of

  535
  resistance to Communism in Africa by mischievous, irresponsible and untrue statements about Ministers in other Governments?
  The Prime Minister: I did not answer my hon. Friend's supplementary question because I am not concerned to confirm or not confirm statements by journalists in articles.
  Mr. H. Wilson: If the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions about a Communist plot in East Africa, may I ask whether his own statement on American television last Sunday as reported in this country—perhaps inaccurately—represents the view of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the statements I make anywhere represent the views of Her Majesty's Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the International Development Association Bill, and of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Bill [Lords], and Committee stage of the Money Resolutions.
Motion on a Double Taxation Relief Order.
TUESDAY, 4TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which, if the House agrees, will be taken formally to allow debate, until seven o'clock, on an Opposition Motion on the Distribution of Political Material by the General Post Office.
And, afterwards, on the Sale of the British Lion Films Limited, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Public Libraries and Museums Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
And, if there is time, the Second Reading of the British Nationality Bill.
THURSDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a Government Motion on Commonwealth Trade, Technical Assistance and other Commonwealth Links.
FRIDAY, 7th FEBRUARY Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Debate on a Government Motion on the Buchanan Report.
Mr. H. Wilson: It looks like a more interesting week's business than the business which the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced last week. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when it is expected that we shall have the White Paper on the Monopolies Commission and also the Bill dealing with resale price maintenance?
Mr. Lloyd: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first comment, I certainly hope that next week will be as useful a week as this week has been.
As for the second question, we are one week nearer to it than we were this time last week.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had his attention drawn to the excellent interim Report which was published yesterday by the new Inland Waterways Board? In view of the recommendations published there, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it will be possible for the House to discuss them before the Board produces its final Report? Would he consider arranging for the House to have at least half a day's debate on the subject?
Mr. Lloyd: Further consultations and discussions were recommended in the Report. It would be wiser to wait until those have taken place before we have a debate.
Mr. Cronin: When can the House expect a statement from the Minister of Aviation on the setting up of a committee under Sir John Lang to investigate excessive profits on a guided missiles contract, bearing in mind that this is not only a matter of great public importance but that this new committee to some extent anticipated the function of a Select Committee of the House, the Public Accounts Committee? Is it not

537
essential that the House should have a statement on this at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Lloyd: If my memory is right, there are certain Questions down for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to answer early next week. I think that they will cover the point which the hon. Member is making. I believe that my right hon. Friend is first on the list to answer Questions then.
Mr. H. Wilson: Since this raises questions which are rather wider than the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation, and an inquiry was set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us why, in view of the reported loss of £2·7 million through some very unsatisfactory financial operations, an inquiry has been set up in this way, under the chairmanship of a former Permanent Secretary in a sister Department working under the same system? Why is it not being left to the ordinary machinery of the House to deal with what, on the face of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report, looks like a public scandal?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that before we come to any kind of judgment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said it would be much better to await the Answers of my right hon. Friend to the Questions on the Order Paper.
Dame Irene Ward: On the business for Tuesday, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, having regard to my Motion on false documentaries by the B.B.C. it would be in order for the Postmaster-General to convey an apology from the Director-General of the B.B.C. to the North Country for the false documentary on our position?
[That, in the opinion of this House, the Postmaster General should require the British Broadcasting Corporation to make a statement on its recent Gallery programme on the North-East of England, which it is alleged was faked in certain respects, as it is in the national interest that documentary programmes should be true representation of fact.]
Mr. Speaker: There is some difficulty, I think, in getting the delivery of apologies into business questions.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. I was referring to a Motion on the Order Paper. I think that it would be convenient that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General should convey the apology.
Mr. Speaker: I know of the Motion on the Order Paper, but, seriously I think that we ought to confine business questions to business, otherwise it will be interminable.
Mr. Loughlin: Does the Leader of the House recall that a fortnight ago he said that he would consider the possibility of finding time for the House to discuss the situation in Aden, where a considerable number of people are still being detained without trial and where a state of emergency still exists? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered this matter and, if so, can he find time for a short debate on the situation next week?
Mr. Lloyd: I have considered the matter, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Mr. Mendelson: Would the Leader of the House consider arranging a foreign affairs debate in which his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary could give an account to the House of his recent discussions with Common Market countries at the Western European Union and on other occasions on the Government's policy and their desire to participate in political discussions on the future political set-up of Europe?
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman also tell the House whether, if a debate could not be forthcoming next week, the Foreign Secretary could at least make a statement and could be questioned on what apparently are serious departures from statements of Government policy in the House?
Mr. Lloyd: I will consider with my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Jennings: Has my right hon. and learned Friend taken note of the Motion, in the names of about 100 hon. Members from both sides of the House,

539
on public service pensioners and their plight?
[That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and those retired from the armed forces, and especially of the older pensioners in these groups, whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service and the armed forces, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce special provisions to improve such pensions.]
Would my right hon. and learned Friend be prepared to give time in the near future for a debate on this subject?
Mr. Lloyd: I will bear in mind both what my hon. Friend has just said and also what is in the Motion.
Mr. Wigg: Would the Leader of the House not consider the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and find time for a debate on the Report he mentioned? Surely the point made by my right hon. Friend was that that Report has not been considered by the House. It contains the gravest allegations about impropriety in the divulging of information and the obtaining of very large sums of public money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is fully aware of the difficulties about putting down a Question, although I have one on the Order Paper.
Surely it is only proper that before a Minister who is personally involved in this sets up a committee of inquiry the House should have the opportunity of debating the Report of the Estimates Committee.
Mr. Lloyd: There are certain opportunities open to the Opposition for this sort of thing, and, also, there are certain days devoted to the Reports of the Estimates Committee. In fact, I am at present discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) and other hon. Members how we handle that matter. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Sir J. Eden: On Monday's business, the Double Taxation Relief Order, may we expect a statement showing the progress which is being made in negotiations with the Ghana Government to relieve former Gold Coast civil servants and
540
other servants of Ghana from the iniquitous imposition placed upon them by the arbitrary decision of President Nkrumah?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that it would be difficult for my hon. Friend or for anyone else to get that in order under the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping and Air Transport Profits) (Lebanon) Order, 1964.
Mr. Lawson: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the Written Answer given on Tuesday last to the effect that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has decided to transfer his accounts department headquarters, employing 1,000 people, to Hastings? Since this appears to be contrary to the advice of the Flemming Report and the Government's declared policy of bringing about a more sensible distribution of Government Departments and offices, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman find time for the matter to be debated?
Mr. Lloyd: I was wondering how the hon. Gentleman would bring the point in on business for next week. I shall convey what he has said to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. W. Yates: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that, on the Consolidated Fund Bill next Tuesday, I shall stand in my place until such time as there is a debate on the emergency now existing in Aden and the Protectorate, as I am not prepared to see British subjects remain in gaol without trial?
Mr. Lloyd: Whether my hon. Friend stands in his place or not is not for me.
Mr. Milne: Is the Leader of the House prepared to reconsider his reply about monopolies and the issue of the Government White Paper on resale price maintenance? Does he think that his reply about it being a week nearer than it was this time last week was the brightest way of dealing with a question which is of vital importance to millions of people?
Mr. Lloyd: It was a very factual way to deal with it.
Sir C. Osborne: Since the business on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday

541
is to be taken formally and the debate on the Post Office is to proceed until seven o'clock, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that there will be plenty of time to discuss the question of British Lion Films, in which great interest has been shown on both sides, or shall we have to finish at ten o'clock?
Mr. Lloyd: It will be taken on the Motion for Adjournment of the House, and the debate will have to finish in accordance with the Standing Order.
Dr. King: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) about the Motion on public service and military pensioners, the veteran pensioners, will the Leader of the House bear in mind two points, one, that there are already over 100 signatories to the Motion from both sides of the House, and, two, that in the last pensions increase debate both sides of the House promised that they would deal with this matter soon and put it on a permanent basis? Will the Leader of the House give very serious consideration to providing an opportunity for the issue to be debated?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly.
Sir J. Eden: With further reference to that Motion, in view of the fact that a very substantial increase took place under the 1962 Act, the largest single increase ever made in these pensions, will my right hon. Friend consider the aspect of reorganising the method of determining these pensions rather than follow the exact terms of the Motion on the Order Paper?
Mr. Lloyd: That would be a policy matter not for me, but I shall bear in mind the question of a debate.
Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that there be no misunderstanding in the House about the Consolidated Fund Bill, do I understand that the rules of the House are that, if a Member is standing when the Bill is under discussion, that Member, whatever be agreed between the usual channels, has the absolute right to be called?
Mr. Speaker: No one has an absolute right to be called; it depends on his catching my eye. But I think that the
542
point which the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise is clear enough.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: In considering an opportunity for a debate on pensions, will the Leader of the House arrange matters so that discussion of the plight of the old railway superannuitants is within order, since they have had the worst deal of all pensioners in this country?
Mr. Lloyd: I shall bear that in mind.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Leader of the House has told my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the White Paper on Defence will be published 13th February. Can he say when there will be a debate on this and, if his answer is "Very soon", will he define "very soon"?
Mr. Lloyd: There certainly will be a debate on the White Paper within a reasonable time after its publication.
Mr. Lipton: The Leader of the House answered a question on business from me last week about the Government's intention regarding resale price maintenance. Can he now confirm that the Government have decided that the Bill relating to resale price maintenance will be on the Statute Book before the next General Election?
Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add to what I said last week. I covered that point.
Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) exercises his undoubted right to initiate a debate on the Yemen on the Consolidated Fund Bill next Tuesday, will the Leader of the House, in discharge of his duty, institute a discussion through the usual channels in pursuance of the point made by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) so that we have adequate time to discuss the position of British Lion Films?
Mr. Lloyd: As I said last week, matters of order are not for me, but the debate on this Consolidated Fund Bill will be a narrow one, and it will have to be within the terms of the Bill.
Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the Leader of the House is correct in his statement that, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the two Front Benches can

543
agree to limit the rights of hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman does not listen. Nobody said that. The point is that on this Consolidated Fund Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at it, there is some restriction on what can be discussed, because all that will be within its scope will be matters relating to the administration in respect of which there are particular Supplementary Estimates for which the Bill will provide the money, so to speak. I should not like to give a Ruling about the total contents now. I have not got the Supplementary Estimates before me.
Mr. W. Yates: In that case, Mr. Speaker, are Amendments to the Bill by private Members allowed or not?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an Amendment, he can try it. I shall consider it then. But let us get on now. I shall protect his rights, strictly.
Mr. Lipton: The Leader of the House will recall that, last week, he said that it was the Government's intention to have legislation about resale price maintenance on the Statute Book during the lifetime of the present Paraliament. What I am asking him to say now is whether this is still just an intention or whether a decision has been taken by Her Majesty's Government to have the Bill on the Statute Book before the next General Election?
Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add. The hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions.
Mr. H. Wilson: If the Leader of the House has nothing to add, has he anything to subtract?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the meaning of the word "child" in the Family Allowances Acts, the National Insurance Acts and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts and to Increase widowed mother's allowance and certain other benefits under the National Insurance Acts and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts paid in respect of or by reference to children, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any increase in the moneys so payable under the Family Allowances Act 1945, whether on account of allowances or of the expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, being an increase attributable to any extension of the meaning of the world "child" in that Act to include persons up to the age of 19 who are undergoing full-time instruction in a school or who are apprentices, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the new Act in the moneys so payable under section 38 of the National Insurance Act 1946 or section 60 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 (administrative expenses).

  Resolution agreed to.

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

    Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF ALLOWANCES, BENEFITS AND GRANTS BY INCREASE OF AGE LIMITS FROM 18 TO 19.)
    3.50 p.m.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out from beginning to the second "the".
    The Chairman: I think that it will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in page 1, line 11, leave out from "apprentice)" to end of line 12 and insert:
    "the words 'before he or she attains the age of eighteen years' were omitted",

    545
    in page 2, line 1, leave out from "her)" to end of line 2 and insert:
    "there shall be omitted the words 'is under the age of eighteen years and'",
    and in page 2, line 5, leave out from "eighteen)" to end of line 6 and insert:
    "there shall be omitted the words 'was under the age of eighteen years and'".
    Miss Herbison: Since all the Amendments hang together, it is much better that they should be taken together, Sir William.
    This matter was raised on Second Reading by members not only of the Opposition Front Bench but of the Opposition back benches. A number of my hon. Friends have had correspondence with the Minister about it. As a result of that correspondence, together with, perhaps, pressure from both sides of the Committee, the Government decided to raise the age in question from 18 to 19 years. These Amendments, if accepted, would do away with the age limit altogether and would make dependency, and not age, the criterion.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied to the points made on Second Reading when she wound up the debate. I listened very carefully to what she said. Since then, I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT to see what she said. All that the hon. Lady was able to bring forward was a long rigmarole about all the anomalies which would be created if our request were granted.
    I wish to take up one of the first things which the hon. Lady said. She gave a number of examples by which she tried to prove that some people would get this money when they were not in need of it. But family allowances are paid generally without a means test being carried out. If the hon. Lady were to follow her argument to its logical conclusion, that conclusion would have to be that family allowances were paid throughout on a means test basis. I understand that the Government do not accept that, and we on this side certainly do not accept it. I therefore think that the hon. Lady's first argument was completely "phoney".
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out on Second Reading that perhaps it would be better if young people
    546
    over 19 years of age came under a discretionary system. Yet she said:
    "The discretionary system often benefits people far more than a rigid insurance system. Where there is a discretion, often those people whose need is greatest get far more than they do under a rigid insurance system. But local authorities vary enormously one from another … the standard of help given to the widow or the person with a dependent child at college varies very much. We therefore thought fit to deal with the bulk of the cases now by increasing the age limit from 18 to 19."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 1192]
    That statement backs up the case for the Amendment. What, in effect, the hon. Lady said was that during the period between 18 and 19 years of age—the present age limit is 18; the new one will be 19—local authorities have discretion to help, but, because their help varies so greatly, the Government have decided that, even though it may cause difficulties to raise the age to 19, they are going to raise it. If this applies to 19 years of age, it applies just as much to any age of dependency while a young person is being educated. I think that that demolishes another of the hon. Lady's arguments.
    In another part of her speech the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "If we were not to make that period end at a specified age but dependent upon the end of education we think that it would put an almost intolerable burden on the child, who would be under very great pressure to continue education, regardless of whether he was a suitable subject or not, in order to qualify his mother for widow's benefit if the age of 50 was reached by the mother during the critical time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 1190.]
    It would not be the mothers putting an intolerable burden on the child. There would be, and always is, an intolerable burden on these children.
    Is it not a sad reflection on our present legislation that the question whether a person should carry on as a student until 20 years of age should be affected by whether or not his mother would continue to obtain her pension, which at present is £3 7s. 6d. What the hon. Lady is saying is that if the age were raised from 19 to 20 years, in the example which I am giving, whether or not a child were capable of benefiting from the education, the mother might insist on the child continuing in full-time education so that she would reach the

    547
    age of 50 during that time and continue to receive her £3 7s. 6d.
    Should not the Govenment approach the matter from another angle? Should not they have realised long before this that it is an intolerable burden on any woman to realise that, having reached the age of 49 years and 6 months and after caring for a family, and because her last child leaves full-time education, she will lose her £3 7s. 6d. and may get only 10s. a week or nothing at all? If the Government had given as much thought to that aspect of the problem as they have to the question of the anomalies which might arise if we made the criterion dependence and not age, we should not be discussing the problem of the woman who might reach the age of 50 while her child continued his education between the ages of 19 and 20, or 19 and 21, or 19 and 22. I ask the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give serious thought to this.
    I emphasise that it was the present Government which changed the age from 40 to 50 years. In the meantime, many widowed mothers have suffered very greatly. Many of them have missed by a year, a month, a week or even a day obtaining a pension which we on this side feel they should have had. All the reasons given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary are reasons of expediency and not of principle at all. I ask her and the Minister to have second thoughts on this matter. I ask the hon. Lady to bend her thoughts to this matter and to accept the Amendment. If she finds that impossible, I ask her to give the reasons why it is impossible, but I hope that we shall not hear arguments about the difficulty of administration or the kind of "phoney" reasons which we were given on Second Reading.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I will try to deal as quickly as I can with the arguments raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), but I should point out that what she expresses to be her intention is very different from what her Amendments would achieve.
    Perhaps I may deal with the question a little more generally than the hon.
    548
    Lady did in the context of what her Amendments would do. The whole legislation which the Amendments would change is basically legislation to deal with children, it is drafted to deal with children and it has been interpreted as dealing with children in their middle to late teens. It is all relevant to that context.
    The Amendment moved by the hon. Lady would alter the definition of a child. It would leave out the limit prescribed within the family allowances regulations so that the definition of a child would become
    "A person shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a child during any period while he or she is undergoing full-time instruction in school or is an apprentice."
    That depends, therefore, upon what is a school in this context and how the phrase full-time instruction is interpreted.
    "School" is defined widely to include
    "instruction not only in a school in the ordinary sense of the word, but also in a university, college, establishment for further education or other educational establishment as defined or within the meaning of the Education Act."
    The regulations also allow any other establishment to be treated as a school for the purposes of the Act
    "if in the opinion of the Minister it should be treated as an establishment similar to one of those specified."
    Partly because the legislation is dealing in the context of children, a number of other establishments have been specified as schools, including commercial schools, comptometer and other calculating machine schools, dancing, dramatic, speech training and music schools, schools of hairdressing, riding schools, sea training schools, Outward Bound schools and schools run by the National Institute of Houseworkers. They have all been recognised because under the existing legislation, an age limit is prescribed within the Act which limits that Act to children of the age group that I have tried to describe as "middle to late teens".
    A child is a person who is undergoing full-time instruction in any one of those establishments. Full-time instruction is also generously interpreted. As a general rule, it means receiving during a week about 20 hours' instruction before five o'clock in a class. Therefore, according to the hon. Lady's definition, anyone

    549
    receiving full-time instruction in any of those establishments is a child and would qualify, therefore, for dependency increases on either unemployment, sickness or widowed mother's benefit.
    I notice that the hon. Lady does not intend such people to qualify for family allowances, although I was not certain whether she was trying to have a different rule for family allowances and National Insurance merely to get the Amendment in order, or whether she intended to have a different rule.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I had some responsibility for drafting the Amendment. If I may satisfy the hon. Lady's curiosity, the reason why family allowances have been left out is that they are paid out of public funds and we should, therefore, be out of order in attempting to put forward an Amendment. We sometimes hope that the Government will be consistent.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I was hoping that the hon. and learned Member would be consistent. He has now explained his inconsistency in his Amendments concerning family allowances.
    The new definition would, therefore, apply to those taking a second or third degree at university—a research degree after an ordinary degree—even while they were receiving a grant or bursary which would normally make them independent because they were at a school—that is, a university—receiving full-time instruction of 20 hours a week. They might also be doing demonstrating. I remember that when taking my first science degree, many people in that category did demonstration work in the vacation, but they would still be children for the purposes of the Acts with which we are concerned.
    If the hon. and learned Member intends to include family allowances in these provisions, the application of his Amendment to family allowances would mean that a student or graduate might well be married, have children of his own and get family allowances, and yet, because for the purposes of the hon. Lady's definition he was still a child, he might qualify his own parents to receive family allowances in respect of him.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate the significance of the point which I made at the outset. This whole legis-
    550
    lation is drafted in respect and in the context of children and late teen-agers, with the expectation that there will be a limit to these things and that that limit will come in the age limit and not merely in the description of schools.
    I turn now to the provisions concerning widowed mothers, with which one of the Amendments is concerned. A widowed mother's allowance may continue in respect of her child for two reasons. One is that the child is still residing with her up to the age—in the Bill—of 19. The child might, in fact, be earning and independent, but because she still resides with the mother she continues to qualify her mother for the widowed mother's allowance.
    If we removed the age limit, as the hon. Lady's Amendment would do, any widowed mother who had a son or daughter residing with her would continue to get widowed mother's personal allowance, with its advantageous earnings rule, so long as the child was with her; and a child is not defined except by relation to the ordinary family allowances provision. Thus, in the case of a mother with a single daughter who never gets married, if the child continued to reside with her mother even though she was 30 or 40 years of age, she would still qualify her mother for a widowed mother's allowance.
    The other limb of the widowed mother's benefit when she has children living with her is that she still continues to receive it so long as the child is at an educational establishment and is not older than 19. These two provisions march together. At the moment, therefore, the course of the child's education is unlikely to affect the widowed mother's benefit position, because the mother will get it so long as the child is residing with her whether or not she is continuing her education.
    Under the hon. Lady's Amendment, there would be no limit to the residence condition, and this, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the test given by the hon. Lady of education and dependency So long as the son or daughter was residing with the mother, even though they got married and brought husbands or wives home to live with them, they would qualify their mother for widowed mother's allowance.

    551
    Even when the education has ceased, if the child has come home he or she will still continue to qualify the mother for the widowed mother's allowance. If the hon. Lady states that she did not intend this residence provision to continue indefinitely, the other factor becomes important. As the hon. Lady knows, the important factor is whether the mother is 50 years of age when the son or daughter reaches 19. The hon. Lady made some comments about this, but they are more relevant to a later Amendment.
    Clearly, we will get one or two tricky circumstances if there is no age limit. At the moment—
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady has said that I made reference to that, but that it applies to another Amendment. It applies also in this case, because I was taking up the points that the hon. Lady has made in resisting the criterion of dependency.
    Mrs. Thatcher: On the assumption that the same provisions would qualify for a widowed mother's benefit and the age limit of 50 would stay. Without an age limit on the child, we should come to a very tricky moment.
    For example, if the mother were to become 50 within a few months of the child reaching 19 and the child wanted to cease its education and go out to earn a living—a girl might have come to the end of a secretarial course—the mother might say, "If you go on for another six months, I shall be 50, and, therefore, become entitled to benefit between the age of 50 and 60", which would amount to very nearly £2,000. That is the amount that would be at stake.
    Bearing in mind the list I have given of establishments ranking as schools, it would be very tempting for the mother, or for the child, to say, "Shall I go back for another six months, or perhaps take a language course?" The Act would be open to a good deal of manipulation. We think that it would be better to recognise the context in which these provisions were drafted, which is for children, keep the age limit of 19, and deal with it by the Anderson grants. The grants to which I referred on the
    552
    last occasion as being discretionary were the grants which applied to secondary school education. These vary a great deal between one local authority and another.
    As soon as a person comes into a silghtly higher age group qualifying for grant to go to university or college at the higher education grant, the system of Anderson grants is uniform throughout the country. As the hon. Lady probably knows a maximum grant of £300 for maintenance over and above tuition is awarded in those circumstances and there is provision for supplementation to the person who has to go home during the vacation and cannot expect to be supported by a mother or father.
    We think that to remove the age limit would make nonsense of the residential qualification for widowed mothers' allowance and also make nonsense of the family allowance provision, if the intention were to apply the age limit to that as well. We think, therefore, that the Bill as it is, without the Amendment, would be better—to extend the limit to the age of 19, which will deal with the bulk of the cases. When the limit was fixed at 18 in 1956 there were 19,500 children aged 18 or over still at school in Great Britain. In 1962, the figure was 31,500, so more children are staying on later.
    We think that the increase to 19 will still preserve the essence of the Family Allowances Act as providing for children and will deal with the majority of the cases. Over and above those cases, the matter is better dealt with by reference to the Anderson grant system. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: To what extent will this depend on the definition of the school, that is to say, the Order which the hon. Lady read out, including a number of establishments as schools? She will realise that that Order was made by the Minister, it could be revoked and a more appropriate Order substituted if that were required. There is really no point in the terms of that Order, and I should like to know how far it comes into these figures.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The definition of schools which I gave referred only to schools for family allowance purposes.

    553
    That is an extended definition of establishments similar to schools. The figures that I have given of children staying on relate to secondary schools in the ordinary meaning of the words. The hon. and learned Gentleman has emphasised my point that because the Act applied to children we have tried to be generous all along, in every one of these interpretations, and the basis is that it is not suitable for extending the right into the ordinary period of adulthood.
    4.15 p.m.
    Miss Herbison: The reply which we have received from the hon. Lady deals, first, with the Amendments on the Notice Paper. It is true that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is very good at working out Amendments, but neither he nor I would ever claim that we are as fortunate as the hon. Lady in having the staff of the Ministry beside her to help her.
    The hon. Lady and the Minister are very well aware what we want by our Amendment. When the hon. Lady comes to the second part of her case and leaves the technicalities of the Amendment, she shows very clearly that what we want the Government at this stage are not prepared to give.
    I want to refer to a letter which came from the hon. Lady to one of my hon. Friends, when he was asking to have the age raised above 18, merely, I think, at that time, to 19. The hon. Lady, in her letter of 19th July, 1963, wrote these words:
    "Age 18 was adopted because it was the highest practical point that could be fitted into the national insurance and family allowances schemes and it has not so far proved possible to improve upon it. There has to be a point at which childhood comes to an
    end for these purposes and it could not be taken beyond the age 18 without far-reaching consequences in the structure and administration of both schemes."
    The Government, a few months after the hon. Lady sent that letter to my hon. Friend, discovered that they could overcome the consequences, both structural and administrative, in order to raise the limit from 18 to 19 years of age. We on this side of the Committee feel that the difficulties which were inherent in raising it from 18 to 19 could just as easily be overcome in changing it to dependency.
    I would again make the plea to the Minister to have another look at this. Of course, no one on this side of the Committee wants the position which the hon. Lady says would result if this Amendment were accepted, of a widowed mother in those circumstances continuing to receive a pension for the rest of her life. What we want from the Minister is an answer to the point that we are making about making these people really dependent, that the age should go up to about 22 on full-time education and that those taking perhaps a primary degree should be covered by this scheme.
    If the Government had the will to do so they themselves could find the right form of words. It could not be done at this stage, but they could put down appropriate Amendments in another place. Unless we get an assurance that they will do so, we shall have to vote on these Amendments as they are on the Notice Paper.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 159.

    Division No. 11.]

    AYES

    [4.20 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Allason, James

    Boyle, Rt. Hon, Sir Edward

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Arbuthnot, Sir John

    Braine, Bernard

    Cole, Norman

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Brewls, John

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Cordle, John

    Barter, John

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Batsford, Brian

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Costain, A. P.

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Bryan, Paul

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Critchley, Julian

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Biffen, John

    Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Dance, James

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Chataway, Christopher

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Box, Donald

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    du Cann, Edward

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Eden, Sir John

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Pym, Francis

    Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Quennett, Miss J. M.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Farr, John

    Kirk, Peter

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Fell, Anthony

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Roots, William

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Freeth, Denzil

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Gammans, Lady

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Sharples, Richard

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Shaw, M.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Longden, Gilbert

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Gough, Frederick

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Green, Alan

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Stainton, Keith

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    McLaren, Martin

    Stodart, J. A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Harrison, Brian (Malden)

    Marten, Neil

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Mills, Stratton

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Turner, Colin

    Hendry, Forbes

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Morgan, William

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

    Morrison, John

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Walker, Peter

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Wall, Patrick

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Holland, Philip

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Hollingworth, John

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wise, A. R.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Wolrige Gordon, Patrick

    Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Partridge, E.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Peyton, John

    Jackson, John

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    James, David

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Mr. Peel and Mr. Hugh Rees.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pounder, Rafton

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Houghton, Douglas

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

    Howie, W. (Luton)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Hoy, James H.

    Barnett, Guy

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Edwards, Robert (Biston)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Evans, Albert

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

    Finch, Harold

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Fitch, Alan

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Benson, Sir George

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Blackburn, F.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Blyton, William

    Ginsburg, David

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Boardman, H.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Jeger, George

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

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

    Boyden, James

    Grey, Charles

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Bradley, Tom

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Kelley, Richard

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Ledger, Ron

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hannan, William

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Collick, Percy

    Harper, Joseph

    Lipton, Marcus

    Cronin, John

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Loughlin, Charles

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hayman, F. H.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Dalyell, Tam

    Healey, Denis

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Darling, George

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    MacColl, James

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hilton, A. V.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Doig, Peter

    Holman, Percy

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    556

    557

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

    Peart, Frederick

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

    Manuel, Archie

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Swain, Thomas

    Mapp, Charles

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Marsh, Richard

    Probert, Arthur

    Taverne, D.

    Mason, Roy

    Randall, Harry

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

    Milne, Edward

    Reid, William

    Thornton, Ernest

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Tomney, Frank

    Monslow, Walter

    Rhodes, H.

    Wade, Donald

    Moody, A. S.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Warbey, William

    Morris, John

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Ross, William

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Silkin, John

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Oram, A. E.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Willey, Frederick

    Owen, Will

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Paget, R. T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Woof, Robert

    Parker, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Steele, Thomas

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Stonehouse, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

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

    Mr. Lawson and

    Mr. Charles A. Howell.

    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bruce Millan: I put down an Amendment which has not been selected, but which would have had the effect of making the Clause apply from the date of the Prime Minister's announcement of these changes, namely, 10th December, 1963. The Amendment was in page 2, line 6, at the end to add:
    (4) In relation to the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1963 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1946 to 1963 this section shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect since the 10th December 1963.
    I believe that the transitional provisions in Schedule 3 are also involved.
    As the Clause stands, taken in conjunction with the transitional provisions which come later, its effect will be that certain children will have fallen out of the National Insurance benefits and will come in again when the Bill comes into operation. It happens that within the last couple of weeks two cases have been brought to my attention of children reaching the age of 18 about last November and still at school, but in respect of whom National Insurance benefits have not been paid since. In one case an old-age pensioner is the parent, and in the other the father is receiving sickness benefit.
    I understand that the Minister intends to bring in the changes by Order, and that the Order will apply from about 30th March. In the kind of case I have mentioned, the children concerned will
    558
    again become eligible for dependents' allowances as from 30th March. We will then have the anomalous position of a gap between about November and about the end of March, and I suggest that when a change of this kind is being made, it would be better to make some provision for retrospective payment.
    After all, we are admitting that the legislation was wrong in laying down the age limit of 18. As has been pointed out, there is very little change of circumstances which makes 19 right now which did not make 19 right several months ago, and perhaps even longer ago. In those circumstances, it seems a pity that we cannot get some kind of retrospective payment. People in kind of circumstances I have mentioned were, naturally, interested in the Prime Minister's announcement, but many are now disappointed to find that the change is not yet effective.
    Mr. Norman Cole: I am sure that we are all sympathetic to the many cases of those who have lost this allowance for six months and who are possibly to get it back. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will appreciate that if the Amendment had gone through, and the qualification had been made still being dependent, the same thing would have happened if a child had again become dependent by going to some kind of training college.
    Mr. Millan: I am not talking about the Amendment which we have just discussed and the Amendment in my name would not have had that effect. What I am saying is that people involved in cases of the kind I have described were

    559
    encouraged by the Prime Minister's announcement that a change was to be made, but have since been disappointed to find that the change will not become effective until about the end of March, and perhaps slightly beyond that. There is a certain anomaly. I understand that there might be difficulties about making retrospective payment, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something about this aspect of the matter.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has made the case which he would have made if his Amendment had been selected, and I shall try to answer it. The only sense in which one can admit that this legislation proves that former legislation was wrong is the sense in which any subsequent legislation admits that previous legislation was wrong, by changing it. That argument for retrospection could be transferred to any legislation.
    I should like to deal with the substance of the hon. Member's case, which is a serious one. I understand that his aim would be to give the benefit of the increase in National Insurance and Industrial Injuries benefits back to the date of the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 10th December, to anyone who had a "qualified child" between the ages of 18 and 19 between that date, 10th December, and 30th March, when, as I announced last week, the Bill is to take effect.
    There are important practical difficulties about retrospection in this kind of case. If we were to pay back to 10th December, 1963, it would be necessary to examine the papers of all persons who have drawn benefit between 10th December, 1963, and 30th March this year, to see whether anything was owed to them. The scale of that operation becomes evident when I point out that the number of sickness benefit claims a week is about 200,000, that people go on and off the sick list, and that about 50,000 of that 200,000 claimants are on sickness benefit for only a week or less. Therefore, even in the time which has gone by so far since 10th December, there would be more than 1 million claims, and there might well be another 1 million by the time the Bill was through.
    560
    This would be an immense labour. I have no doubt that the work involved in finding the cases which the hon. Member would like to find would delay the fixing of the day on which the Bill came into operation. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that the staff of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance deserves congratulations for bringing this rather complicated Bill into effect so quickly. The kind of operation which the hon. Gentleman has suggested would prevent the staff from meeting the target of 30th March.
    One general point is that the purpose of the payments which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is to meet current needs, the needs at the time, and in that sense there is less argument for paying them retrospectively than might exist in other cases. I cannot find any precedent for retrospective payment of benefits of this kind in previous National Insurance legislation, and it would be difficult to pick out the particular changes the hon. Gentleman has in mind for particularly favourable retrospective treatment.
    I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and when we get to future entitlement rather than payment he will find that Schedule 3 contains a provision which is intended to benefit the widow whose child reaches the age of 19 between the time the Bill receives the Royal Assent and the appointed day. Therefore, a widow of this kind will qualify for a widow's pension paid from the appointed day if she reached her fiftieth birthday before the child became 19.
    This is an arrangement exactly similar to that made in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1956, which was the only other occasion when the age limit which we are discussing today was changed. The effect is that the widow will not lose entitlement because of the time that is necessary after the Royal Assent to bring the Bill into operation. I am of the opinion that for the purpose of entitling the widow to this benefit it is reasonable that the Bill should go back as far as the Royal Assent, but no further.
    To sum up, for the reasons that I have given it seems right that entitlement should run from the date of the Royal Assent, but I think that, in accordance

    561
    with precedent, and because of the real difficulties that would be created by retrospection, the payment of the benefits should take effect from the appointed day.
    Mr. Mitchison: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement with interest. The fact is that whether or not it was right to make this change before the Prime Minister's statement, it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to say that ever since that statement, morally at any rate, or administratively, or politically, or whatever general word one takes for the purpose, there has been a case for letting these people get the additional benefits they are now going to get.
    The Minister is saying that it is not administratively practicable; that it would break the back of the Ministry; that it would, if I might refer to this beautiful phrase again, affect the whole structure and administration of the Ministry if we were to give effect to a moral case. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that.
    We on this side of the Committee do not accept that kind of thing so readily in view of what has happened about the very change that we have just been discussing, that is to say, the change from 18 to 19. We were told that that would break the back of the Ministry. That was impossible until the Government suddenly discovered that they were going to do it. If it is possible to do one thing after saying that it is impossible, we require a little persuasion to believe that something else is so impossible that even this elastic Government cannot manage to do it.
    It may be that that is the case. This is not the kind of thing about which hon. Members really are in a position to say aye or nay. It is, therefore, not a matter on which I feel able to invite my hon. Friends to divide against the Clause which, so far as it goes, we otherwise support, but I regard it with suspicion.
    When one talks about retrospective legislation, there is one case where one is constantly getting something of this sort. It is where a Government statement is made, usually in connection with tax evasion, and then legislative retrospection operates and nobody really objects to it. I should have thought that this kind of case—I do not say
    562
    this particular one—merited a little extra effort. If the right hon. Gentleman says that it really is impossible, that he cannot do anything, we must accept it as a case where our legislative and administrative activities cannot keep pace with what we think to be right. If that is so, it is a confession of failure, and I suppose that one must accept it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(INCREASE OF WIDOW'S ALLOWANCE, WIDOWED MOTHER'S ALLOWANCE, CHILD'S SPECIAL ALLOWANCE AND INDUSTRIAL INJURIES DEATH BENEFIT FOR WIDOW WITH CHILDREN.)
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, at the end to insert:
    "In relation to children over five years of age the figures in columns 3, 4 and 5 of this table shall have effect with the addition to each figure in column 3 of 6s. 6d. and to each figure in columns 4 and 5 of 5s. 0d. and in relation to children over 11 years of age the said figures shall have effect with the further addition to each figure in column 3 of 9s. 6d. and to each figure in columns 4 and 5 of 7s. 6d.".
    The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if, at the same time, we were to discuss the Amendment in Schedule 1, page 7, line 36, at the end to insert:
    "In relation to children over five years of age the last-mentioned figures shall have effect with the addition of 6s. 6d. to the figure in the first column and of 4s. 0d. to the figures in the second and third columns and in relation to children over 11 years of age the said figures shall have effect with the further addition of 9s. 6d. to the figure in the first column and of 5s. 6d. to the figures in the second and third columns".
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: Subsection (1) provides, in effect, that as regards the widow's allowance, the widowed mother's allowance and the child's special allowance, the increase in respect of a child shall, between the figures in the table in the Clause and the family allowances legislation, amount to 37s. 6d. a head. That is quite clearly, and so far as I can see correctly, stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Perhaps I might quote it because the Government are a little quick to misunderstand. It says:
    "Taking account of family allowances the total benefit payable in respect of each child will therefore become 37s. 6d. a week."

    563
    Though the language of the Clause is a trifle complicated, the effect is really quite a simple one, and one with which in general we would not disagree.
    During the Second Reading debate we stated, and we still think, that there is a case for making a change—which I agree at once has not hitherto been made in this legislation—and drawing a distinction between the young child whose maintenance is not nearly so costly and the older child. As the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in the course of winding up the Second Reading debate, this has already been done in the case of National Assistance. No doubt I shall be told there is a profound difference between the two systems, but I wonder whether that is so in the case that we are now considering.
    We are here dealing substantially with widows and their children. What are we trying to do in this legislation about these widows? We are trying to make good, in terms of money, the loss of the man who is normally the chief bread-winner of the family. When we do that, we have regard—and, of course, this allowance about children shows this—not only to the widow herself, but to her domestic responsibilities, and in doing that we have a figure for the widow and a figure for the child.
    If that is our real object, I can see no logical ground for making the same payment in respect of the cheaper, younger child, as one makes in respect of the dearer, older child. For that reason we are not going to try to cut down the amount which the Government intend to pay for a child, but we propose to add to it in the case of older children. The effect of the Amendment is to make an addition of 6s. 6d. in respect of the first child over 5, and 5s. in respect of the next two, and in respect of children over 11, we make an addition of 9s. 6d. for the first child, and 7s. 6d. for subsequent children.
    We are here in a slight difficulty about the rules of order. We cannot propose Amendments to the Family Allowances Act, and no doubt it would have been more logical to try to deal with it in conjunction with that, but we have to
    564
    take things as they are. We on this side of the Committee may be asked why we have selected these figures. What we are trying to do is to raise a question of principle, the principle being the difference in the cost to the widow of children of different ages, and in no sense do we feel ourselves tied by these figures.
    I should like to tell the Committee how we arrived at the figures. Not only was our method a simple one, but it may be that our arithmetic was wrong. However, I do not think that it matters. What we are trying to do is to get this established as a matter of principle, and I think that we would be the first to say that if that were done there ought to be no difficulty, by analogy with other cases, in arriving at an appropriate figure.
    I have looked at the figures given by the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading debate. They were from the National Assistance Orders. The lowest figure is 19s. 6d. The next one, for a child over 5, is 23s. There is a higher figure for children over 11, and a still higher one for older children, I think over 16.
    What we did was to take the figures that she gave us, because, just as the actual figures are quite sufficient to raise the matter, so the actual ages are sufficient, and we kept to the ones that she had put before the House. She considered that they were sufficient and that was quite good enough for us. Doing that, we took the last figure. We found that there had been an increase of 3s. 6d. on that figure, and we took a proportionate increase on 37s. 6d. Applying that, it is a matter of simple, even if incorrect arithmetic—and I would never wish to vouch for my arithmetic—to do the same thing further on.
    The substantial point is that we want this different treatment of children brought in on this occasion. We think it an appropriate moment to do it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is primarily a Bill about widows. Broadly speaking, we are dealing with cases of widows with children, and they raise this general question.

    565
    I repeat: we had proposed this in our own party pamphlet, but I do not wish to discuss the whole of that now. I merely wish to say that whether or not it was there I should still have thought it right to raise this matter as a separate issue. Again—and I am not sure that this arises directly on the Amendment—we must not be taken to regard these figures as unalterable. We shall not divide on the question of the amount that the Government have taken—37s. 6d.—but every hon. Member would probably agree that there is very little risk of that figure being too high. It may well be too low, even in the case of the youngest and—if I may use the phrase—least expensive child.
    Therefore, we feel little doubt that the right way of dealing with the question is to make an addition in the case of the older children. If we were to do the thing in full detail we should probably make another addition at a later age, but we did not want to depart from what the hon. Lady had put before us as a sufficient exposition of National Insurance principles.
    The second Amendment is arrived at in the same way, by taking the National Assistance changes in proportion. It is applied to the allowances in respect of children under something that is really rather different—the death benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act as laid down in the First Schedule. We simply felt that if it were right in one case it would be right in another, and with some hesitation—because we thought that we might be told that we had not put down Amendments in a sufficient number of places—we thought that we had better put it down in Schedule 1 as well as Clause 2.
    But the substantial point arises on the first Amendment. It is the question whether there should not be a greater allowance for older children than is given in respect of the young ones.
    Mr. John McKay: Usually we are very glad to give a little extra to any of the insurance beneficiaries, but it seems to me that we are overlooking many insured persons, I put down a new Clause—Increase of weekly rates of benefit in respect of children—expecting it to be discussed, to show the remarkable differences which result from the operation of the Bill in the benefits to
    566
    one section of the insured population as compared with others.
    My Amendment is based on information which I have examined and analysed to the best of my ability. As a result of the Government's proposals in respect of widows, bearing in mind that the benefits to be paid to the sick, the unemployed and the injured will stand still, whereas the benefits paid to the sick, the injured and the unemployed, respectively will be 28s, 6d., 23s, 6d, and 13s, below National Assistance, the widows in the respective cases will receive 3s. more than National Assistance—
    The Chairman: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the figures which the hon. Member is now propounding to those included in the Amendment.
    Mr. McKay: I am sorry to get out of order, Sir William. I always try to keep in order, but it is sometimes difficult. I want to express certain opinions which are not very popular, and which are not very well understood. I am disappointed that on this occasion the Labour Party has not taken the opportunity of trying to help the injured, the sick and the unemployed.
    The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member again. I hope that he will keep strictly to the terms of the Amendment that we are now debating. He is straying far too wide.
    Mr. McKay: I am sorry. I shall just have to take the Bill and the Amendments as they are. It is rather difficult for anybody to speak against the Amendments.
    I hope that the widows will receive the extra money. It will put them in a better position. At the same time, I must express my absolute objection to the attitude that the Labour Party has adopted on this occasion by ignoring all the rest of the beneficiaries under the National Insurance scheme at a time when we are seeking to improve the position of widows to such an extent.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Wood: The point that was in the mind of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) was the fact that the Bill's direct object is to give preference to the children of widowed mothers. I under-

    567
    stand that the purpose of his proposed new Clause would be to abolish that preference. Since the Government have introduced the Bill to increase the preference given to children of widowed mothers, I do not see how they could be in any sort of agreement with the idea that they should abolish that preference.
    I now want to turn to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He said that on this occasion he would not discuss the part of the Labour Party pamphlet which dealt with this subject. I understand that during the course of the afternoon we shall be discussing a good many things in the Labour Party's pamphlet, in various contexts. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the idea of differentiating according to age in connection with children's benefits of this kind represented part of his party's policy.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that his purpose is to give to the children under 5 the same rates as the Government propose in the Bill; to children between 5 and 11 higher rates, and to children over 11 higher rates still. When I studied the figures, particularly in conjunction with those in the other Amendment to the First Schedule, I found them rather queer. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, as always, is extremely modest about his arithmetical powers. I do not think we should be conducting an effective debate if we discussed details, so I will address myself to the principle which I think was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    I understand that he has chosen the steps 5 and 11 because of the similar steps in the National Assistance scale rates. As he so often does, he has anticipated some of the excellent arguments which I shall put forward. He predicted that I should probably draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is individual circumstances which matter in respect of National Assistance. That is why there exist different rates for children of different ages.
    I will not joint issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman on the question of the possibility of introducing differential rates of this kind into the
    568
    National Insurance scheme. It would be possible to do so. The reason it has not been done in the past, and why I do not think it should be done in the present, or in the future, is that the National Insurance scheme, unlike National Assistance, has to deal with broad categories of people and to try to meet the usual, average situation.
    It would certainly be possible to make the structure of National Insurance even more complicated than it is, which would be the effect of accepting this Amendment—and it would be an effect repeated many times elsewhere throughout the insurance scheme. I suggest that this would be inappropriate to the insurance scheme. One thing it would inevitably do would be to send up the administrative costs. Apart from the slightly queer arithmetic of the Amendment, I think that I must point out that, however the hon. and learned Gentleman did his sums, he would be subject to the criticism that the amounts he proposes for children, certainly above the ages of 5 and 11, are disproportionate when compared with other insurance benefits.
    To take one figure in the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes 53s. 6d. for the eldest child if he or she is over the age of 11. This 53s. 6d. compares with a rate of 41s. 6d. which we pay for an adult dependant. It compares also with the rate of 38s. 6d. which is the unemployment or sickness benefit rate for boys and girls under 18. It compares with 46s. which is the personal unemployment or sickness benefit for married women. In my opinion, these kinds of increases would be very much out of proportion with the purpose which they are intended to fulfil.
    As I understand that some remarks by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the National Assistance scales form the basis for the proposals of the Opposition in these Amendments, I think it worth while pointing out that up to the age of 18 the rates proposed by the Bill are all higher than the National Assistance scales. We find, and I think we shall continue to find, that the Opposition is making the most of the opportunity today to put forward a number of very generous proposals.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not find any reason to

    569
    disagree when I say that the lavish approach of the Opposition this afternoon, as an Opposition, is not, so far as I have read my back copies of HANSARD, matched by their generosity when in office. Since 1951 Conservative Governments have increased the real value of allowances for the children of widowed mothers including family allowances by these proportions: 157 per cent. for the first child—that is a real value increase—and 243 per cent. for the second and third children.
    During the last 12 years, and in this Bill, for the reasons I have given, rather than make differential improvements for different ages we have had as our objective the making of substantial improvements for widows' children of all ages. We believe that to be the better way to deal with this problem. In view of the increases which have been made, the increases which will be added under the provisions of the Bill, and the distinction, which I have tried to point out, which exists between what I believe should be the primary purposes of a National Assistance scheme and a National Insurance scheme, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Far be it from me to take away any crumb of comfort with which the Government may console themselves over what they have done about social insurance. We shall not only argue about the increases in benefits, but also about the distribution of the contributions between the State and the contributor. However, that is a matter for the hustings and not for this Committee.
    I wish to ask a question about what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier. He referred to the way in which we have so far provided for child allowances by family allowances and the varying provisions under the National Insurance legislation. But, as the Minister will know, we are about the only country which does not provide for an age rate in the social insurance part of National Assistance.
    There is nothing remarkable about such an idea. Most of the social insurance schemes of European countries and others have been framed and have come into operation since our own. In most cases we were in advance of other
    570
    countries regarding family allowances, except France, where the family allowance was not provided for social service purposes but as part of the population policy.
    Most other countries have made provisions for such schemes. Canada provides so much for the first child and so much for the second, with an age scale of, I think, 5, 10 and 14. I am certain that this is done in countries on the Continent. The Minister seemed to suggest that it was impossible to have an age scale for such allowances in any social insurance scheme. But it is not impossible. It may or may not be desirable. But most countries work such schemes and find that it is possible, and there are strong arguments in favour of them.
    The Minister provides a strong argument in the Bill. He has raised the age to 19 and I hope he realises what that means. He is providing an allowance in respect of an age beyond which a contributor to the National Insurance scheme is considered to be an adult. It is the first time that has been done.
    It fell to me to fix the age at which a contributor to the National Insurance scheme should become an adult. Whether in law or in the general practice this is the age I provided the age at which a contributor and beneficiary under the scheme became an adult should be 21. That is accepted in common law and in election law, but it was desirable to have the same provision in this field as in the industrial injuries scheme. To treat a workman who had injuries as being less than an adult at 18 would create all kinds of problems. So the age was fixed at 18. The question is, does one regard a child of 19 as exactly the same as one of 5, 6, or 10? We have to look at this problem within the context of our social insurance scheme just as we do in relation to the National Assistance scheme.
    I am not clear whether the Minister thinks it undesirable to do this. The impression I formed, and if my impression was wrong he may correct it, was that he was arguing that it was impossible to have a social insurance scheme with age-scaled rates for children and dependants. That is not so because we are. I think, in the minority of countries which retain a flat rate for children.

    571
    Most countries have gone on to the age scale.
    Mr. Wood: I specifically said that it would be possible to do so, but I thought, for reasons I gave, that it would be undesirable.
    Mr. Mitchison: We are told that one of the difficulties in this matter is that this generally is an insurance scheme. This phrase is used again and again by the Government when they think that in it they will find some refuge from a proposition which is put to them. It is very inapt in this case. The whole basis of what I put to the Minister was that the foundation for this payment ought to be the loss suffered by the widow, the loss of the earning power of her husband in relation to her liabilities, of which obviously the children are the largest liability.
    The fundamental basis of insurance surely is that we cover people against the loss they may suffer. That is exactly what we are trying to do here. Our whole case is that a different loss is suffered according to the age of the child because older children cost more than younger ones. If the Minister regards this as an insurance scheme, surely he ought to accept our proposal. He ought to do something more about it. It has been suggested that all these questions of widows' benefits depend largely on the incidence of that loss in practice—the way in which it comes and is borne. It has been suggested in connection with the earnings rule that there should be a proper investigation of this kind of thing. That has never been done. That being so, whatever other evidence the Minister puts up, it is incorrect to say that it cannot be done because this is the form of an insurance scheme.
    Next, we are told that it is impracticable; that it would complicate matters too much. In relation to the other point we have been discussing, we were told that it has not so far proved possible to improve upon it—"it" being the present arrangement. There has to be a point at which this can be fixed without far-reaching consequences to the structure of both schemes. There ought to be a little hole in the Dispatch Box. Every time a Minister of Pensions and National Insurance says that a thing is
    572
    too complicated he should be reminded of that little hole and put a penny through it into the Box. Thereby there would be a useful contribution to public funds.
    5.15 p.m.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), has pointed out that a number of countries actually follow the practice that we propose. One cannot accept the proposition that there is any grave or serious difficulty about it. Fundamentally, what we have to do is to meet a human need which we all recognise—the widows' loss. We are entitled to give the widow slightly preferential treatment over the other people because there is an element of compensation in this.
    I purposely put these figures on a somewhat artificial basis. I thought I made clear. I took the National Assistance scales because they give a rough guide, but I would be the first to agree that when we are considering a question of this sort we need to have not only the sort of inquiry which has been recommended to the Ministry—but which so far as I know has never been carried out, an inquiry into what happens to widows—but also a very careful examination of other legislation to remove inconsistencies so far as we can. This is not a case in which the inconsistencies should be removed by reducing the amount payable in respect of children.
    I am not in the least shocked by the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. He said that Conservative Governments have done very well in this matter because they have increased the benefits. It would be out of order to go into that at great length, but, obviously, there are two other things to be considered. One is what they have done by way of increasing contributions and the fall in the Exchequer contribution. The other is that when this kind of thing has been considered the Advisory Committee has looked at the increase in earnings.
    That is the right figure because what the widow has lost is the earnings of her husband. That is a far better basis for comparison than the retail price index, which over-simplifies the whole question. I remain completely unconvinced that in principle a change of this

    573
    kind is not required. I also remain unconvinced that it is impracticable. I am even more unconvinced that there is anything wrong about it. On the contrary, I think it is right. Therefore, I hope my hon. and right hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby in support of this proposal.
    Mr. McKay: I want particularly to deal with the question of widowed mothers on this occasion and to remain in order. I have made a number of analyses of this particular subject and I did not expect to be out of order when I spoke about them. It is difficult to remain in order, but I shall say my few words as near as possible in order as I can be and yet try to give a clear indication of how good the proposals of the Government are. If we can make them better we should do so. When we talk about these things and analyse them properly we do not merely say how good or how bad they are.
    I want to suggest what the Bill will do in respect of widowed mothers. I take the example of a widow with three children. She has £3 7s. 6d. and, for the three children, £5 12s. 6d., making an income of £9 under the Bill. All of us want the income of National Insurance beneficiaries, whoever they are, to be raised above the National Assistance level. If that same widow with three children were on National Assistance she would receive £3 3s. 6d. and, taking the highest rates, 28s. for the first child, 23s. for the second child, and 19s. 6d. for the third child. In all the cases I have attempted to analyse, I have taken the same figures for children and the same figure for rent.
    When I speak about National Assistance I emphasise that I am not talking about the money scale. I am talking about the total National Assistance paid, including the rent. I have taken the rent at 25s. in all these cases. Therefore, under National Assistance this widow would receive £7 19s. The widow receiving benefits under the Bill would
    have a balance of 21s. above National Assistance plus the rent.
    On the same analogy, a widow with four children would receive £3 3s. 6d., 28s. for the first child, 23s. for the second, 23s. for the third, and 19s. 6d. for the fourth, plus 25s. for the rent. This is under National Assistance. A widow in her position receiving benefits under the Bill would receive £10 17s. 6d., thus having a balance over and above the National Assistance scale of 35s. 6d.
    Hon. Members who have followed me will immediately see where these analyses lead. One can go further and compare these figures with benefits received by people under insurance who receive less than the National Assistance rate. One must take the 35s. 6d. by which the widow with four children is better off under the Bill than a widow on National Assistance and add to it the amount by which a sick insured man with the same family is under the scale—say, 20s. or 30s. It is necessary to do this sum to arrive at the economic advantage of one over the other.
    I am absolutely in favour of the proposals, but I want to make it clear that I am astonished and almost disgusted at the difference between the position of one person and the position of another person under the same insurance scheme. The numbers in one category are ten times as great as the numbers in the other. It would take a great deal of money to put into effect my proposal of 37s. 6d. for every child; it would probably cost about £90 million more. However, it would be worth it, to put people who are sick, injured or unemployed—after all, there are ten times as many of these as there are of people in the other category—above the scale. There would then be some satisfaction in the insurance scheme. I hope that my proposal will be implemented soon after the General Election by the Labour Party when it is in office.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 158, Noes 205.

    Division No. 12.]

    AYES

    [5.26 p.m.

    Albu, Austen

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Boardman, H.

    Allaun, Frank (Sa ford, E.)

    Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

    Bottomley, R. Hon. A. G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Barnett, Guy

    Benson, Sir George

    Boyden, James

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Bradley, Tom

    Beaney, Alan

    Blyton, William

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Holman, Percy

    Padley, W. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Paget, R. T.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Howie, W.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Callaghan, James

    Hoy, James H.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Peart, Frederick

    Chapman, Donald

    Hunter, A. E.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Cliffe, Michael

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Collick, Percy

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Probert, Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Randall, Harry

    Cronin, John

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jeger, George

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Darling, George

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kelley, Richard

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Diamond, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Ross, William

    Doig, Peter

    Ledger, Ron

    Silkin, John

    Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Snow, Julian

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Evans, Albert

    Lubbock, Eric

    Steele, Thomas

    Finch, Harold

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

    Fitch, Alan

    MacColl, James

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

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Taverne, D.

    Ginsburg, David

    McLeavy, Frank

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon, P. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Gourlay, Harry

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

    Thornton, Ernest

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Manuel, Archie

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Grey, Charles

    Mapp, Charles

    Tomney, Frank

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Marsh, Richard

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Warbey, William

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Weitzman, David

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Milne, Edward

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hannan, William

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Willey, Frederick

    Harper, Joseph

    Monslow, Walter

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Moody, A. S.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Woof, Robert

    Healey, Denis

    Moyle, Arthur

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oram, A. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Hilton, A. V.

    Owen, Will

    Mr. Lawson.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Farr, John

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Allason, James

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Anderson, D. C.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Arbuthnot, Sir John

    Chataway, Christopher

    Freeth, Denzil

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gammans, Lady

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Gardner, Edward

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cole, Norman

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Barter, John

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Goodhart, Philip

    Batsford, Brian

    Cordle, John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Corfield, F. V.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Costain, A. P.

    Green, Alan

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Biffen, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Crawley, Aidan

    Gurden, Harold

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Dance, James

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Bossom, Hon. Clive

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Bourne, Arton, A.

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Box, Donald

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Braine, Bernard

    Doughty, Charles

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Brewis, John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Bromley, Davenport Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    du Cann, Edward

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Eden, Sir John

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hendry, Forbes

    Bryan, Paul

    Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Buck, Antony

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Burden, F. A.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hocking, Phillip N.

    576

    577

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Marten, Neil

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

    Holland, Philip

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hollingworth, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Speir, Rupert

    Hopkins, Alan

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Stainton, Keith

    Hornby, R. P.

    Mills, Stratton

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stodart, J. A.

    Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Morgan, William

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Morrison, John

    Taylor, Frank (M'cla'st'r, Moss Side)

    Jackson, John

    Neave, Airey

    Teeling, Sir William

    James, David

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Turner, Colin

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Partridge, E.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Peel, John

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Percival, Ian

    Walker, Peter

    Kirk, Peter

    Peyton, John

    Wall, Patrick

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Pounder, Rafton

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Wise, A. R.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Longden, Gilbert

    Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Woodnutt, Mark

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Roots, William

    Woollam, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    MacLeod, Sir J. (Ross & Cromarty)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Maginnis, John E.

    Shaw, M.

    Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4.—(RELAXATION OF EARNINGS RULES FOR WIDOW'S BENEFIT AND RETIREMENT PENSIONS.)
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "hundred" and insert "thousand".
    The Temporary Chairman (Dr. King): I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee also to discuss the following three Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison): in line 13, leave out "hundred" and insert "thousand".
    In line 21, leave out "hundred" and insert "thousand".
    In line 22, leave out "hundred" and insert "thousand", together with the proposed Amendment to the title, in line 10, after "to", insert "repeal or", together with the first new Clause—(Repeal of earnings rule for widow's benefit).
    Mr. Mitchison: I gladly avail myself of the opportunity offered to refer to the other Amendments.
    I must explain to the Committee what we have done and why we have done it. Our intention is most simply expressed in the proposed new Clause, for we want to repeal the earnings rule relating to widows' benefits. The logical brother of that is the Amendment, which has not been called, to leave out subsection (1). I say no more than that it had to be, as it were, a paving Amendment to the Clause. The four Amendments—the one I moved and the three being discussed with it—are in each case designed to delete "hundred" and insert "thousand", and the effect of that is to make the earnings rule apply only to widows who are earning a very great deal of money per week.
    However, that is not our substantial intention. Our intention is to abolish the rule, but we are bound by the rules of order, and this is the best way we can attempt to achieve our object. If we divide on this proposition I hope it will be perfectly clear that what we really want is the abolition of the earnings rule. This sort of thing has happened on other occasions in connection with the earnings rule. I shall not discuss the figures

    579
    because, as I say, the substantial point concerns the earnings rule itself.
    At the risk of some repetition, I must return to what I was saying when we were discussing the last Amendment; that when one has to consider widows benefits—and I am including all kinds of widows benefits—one must realise that they arise out of widowhood. They arise out of the person losing the services to the household of someone who is normally its main breadwinner. We are, therefore, considering a state of affairs which is completely different from the position of retirement pensioners.
    The point about the earnings rule in relation to retirement pensioners is that if one is going to make a pension conditional on retirement, retirement must mean something. It is different from the age pension which we have in certain cases. That does not arise for widows. For them one is trying to meet, in money, the financial loss they have suffered or, at least, to make a contribution towards it.
    It has been said that this question of the earnings rule has been examined and that there is a vital difficulty about it; that the widow automatically, when she reaches pensionable age, becomes a retirement pensioner and that, therefore, one cannot put the widow in such a position that before she reaches the age of 60 she is doing quite well and then finds that, when she gets to 60, having regard to the earnings and the rest of it, it is not enough. I reply that if that is the case against it I do not think very much of it as a case. I always think it rather a bad argument to say that one must not do something that one recognises to be right at the time because something else will happen in the future which will produce an awkward situation. The right course then is to deal with the awkward situation, rather than do the wrong thing at the time.
    I notice that one of the recommendations made by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in May, 1956, in page 20, of Cmnd. 9752 was:
    "A widow should be able to elect not to be treated as retired when she reaches the age of 60, or when she is widowed above that age, and a widow who has been treated as retired should be able, on the same conditions as for other retirement pensioners to
    580
    revert to the same position as if she had not been so treated …"
    The recommendation then deals with another point that is not related to this Amendment.
    As far as I know, that recommendation has not been followed. If it has been, the argument disappears; otherwise, it may very well be that it ought to be done. I trust that I am not called upon to provide for every legislative consequence of an Amendment of this character, and I should like to know why, if I am right in supposing that that has never been done, the Government have neglected the Report of the Advisory Committee.
    The earnings rule was originally introduced when the limit was about one-third of the average widow's earnings, and the result was that the limit exempted only a comparatively small number of cases. What has happened over the years has been that, gradually, the proportion of the average widow's earnings which the limit bears to the total has risen, and the limit is at present more than half—about three-fifths, I think—of the average widow's earnings. The result is that, if we divide widows roughly into three earnings groups, all those in the bottom group and more than half of those in the middle group will be protected by the rule; it is only those at the top of the middle group and those in the top group who will not be affected by it at all.
    I do not object to that, but it has reached the point of absurdity—and I do not ask hon. Members to take that statement on my authority. It was the Advisory Committee that, in 1960, on this very ground, urged that the rule should not be relaxed any further. I do not agree with the Advisory Committee. I think that the rule should be relaxed to the point of extinction. However, the Committee's reason was that if there were any fundamental ground—I do not believe there is—for the rule in these cases, it had disappeared because the number of cases to which the fundamental ground could apply was so comparatively small, and had grown so comparatively small year by year. The position had become quite different from what it was in the 'forties and the majority of widows, even apart from

    581
    the particular change here, will now be outside the rule altogether.
    It might be said, "If this is the position, we should stiffen the earnings rule", but we would all agree—and I think that the Advisory Committee itself would agree—that that approach is entirely against the whole trend of modern legislation. It is bad enough to have an earnings rule which operates so very differently as regards men and women—because the position I have just stated is not the position of the retirement pensioners at all; their position is entirely different—we do not want to make it worse by aggravating the difference.
    Whatever was the position when this rule was first introduced—and there was some case for it then—the reasons for it have now disappeared. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, but it is an important point. Looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT afterwards, I felt that perhaps I had not made myself sufficiently clear about it.
    5.45 p.m.
    We now have an earnings rule that is unjustifiable in principle and which, in practice, works entirely the wrong way. A woman may be earning a considerable amount. We can all think of employment in which professional married women, for instance, may be earning a great deal, and when they become widows they continue to earn a good deal of money. The proportion affected by the earnings rule is vastly different from the proportion affected who are earning much less. What it comes to is that, in order to get the same amount, the obvious distinction that some women are earning at a much higher rate than others applies in this case, and the effect is that in, say, terms of hours of work, we restrain people very differently according to the amount they are earning.
    There is another fantastic result. The rule applies to earnings, and only to earnings. Consequently, we may have two widows in precisely similar circumstances, one of whom is earning, let us say, £500 a year, and affected by the earnings rule, and the other, getting exactly the same amount out of investments, completely untouched by it. What is the social justice in that? I
    582
    simply cannot see the case for it. It seems to be just another illustration of the utter stupidity, the perverseness, of the rule in its present form.
    I do not say that when the rule was first introduced there was not a case for it. The case very largely depends on the high proportion of widows who are now not affected by it. However, in these matters, one lives and learns, and there is no doubt that the rule has created a very great deal of resentment, and that resentment will not be appeased by the removal of yet another group of widows from operation of the rule. It will merely make the rule a little more ridiculous. We shall not oppose it—it is a further relaxation, and the very opposite to what the Advisory Committee said should be done, and the more the rule breaks down in practice the easier we shall find it to remove it altogether, as we intend to do.
    Turning back to the Report, the majority—not at that time with the hesitation it later showed—reported in favour; I admit that. I much prefer the minority Report, which dissented, among other things, on this particular ground.
    The Committee put forward the argument which I have just put forward about the difference, in effect, in terms of working hours in different cases, and it went on to put the dilemma. If I remember rightly there used to be a dilemma posed by medieval schoolmen called Occam's Razor. This, I think, is Titmuss's Razor. The dissenting note in the Report says:
    "The logical solution for the Committee would have been to adopt a lower earnings limit for women. But this would be at variance with the whole direction of public policy in equalising rewards for men and women."
    I hope that the party opposite is not going back on that, at any rate not just before an election.
    The note continues:
    "Yet an 'effective' earnings rule devised for men is not at present, nor can be in the foreseeable future, an 'effective' rule for woman"—
    the difference being that the average earnings for women are so much lower.
    "This unresolved dilemma is partly responsible for driving the Committee further towards a weakening in the earnings rule as an instrument of policy."
    This was in 1956. In 1960 the Committee jibbed about it. In 1963 it just

    583
    accepted an alteration, and in 1964 the Government had not the courage to submit the matter to the Committee. If it had been submitted, I do not know how far the Committee would have gone.
    It is becoming ridiculous and, at the end of it all, there is a paragraph in the Report, to which I referred on Second Reading, about the misunderstanding and confusion that all this causes. People resented that very much. It is said that the real cause of the resentment is that people who are doing the same job are getting different incomes. Both are getting the same pay but one of them in addition is getting a widow's benefit. It is said that it was in recognition of that sort of difficulty that the earnings rule was introduced. This may well be so. I wonder whether it is logical. What we are trying to do is to deal with an exceptional loss, an insurable loss—the loss of a husband. The widow has suffered that loss and we have to think in terms of the family. The widow ought no more to be discouraged from going out to work than she was before her widowhood, when she may well have done so. It depends on what part of the country she is in and on all sorts of circumstances. Why should we penalise the widow who goes out and earns? I do not see any justice in it.
    I shall be interested to hear the Minister's defence of the earnings rule as a real matter of morals and practice. I am not in the least interested, though I am sure he will be, in anyone saying that it was introduced under a Labour Government. The question we have to look at now is whether it is right or wrong in circumstances which have changed. In comparison with that question, I am not interested in whether or not this matter appears in a particular pamphlet. I do not mind the Minister having a bit of fun. Ministers need a little relaxation, particularly in this jungle of stuff which constitutes National Insurance, but at the end of the day I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the fundamental question whether it is right or wrong to continue this rule now.
    Mr. Cole: I intervene in the debate because this is a matter about which I
    584
    have been most concerned. I am in some support of what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said about the earnings rule, but I did not understand that as a general policy the rule came about because there could be two women working side by side with one having more means than the other because she was in receipt of a full pension, theoretically, plus her pay. This may have been part of the reason, but I thought that there was rather more than that to it. I thought that from the days when we did not have quite as much employment as there is nowadays and it was a question of a person who otherwise would be taken care of by the State usurping a job which might have gone to somebody else. But there is no doubt that the atmosphere and the scene have changed considerably since then.
    I should like to add another point in support of what the hon. and learned Member said. He said that the widow had lost a great insurable factor in her husband and all that that meant in the way of consortium and the rest. I entirely agree. There is little enough we can do, whether or not she earns a whole day's pay. This widow's pension is a sort of solatium to make up for her loss—although, of course, it will not—but there is also a good financial reason here.
    It strikes me that this rule is an usurpation of the warranty which insurance is supposed to bring in its train. It is as if an insurance company had decided half way to do away with the profits towards which one had contributed in the premium and had altered the policy. I do not like the earnings rule and I suspect that people are getting to like it less and less.
    I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken over the years towards eliminating the rule. I should not have thought that a great many widows are affected by it now. I should not have thought that those who do part-time jobs and cannot afford time to do a whole week would be much affected now that the limit is to allow earnings of up to £7 a week. But the earnings rule is an irritation. It is a sort of running sore. I hope that one day, not too far off, we shall see the end of the earnings rule altogether. I

    585
    am amused at the labyrinthine methods which have to be adopted to get the amendment in order—to make a widow able to earn £50 a week before she comes under the earnings rule. This is the sort of thing that happens in Parliament. It is fantastic but that is the way we have to do it in this place. I am glad that it does not happen elsewhere.
    I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two simple questions. Firstly could he clarify—and he probably can from his own knowledge—the origins of this facet of the earnings rule in our insurance policy? Do the cases which gave rise to that policy still obtain? If not, can we look forward to the day when the earnings rule is eliminated? Secondly, would my right hon. Friend address his mind to a point which I am sure has been made by constituents to all of us from time to time. It is the question why, if the husband has been paying the premium settled by the Government of the day in his contributions, his widow is apparently not entitled to receive the compensation towards which he had contributed.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will answer these questions as I am very concerned about the working of the earnings rule.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. A. V. Hilton: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) tells us that he wishes to see the end of the earnings rule in the not too distant future. He can help the Committee to put an end to it this very night. Let him come with us into the Lobby and vote, if the matter goes to a Division. Since this is something which we all feel very strongly about, I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends would welcome the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby with us.
    I support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Through the loss of their husbands, widows have already suffered very serious hardship, and what they need at such a time is kindly action and consideration. The repeal of the earnings rule for widows would be one of the kindest things we could do. No question of charity comes into it at all. It is a plain piece of justice that a widow, having lost the breadwinner, should be treated well.
    586
    My hon and learned Friend reminded us that the earnings rule was introduced as long ago as 1946. Of course, there have been many changes since then. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will have noted from time to time the hard way in which the earnings rule has operated, and, of course, my hon. and learned Friend gave illustrations of the adverse consequences which it has on widows.
    When we on this side criticise the earnings rule, we are often taunted by hon. Members opposite who say that it was the Labour Government who introduced it. We cannot deny this, but, after such a long interval, getting on for eighteen years now, most people are of opinion that the time is now ripe for a change, and the change which we advocate tonight is the repeal of the rule.
    Recently, both from these benches and from the country as a whole, there has been much criticism of the present Government's policies. The Government could go some way to redeem themselves if they would accept what we are urging upon then and repeal the earnings rule so far as it applies to widows. If the Minister would say that he accepts what we suggest, he would earn the gratitude of many widows who have suffered by the rule and the gratitude of many other people besides.
    Mr. Wood: I will do my best to answer the fundamental question which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put. I say at once that I quite appreciate the point that, although the effect of the Amendment would be to take all the force away from the earnings rule for widows, the real intention of the Opposition in moving it and the related Amendments is to abolish that earnings rule, while, so I understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, keeping the rule for retirement pensioners.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman was rather reticent about the pamphlet, which he seemed almost shy of mentioning—
    Mr. Mitchison: Not a bit.
    Mr. Wood: I am glad to hear that the hon. and learned Gentleman subscribes to what, believe, is his party's policy.
    Mr. Mitchison: An excellent pamphlet.
    Mr. Wood: I shall try to examine it critically, and, in explaining the objections which I find to the Amendment, to make clear why I regard the policy of the Labour Party in this matter as misconceived.
    My predecessors and I have probably given more thought to the problems of the earnings rule than to any other aspect of National Insurance. It is, as the Committee knows, a subject which has engaged the personal attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it has always been very present to the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who, for a moment, I see has deserted the front line. Her constant championship of widows and her assignations with successive Prime Ministers to press the claims of widows are very well known to the Committee. I should like to say, for my part, that her powerful influence—perhaps, as she is not here, I may say her overwhelming influence—on new and ignorant Ministers I very gratefully acknowledge.
    My own view on the very important question of the earnings rule, and on this Amendment in particular, has been reached not so much on the ground of cost—although the cost of doing what the party opposite would like would be quite considerable, about £6 million more than is involved in the Bill—or even on the fact that abolition of the rule, as the hon. and learned Gentleman made perfectly clear, would not help those most in need. The reason why I oppose abolition of the earnings rule for widows is that the consequences of such abolition would, in fact, be far more intricate and far-reaching than seems, even after the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, to be generally realised. As I was encouraged by my horoscope, "Friends will support your ideas if you explain them"—though I admit that it did not commit the Opposition—I shall do my best to answer the fundamental question which the hon. and learned Member asked.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) seemed to be questioning the basis on which we pay widows' benefits to widows. The
    588
    contributory National Insurance scheme qualifies a married couple for widows' benefits, if the husband dies, selectively—as was arranged when the Labour Party introduced the system where the widow is unlikely to be able to support herself by her own earnings. I must make clear to my hon. Friend and to the hon. and learned Gentleman that what we are not doing in the payment of widows' benefits is making up for the loss of the husband, because, if we were making up for the loss of the husband, we should pay widow's benefit to all widows. That is not what we do. Therefore, what we are trying to do is to make up for the loss of the power of a widow to support herself by her earnings.
    The Amendment's effect would be that widows who qualified for benefit would be able to draw the benefit on top of unlimited earnings—in fact, in the words of the Amendment, on top of anything up to £50. But the only reason why they are getting this benefit at all is that they are thought to be unlikely to support themselves by their earnings, and there would be other widows without children, or who were under 50 years of age when their husband died—
    Mr. Mitchison: I dislike interrupting the right hon. Gentleman—he is always so polite—but surely what he says is quite inconsistent with the fact that a widow may have unlimited unearned income from investments and not be touched by the earnings rule?
    Mr. Wood: I am prepared to face that point. What I have been trying to explain is that the purpose of the scheme as it exists, and as it existed when the scheme was initiated by the Labour Party, is to replace the absence of earnings. It insures against the inability of the widow after her husband dies to support herself by her earnings. Although I appreciate the hon. and learned Member's point, I do not think it is relevant in this context to say that other widows may have a considerable background of unearned income and therefore are better off, and that that is unfair on the widow who is unable to support herself by her earnings. This insurance scheme is trying to do the job of replacing the inability to earn, and, naturally, does not therefore take into account unearned income.

    589
    I was trying to explain that, as against the widows who are getting the benefit only because they are unlikely to be able to support themselves by their earnings, and whom the Amendment would relieve entirely of the earnings rule, there are other widows without children or who were under 50 when their husband died who would not qualify for benefit and who might have very little in the way of earnings. They might not be earning at all, but existing on sickness or unemployment benefit. It therefore seems to me that if the widows who qualified for the benefit because they were over 50 or because their children had not reached the age of 19 until they were over 50 were allowed to draw it whatever their earnings, I should be very hard put to it to find a decent justification for withholding benefit from any widow.
    Therefore, as I see it, the present selectivity which we exercise, and with which I think the Opposition agree, would become untenable, and the first consequence of the policy which the hon. and learned Member has suggested would be the payment of unconditional pensions for widowhood. They would have to be paid to every woman who had lost her husband.
    I do not believe that the changes since 1946 which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering mentioned afford ground for abolishing the earnings rule, and I find it very hard to explain the change of mind in the party opposite, from a belief that widow's benefit should be selective to an acquiescence, to say the least—although I do not think it appears in the Opposition's policy—that these pensions should become unconditional, because that is what the pressures which would follow the abolition of the earnings rule would lead to. I do not find it easy to follow the argument, in the light of a recent letter from the headquarters of the Labour Party which I saw in a newspaper. It pointed out, rightly, that the abolition of the earnings rule for retirement pensioners would benefit only the minority who have an income of at least £7 12s. 6d. a week. I cannot see why this does not apply with equal force to widows' pensions.
    Mr. Mitchison rose—
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Wood: We are in Committee. I should like to continue. If I lose the
    590
    thread of my argument the Committee may lose something extremely valuable.
    It must be said for the Labour Party's proposals that they seem to acknowledge the difficulty of abolishing the rule for widowed mothers and keeping it for widows. If I may say so presumptuously, the party opposite realises that it would be foolish to allow a widow to draw benefit regardless of her earnings while her children may or may not be keeping her at home, but while at at any rate she has children to bring up, and then to apply an earnings rule when the children grow up and leave her free. However, a mother may become not only a widow—I am talking in National Insurance terms—but, as the hon. and learned Member pointed out, a retirement pensioner. It is here that the Labour Party's proposals seem to take no account of the very real difficulties which the hon. and learned Member mentioned.
    I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was rather light-hearted about these difficulties. He suggested that we should do something which he thought it was right for us to do and then face the difficulties later. We are given two conflicting kinds of advice. We are told to go ahead and damn the consequences. If we go ahead and then find it impossible to deal with the consequences, we are told that we have been extremely improvident.
    Mr. Mitchison: I do not think the Minister can have followed what I said. I advised him to take the advice which had been offered to him by the Advisory Committee, and I read it out. That would obviate this difficulty. If he proposes to say that it is administratively impossible—and puts a penny in the box—that is another matter.
    Mr. Wood: If I might continue and try to explain, as I proposed to do, what some of these difficulties would be, and to refer to ways in which they might be circumvented, perhaps I should avoid the necessity to put pennies in the box and yet might convince the hon. and learned Member that the difficulties are very real.
    I want to address myself to this very real problem, as I think the hon. and learned Member admitted it is, of where

    591
    the widow graduates to retirement pension. Under the present law, a widow pensioner need not transfer to a retirement pension on her sixtieth birthday; she can wait until she is 65. There is no argument between us on that. Suppose that there was an earnings rule for retirement pension but not for widow's pension. Clearly the widow would be well advised to put off her retirement until she was 65 and to draw her widow's pension in addition to her earnings. It would obviously be common sense for her to do so, provided the retirement pension and the widow's pension were at the same rate. At present, they generally are at the same rate, but we know that there is a growing number of widow pensioners—and the number will become quite considerable—who would be able to draw a higher retirement pension, either because of the graduated pension which the widow, or her husband, or both, had earned, or because of the flat-rate increments which her husband had earned for her.
    Therefore, there is a difficult choice before widow pensioners of 60—and this will affect more and more of them as time goes on—between taking a higher retirement pension with an earnings rule or taking a lower widow's pension without an earnings rule. It would be very difficult for most widows to come to a sensible judgment about that unless they were quite certain about their earnings—their continuance, and the way in which they would move up or down in future.
    If a woman's husband dies when she is over 60, she gets a retirement pension. If the Amendment was accepted and the Labour Party's policy were introduced, when she draws retirement pension she would be subject to an earnings rule. Her sister who was widowed when under 60 could, however, draw her widow's pension and earn as much as she liked. I should not like the job of trying to persuade the older widow that this was fair. It would certainly be one of the consequences that it would, no doubt, be necessary to allow her to draw a widow's pension, which, again, would involve her in exactly the same awkward choice that I have tried to describe.
    592
    There is the widow aged 60 who already has a retirement pension when her husband dies. Since, because of its graduated addition, it may be higher than the widow's pension, she may be drawing more than she would if she transferred to a widow's pension and avoided the earnings rule. It would certainly seem odd to compel this widow to go on to a lower widow's pension, when she was already a retirement pensioner, in order to avoid the earnings rule.
    Suppose that, to avoid those complications, it was decided to allow widows between the ages of 60 and 65 to draw their retirement pensions free of any earnings rule. I should very much like the hon. and learned Gentleman's advice about how this could be justified to other women between 60 and 65. There would be the position of no earnings rule for widow pensioners between 60 and 65 but an earnings rule, not only for married women and spinsters between those ages, but also for widows who never qualified for widow's pensions because their husbands died before they were 50.
    Mr. Mitchison: The Minister was kind enough to ask my advice. I will give it in general terms quite clearly. There are abundant anomalies at present. There would be other anomalies if a change were made. In those circumstances, what we should do is to do the right thing, what we believe to be right; and this, I think, is right.
    Mr. Wood: The hon. and learned Gentleman continues to press his point that this is the right thing to do. I suggest that by removing certain anomalies to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn our attention about unearned and earned income, he would merely lead us into just as difficult anomalies in the future. To distinguish between giving widow pensioners between 60 and 65 their pension without an earnings rule and giving it to other widows who did not qualify earlier with an earnings rule is not the kind of proposal which will get the hon. and learned Gentleman much of a cheer at the hustings in a few months' time.
    Therefore, to get a cheer, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman may be persuaded to allow widows like these—those who never qualified for widows'

    593
    benefits—to join the concessionary group between the ages of 60 and 65. If the party opposite did that, however, how would they face the spinsters? Indeed, a childless widow whose husband died when she was 25 would get into the circle if all widows were admitted, but a spinster would be kept outside.
    Therefore, a spinster would draw a retirement pension, which would be reduced if she earned more than £5 a week, but a widow whose husband died, say, 35 years before could earn as much as she liked on top of her pension. I should appreciate and admire more than ever the hon. and learned Gentleman's powers of persuasion if he thought that he could make this seem fair to the women who have never had husbands.
    I believe that the only way out of this dilemma is to abolish the earnings rule for retirement pensioners as well. Last week, I gave my reasons why I did not think that this solution could, or should, be adopted, and I understand from one or two perusals of New Frontiers for Social Security that it is not the proposal of the Labour Party. Nevertheless, for reasons which I have tried to give today, I believe that it would be hopeless to try to maintain an earnings rule for retirement pensioners if the earnings rules for widows' benefits were abolished.
    Therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, and I ask it to do so in order that the principle of retirement pensions remaining conditional upon retirement can continue to be maintained.
    Miss Herbison: The Minister has given many reasons why he thinks that our Amendments should be opposed. He has taken us from the widow to the retirement pensioner. I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to other anomalies which exist. One could apply to all these anomalies the reasons which have been given concerning the anomalies that might be caused if our Amendments were accepted.
    This matter was raised on Second Reading, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave reasons why such a proposal could not be adopted. The existing anomalies are two in kind. The first category is what happens to what I may call the industrially injured widow and the widow of the war disabled. They
    594
    have a high rate of pension with no earnings rule attached to it.
    In dealing with that category of widow, the hon. Lady said on Second Reading:
    "It depends on the principles of the insurance applying to the two different schemes"—
    that is, the schemes for the widow of the man who has died naturally and for the widow of the man who has lost his life through industrial accident or as a result of war.
    The hon. Lady stated:
    "National Insurance is based on the concept of absence of earnings and one is insuring against being unable to support oneself by one's own efforts."
    I thought that in this case it was the husband who was insuring the wife, and not the wife herself; yet if one takes this from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, one would assume that it was the wife who did the insuring. The hon. Lady went on to say:
    "The Industrial Injuries scheme is based on entirely different concepts, partly due to historical reasons, and it has an element of compensatior in it …"
    I accept that Industrial Injuries benefit in all fields, whether widows' benefits or any other field, has an element of compensation in it, but that does not give any reason why in that instance an earnings rule should apply to the widow of a man who died naturally as against the widow of the man who lost his life through an industrial accident.
    The hon. Lady went on further to say—and this is an important point to make:
    "In the meantime, it would be absurd to attempt to justify the existence of a scheme and to justify its differences"—
    the only difference that the hon. Lady picked out was "its preferential rate"—
    "and then o complain of the very preferences which that scheme gives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 1196–7.]
    We do not complain about the preferential rate of benefit. We do not in any way complain about the rate of benefit which is paid to the widows of the industrially injured or to the widows of war victims. What we complain about is that an earnings rule is applied to the widow of the man who has died from natural causes and no earnings rule is applied to the widow of the industrially injured. I should like the

    595
    Minister to get rid of that anomaly even if it means that further anomalies are incurred.
    I come, however, to the second case with which the Minister has not dealt adequately. My hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment spoke of the second type of case. We discussed it on a number of occasions on Second Reading, but the Parliamentary Secretary ran away from it completely—she did not even mention it. This is the case of two widows whose husbands have died from natural causes. One widow finds that she has to go out and earn to keep herself and family. The other widow is in a much more favourable position. She is able to stay at home because she has a very good unearned income. Is not that a very great anomaly, too?
    6.30 p.m.
    There is the further case of the widow, part of whose income comes from her own earnings and part from unearned income. I understand that the part that is unearned income is not taken into account. That is a further anomaly.
    It seems to us, as to most people in the country—even the spinsters about whom the Minister was so concerned—that we should be giving justice to these widows if this Amendment were accepted. I am a spinster, and I know many other spinsters who are completely behind me on this Amendment, because they feel that here justice will be given to another group of women, and they are willing to wait to see if later they might get some justice, too.
    The Minister said, "What a difficult position the widow would have to face when she comes to 60 years of age, and how difficult it would be, if there was an earnings rule applied to her, to make a sensible judgment on these matters." I would leave it to the woman to make a sensible judgment if, until she reached that age, she were given the justice which war widows and industrially disabled widows are being given at present.
    I want to touch on one further point. My hon. and learned Friend called to his aid the reports of the Ministry's own advisory committee. They have shown very clearly that further increases of the amount that a widow can earn would make nonsense of the earnings rule.
    596
    They thought that we had almost come to that stage on the last occasion. I think that they were right. I have a sneaking feeling that that was the reason the Minister did not put it to the Committee this time. I do not blame him for that. The Minister wants to make a decision on these matters, which are important matters, and to bring that decision to fruition as quickly as possible.
    I have no complaint, but I say to the Minister that he cannot have it both ways. He tries to bamboozle the Committee with all the reasons why it cannot be done because of the anomalies that would ensue, and yet runs away from the advice of his own Advisory Committee, which has warned him at least on two occasions of the effect of raising the amount that can be earned under the earnings rule. In spite of the case that the Minister has made—I think that he tried to deal with the matter as fully and fairly as he possibly could—he would be very wise to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: I have always admired the Minister but I do not think that I have ever admired him more than I have tonight. I meet a good many widows who want to argue with me about this matter. I listen to what they have to say. Then, as a rule, I have to point out to them that under the law they are not entitled to a pension. That, of course, is a perfect answer so far as concerns anything practical being done while the law remains as it is.
    They then want to get into arguments about abstract justice and all sorts of matters which they think justify amendment of the law. The right hon. Gentleman did not do as I do. I never allow myself to get drawn into an argument with a widow on the abstract justice of the present law. Difficult as it always is to argue with a woman, when one gets into an argument with a widow about the abstract justice of the present law, one just has to keep on saying, "Well, the law is as it is".
    The right hon. Gentleman, in the details into which he went, showed very considerable courage, because I cannot help feeling that, in the end, one gets driven back to the position that the victims never seem able to appreciate

    597
    that the laws that we make here ought to be applied to them. One of the difficulties that confronts us as legislators is: how can we make our decisions satisfy the claims of abstract justice? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, when all the arguments he has adduced this evening have been considered, we come back to the position: can we honestly say to ourselves—let alone what we say to widows—that we think that justice is being done?
    I would appeal to the Minister to recognise that when it comes to justice, the existing law is quite indefensible when we are dealing with its victims, and I hope that, even if it is not done tonight, the day will not be very far distant when the rule will be abolished. I could only wish I had thought to send half a dozen of the ladies who talked to me in my constituency to talk to him. I should like him to try the speech that he has made tonight on them. I am quite sure that they would tell him frankly, while listening to all that he had to say, that they still did not think they were getting a fair deal in view of the spirit of the country at the present time towards people situated in the difficult situation in which many of them are.
    Mr. Mitchison: I feel a little like someone who has been taking part in a mixed doubles and is left merely to return the ball at the end of the volley. What the Minister has just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is substantially what the great majority of people in this country believe. The earnings rule is really discredited, not as an abstract matter, not as a statement of general morals, but simply as a matter of practice.
    It is felt by people to be radically unfair, and it is unfair. I shall not repeat what has been said about industrial injuries, but it is a point that strikes people very much. How can it be fair in one case and unfair in another? It is no use trying to draw fine distinctions between the principles of the two Acts. There are differences but I cannot see that any of them really affect the point that what is fair in one case could equally well and should be fair in the other, and that what is practicable in one case is also practicable in the other.
    598
    In trying to go some way into the question of how far it would be practicable, perhaps I have been on the wrong lines but, after all, it is up to the Minister, if the rule is unfair in its operation, to get rid of it. The rule is unfair not only in relation to industrial injuries but also to other cases.
    The first and most obvious one is that it only deals with earnings. That is bound to make it unfair. One can find instances one way and another, but it is obviously unfair that, if a widow has a considerable unearned income, it is not taken into account in reckoning her pension, while, if she has a considerable earned income, that is taken into account. It is perfectly simple and it is bound to strike anyone as being unfair.
    Nowadays the commonest instances will not be of women entirely on earnings or entirely on unearned income, but of women who derive income from both sources. Even in these cases, however, one finds gross unfairness between one woman and another, cases where the earned income in one instance and the unearned income in the other brings the person concerned within the operation of the rule.
    The second aspect that strikes everyone as being unfair is the difference between the operation in relation to widows and that in relation to retirement pensioners. I shall not discuss the rule for retirement pensioners but will merely point out that to them it is a very much smaller financial matter. The men are affected at a far earlier stage than the women will be. The limit in relation to their average earnings is a far lower proportion, just as the limit in relation to women's average earnings was, at the beginning, a far lower proportion.
    When, however, one considers the widows, what the Government are doing now is dealing with a group of widows who are at the top of the earnings scale, and it is that group of widows only which is affected. Every increase made in the limit means a reduction in the number of widows affected, unless it is paralleled by an increase in women's earnings at the same time, and we constantly get the ridiculous position of the Advisory Committee time after time having to consider how these two things

    599
    match up to the scale of women's earnings on the one hand and the limitation for purposes of the earnings rule for widows on the other.
    The Committee has been considering this matter from that point of view for years. From what I see of its reports, the Committee can hardly be described as wildly revolutionary or likely to say to the Minister that he must not relax the rule if he wants to do good work. That is what it said in 1960 and in 1963 it only passed the change proposed because it thought that it was just within the limit of no relaxation since it could be just matched, and no more, with the change which had taken place in women's earnings.
    6.45 p.m.
    We thus have the situation where his responsible, experienced and very cautious Advisory Committee tells the Minister that he must not relax this rule any further and then he comes along with what is admitted to be a relaxation, although we do not object to it as far as it goes. But we do say that the Government have reached the moment where they should recognise that the rule is now ineffective, that the lack of effectiveness is its unfairness, that it is widely misunderstood and that, all this being so, the time has come for them to drop it.
    I do not know what it is that makes the Government nowadays carry on with a rule simply because it has been in operation for some time. I listened with admiration to the right hon. Gentleman's administrative dialectic, but if that is all he can say in defence of a rule which affects a large number of people who have suffered grievous hardship and who look for help to the State—not through National Assistance but through National Insurance—then it is a very poor defence indeed.
    I was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) constantly bombards Ministers with
    requests for a change. I agree with my right hon. Friend who said that he could send a whole packet of widows to the Minister. I, too, could send a packet to the Minister. If all six hundred or more of us released packets of widows upon the right hon. Gentleman his plight would be very sore indeed.
    If he will not accept the Amendment as it stands, I urge him to give an undertaking that he will abolish the rule in the lifetime of this Parliament. He has an uncertain amount of time left but, after all, what are uncertainties here? It may be a question of weeks or months but he should nevertheless take the step. The right hon. Gentleman might even get far enough to assure us that he can draw up the necessary provision a great deal better than I have been able to do and get it done in another place. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will look again at this and undertake to get rid of the rule in this Parliament.
    My last plea is that put forward by the minority in the Report I have referred to—that the rule is completely misunderstood. Widows simply do not know where they are. That applies not only to the rule but to a great many other things which concern widows under these schemes, but it operates principally in connection with the operation of the earnings rule.
    In a democratic country, once one gets the position where the people principally affected really do not know why certain things are done and often get themselves into trouble simply because they do not understand it, then it is time for a change. After all, we shall soon have an election. Could not the right hon. Gentleman consider in this matter the preponderant feelings of the electorate? I am sure that if he did he would abolish the rule.
    Question put, That "hundred" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 147.

    Division No. 13]

    AYES

    [6.50 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Allason, James

    Barter, John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Anderson, D. C.

    Batsford, Brian

    Box, Donald

    Arbuthnot, Sir John

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Braine, Bernard

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Brewis, John

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Biffen, John

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Partridge, E.

    Bryan, Paul

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Buck, Antony

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

    Peel, John

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Percival, Ian

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Peyton, John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hollingworth, John

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

    Pounder, Rafton

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Pym, Francis

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Cole, Norman

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rees-Davits, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)

    Cordle, John

    Jackson, John

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Corfield, F. V.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Costain, A. P.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Roots, William

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Russell, Ronald

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Sharples, Richard

    Curran, Charles

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Shaw, M.

    Dance, James

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kirk, Peter

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stainton, Keith

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Stodart, J. A.

    Doughty, Charles

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Drayson, G. B.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Eden, Sir John

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Farr, John

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Finlay, Graeme

    McLaren, Martin

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Foster, Sir John

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

    Turner, Colin

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Freeth, Denzil

    MacLeod, Sir John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Gardner, Edward

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Marten, Neil

    Walker, Peter

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Wall, Patrick

    Goodhart, Philip

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Green, Alan

    Mills, Stratton

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wise, A. R.

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gurden, Harold

    Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Hamiton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Morgan, William

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Morrison, John

    Woollam, John

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Heave, Airey

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Mr. MacArthur and

    Hastings, Stephen

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Mr. Hugh Rees.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Cronin, John

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Barnett, Guy

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Beaney, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hannan, William

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Benson, Sir George

    Diamond, John

    Healey, Denis

    Blackburn, F.

    Doig, Peter

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Blyton, William

    Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Boardman, H.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hilton, A. V.

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Holman, Percy

    Bradley, Tom

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Evans, Albert

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Finch, Harold

    Hoy, James H.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Fitch, Alan

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Callaghan, James

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Ginsburg, David

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Chapman, Donald

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Cliffs, Michael

    Grey, Charles

    Jeger, George

    Collide, Percy

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    602

    603

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Morris, John

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Kelley, Richard

    Moyle, Arthur

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Lawson, George

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Steele, Thomas

    Ledger, Ron

    Oram, A. E.

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

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Symonds, J. B.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Owen, Will

    Taverns, D.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Padley, W. E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Paget, R. T.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Lubbock, Eric

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Pearl, Frederick

    Tomney, Frank

    MacColl, James

    Price, J. T. (Westhougton)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Probert, Arthur

    Warbey, William

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Randall, Harry

    Weitzman, David

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

    Reynolds, G. W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Manuel, Archie

    Rhodes, H.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mapp, Charles

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Willey, Frederick

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Millan, Bruce

    Ross, William

    Woof, Robert

    Milne, Edward

    Silkin, John

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Moody, A. S.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Snow, Julian

    Mr. Sydney Irving and

    Mr. Redhead.

    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Dame Irene Ward: I must apologise to the Committee that I was not able to hear all the discussion on the Amendments. As everyone realises, there is always a great deal to do on a Thursday and it is not always possible to be in the Chamber for the whole of a debate. However, I have lived so much with the provisions of the Clause that I can repeat the arguments on both sides almost in my sleep. Although I feel that I owe the Committee an apology, that does not mean that I am not certain what arguments have been put forward. I did not vote on the Amendment because, not having heard the argument, I did not think that it was right to do so, but I am certain that if I had heard my right hon. Friend's reply I would not have agreed with him.
    7.0 p.m.
    I do not often agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I heard him say—and I agreed with him—that this side of the Committee should put forward the argument that widows, having been relieved of the earnings rule, do not like to find the earnings rule applies to them on reaching the age of 60.
    I am not a great feminist, but I sometimes think that men think—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but we cannot
    604
    have another discussion on an Amendment which has been discussed and decided on. She cannot seek to rehash all the arguments which were deployed on the Amendment which we have discussed and which has been disposed of.
    Dame Irene Ward: Sir Robert, I was not intending to do that. All that I was going to do was to emphasise—and I do not think that this was brought out during the discussion on the Amendment—that men always think that they know all about women's motives. They do not. Ministers always think that they know all about women's motives, but they do not.
    My objection to the Clause is that when the earnings rule is applied to widows they do not earn increments, whereas when they reach the age of 60 and the earnings rule is applied they do earn them. That ought to have been taken into consideration. A widow to whom the earnings rule is applied gets no benefit at all, whereas when the earnings rule is applied to a widow on reaching the age of 60 as a retirement pension she at least gets increments.
    I should have thought that that would have been a cover to these discrepancies. The Minister's argument is that widows would not like having the earnings rule applied when they reach the age of 60. That is the point that I should like to have made when the Amendment was being discussed.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but that is what the hon. Lady cannot do now.
    Dame Irene Ward: Sir Robert, surely I am entitled to say why I object to the Clause?
    Mr. McKay: On a point of order. Having discussed a Clause at considerable length, and having put forward Amendments to it and taken a decision on them, is it in order for an hon. Member to start discussing the Clause again?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have pointed out to the hon. Lady that on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, it is not in order to discuss the merits of an Amendment which has been dealt with.
    Dame Irene Ward: I am discussing the Question that is now before the Committee. This Clause imposes an earnings rule on widows at a certain level of income. I am entitled to say that I do not support the Clause. I would rather that there were no earnings rule on widows' earnings, and I am entitled to say so.
    It is a pity that I cannot put forward all the reasons why I object to the earnings rule being applied to widows at all. I think that they are being put into the position in which, because of the earnings rule, they will not derive the benefit of receiving increments. I think that I am in order in saying that.
    Although it has nothing to do with the Amendment which has been discussed, perhaps I might say that the Conservative Lady Members of Parliament and I presume hon. Ladies opposite with the exception of perhaps one of them take the same view—would have liked an inquiry into the whole matter. We suggested it, but our request was turned down.
    I shall say no more. I wanted to register my disapproval of the way in which the whole matter has been handled. I repeat that men always think that they know all about women's motives. They think that they know all about what widows feel about these matters. My mother was widowed when I was a very small child, and I know a great deal more about the difficulties of
    606
    being a widow than men do, for the simple reason that they have had no experience of it, nor could they. I regret that we did not abolish the earnings rule for widows.
    Mr. Wood: Rather than repeat the speech which I made half an hour ago, perhaps I might suggest to my hon. Friend that she reads it tomorrow. She will find that, among other things, I said some delightful things about her which I do not feel inclined to withdraw even though she judged my speech without having heard it.
    Miss Herbison: I shall be surprised indeed if, when the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) reads the Minister's speech tomorrow, she agrees with what he said.
    This Clause raises the limit of earnings before the earnings rule is applied. The hon. Lady said that she would like the earnings rule for widows to be abolished. The hon. Lady is always extremely forthright, and I believe what she said, but why was it that she did not join us in the Division Lobby when we were voting on just that issue?
    Dame Irene Ward: I hope that I shall be in order in saying that my colleagues and I, by exercising a great deal of pressure, swayed my Government into introducing the Bill. One is sometimes a little inhibited from voting against one's Government, or against one's Minister, if they do things which they have been urged to do. I know the hon. Lady very well, and I think that in similar circumstances she would have been as generous as I was. That is the reason for my not voting.
    Miss Herbison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her explanation, but I would haw been happier if, even though she could hot join us in the Lobby, we had been joined by some of those Conservative Lady Members to whom she referred. In fact, not one of them joined us.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will maintain her pressure on the Government. I hope that she will read the Minister's speech and will be as dissatisfied with it as I have been. I am sure that with her energy she will be back at the Minister. I hope that her pressure, with the pressure from my hon. Friends, will

    607
    cause the Minister to move a further Amendment in another place.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(WIDOW'S EXTENDED BENEFIT.)
    Section 17 of the National Insurance Act 1946 (Widow's Benefit) shall be amended by the addition of the following words, "and in the case of a widow's deferred pension, if (subject to the conditions in subsection (1) (c) and subsection 2 of this section) at the husband's death she was over the age of forty she shall be entitled to this benefit on attaining the age of fifty".—[Mr. P. Browne.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Percy Browne: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I feel rather dubious about speaking after being told that no man knows how widows think. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) knows a great deal more than I do about what widows and women think. Nevertheless, I would point out that many of the pensions Bills that I have seen go through the House have been steered through all their stages quite successfully by men.
    The Clause is designed to help those women who are widowed between the ages of 40 and 50 and who are not in receipt of the widowed mothers' allowance. The position of these widows was mentioned twice in the Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and I both referred to it. Her idea was that there should be a graduation between the age groups, and I thought that that was a good idea. Nevertheless, my Clause provides for a straightforward figure for the lot. I was interested to notice that after we two had mentioned these widows one of my hon. Friends put down a Question on the subject, and the day before yesterday the Daily Mail also mentioned them. I should like to mention the history behind the present position in which these widows find themselves. A woman who is widowed when she is below the age of 50 is automatically entitled to receive a widows' allowance for 13 weeks. If she
    608
    has children under a certain age she also receives the widowed mothers' allowance. If she was married before 1948 it is possible that she will be in receipt of 10s. per week.
    7.15 p.m.
    Her sister, who was widowed when she had passed the age of 50, had certain alterations made in her conditions by the Acts of 1946 and 1956. There was a certain amount of horse trading. In a way, widows over the age of 50 were better off, although widows between the ages of 40 and 50 who had previously benefited were cut out. One alteration was that the previous condition of ten years' marriage was made a condition of three years' marriage, and what we called running starts were introduced, which enabled a widow, after drawing the allowance, to benefit from her husband's contribution to the extent that she could draw unemployment and sickness benefit. She can now draw unemployment benefit up to the normal limit of 19 months, after which she will have her cards stamped in the normal way without collecting any more benefit, and she can be sick indefinitely.
    In the Second Reading debate I referred to the fact that in my constituency there were some widows who, quite understandably, could not adjust themselves during the 13 weeks' period and that if they were under 50 years of age they would often obtain a certificate from a sympathetic doctor and would perforce go sick until they were able to find themselves a job and to readjust.
    When the new regulations were introduced in 1956 the age limit was raised from 40 to 50. The hon. Lady quoted from a speech made from the Government Front Bench in January of last year which pointed out that this had happened. The object of the Clause is to retain the beneficial results of the 1956 and 1957 Acts, while providing that a woman who is widowed between the ages of 40 and 50 will automatically qualify for the widows' benefit at the age of 50.
    Hon. Members may ask why I want this changed. My right hon. Friend has just mentioned that we are moving towards a general selectivity in pensions, and I think this is a good thing. It is a subject on which I have spoken with various degrees of success, and have experienced a certain amount of ridicule,

    609
    in the past five years, although I have been delighted to find that during the last year or so hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have agreed that this is something that we shall come to in due course.
    I want to give two additional reasons why I believe that widows between the ages of 40 and 50 should be helped. When this legislation was framed women generally were marrying, and were having families, later in life than they are today. The age of marriage has fallen. People are marrying and having children at a younger age. The result is that, if they are widowed when they are 40, 45 or 47, it is likely that they will have left their jobs a good deal earlier in life. They may well not have got as far as university, should they have had the brain, nor may they have achieved proficiency in a skilled occupation to which they can return.
    Secondly, in certain parts of the country—I am sure this applies to the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North, just as it does to mine—the openings for women are comparatively few, and rehabilitation is difficult at that age. Although, by choice, I would like to see the age limits for widows' benefits reduced, I have not asked for that. But I believe that we have here a group of widows who should now be helped selectively, and the Clause is a halfway house to this. It recognises that these people have not been able to learn skills because they married young—the general trend today—and it recognises the difficulties of obtaining jobs in many parts of the country and also of rehabilitation.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the Clause sympathetically. On the last Amendment I voted for the Government. I would have given different reasons for doing so, but I should be out of order if I went into detail about them. Nevertheless, in the Second Reading debate I referred to the fact that I believe in selectivity. I believe that it would be fair to say that those who have unearned income are probably paying tax on it. I have always disagreed with the pension principle—that the money that people pay taxes on, in so far as it is pension money, should not be put back into the pension
    610
    fund. That has been one of my main arguments for selectivity in the past.
    I have explained my reasons for disliking any increase in the present benefit for the 10s. widow—another point touched on by the hon. Lady—because the widows with whom we are dealing now are much more worthy of help. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Clause and that I shall have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
    Mr. Cole: As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), this is not the ideal solution, and a lot of us would have preferred a return to an earlier age than 50. Both my hon. Friend and the Daily Mail have indicated that in many cases a woman widowed when over 40 has been "out of circulation", as it were, from the point of view of employment for 20 years or more. That will become increasingly the case as the age of marriage is lower. In the competitive employment market—it is still a competitive market despite the fact of high employment—she will not find it easy to get a suitable job, and that will become even more difficult as her age increases. This is recognised by the fact that we give a full widow's pension at the age of 50. The only difference between the policy of the Government and this new Clause is the stage at which employment becomes a super-difficulty and the question of pension arises.
    This new Clause indicates a happy compromise in our efforts to promote suitable legislation in this matter. I will not adduce the argument about the position of those people who may miss the full benefit because they are within a fortnight of the appropriate age. Wherever the line is drawn that sort of thing will always happen. But if someone misses the qualifying age of 50 by a year or 18 months, that means that it is missed for the next eleven years or so, and this Clause would obviate that state of affairs. It does not represent a complete panacea for all the widows under 50. But whatever job they may be doing at under that age they may find it increasingly difficult, as their 50th birthday approaches, to continue with that work. But always they may be buoyed up by

    611
    the thought that on passing their fiftieth birthday they will get the full benefit. That is the principle that is enshrined in other pensions legislation where, as one approaches the age of 60, there is the knowledge that when the time comes it is possible to retire and not work but get a full retirement pension.
    My hon. Friend has tried to meet the problems which face the Government. Some of these problems arise from the sort of administrative jungle which inevitably surrounds pension legislation and I am certain that the anomalies result from this. I do not think that the acceptance of this Clause would result in a feeling of satisfaction by every widow in the country but it might be considered that a move forward had been made. I hope that my right hon. Friend will discern some virtue in this proposal. I beg him not to tell us again about the administrative difficulties. In most cases it will be some years before it is necessary to pay a pension at 50. I consider this a good Clause and I am glad to support it.
    Mr. McKay: I am happy to support this Motion. During the Second Reading debate I referred to the reduction of the age from 50 to 40. Here we have a compromise. At that time I suggested that widows at 40 should be allowed to contribute to a pension until they reached the age of 50 and then receive a pension in the same way as widows of 50. This is a little better than that idea. It suggests that the widow should not pay any contribution if she is over 40 but that she should receive a pension at 50.
    Sir Spencer Summers: I hope that the Minister will remind us why Parliament changed the age from 40 to 50 and what would be the approximate cost of returning to the age of 40. This proposed new Clause represents an attempt to assist the position of a particular type of widow without "putting the clock back" as much as previously. One may agree with the motive behind this idea, but I cannot help feeling that there is a flaw in the argument.
    If it be true, as I believe it is, that a widow who is over 40—here we are not dealing with the widowed mother—finds,
    612
    for reasons which have been advanced, that it is difficult to get a job, she may, at the age of 42 or 43, have to manage as best she can, perhaps for seven years. That is the time when her need is real and when she requires help. It is a poor consolation to her to be told, "Do not worry too much. In six or seven years' time benefit will be coming to you because of a proposal made in the early part of 1964. All you have to do is to fight for your existence for the next six or seven years." If a widow can overcome her difficulties during that period she may well be able to manage for considerably longer. It seems to me, therefore, that if the need of a widow under the age of 50 is as real as has been argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) she deserves more generous treatment than is proposed in this Clause, and that it is not enough to try to meet the needs of such people in this way.
    I am not qualified to comment on whether we should go back to the age of 40. I do not remember the arguments which prompted the Government to raise the age to 50. Perhaps finance had something to do with it. I ask that the Minister remind us of what was said in the past, about which he will be far more familiar than some hon. Members on the back benches.
    7.30 p.m.
    Dame Irene Ward: I am very glad to be able to support this new Clause, although of course I agree with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) for what he said about the varying opportunities in different parts of the country for women to obtain employment. This has always been one of the problems which arise in a Bill which covers a general legislative problem. I should have thought that, with all the difficulties arising in various parts of the country over unemployment and the finding of jobs for school leavers, this proposal, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, it is limited, would have been a way of helping the young as against the older women.
    I always find great difficulty in Bills produced Departmentally, because there

    613
    seems a tremendous lack of co-ordination. In my part of the world, the North-East Coast, there is generally heavy industry, but in Whitley Bay, which is part of my constituency, we get the benefit of the rate distribution because we have no industry. The problem of women wanting employment adds to the difficulty of the area I represent. There is no general employment available to women in my part of the world. It is not a textile area.
    We are indebted a great deal to the Minister, but I should have thought that a progressive Minister would have seen that it would be very helpful if we were allowed to have the general inquiry for which we asked before this Bill was conceived. There are tremendous human problems. In Government Departments there is lack of co-ordination. While it is generally accepted that in London there is no shortage of jobs, I well remember in my part of the world a woman who had very good qualifications as a secretary and who had the greatest difficulty in finding a job because young people naturally at the beginning of their lives have a right to be considered.
    This is a tremendously difficult problem. I hope that when he replies my right hon. Friend will not merely negative this new Clause. I hope he will say that the speeches made on it have drawn his attention to the fact that we are not only asking for something for widows. We are seeking something which would vitally affect the employment problem as related to school leavers who have their way to make in life and also widows who find themselves without a job struggling to pay high contributions to keep in line for a proper pension when they reach the age of 60.
    I do not know how we can make an impression on my right hon. Friend. Of course he may have argued very much in favour of having an inquiry. If so, I apologise for being so jolly hard on him. But the rest of the Cabinet must have been unaware of the difficulties which arise in areas such as mine. I, therefore, hope that when he replies he will not negative this new Clause, but will give some hope that proper and appropriate action will be taken.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I hope, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth
    614
    (Dame Irene Ward) does, that the Minister will not negative this new Clause. I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind my reminding her that she voted for the Bill which increased the age from 40 to 50, as did all hon. Members opposite.
    Dame Irene Ward: I also remember, going back to 1950, that we all wanted to increase the retirement pension, and I remember the selectivity of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they were in Government. So, tit-for-tat, I cut that out.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the hon. Lady does not deny what I said—that they voted to increase the age from 40 to 50.
    We all realise that this very difficult problem surrounds the whole question of widows' pensions and that there is need for an inquiry. Once we departed from the old system of insurance by which a pension was provided for widows—of 10s. a week as it was in 1945—and brought in a new system in which we tried to relate the widow's pension to the different circumstances of widowhood, we provided not one kind of widow's pension, but a number.
    They began with the widow's allowance for 13 weeks. That conformed with an international convention. It was regarded as essential from the standard of health that a woman should be able to remain away from work for 13 weeks. We provided a pension for widows with children. The question was whether the pension should continue after the children had ceased to be dependants. That was in keeping with the kind of general selectiveness for widows.
    Then the question arose, at what age should we regard it as too difficult to ask the widow whose child had grown out of the dependent stage to go to the labour market? We decided in our Act of 1946 that the age should be 40. If a widow was widowed at the age of 40 and without children it was regarded as too much to ask her to go back to the labour market after she had been out of industry for perhaps 20 years. Similarly, in the case of the widow with children we decided that if she were 40 or over when the eldest child ceased

    615
    to be dependent, she should have a widow's pension for the rest of her life.
    I think that has worked as well as any of the previous provisions. None of them gave difficulty, and none of them will give difficulty unless we go back to a general widow's pension. This age was regarded at that time by the whole House as being very fair. There was no argument or discussion about it. There was a general realisation that beyond 40 years of age it would be too much to ask a woman who had been out of the labour market for many years to seek to go back to it.
    Then the Government, for some reason which I have never heard explained, raised the age from 40 to 50. Was that based on experience? Was it based on the experience of the Ministry of Labour, for example? It is not an easy matter for men who lose their jobs at the age of 40 to find other jobs. I have had ample evidence of this in my own area. There has been a change from the old industries like steel to new ones. It is much more difficult for women. On the whole, when the age was 40 the system worked well.
    I was not here when the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) moved the new Clause. I understand that its effect will be, not to restore the age of 40, but to provide a kind of half-way house. Whatever compromise is provided, it will be anomalous. Everybody in the Committee would be pleased if the age were put back to 40. What are the arguments against doing that? When the age was raised to 50 and pushed into that Bill, it was the bitter pill in the sugar.
    I see no reason why we should not restore the age to 40. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree that a change should be made. They agree that the age of 50 is too high. If it is too high, let us fix the age. Let us have no half-way house; if we are to fix an age, why not fix 40? I do not think that it would cost a great deal. I should like to know the experience of the Ministry of Labour. What does that Ministry think of the chances today, with unemployment at half a million, of a woman entering the labour market for the first time at 40 or 45? Is it fair to ask a woman of that sort of age to
    616
    enter employment, perhaps in an industrial district, for the first time? As we are all agreed that 50 is too high, we should do the straightforward thing and put the age back to 40, where it was before this Government increased it to 50.
    Mr. Wood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), not only for giving us the chance to discuss this matter, but also for giving us a very clear picture of the situation as it exists at the moment. The picture my hon. Friend gave us was supplemented by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)—and who better, because he had the responsibility for these matters in those days.
    I should like to round off the picture as to why this change was made and what the effect has been. During the passage of the 1946 Bill the concession was made that the pension should also be given to the widow who ceased to draw widowed mother's allowance after the age of 40. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the change back to 50 had been made. The reason was that the concession made during the passage of the 1946 Measure created the anomaly that the widow who was widowed after the age of 40 did not then get the pension, unless she could qualify for widowed mother's allowance. Therefore, the title for pension depended on the age of the widow, and also on the age of the child, at the time of the father's death.
    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that this became very anomalous and that the National Insurance Advisory Committee recommended that the widowed mother's allowance should continue until the child was aged 18, and with higher rates. At the same time the Committee suggested that the concession—which I have just described—at the age of 40 should disappear, but only for women who were widowed after that. The Committee also said that there was no evidence—on this we could argue for a long time—that the age of 50 was wrong in relation to employment prospects.
    7.45 p.m.
    I want to take this point further, because it is a serious point made by the right hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury

    617
    (Sir S. Summers). I want to point out to the Committee the provisions which exist to deal with it. The test at the age of 50 exists because the woman who is widowed, or ceases to draw widowed mother's allowance, when she is over 50 is likely to find it difficult to get back into work. I am leaving aside for the moment the question whether widows under 50 might also find it difficult. I think that we all realise that the age of 50 by itself would be a very crude instrument, if one merely drew a line and said that widows falling on one side would get the benefit but those falling on the other would not. It would not only be crude. It would be cruel.
    Therefore, one of the provisions is what we have just been discussing, namely, that the widow over 50 gets benefit but subject to an earnings rule. I need not go over some of the arguments we have had about that. At the same time, younger widows without children are assumed to be able to earn their living. Therefore, they get no pension, unless they happen to have a reserved right to a 10s. pension under the old scheme.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington was very fair, but I think that these provisions assume an even greater importance than he attached to them. If widows who are younger—the younger widows, to use a shorthand expression—cannot work because they are ill, they then can qualify immediately for sickness benefit, which is at the same rate as the widow's pension. As my hon. Friend fairly pointed out, this goes on, or unemployment benefit with continuing title continues, if necessary until 60, when she gets retirement pension.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: No.
    Mr. Wood: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make his point later. In fact such a widow gets her unemployment benefit. Then she gets credits to continue her title for retirement pension when the time comes. If she is unable to get work, or to work, she gets benefit at the same rate as the widow's pension. This was a valuable concession which was introduced by the Government in 1957 after the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee to meet the problem of the widow under 50 who cannot work.
    618
    Therefore, the issue becomes this in relation to the Clause. As sickness benefit is available for widows who are continuously nable to work, my hon. Friend's proposal would give benefit only to the women who are widowed between 40 and 50 who are fit to work and therefore probably working. Those are the women whom he would benefit. What be would he doing, in effect, is to give to those widows what would be equal to a retirement pension at a specially early age.
    Mr. Cole: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point that once the children have left the age of dependance and the woman is over 50 she should qualify for a pension, but under the present legislation a childless widow over 50 also draws the pension. What is the difference between the two, particularly if both are having to return to the labour market?
    Mr. Wood: That calls in question the whole dividing line—if there is to be a dividing line. The older widow, the one over 50, gets her pension, subject to the earnings rule. The widow under 50 does not get benefit, but, if she is unable to work and to support herself by her earnings, she qualifies for sickness benefit, which is at the same rate as the older widow's benefit. I would be happy to give my hon. Friend a longer answer on this topic if he cares to raise it again at a later stage.
    The question of giving a retirement pension to widows at an especially early age would be difficult to justify because I find it difficult to see that the woman between 40 and 50 is so clearly in greater need than a single woman or a woman widowed before reaching the age of 40. As I see it, it is necessary to have some dividing test. We can argue at length about whether it should be 50 or younger, but what we have done with the age 50 test is to try to temper its effects by firstly subjecting the older widows who get the benefit to an earnings rule and, secondly, by giving cover to the younger widows for benefits which are, in fact, exactly equal to the widow's benefit. We could argue about this for a long time. With the test we now have at the age of 50, and with the modifications which I regard as important, I believe that we in have secured something better than is contained in the proposed new Clause.
    Miss Herbison: The Minister has again called in aid the Advisory Committee of his Ministry and has said that it advised that the age of 50 did not present difficulty in finding employment. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has clearly shown that in her constituency it is difficult, often even at the age of 40, for a widow to find employment. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) made exactly the same point.
    The Minister's reply to that is that if a woman in the category covered by the proposed new Clause is sick and unable to work she gets sickness benefit—the same amount, £3 7s. 6d., as the widow's benefit. If she is without work and cannot find work, the Minister tells us, she gets unemployment benefit. According to the right hon. Gentleman—because this was his whole case—these widows would be drawing either sickness or unemployment benefit.
    Questioned about this, the right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, "If these widows are not drawing unemployment benefit and they cannot find work they will get their credits." It is small comfort to such a widow to be told, after she has struggled to find a job and has been told that she has no right to unemployment benefit, "Do not worry, at least your credits are being paid for you". What must happen to her? Her only recourse is to National Assistance. I will not develop this point because in other debates and on Second Reading we have made our feelings clear on this issue.
    There may be difficulties in accepting the proposed new Clause, and I do not think that it represents the best change that could be made, but I support it because it is an improvement on the present position. I am convinced that almost everyone in the country feels that there is something wrong when there should be this absolute dividing line—50 or over, or just under 50. It is true that we would be creating a dividing line, an arbitrary one, but at least it would be 10 years earlier in a woman's life than the present one and it is for that reason that I support the proposed new Clause.
    620
    I have told the Minister what is the policy of the Labour Party, having given great thought to this matter and realising that widowhood of itself should not give a right to pension. That was in our 1946 Act. We in the Labour Party still believe that that is the case, but, accepting that, we still believe that the age of 50 is too high. We now take the view, after giving the matter careful examination, that there should not be an arbitrary age. Our policy is to have a sliding scale, beginning at a certain age, when the widow would get full pension, reducing according to age until the stage when the widow is sufficiently young to go on to the labour market—after 26 weeks and we are changing it from 13 to 26 weeks—with a chance of getting a job. As I have said, since we believe that the proposed new Clause represents an improvement on the present position, my hon. Friends and I are ready to support it.
    Mr. Cole: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's views on this subject now, but there are still two points which worry me. Firstly, for the life of me I cannot see, despite the unemployment and sickness benefit, why there should be a distinction affecting the case of a woman aged 46, 47 or 48 who wants to get a job but cannot get one. I realise that she may receive unemployment benefit for 19 months, but what happens after that? Why is she supposed theoretically to be in a measurably better position from the point of view of getting a job than a woman aged 52 or 53? This is the crucial dividing line. The age of about 50 is sometimes a crucial age for women and, for this and other reasons, it seems a peculiar age to choose for this dividing line.
    Secondly, this whole system appears to be somewhat of a lottery. A childless widow aged 50½ receives the widow's pension and at 60 the retirement pension if she so elects and if the necessary contributions have been paid. A widow aged 47—with three years to go until she is 50—has to wait not just three years, until she reaches 50, but 13 years, until she is 60. I cannot understand this argument that a widow aged 47 is still young enough to get a job which, theoretically, she must hold for the next 13 years.
    If what I have said is the case, why should not a widow aged 52 who gets a

    621
    job not perhaps hold that job for eight years? This seems a most odd and arbitrary administrative position. There appear to be anomalies and I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir S. Summers: I, too, think that we should look at the age at which full benefit should be paid to the widow. I do not blame my right hon. Friend for not accepting this Amendment, because I do not think that it would do what should be done or help those whom it is designed to help when they need it most. My right hon. Friend said that the lot of the widow over 50 is not as bad as all that, because of sickness benefit and unemployment benefit for a specified number of weeks; and that, therefore, the younger widow, as he called her, is not too badly off.
    On the other hand, if benefits are being paid in certain circumstances to these younger widows, the cost of going a step further and paying them to those who cannot find work cannot be very great. There cannot be all that number of people who would be content—or could be content—to rely at that age on the widow's benefit, even if they had not any children, as an alternative to finding work. I am sure that, if they could find work, they would. We are dealing with people who are entitled neither to unemployment benefit nor sick benefit, and who want work but cannot get it. I therefore hope that the Government will, if not now, at some other time, see if something cannot be done far these people.
    Mr. P. Browne: I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) did not put down a Clause of his own to do what he wants, instead of carping at mine. I agree with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire,
    North (Miss Herbison) that all my right hon. Friend has said is that if a widow is under 50 she has a right to sickness benefit ad infinitum, or can get unemployment benefit. But as I pointed out, and as was echoed by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), she cannot draw unemployment benefit indefinitely and, after a maximum period of 19 months, only gets credits.
    I should have thought that rather than rely on the N.I.A.C. Report of 1956, the very least my right hon. Friend could have said was, "I accept the anomalies, I accept the fact that people get married younger, and I accept the difficulties existing in certain regions. I will therefore refer the matter again to the N.I.A.C. to see if it has ideas different from those in 1956." I thought that my right hon. Friend's reply was awfully negative. I hate saying that, because he is so courteous. He was so very pleasant in his reply, but he did not say anything.
    Mr. Cole: What worries a lot of us is this lottery to which I referred; that if a woman is widowed before 50 she may have to wait another 10 years and more. Could not my right hon. Friend consider making the same kind of right apply earlier so that if the widow is able to show that she cannot get employment, she may on application qualify for a widow's pension at 50 even if widowed before 50? That compromise might be considered for the future.
    Mr. Wood: I assure my hon. Friends that I will carefully consider the arguments that have been put forward, but I cannot now go as far as to suggest that it will be possible to make any concession like that. I will consider the arguments.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 152.

    Division No. 14.]

    AYES

    [8.5 p.m.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Diamond, John

    Barnett, Guy

    Carmichael, Neil

    Doig, Peter

    Beaney, Alan

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Chapman, Donald

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Blackburn, F.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Blyton, William

    Collick, Percy

    Evans, Albert

    Boardman, H.

    Corbel, Mrs. Freda

    Finch, Harold

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Cronin, John

    Fitch, Alan

    Bowden, Rt. Hon. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Fletcher, Eric

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Dalyell, Tam

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Ginsburg, David

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon, P. C.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Rhodes, H.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    MacColl, James

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Hannan, William

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Harper, Joseph

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

    Ross, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Manuel, Archie

    Silkin, John

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Mapp, Charles

    Snow, Julian

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Holman, Percy

    Millan, Bruce

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Houghton, Douglas

    Milne, Edward

    Steele, Thomas

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Stonehouse, John

    Hoy, James H.

    Moody, A. S.

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Morris, John

    Taverne, D.

    Hunter, A. E,

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oram, A. E.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Thornton, Ernest

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Owen, Will

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Padley, W. E.

    Warbey, William

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Paget, R. T.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Kelley, Richard

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Willey, Frederick

    Ledger, Ron

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Probert, Arthur

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Randall, Harry

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Redhead, E. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Loughlin, Charles

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Goodhew, Victor

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Gough, Frederick

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Allason, James

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Anderson, D. C.

    Green, Alan

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Partridge, E.

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Gurden, Harold

    Percival, Ian

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Barter, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Batsford, Brian

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Biffen, John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Rawlinson, Sir Peter

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Box, Donald

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

    Roots, William

    Braine, Bernard

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Brewis, John

    Holland, Philip

    Sharples, Richard

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hollingworth, John

    Shaw, M.

    Bryan, Paul

    Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

    Buck, Antony

    Hopkins, Alan

    Stainton, Keith

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hornby, R. P.

    Stodart, J. A.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Cordle, John

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Corfield, F. V.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Costain, A. P.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Longden Gilbert

    Turner, Colin

    Curran, Charles

    Loveys, Walter H.

    van Straubenzee, W, R.

    Dance, James

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Walder, David

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    McLaren, Martin

    Walker, Peter

    Eden, Sir John

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Wall Patrick

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Marten, Neil

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Emery, Peter

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wise, A. R.

    Farr, John

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Finlay, Graeme

    Mills, Stratton

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Freeth, Denzil

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Gardner, Edward

    Morgan, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Heave, Airey

    Mr. Peel and Mr. Pym.

    New Clause.—(FURTHER SUPPLEMENTATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION FOR POST-1923 CASES.)
    Section 1 of and the First Schedule to the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961 (which make provision for new supplementation of Workmen's Compensation for post-1923 cases) shall have effect with the omission in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of the said Schedule (which sub-paragraph imposed on a new allowance a limit of the difference between in certain cases two-thirds and in other cases seven-eighths of a weekly loss of earnings and the amount of workmen's compensation) of the words "two-thirds of" and "seven-eighths of".—[Mr. Finch.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Harold Finch: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    We are seeking to remove a restriction under the Workmen's Compensation Acts by which an injured person is entitled to only two-thirds of the difference between his pre-accident and post-accident earnings. That means that if a man's pre-accident earnings were £10, and he is now only fit for light work and earns £9, he gets two-thirds of £1–13s. 4d.
    8.15 p.m.
    I must emphasise that we are dealing with a limited number of men—those who sustained accident or industrial disease prior to 5th July, 1948. Some of those for whom this new Clause would provide suffered their accidents thirty or forty years ago. The matter goes back over a number of years when pre-accident earnings were very low. Two-thirds of these disabled people come from the mining industry. In 1958, there were 24,000 of these partly-disabled men; today, the number has fallen to 12,000.
    Most of these are elderly men, who have given their working lives to mining and to other industries at a time when wages were low and when they were faced with periods of trade depression. Time lost because of depression was taken into account in arriving at the average wage on which to base pre-accident earnings, so that a man might find his pre-accident average earnings of £4 reduced to, say, £3 10s. because a number of weeks were held to be lost on account of trade depression.
    For the benefit of the Committee, I should give a brief history of the matter.
    626
    The payments for disablement under the Workmen's Compensation Act differ from those made under the Industrial Injuries Act. This is important. A man who was injured and received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act had his compensation based on the difference in earnings, without any reference to the extent of his disability. Under the Industrial Injuries Act, if a man loses an arm, an eye or a leg, his loss of faculty is assessed; he is given so much for the loss of a limb, and it is a pension for life, irrespective of earnings. Once the medical board or the tribunal has assessed the pension for the loss of a leg or whatever it may be, a man can go and earn more wages, if he is in a position to do so, and, indeed, in many cases men do that. It is a pension for life.
    Because the principle under the Workmen's Compensation Act was quite different, there has for long been the anomaly that a man who lost a leg and whose pre-accident earnings were very low, say, £3 a week, received no compensation because the light job which he was able to do thereafter brought him in £5 a week. There was for him no two-thirds of the difference. On the other hand, a skilled collier, for instance, who had been earning fairly high wages but who, as the result of the loss of a finger, could not go back to work as a collier was able to get compensation because his subsequent wages at light work would be rather lower and he would have the benefit of the two-thirds of the difference.
    The Committee will appreciate that the relationship between pre-accident and post-accident wages have continued to be very important for these men. Originally, as I have said, the compensation was based on half the difference and, later, it was increased to two-thirds. However, it has never been increased beyond that in spite of the changed conditions in society and the general rise in wages.
    There is another limit, a ceiling above which the compensation must not go. Originally, a man's compensation could not exceed £2 10s. Thus, although the two-thirds of the difference might have been more than £2 10s., the actual compensation was restricted to £2 10s. a week. Later on, the Government raised

    627
    the maximum to £3, and then, at the time of the last debate we had on the subject, last year, the Minister agreed to raise the maximum to £4. But he declined to remove the anomaly of the two-thirds of the difference.
    It must be realised that the men who are subject to this anomaly have no chance of getting a proper review of their pre-accident wages. In the early days to which I have referred, wages were low. A skilled collier or some other skilled man would have been earning about £2 10s. or £3 a week. In 1943, when wages had risen, the Government realised that the situation was very unfair because a pre-accident wage of £2 10s. or £3 had become quite unrealistic in the new conditions. They agreed that a disabled man could have his pre-accident wage reviewed if he could show that there had been a change in the rates of pay in the work at which he had been employed.
    When this change was put into operation, it was soon found—the courts decided it in interpreting the Act—that for a man to succeed in proving an increase in rates of pay he would have to show, if he had been a collier, that there had been a change in the price list and conditons. If, for instance, the rate had previously been 2s. 6d. for a ton of coal, he would have to show that it was then 3s. 6d. Many men were not in a position to do this.
    The trouble is that there have been changed methods of working in many industries. Mining is now highly mechanised. The old pillar and stall method of working has gone. The price list under which some old chap had worked in the 'thirties is no longer in existence. In some cases, it would have no relevance at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) can speak of the great changes which have taken place in the Nottingham coalfield, for example.
    The point is that, in claiming a review, a man could not found his claim on changed conditions. The law has decided that changed methods of working do not help him at all. He may know very well that, if he had not sustained his accident, he would now have been working the same seam of coal, by highly
    628
    mechanised methods, and earning about 18 or £20 a week. For compensation purposes, however, he is restricted to his original wage. If he is on light work now earning £8 or £9 a week, his compensation is confined to the difference between the two, and he gets nothing.
    The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that the review of a man's earnings will be restricted for compensation purposes and, on the other hand, say that they will not budge from the two-thirds. The proper way to tackle the problem is to review pre-accident wages, but, when I and others of my hon. Friends have raised this on many occasions, the Government have said that there would be great difficulty in doing it. By the Amendment, therefore, we seek to abolish the two-thirds proportion. It is a perfectly reasonable proposal. There would be no difficulty. The proportion has already been raised once, from one-half to two-thirds.
    I remind the Committee that some of these men are not in employment now, not even light work, and their compensation for partial disablement is based on notional earnings, on what the law would say a man is deemed to be able to earn. The law says that, on medical evidence, a man is capable of doing a sitting-down job and at that job he could earn so much a week, if he had it. His compensation is accordingly based on the different between his pre-accident wage, his non-reviewed wage, and his post-accident wage which is hypothetical.
    The consequence of all this is that men are being treated very unfairly, and my hon. Friends and I, particularly those of us who represent mining areas, are seriously concerned. These men have given a lifetime to industry. They have derived no advantage from changes in conditions of working. They can claim nothing as a result of mechanisation. Yet they know that, if they had been able to carry on their work in present conditions they could have been earning a comparatively high wage, or, on the other hand, if their average pre-accident wages were to be assessed in the same way, according to modern conditions, they could be drawing quite high partial compensation. But, as I explained, the

    629
    law does not allow it. The compensation is tied to their low pre-accident earnings which, as everyone knows, are quite out of keeping with conditions in mining and many other industries now.
    Seeing that for the moment we are not in a position to make a proper review of his pre-accident wages, we therefore propose by this new Clause to abolish the two-thirds limit and to say to this fellow, "Never mind; you have lost to some extent, but we will make it up to you by giving you the whole of the difference". In other words, if there was a difference of £1 between his pre-accident and post-accident wages, he would be paid £1. However, we should have to say to him, "Under the last Act, you cannot receive more than £4 a week". This proposal would involve only a limited liability. The number of the men concerned is declining year by year. In addition, many of these men could not come within the Act as it is.
    I therefore ask the Minister to consider this case and to agree with the proposed new Clause. The Industrial Injuries Fund is well able to bear the small additional payment to these men who have devoted their lives to industry. Under the Industrial Injuries Act this is not such a difficult matter. If a man is unfit to return to his old work and is on a light job he can be paid a special hardship allowance. If the difference between his pre-accident and post-accident wages is £2 6s. a week, he gets the whole of the difference if the circumstances warrant it. Are we asking too much by saying that the men affected by this new Clause should be given the full difference?
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bernard Taylor: When speaking of the partial compensation cases during the Second Reading debate last week I said:
    "I am sure that something could be done, and I am convinced that something should be done for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 1127.]
    Because my hon. Friends and myself believe that with conviction and are profoundly sincere in it, we have tabled this proposed new Clause in the hope that the Minister will give consideration to the men we are discussing.
    I know that so much has been said about these cases that it is very difficult to find anything new to say, but we
    630
    on this side who represent many men affected by the two-thirds limit feel that we are under an obligation to continue to press their cases in this Chamber. We hope by argument and persuasion to prove to the Minister and the Committee that in tabling this new Clause we have been prompted only by the desire to obtain simple elementary justice for these men who appear to have been forgotten.
    Who are these people? In the light of what has been done for other workmen's compensation cases, I think that we can truthfully describe them as the "left-overs". They are the residual victims of the old workmen's compensation legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said, many of them have had no increase in their benefits for many years. In fact, there has been no basic alteration in the status of many of these men since the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1943. It is true that in recent times the totally disabled men who come within the workmen's compensation scheme have had some increase in benefits, which we appreciate and welcome. Other cases who receive benefits under the scheme, including the pneumoconiotics, have also received increases under recent legislation. It should be emphasised that some partial compensation cases have quite recently received benefits, beginning in 1961. However, there are many men who come within the operation of this two-thirds limit and who have not received any increase at all.
    Let us take as an example the person whose partial compensation was settled, say, 20 years ago. That is not a preposterous proposition. Unless one of two things has happened—that is, unless there has been a decline in his post-accident earnings or there has been a successful review of his pre-accident earnings—he is still on the same payment of 10s. a week as he was, perhaps, twenty or more years ago.
    Over the years, that type of person has witnessed an increase in wages and in living standards. He has seen increases in social benefits, in war pensions, sickness benefit unemployment benefit and benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act—all except one, and that is for the 20s. 0d. widow. I take this opportunity

    631
    Of saying how pleased I am that the step announced last week by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has been taken. In spite of all these advances, however, this man whose compensation was fixed many years ago is still getting 10s. 0d. a week. What is that worth today when we compare present values with those of 20 years ago?
    Since Second Reading, I have been looking at some interesting figures relating to the mining industry. Leaving aside the latents, who are another problem, there are in mining alone slightly more than 12,000 partial compensation cases. About one-third of them are receiving maximum compensation for partial incapacity, but two-thirds of them are receiving less than the maximum amount of compensation. By no stretch of the imagination can they ever hope to reach the ceiling of two-thirds difference between their pre- and post-accident earnings.
    Of those 12,000 partial compensation cases who are the victims of the two-thirds ceiling to which the Amendment refers, nearly 7,000 are unemployed. I wonder why they are unemployed, particularly in areas like mine, where the volume of unemployment is tow? In the main, it is because of the nature of the disability. That is a factor which the Minister should take into consideration.
    There is one other point which I wish to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty spoke about it, but I should like to reinforce his argument. These partial compensation cases fall between two stools. The formula that is used when these partial compensation cases are reviewed, instead of being related to the level of earnings in the job in which a man was employed before his accident, is based upon rates of remuneration. Our experience is that whilst some reviews are successful, many are not, but even in successful cases, because the formula is related to rates of remuneration and not to the level of earnings, the beneficiaries do not get much out of it. In addition to looking at the question of the two-thirds, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might, perhaps, give us an idea whether it is in the Minister's mind to look at Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1943.
    632
    I hope that the Minister will make a sympathetic approach to this issue. I should like to hear him announce tonight that he has come to the conclusion that the ceiling of two-thirds between pre- and post-accident earnings will be removed. Whilst it would not wholly solve the problem of all the partially disabled under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it would go a long way to help. For that reason, I am privileged, proud and pleased to support the Amendment.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I support this proposal and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having put down such a worthy new Clause. It is almost the least that we could ask for. There is really nothing in the suggestion when we make a comparison between those whom it will help, if the Government accept it, and those suffering today under the old Workmen's Compensation Act. Nevertheless, it is a worthy proposal, and I hope that the Government will do something about it.
    When the Beveridge Plan was first issued, the basis behind the thoughts of Sir William Beveridge was that nothing ought to be done in connection with workmen's compensation which would bring those men under the benefits that would come from the recommendations of the Beveridge scheme. If that is true and the 1946 Act was based on those recommendations—and I think that they had a very influential part in how that Act was framed by the Labour Government of the day—we are not carrying out what the Beveridge Plan recommended to the country. These partial compensation men, with two-thirds maximum of the difference between their post-accident earnings and pre-accident earnings, are suffering a penalty that we ought not to tolerate today.
    I think that the Government are afraid of tackling the problem from which these men are suffering because they are afraid that it will be extended into the whole field of workmen's compensation. Why should the Government be afraid? If it is an injustice today to leave men who have been injured in industry in a worse off condition, with payments which are below social security rates and benefits, the Government ought to do something for these men.

    633
    When I think about cases of which I know at the present time and of how men have been injured in the industry that I worked in, and who are today receiving no benefits whatsoever, or are being prevented from receiving the maximum, I wonder what kind of justice that is. Are we really thinking about those people who have suffered or just contemplating that in so far as their numbers are dwindling each year they will eventually be erased from the memories of us all, and therefore we need do nothing about it but simply wait?
    8.45 p.m.
    I know the case of a haulage truckman who lost a leg below the knee in 1930. He never even had the opportunity to draw compensation except for the period of time when he was not working. If that accident happened today he could claim damages under the 1948 Act. There are, indeed, various things that he could have done which would probably have given him some money as recompense. He has been able to get none, however.
    There are numerous cases like his. There are men who have lost legs or arms, fingers or eyes but who, because their wages were below even the average for those days of £2 10s. a week and because the time that they worked was only short, were unable to get compensation. I do not want to draw tears to the eyes of hon. Members by talking about the kinds of cases we know in the coal industry, but I hope that the Government will look into this because the provision we suggest in this Clause would be the least of many things that they could do for workmen's compensation.
    If we have any feeling of justice, of sympathy, for these men we should do something for them. I hope that the whole gamut of workmen's compensation will have the attention of the Government and that they will ensure that the real intention of the Beveridge Plan, which the country accepted with open arms when it was published, is carried out in its entirety and that justice is done to these men.
    Another class badly affected is those men who worked in the mines during the war and suffered injury. They receive little or no benefit today. A man selected for the mines by ballot instead
    634
    of going into the Armed Forces could be one of these men receiving no benefit for a serious injury because his wages today are equivalent to the wages he earned at the time. But he would have been on a lower wage then because of inexperience, for he would not go to the coal face until he had spent time—usually six months—on other work. It may be that he would have preferred to serve in the Forces but he had to go into the pits instead.
    Then there were the Bevin boys, the volunteers who went into the mines instead of going to war and who could have been involved in accidents. There were men who were brought from other industries, ex-miners who were compelled to return to the pits, men who were too old to be called up and who were sent back to the mines where they were later injured.
    These are among the people who are not getting justice and fair play. I hope that the Government will take our appeal on their behalf seriously. If they do, they will not only accept our proposals, but will look into the whole problem of workmen's compensation and bring the benefits of these men into line with those which they would have received if their accidents had occurred after 5th July, 1948.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I pay tribute to the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). They have raised this issue at every opportunity on every Bill of this kind which has come forward in recent years. I congratulate them upon the tenacity with which they have fought for these men. I know that their work and their fight have been warmly appreciated by the men of every industry, particularly the coal miners, and I hope that they succeed. If they do not succeed tonight, I hope that they will do so in the course of this year.
    I have a personal reason for supporting the proposal. I am very proud of the industrial injuries scheme and deeply conscious of the fact that in many ways it was our biggest experiment in social insurance, our biggest venture and our biggest success. It is interesting after the many years during which it has been in operation that only very few

    635
    now suggest that we should depart from its basic principles. This is not to say that there are not many improvements which could be made, nor that there are not anomalies. But we have heard no one suggest that we should go back to the old system which was regulated by wages, not even at a time when earnings are high and when there is full employment. We can he proud of having found a way generally acceptable to both sides of industry and to the country as a whole.
    I shall not go over all the history, but I want to explain that one of the things which I very much wanted to do was to find a way by which all the old cases, those occurring before 5th July, 1948, could be brought within the new legislation. At the time I felt that as the old cases were the responsibility of the employers and the insurance companies, I ought not to take them over without a contribution from the employers and insurance companies. I thought that otherwise I would be unfair to the fund. They had a responsibility placed on them by Parliament and I thought that they ought to make a contribution. We tried, but failed, to reach a settlement.
    That was one problem and the other was trying to equate an injury assessed under the old workmen's compensation provisions with the provisions of the new benefits. That raised all kinds of problems, but I wish that it could have been done. What has been done in recent years—including what has been done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite—has been to use the funds available under the Industrial Injuries Act to meet these hard cases. There are now very few left, only 12,000.
    What would it cost to implement the new Clause? Would it be more than £1 million a year? If it is, this is something about which we need not bother the Treasury. We can meet this without a penny from the Treasury. While these discussions have been taking place I have had a look at the latest report issued by the Government Actuary on the Industrial Injuries Fund. It makes interesting reading, and because of what it says I should like to leave the matter under discussion to be decided by the free vote of the Committee. The money in this Fund has been provided by
    636
    employers and employees, and hon. Members should realise that this Fund is different from the National Insurance Fund.
    During the year 1961–62, employers and employees contributed £57 million to that Fund, while the Exchequer contributed only £11 million. That means that workmen and employers contributed £5 for every £1 contributed by the Exchequer. It has not only been able to meet its commitments year by year, but has been able to build up a reserve, and during the year 1961–62 totalled £12 million income from investments, which was more than the Exchequer contributed. The money to meet the commitment under the proposed new Clause could be provided out of the interest on investments. At the end of 1961–62 the Fund had a balance of £288 million, and during that year money in the Fund increased by £16 million. That money was contributed by employers, employees, and the Government, and I am sure that not a single worker would wish to vote against the new Clause. I go further and say that I am sure that the bulk of employers would not vote against it either.
    The Industrial Injuries Act, which I had the privilege of piloting through the House, has been a money saver for the employers, because under that Act both workmen and the State make contributions, whereas under the old Workmen's Compensation legislation the financial burden rested entirely on the employers and the insurance companies that covered them. A number of hon. Members—though not many of them are present at the moment—are associated with employers and employers associations and I am sure they would agree that no employer would wish to vote against the new Clause.
    The men involved are mainly in the mining industry, for two reasons: First, because of the nature of the industry itself. The work is extremely dangerous. Secondly, because before the war the industry was in the doldrums. Wages were low, unemployment was high, and short-time working was rampant.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) remembers the famous Dowlais case. It had the effect of leading to a terrific wangle of earnings. Hundreds

    637
    of people—miners as well as others—were denied even partial compensation because of the relationship of the earnings rule to the short time worked in the mines. I venture to make a guess that this would not cost more than £1 million a year. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the figure is. We can surely afford £1 million a year from a fund which is accruing at the rate of £16 million a year, and now has £288 million in it.
    This £288 million would now have been well over £300 million; indeed, it would have been getting on for £330 million, and interest would have been accruing at the rate of £18 million a year, if the Government had not reduced contributions from employers and workers by 1d. a week. I protested at the time and said that it was a great mistake. No workmen would have missed a penny. No employers or workmen have gained from that decision. It would have been far better to use those pennies to improve the situation.
    My hon. Friends have shown a great deal of tenacity and ingenuity in finding a way in which to bring some partial redress to the grievance felt by these men, and I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Clause. I hope that he will also accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend that he should consider the whole problem of these few hundred left-overs. The least we can do is to support the Clause, and I hope that we shall hear the Minister say that he accepts it.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Joseph Harper: I know that everything that has been said by my hon. and right hon. Friends today has been said many times before in the past fifteen or sixteen years, but I offer no apology in supporting the Clause. Amendments of this description have been supported over the years in an effort to bring some measure of justice and satisfaction to those people who happen to have been unfortunate enough to be injured when the Workmen's Compensation Act was in operation.
    When I worked in the coal industry, we arrived at many an agreement with the Coal Board, but no sooner was the ink dry upon the paper than we found that we had different interpretations of
    638
    the agreement, and we had to have an interpretation of the interpretations. Funnily enough, we then found that we had to have a clarification of the interpretation of the interpretations of the agreement. When I entered Parliament I thought that I had finished with all that, but every time I listen to my hon. Friends discussing various Acts I find that more anomalies have been created by them than ever existed in the agreements arrived at between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Here we are trying to iron out some of those anomalies.
    I speak primarily as a representative of the mining industry, but this Clause will benefit not only the miners but workers in other heavy industries—steel and iron—and even agricultural workers. I cannot understand why a person who was injured at one time and is dealt with under one Act should receive worse treatment than his counterpart who was injured at any time and is covered by another Act.
    I am sorry that the Minister has had to leave. I appreciate that he must leave sometimes. He has sat in his place and has had to bear the heat and burden of the day. But prior to his present position he was fortunate to be Minister of Power. Furthermore, he and his family before him have had an intimate connection with the mining industry. He does not need to read it from any books, or carry out any research on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman has gained his knowledge first-hand and in a practical way. He and his family have had to pay out some of this compensation and so they know all about it.
    Some people who are drawing compensation have been penalised twice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) reminded the Committee that there were people whose cases had not been properly reviewed. They were injured at a time when there was work in the pits on only three or four days a week, or less, and the wages paid were atrocious. When wages improved, the question of partial compensation did not apply. In 1961 10s. was put on to the maximum and a further 20s. has been added. We are pleased to accept these scraps. In this situation we are like Lazarus and glad to accept any scraps. But the number affected was infinitesimal

    639
    because there are only a handful of people receiving the maximum payment. Far more are getting 5s., 7s. 6d., 10s. and so on.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us how much it cost the Government to raise the maximum. There is also a category of people who are latent compensation cases and they suffer a greater hardship even than those about whom we have been talking. The best thing is to strip all the verbiage from this legislation. Let us get down to earth and discuss the matter in a way which everyone can understand.
    Recently a man came to see me and told me that when he was 19 years of age—back in the bad old days—he lost a leg. He was a big, strapping man and he said that at the time of his accident he was a haulage hand. He told me that he did not receive a penny by way of compensation. Today a man suffering a similar accident would receive the industrial injuries benefit. He would be paid according to how much of the stump of his leg was left. This is a grisly subject, but we all know what we are talking about. If there were five inches of the stump left the victim would receive 70 per cent. of 115s. partial disablement benefit which is £4 0s. 6d. Now there is an extra contribution amounting to 26s. 10d. giving a total of £5 7s. 4d.
    The man who came to see me told me that but for his accident he would have been engaged in contract work in the same way as his three brothers, and so he has been penalised twice. He has to face life with no compensation and is able to do only a light job. Everyone who works in industry knows that a light work means "light" money. I do not say that things have not improved in industry. There have been enormous improvements. But there are always hardship cases of the kind to which I have referred.
    I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of what I have said. I do not suppose it will bear much fruit, but we are always trying and if we fail this time we shall come back in twelve months because we from the mining industry feel deeply about this. One has to work in the industry to know about this problem. We see powerful
    640
    men who have been injured and who could have earned good money in this mechanised age of automation. The present situation makes it doubly hard for them. I know there are difficulties about accepting this new Clause, but, given the right spirit, the Government could make a start in the right direction by adopting it.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon): This new Clause affects workmen's compensation for partial incapacity. It would affect only those men who sustained injury by accident or industrial disease between 1st January 1924 and 4th July 1948.
    The intention of the Clause is to increase the supplementary allowances which were given under the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961, and the National Insurance Act, 1963. The Act of 1961 gave a maximum supplement of 10s. a week to men who had already reached maximum compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Last year's Act increased the maximum supplement to 30s., but again it was only for those who had reached maximum compensation under the 1943 Act. The maximum compensation under the 1943 Act was 40s. for a single man and 50s. for a married man.
    These supplements were based on the normal workmen's compensation rules. They provided two-thirds of the loss of earnings less the amount that the man was already receiving as workmen's compensation, this extra provision being subject to a maximum of 30s. The new Clause would enable full loss of earnings to count for the supplement, but again subject to the 30s. maximum. I think we can dismiss the seven-eighths rule, which applies to men with children, as none of those children will be eligible after July this year. When I say that we can dismiss the rule, I do not mean that in any derogatory manner, but the problem is so small that I do not think we need consider it here.
    9.15 p.m.
    Having dealt with the problem, what has been done in the past and what hon. Members opposite want done, I turn to the comments which they have made. From listening to the debate one

    641
    gathers that the large majority of these men are colliers and although this is true, I was very glad that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) said that other industries are also concerned.
    The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) referred to low pre-accident wages, which obviously acted to the disadvantage of men who suffered accidents when wages were low and when there was much short-time working. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) mentioned this problem and said how difficult he had found it to be when the Industrial Injuries Act was being drafted. It is a most insoluble problem. In 1943, when the new Workmen's Compensation Act was passing through the House, an Amendment to that Act was withdrawn because the Government gave an undertaking that they would then, in the middle of the war, examine possibilities of devising a method to assess fairly the earning power of workmen who had been on short time at the date of their injury.
    It is common knowledge that no fair formula could be found. There was the difficulty of men on day work, shift workers, piece-rate workers, dockers, and building workers whose hours of work were badly affected by weather conditions. The best that could be done was to make an attempt to recalculate pre-accident earnings at present-day rates. That is where we get the formula of rates of remuneration, which we must all admit is a rather unsatisfactory way of facing the difficulty.
    Obviously some did well and some did not so well under these conditions. The problem was recognised as not easily soluble but, in fact, as almost insoluble. I must ask hon. Members opposite this question. Would it be right, as they seem to suggest in the Clause, to spend money indiscriminately on all the partials to compensate hard cases which we are unable to identify? We were unable to identify those cases in 1943 and it is all the more difficult to identify them 21 years later in 1964.
    Mr. Finch: I do not understand the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. We are not attempting to discriminate. We are asking for the abolition of the two-thirds rule, The hon. Gentleman has referred, as we did, to recalculating the pre-
    642
    accident wages at present-day rates. We merely say that a man's pre-accident wages can be reviewed by taking the present earnings of a man in the grade he was in. I do not see the difficulty. The Parliamentary Secretary is making heavy weather of it.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened to what I have told the Committee. An attempt was made to remedy this on an undertaking given by the Government in 1943. It was found insoluble then and it would seem even more insoluble today, 21 years later. What the proposal does, as I will show, is to distribute money, by the abolition of the two-thirds rule, indiscriminately and most unfairly among partially disabled men.
    Mr. Finch: How does it do that indiscriminately?
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Surely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is not referring to the Committee of 1943 which, after all, was considering this matter before the National Insurance Act was contemplated, drafted or passed. We are now considering a situation in which coal-mining workers have had full employment since 1945. They are working five, five and a half, and even six days a week. Nearly all the people in the early cases had at the most the chance of three days' work a week at ten bob a day. If the wages are adjusted for three days a week one does not bring them into the picture in comparable conditions.
    Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is not just a question of changed conditions. Only a very limited number of cases succeeded. We are doing nothing for the sufferers from industrial disease and disablement who lost their cases and who had no right of retrial—which is at least one of the best things about the present Act.
    When the hon. and gallant Gentleman uses the word "indiscriminately" I am sure that he really does not want to use that word. Will he think about that word a little further, and realise that we are talking about people who have suffered disablement for many years and who have had miserable rates of compensation? When one talks about

    643
    discriminating in cases of very grave hardship, one should not split hairs and try to talk about them in terms of being grave or graver.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention, but what I mean by indiscriminately—and I do not withdraw the word—is that this extra money, if the two-thirds rule were abolished, would be spread over all these cases, whether or not they were the sort of hardship cases we have in mind. That would be a very indiscriminate expenditure of Government money and would create far more anomalies than it set out to abolish.
    Mr. Finch rose—
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I have given way many times already. I would like to complete this part of my speech and then the hon. Member for Bedwellty can speak again, when I will attempt to answer him.
    This problem has been discussed between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. The N.C.B. does not accept that a man employed on piece work 20 or 30 years ago would be able nowadays to enjoy the earnings of a young man engaged in present conditions on piecework. This, the Board contends, is a matter of fact rather than a matter of law—which would not be evaded by amending Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1943.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Parliamentary Secretary said something about consulting the National Coal Board. Presumably he consulted the N.C.B. about the Workmen's Compensation Act. We do not propose to touch that Act. Did the hon. Gentleman consult the N.C.B. about this proposed new Clause? I would be surprised—indeed, I would be shocked—if the N.C.B. advised him to reject it.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to misrepresent me. Of course the National Coal Board was not consulted about the proposed new Clause. What I have been saying is that the Board had talks about this old problem of short-time working.
    Mr. Finch: That is a different thing.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If the hon. Member for Bedwellty will contain himself we will get on a little faster.
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Before we get on a little faster, I should like to know from where the Parliamentary Secretary is quoting. Is he quoting from memory or from a document? If there has been a document setting out these figures and conclusions by the N.C.B., on working conditions and so on—
    The Chairman: Order. That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order.
    Mr. Hale: With respect, Sir William, if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary quotes from a document which is relevant to the debate, then it should be laid on the Table. I submit that that is a part of the established rules of the House. It is true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not said that he is quoting from a document, but he has said, in effect, that he is quoting from a communication. My point of order is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should say whether the communication was a telephone message or a decision of the N.C.B. If he is quoting from a document should it not be laid upon the Table?
    The Chairman: I did not hear any quotation that compelled a document to be laid upon the Table.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I think that I understood correctly what the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) said which was that, because of this two-thirds rule, large numbers of men cannot receive any benefit. If I have misunderstood him and he wishes it, I will gladly give way to him.
    Mr. B. Taylor: I intended to convey that those who were under the ceiling of 50s. because of the operation of the two-thirds rule could not participate in the 1961 and 1963 supplements.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: That is absolutely correct, because those two supplements only come into operation when men reach the ceiling. I apologise for misunderstanding the hon. Member. He added that 7,000 of these

    645
    men in the mining industry are at present unemployed, but he should remember that, of those, three-quarters are now over 65.
    The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) spoke of the "ballotees" and the "Bevin boys", who did such excellent work in the pits during the war, but it is very unlikely that there would have been many or long periods of short-time working for those men, so it is unlikely that their wages would be greatly depressed at the time of accident.
    I am glad that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) paid a tribute to the Government for our action in recent months and years. As he says, we can identify 12,000 of these men but, beyond that, there is a very much larger number of "latents" whom we cannot identify, and that adds to the problem. He asked what the cost of accepting the Amendment would be; it would cost £400,000 per annum and, of that sum, £250,000 would go to "partials" who are on less than the maximum. He also returned to his former hobby-horse of the 1d. reduction in the Industrial Injuries contribution, but I do not think we need go over that argument again.
    The purpose of this Amendment is very far removed from the purpose of the Bill, which concerns widows with children. Many men on workmen's compensation never contributed to the Industrial Injuries Fund so as to justify drawing benefit from it, but they should be relieved of genuine hardship, as we all recognise. Those who have not reached the maximum under the Workmen's Compensation Acts—that is to say, 40s. for the single man and 50s. for the married man—have their remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. When they reach the maximum, they qualify for the supplementary allowance to a maximum of 30s., and supplements are paid only to those who reach the maximum under the former Act.
    If, therefore, there is hardship, it must be amongst men who reached the workmen's compensation maximum and are getting the maximum supplement under the 1963 Act—those, in fact, with loss of earnings of about £5 5s. a week, or more—but the Amendment would do absolutely nothing for them. It would give the most benefit to the man whose
    646
    loss of earnings happened to be the arbitrary figure of £3 10s. I am here talking of single men; the figures for the married men with 50s. benefit would be slightly different. The man with a loss of earnings of between 1s. and 30s. would get the same benefit from this Amendment as would the man whose loss of earnings was between £4 10s. and £5 5s. I think that hon. Members opposite now realise what I mean by discrimination, for this would be unfair discrimination between one man and another. It would be very rough justice indeed.
    The present rules, within the limits which I have tried to outline, do work fairly. If a man's loss of earnings qualifies him for maximum workmen's compensation, he is automatically eligible for the supplementary allowance. If the loss of earnings is not big enough to qualify for the maximum rate of workmen's compensation, then there is a remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Acts through the courts or outside, should the man's disability worsen. There is, therefore, no kind of hardship which can be properly compensated from the Industrial Injuries Fund in this way.
    Mr. B. Taylor: The effect of the two-thirds does apply in regard to the supplement. If a man is on the maximum of 50s. and that is two-thirds of the difference between his pre-accident and post-accident earnings, he would not get any supplement at all, neither the 10s. of 1961 nor the 20s. of 1963. It is only to bring him up to the two-thirds of the difference between pre and post-accident earnings.
    9.30 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I think that either I am misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman or he is wrong. Under the 1943 Act, a man is allowed two-thirds of his loss of earnings. May we consider a single man with a maximum of 40s. because the calculations are much easier? He is allowed two-thirds of his loss of earnings up to a maximum of 40s. If he reaches that maximum and two-thirds of his loss of earnings has not been reached, he then comes into the category for supplementary allowance, by which he will get his 30s. less the workmen's compensation which he has received under the 1943 Act.
    Mr. B. Taylor: Let me put a case. Let us suppose that the two-thirds difference between pre-accident and post-accident earnings is 46s. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, he can only get 40s. because that is the maximum. What I am saying is that he would not get the 30s. supplement; he would only get the 6s. which would bring him up to two-thirds of the difference.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: That is perfectly correct. That is the way it works, and I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, he put it in another way. However, that does not alter the fact that, if we were persuaded to do what the Amendment is intended to do, it would work most unfairly, with the results I have already given.
    Mr. Hale: I shall not keep the Committee long, but I want to make a brief comment on the speech which the Joint Parliamenetary Secretary has just made, which—I do not wish to be discourteous—I thought was deplorable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was replying on behalf of the Government to a new Clause put down by my hon. Friends, with some ingenuity, to call attention to a grievance within the ambit of a Bill which called for considerable ingenuity in the drafting. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "First, you are asking me to be absolutely indiscriminate. Second, you are asking me to discriminate between hard cases and cases not so hard and give the benefit to some but not to others".
    Then comes an astonishing disclosure, astonishing not because of its content but because of its indiscretion in disclosing a general reaction to our social services which one hears so often. The Parliamentary Secretary says, "These people did not contribute to the Fund. What right have they to expect anything?". We could say the same about war pensioners. These men went down the pit, risking life and limb to work. I accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's correction, of course, that we are speaking not only about men in the pits but about workers in the cotton mills as well. I have referred to coal mining only because the debate has proceeded on that basis, led with great ability by my hon. Friends from mining constituencies which have probably the
    648
    highest proportion of the cases affected. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that we must remember the cotton mills too, and then he says that he went to see the National Coal Board about it to find out what its view was. Apparently, no one suggested that an approach should be made to employers of other kinds.
    I have lived in amity with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for many years and 'I have always had great respect for him. There was an occasion on which I ventured to criticise him, namely, when he relieved employers of the burden of contribution under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and said that the State would take it over. Now, we have the Parliamentary Secretary saying that, since the State has taken the burden over, we must remember that these men did not contribute the 3d. a week towards the cost of the insurance, although, economically speaking, they did because their wages were based on what was left after the insurance contribution had been paid.
    It is shocking to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that we should remember that these men did not pay anything in 1923 out of their 30s. since they were not permitted to do so. I do not believe that he would go to a Conservative Party Conference and use that argument in respect of war pensioners. Those unfortunate enough to survive the war crippled, bleeding or broken were not permitted to pay money into a fund to move the cost of war pensions, and the public conscience would not have permitted them to do so.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me remind him precisely of what I said, because I have a note of it here. When he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that it is not very different from this. I said that many men on workmen's compensation had never contributed to the Industrial Injuries Fund. To justify benefits from that Fund there must be relief from genuine hardship.
    Mr. Hale: I was coming to that point. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling attention to it.
    Let me turn to what is called the academic or technical objection. My

    649
    right hon. and hon. Friends have drafted a new Clause in which it is proposed that the money should come from the Fund because no other way of dealing with the matter was possible within the terms of the Bill. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows that, and therefore he should not try to mislead the Committee. He knows that if we want to raise this matter at all under the terms of Parliamentary order we must say that the money must come out of the National Insurance Fund. We cannot say that it must come from the Exchequer, because that would not be in order.
    Mr. Wainwright: But is it not true that many of these men have paid into the Industrial Injuries Fund? If these men are partial compensation cases they are probably working now. Those who have been working since 5th July, 1948 and who, due to an old accident, are receiving partial compensation have obviously contributed towards the fund.
    Mr. Hale: That is true. I was talking largely in terms of 1926, 1927 or 1928 and of the older cases to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made his final unfortunate reference.
    Mr. B. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend realise that of the 12,000 partial compensation cases more than 5,000 are at work now and are contributing to the fund?
    Mr. Hale: Certainly. I make the same reply that I made before. I was trying to concentrate my remarks on those people receiving compensation who suffer the maximum hardship from the present method of computing the supplements.
    I was about to say that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made what I thought was his other unfortunate reference when he said, "We have consulted the National Coal Board and it has advised us that the men who were injured or diseased in 1926 or 1927 would not, almost 40 years later, be earning on piece work comparable figures, making adjustments to allow for the variation in wage rates over the period". In 1926 the mining industry was not the industry that it is today. I speak from personal experience of the Midlands. I was then dealing with lads of 15 years of age doing the job of pit ponies.
    Mr. Harper: Does my hon. Friend realise that we had nine months "holiday" in 1926?
    Mr. Hale: I realise that in 1926 there was the mining lock-out. Over the whole of the area which we are considering, and certainly in Leicestershire, pits were being closed down permanently. Those which remained open were working, if they were lucky, for three days a week and the maximum wages of the men were 10s. Do not let us hesitate about the figures.
    However, the jobs were not the same. We were not talking about mechanised mines with conveyor belts or even the more modern methods of transport. I was dealing with lads of 15 years of age who were "tramming", dragging loaded tubs and doing the job of pit ponies—because pit ponies can come expensive. What is the good of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary saying that a lad of 15 years of age who was "tramming" in 1926 would not be a highly skilled loader-operator at a mechanised face in 1964? This is a tragic way of considering the matter.
    9.45 p.m.
    There was a day, even while I have been a Member of Parliament, when in courtesy to the House of Commons Ministers would say, "We appreciate that, hon. Members not having the benefit of expert legal assistance, there may be some mistake in the drafting. But we understand the objects of the Clause, and if we are to accept it, we will amend it so that it suits the case. If it may not be appropriate for the money to come from the National Insurance Fund, we shall see that this piffling little payment, relatively speaking"—I never thought that the day would come when I would talk about £400,000 a year as a piffling little payment, but we have cases which are sub judice which add up to scores of millions of money in respect of which no check appears to have been made. What Shakespeare called our "sumless treasury"—and he was referring to the sea—appears much more to apply to Whitehall. Very few sums have been computed.
    If the Government are saying that they could do substantial justice to a

    651
    much suffering section of the community for £400,000 a year, which would be reduced year by year, and rapidly, because, unhappily, people who got this benefit would be dying off, after the sums which we have had to deal with are not the Government prepared to say that here is an opportunity of doing belated justice for some? Even if they cannot do justice for those who are dead, those who failed, those who for some technicality lost their case or the many who lost it because medical opinion in those days was different from medical opinion today, or for those who failed to establish a claim for diseases like silicosis or miner's nystagmus because of a conflict of medical opinion, we can, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly says, do tardy justice to a small section of the community for this small sum. Cannot the Minister at least say that he will consider our proposal and hope to come back and say that suggestions can be made which would do justice, even if it is necessary to introduce a minor measure of discrimination to satisfy the difficulties to which he has referred?
    Miss Herbison: In his reply, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary took us right back to 1943, when we had the Workmen's Compensation Act, and said that at the time of the review no fair formula could be found to deal with the type of cases which we have been discussing under the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman showed clearly that he recognised that amongst the cases covered by the Amendment there is real hardship—he has not denied it—but what does he do about it? He accepts that there is real hardship, but he tells us that since those cases of real hardship cannot be isolated from those which he considers not to be suffering real hardship, he will do nothing whatever for those who are suffering hardship. That is a wrong attitude for any Minister in the Government to take.
    To back up his case, the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that outside the cases covered by our Amendment there are worse cases. What have the Government been doing for 12 years? If they realise that there are much worse
    652
    cases than those covered by our Amendment—
    Mr. B. Taylor: And so there are.
    Miss Herbison: Of course there are—no Minister should come to the Box after his Government have been in power for 12 years to support his case for not accepting the Amendment on the ground that there are other cases outside it in which the hardship is much worse.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary brought forward the statement about the National Coal Board and the attempt to make a comparison of wages. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has shown clearly that the Coal Board could not possibly answer what the Minister asked. Nobody in that position could possibly answer it. That does not mean that the Coal Board was against anything being done for the cases covered by the Amendment or for the harder cases which are not covered by it. The Board gave the answers to the specific questions asked by the Minister. The Board was not asked what it would do if it had the chance to help these people. I hope that this makes the position of the Coal Board perfectly clear.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that money from the Industrial Injuries Fund could be used only for the relief of genuine hardship. He stated that it is a fund to which these people will not have contributed. I take grave exception to that statement because, again, that Fund has been raided—that is the only word one can use in the context of the Minister's speech—to help old pneumoconiotic cases and many other different types. The Minister used that as an argument to prevent justice being done to people who are suffering real hardship. As he cannot isolate them, he will do nothing.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Does the hon. Lady contend, therefore, that the old pneumoconiosis cases are not cases of real hardship—
    Miss Herbison: Of course they are.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon:—and that it is raiding the Fund to do justice by those cases which can be identified as opposed to those cases which cannot?
    Miss Herbison: I do not contend that at all. I was referring to the fact that many of these people might have been said not to have contributed to it. My objection is that because the Minister tells us he cannot isolate the cases of real hardship, he will not do anything to help these cases.
    The Minister has told us that if our Amendment were accepted, a sum of £400,000 per annum would be involved. That £400,000 would cover the real cases of hardship that the Minister cannot isolate and give perhaps a little extra to those whom he thinks are not suffering hardship. Would there be anything desperately wrong in doing that? Most of these men, injured in heavy industry, deserve to get the justice that this Clause would give them.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary took up the point made by one of my hon. Friends who said that 7,000 of this small number were unemployed. The hon. Gentleman thought he had a smart answer by saying that three-quarters of that 7,000 unemployed were over 65. We are thus, in the main, talking about older people. How many of them are over 60? Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this will be a dwindling responsibility year by year? If he had any feelings, as we from the mining and other heavy industrial areas have about these people, he would have been ready to accept the Clause at once. Since the Government will not accept the Clause, we shall divide the Committee in the knowledge that it will not be many months before we have a Minister acting on behalf of a Government who will give justice to these people.
    Mr. Finch: We understand from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that there is £288 million in the Industrial Injuries Fund. We are told that this Clause would cost £400,000. There is, therefore, no financial ground on which he can rest his argument.
    Earlier, I reminded the Committee of the difference between the pre-and post-accident
    accident wages under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, including supplementation, and that the workman is entitled to two-thirds of the difference. I quoted a case where the difference was £1 but where the man was receiving only 13s. 4d. He should be receiving the full £1 In support of my contention, I said that these men had never been able to obtain an adequate review of their pre-accident wages. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary admitted that, but said that there were immense difficulties. He recalled that a committee had found great difficulty in adequately reviewing pre-accident wages. If we accept that, it means that these men are forever tied to low pre-accident wages.
    In these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to say that, out of the £288 million in the Fund, these men should have £400,000. Their number is declining year by year until, in a few years' time, few will be left. Would not the Minister consider increasing the difference to say, seven-eighths at least. It is seven-eighths today for a married man with children, but these men had their accidents many years ago and no children are now involved.
    Let the Government give a few shillings to these older men who had their accidents so many years ago and have not had the advantage of changing rates of wages and who today are crippled and will never work again. He has £288 million in the Fund. All we ask for is £400,000 a year for a dwindling number of men.
    Mr. B. Taylor: This problem has not been tackled by the Government, and time is not on our side. Wiith the passage of time the hand of death will have removed the problem, and history will record that it was not very creditable to us that we did not do justice to these unfortunate people.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 108, Noes 161

    Division No. 15.]

    AYES

    [9.59 p.m.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Blyton, William

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Barnett, Guy

    Boardman, H.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Beaney, Alan

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Cliffe, Michael

    Blackburn, F.

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Cronin, John

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hilt)

    Price, J. T. (Westhougton)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Probert, Arthur

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Randall, Harry

    Diamond, John

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Doig, Peter

    Kelley, Richard

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Ledger, Ron

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Evans, Albert

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Finch, Harold

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Fitch, Alan

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Ross, William

    Fletcher, Eric

    Loughlin, Charles

    Silkin, John

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Snow, Julian

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    MacColl, James

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Ginsburg, David

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Grey, Charles

    Manuel, Archie

    Steele, Thomas

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mapp, Charles

    Stonehouse, John

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Symonds, J. B.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Taverne, D.

    Hannan, William

    Millan, Bruce

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Harper, Joseph

    Milne, Edward

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thornton, Ernest

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Morris, John

    Warbey, William

    Holman, Percy

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oram, A. E.

    Willey, Frederick

    Hoy, James H.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Owen, Will

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Padley, W. E.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Paget, R. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Mr. Ifor Davies.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marten, Neil

    Allason, James

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Anderson, D. C.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Mawby, Ray

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Mills, Stratton

    Barlow, Sir John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Barter, John

    Gough, Frederick

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Batsford, Brian

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Morgan, William

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Neave, Airy

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Biffen, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Partridge, E.

    Box, Donald

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Braine, Bernard

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Peel, John

    Brewis, John

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Percival, Ian

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Riley, Joseph

    Pitman, Sir James

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

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

    Pounder, Rafton

    Bryan, Paul

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Holland, Philip

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Buck, Antony

    Hollingworth, John

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Rid dale, Julian

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Roberto, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Roots, William

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Sharples, Richard

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Shaw, M.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Shepherd, William

    Cole, Norman

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Stainton, Keith

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Stodart, J. A.

    Costain, A. P.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Curran, Charles

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Dance, James

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Eden, Sir John

    Longden Gilbert

    Thatcher Mrs. Margaret

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    McLaren, Martin

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Macley, Rt. Hon. John

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Farr, John

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Turner, Colin

    656

    657

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Walder, David

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Walker, Peter

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Wall, Patrick

    Wise, A. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Pym.

    it being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

    New Clause.—(INCREASE OF BASIC PENSION OF CERTAIN WIDOWS.)
    A widow's basic pension to which a woman has become or becomes entitled by virtue of paragraph (2) of regulation 7 of the National Insurance (Pensions, Existing Beneficiaries and other persons) (Transitional) Regulations 1948 (which paragraph confers a right to pension on widows who had a prospective right to a widow's pension under the Fourth Schedule to the Contributory Pensions Act of 1936) shall be at the rate of 30s. a week instead of at the rate of 10s. prescribed by paragraph (2) of Regulation 9 of the said Regulations.—[Mr. Mitchison.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This is a matter about which we know, or ought to know, and in the absence of the Prime Minister I assume that we do know. It is the 10s. widow, The 10s. widow is the widow of someone who had accrued rights under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1936. She had a right to a widow's pension when she reached it. She was given a pension of 10s. in certain circumstances into which I need not go now because she had that vested right, and for no other reason. There she is. There are many of her. She has had this now, one way or the other, ever since the 1946 Act was introduced, and I am not here to discuss whether she is an anomaly or not. There was a perfectly good defence for what was done. It was rightly done.
    658
    However that may be, the question raised by the Clause is this: she has been given 10s. She was held by Parliament, and has been held by the country, to be entitled to that 10s. When it was awarded it was worth a great deal more than it is now, and all that we propose to do is to give her something like the equivalent of what that 10s. was worth when it was awarded.
    This jungle of National Insurance is peopled by anomalies—and a nasty lot they are. It is a jungle haunted by widows, and one of the most aggressive is the 10s. widow. She has a sister—the 20s. widow, who comes under the Industrial Injuries Act. She has had the compliment, at any rate, of being referred to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee for an opinion, and presumably for some action, but the 10s. widow has had nothing, and it is about time she was given something like the real value of what she was intended to have.
    This is the simplest possible question and I hope that the Committee will allow us to test it in the Lobby as quickly as possible. I know what the Government will do. They do not give a penny. That jungle is thick with stinking pinchwort.
    Mr. Cole: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that the 10s. widow has been aggressive. I do not agree, although I agree with the rest of his speech. But she has not been at all aggressive. I would remind my right hon. Friend that some hours ago he said that we were not trying to compensate widows for the loss of their husbands, because that could not be done; we were trying to make up to them something of their earning power, to enable them to look after themselves for the rest of their lives. No one in his senses would suggest that this 10s., given under the residual powers of the 1936 Act, helps to any great extent in making up for a widow's loss of earnings as a result of her husband's death.

    659
    Secondly, if it was right when the 10s. was given—whether purely gratuitously or legally, under the Act—it is right that we should make the figure commensurate with the present-day cost of living, whether it be 30s., or more or less. I feel very strongly about this matter, as the hon. and learned Member does. This is not the first time that I have raised it. I know most of the arguments that are produced in reply, from the days when my right hon. Friend's predecessor was in office, but I do not think that we should give up the fight. If not now, then one day we should do something about it. At any rate, we should tell the 10s. widows that their cause is not forgotten by many of us.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As hon. Members know most of the arguments, I will not detain the Committee by repeating them. I merely point out that the vast majority of the 10s. pensions now in payment have come into payment since 1948. They are still coming into payment this week, and they will go on coming into payment for the next 20 years or so, although the scheme under which they were pay-
    able ceased on 5th July, 1948. That scheme set out to compensate widowhood, of itself, and to pay a pension of 10s. because a person was widowed, whether she was 21, 25 or any other age. It was replaced by another scheme which had a different concept.
    Nevertheless, although the old scheme has ceased, new pensions are still coming into payment. They are an anachronism, and the right comparison is between the 10s. widow and her modern sister, who would get nothing under similar circumstances after 13 weeks' benefit. The Clause would cost roughtly £7 million. I hope that the Committee will reject it.
    Mr. Mitchison: All I say is that if these widows became entitled to 10s. under the Act of 1946 they should get 30s. now, and I invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to support that argument in the Lobby.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 103, Noes 148.

    Division No. 16.]

    AYES

    [10.15 p.m.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oswald, Thomas

    Barnett, Guy

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Owen, Will

    Beaney, Alan

    Holman, Percy

    Paget, R. T.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hoy, James H.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Blyton, William

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Boardman, H.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Randall, Harry

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

    Cliffe, Michael

    Kelley, Richard

    Ross, William

    Cronin, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Silkin, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Snow, Julian

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Diamond, John

    Loughlin, Charles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Doig, Peter

    Lubbock, Eric

    Stonehouse, John

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    MacColl, James

    Symonds, J. B.

    Evans, Albert

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taverne, D.

    Finch, Harold

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Fitch, Alan

    Manuel, Archie

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mapp, Charles

    Thornton, Ernest

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Ginsburg, David

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Warbey, William

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Millan, Bruce

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Grey, Charles

    Milne, Edward

    Willey, Frederick

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Morris, John

    Hannan, William

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harper, Joseph

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oram, A. E.

    Mr. Ifor Davies.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Allason, James

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Partridge, E.

    Anderson, D. C.

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Peel, John

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Percival, Ian

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Barter, John

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Batsford, Brian

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pym, Francis

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Rawlinson, Sir Peter

    Biffen, John

    Hiley, Joseph

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bishop, F. P.

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

    Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Holland, Philip

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Box, Donald

    Hollingworth, John

    Roots, William

    Braine, Barnard

    Hopkins, Alan

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Brewis, John

    Hornby, R. P.

    Sharples, Richard

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Shaw, M.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Irvine, Bryant Gorman (Rye)

    Shepherd, William

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

    Buck, Antony

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Stainton, Keith

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Stodart, J. A.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Teeling, Sir William

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thomas, Peter (Conway)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Costain, A. P.

    McLaren, Martin

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Turner, Colin

    Curran, Charles

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Dance, James

    Marten, Neil

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Walden, David

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Walker, Peter

    Eden, Sir John

    Mawby, Ray

    Wall, Patrick

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Mills, Stratton

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Farr, John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Wise, A. R.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Morgan, William

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Neave, Airey

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Gough, Frederick

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Finlay and Mr. MacArthur.

    Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    10.25 p.m.
    Miss Herbison: We on this side of the House welcome the improvements contained in the Bill. We feel that some widows—widowed mothers—will receive substantial benefits under the Bill, and we welcome this. I would be less than frank with the Minister if I did not say at this stage that we are very disappointed that he did not see fit to accept any of our Amendments. I am particularly disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) did not have the chance to move his
    662
    new Clause, because we all believe, not only that there are some hardships which have been to some extent ameliorated by the Bill, but that there are other serious hardships being suffered by the unemployed and the sick, and particularly by their dependants. I hope that the Government will give more serious thought to these matters. I know that they have very little time now in which to make good all their defaults of the last twelve years, but they may have a little time. We should be most willing, as we have been on this Bill, to help to hurry things through the House.
    I wish that the present Leader of the House had sat in his place today when my hon. Friends from mining constituencies were making their case, as the previous Leader of the House once did.

    663
    The previous Leader of the House was so impressed with their case that he advised the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to do something about it. If the present Leader of the House had listened to the almost unanswerable case advanced by my hon. Friends from mining constituencies, perhaps he also from a Cabinet point of view would have advised the Minister to do something about it.
    However, we were not able to convince the Government. We wish the Bill a speedy course through the other place, and hope that very soon we shall have a Bill which will contain provisions to meet the points contained in the Amendments, which we failed to get accepted today.
    Mr. Wood: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) for the welcome that she has given to the Bill. She is entirely right that we shall not have a great deal of time before the General Election to do other things that we should like to do. We look forward to having several years after the election in which to carry on the good work.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the administration of justice in the metropolitan area, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—

  (i) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of that Fund under any other enactment;

  664

  (ii) of any sums required under that Act for indemnifying metropolitan stipendiary magistrates in respect of damages, costs and other sums payable in or in connection with proceedings against them (other than proceedings falling within paragraph (b) (ii) of this Resolution);

  (iii) of any contributions payable by the Treasury under that Act towards superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of the chairman or deputy chairman of the court of quarter sessions for a London commission area:

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (i) of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

  (ii) of any sums required under that Act for paying costs awarded against justices, justices' clerks, clerks of the peace or any such clerk's assistants in proceedings for an order of prohibition, mandamus or certiorari or for indemnifying members of a court of quarter sessions, clerks of the peace or any such clerk's assistants in respect of damages, costs or other sums payable in or in connection with proceedings in respect of acts or omissions at quarter sessions;

  (c) any payments into the Exchequer.

  Resolution agreed to.

  POLICE BILL
  Ordered,
  That notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 59 (Standing Committees (Constitution and Powers)), Clause 56 of and Schedule 6 to the Police Bill shall be considered by the Scottish Standing Committee as if such Clause and Schedule had been a separate Bill, which after committal by the House had been so allocated; and that, when the provisions committed to the Scottish Standing Committee and the provisions committed to Standing Committee D have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be considered as if it had been reported to the House as a whole.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

  CAPTAIN V. C. D. LEVY
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. John Hollingworth: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise in the House the problems of my constituent, Captain Levy.
  Before I say another word on this case, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) on his well-deserved promotion to the Front Bench. On behalf of his many friends on both sides of the House, I wish him every possible personal success in his new office.
  In a way I am rather sorry that his baptism of fire tonight should be in connection with so complex a matter as the problems of this constituent. When I first arrived in the House four and a half years ago, I received correspondence from Captain Levy with regard to his outstanding difficulties, which are associated with the fact that he was forced to leave Egypt at the time of the Suez emergency. For the last 4½ years I have been in contact with both my constituent and the Foreign Office, and I fear that even at this late stage, some 7½ years after the crisis, Captain Levy's affairs are still not satisfactorily settled.
  My constituent, a man of 65, with a record of military service in the Armed Forces of the Crown, represented in Egypt prior to the emergency a substantial number of British and European manufacturers and had until the time of the crisis a very substantial and lucrative business connection. Like so many others at that time, he was obliged to leave Egypt at a moment's notice. I repeat that after 7½ years his affairs are still, to my way of thinking, not satisfactorily concluded.
  The Foreign Office, as my hon. Friend will know from his brief tenure of office, has a very substantial file on this case. I, too, have a very substantial file, and I know that this is a very complex and detailed matter. Because the Foreign Office has so much detail,
  666
  I do not propose to bore the House at this stage with the details of the case. I fear, though, in all fairness, that the success of my constituent's efforts to obtain some recompense for his lost assets have not been helped by the attitude of certain authorities in Egypt. I shall refer in a moment to the ex-gratia loan that was made to my constituent on his arrival in this country 7½ years ago, but I think that my hon. Friend would agree that the major problem lies in terms of the various assets in the form of stocks and shares that were left behind by my constituent and have not yet been effectively realised.
  This is a story, as I said, of great complication. In the first instance, one gathers from the mass of correspondence which has accumulated that a tax clearance certificate appears to be the key to desequestration. After many months of negotiation, however, employing no fewer than six solicitors in this country and Cairo, I believe that at last the certificate has become available. I am not quite sure, and I should be glad of my hon. Friend's advice on this point.
  This matter appears from the correspondence and from the conversations that I have had with my constituent to be blocked by virtue of a legal action by former partners of his in Cairo. Until not very many months ago this was still being used by certain authorities in Egypt to delay, or to appear to delay, final settlement, although in practice judgment on this matter was made in my constituent's favour in 1957. This illustrates the complication and detail of the case.
  There has also been considerable difficulty in obtaining up-to-date detailed statements of my constituent's accounts in the two Egyptian banks that he used prior to his leaving that country, the authorities I gather, not being prepared to divulge information about credits and debits during the period of sequestration. Several years ago it was suggested that only by a personal visit would my constituent really have an opportunity of putting his affairs in order, and I know, again from personal experience, that although he has, in the classic words, tried and tried again, he has still not been able to get a visa to return to his adopted home.

  667
  The result of all these difficulties, which I suggest again are mainly connected with the attitude of the Egyptian authorities, is that my constituent today finds himself living in most difficult circumstances. He was granted an ex-gratia loan on his arrival in this country to the tune of some £7,500. His assets in Egypt, including the good will of his connections as a manufacturers' agent, were valued by Her Majesty's Government at approximately £15,000.
  Right from the beginning of these negotiations my constituent claimed £32,000, by virtue of the loss of potential profit caused by sequestration by the Egyptian authorities. I have here tonight documents which seem to prove his case that he had a substantial business connection. I have with me—my hon. Friend may care to see them some time—letters of credit, in effect, from many companies in this country. When one is dealing with figures in relation to nationalisation of assets in Egypt, I must admit that they are a matter for negotiation; and I would not ask my hon. Friend to reply tonight in great detail on the matter of these figures, because, as I said, it is a very complicated one.
  Soon after his return to the United Kingdom my constituent gave as a gift £2,000 of the ex-gratia loan which he was granted on arrival in this country to his daughters, who were at that time living in severe financial difficulties. Although it was accepted at the time of the ex-gratia loan that when hardship could be proved repayment could be made over a long period of time, the authorities in London have deducted the loan figure from the total figure of compensation, which leaves my constituent with £6,200 compensation as opposed to the approximate valuation—in the Government's eyes—of £15,000.
  This matter is a sorer spot than perhaps it might have been simply because my constituent, as the years have passed by, has read in the newspapers in this country of other people in a similar position receiving substantially more than he himself has been granted. Naturally enough, unable as he is at the present time to obtain suitable employment because of his age, he feels very strongly about the whole matter.
  I return to the crux of the matter, which, in my opinion, is represented
  668
  by the assets which are still frozen in Egypt. I should like to make it perfectly plain that as long as these matters and assets remain unsettled the lower may be the value of the final settlement. This is because, as financiers and business men in the House will say, the value of many Egyptian stocks, both Government and private industry, has dropped substantially during the intervening period. This makes the whole thing more complicated than it need have been had it been cleared up five or six years ago.
  I ask that even after seven and a half years my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Foreign Office should offer to give comprehensive reconsideration to the whole case, using the full facilities of the Foreign Office in this country and of the British Embassy in Cairo, in an attempt finally to bring to a close the problems of my constituent, who, through no fault of his own—I repeat—finds himself living in most difficult conditions, with no opportunity at his age of obtaining suitable employment in this country, and certainly, by virtue of the failure of the Egyptian Government to grant a visa, no opportunity whatsoever ever to return to his adopted home.
  I am quite sure that but for all the difficulties which have arisen in the past between our two countries—and I would not dream for one moment tonight of going into detail of what is still a highly controversial political subject—people of good will in both countries must surely agree that outstanding matters of this type should be settled as soon as possible, rather than remain as open sores to endanger the happier relationships which we hope will exist between the nations concerned.
  I have had 4½ years correspondence with my constituent. I am fully aware of the complications, and of the diversification of interests involved. I said earlier that I am confident that a very large measure of blame must rest upon the shoulders of those authorities in Egypt who have, in effect, gone out of their way in a very delicate and diplomatic manner to prevent the final settlement of this matter. But I am sure, too, that, given a little more good will on both sides and given an enthusiastic approach by the Foreign Office through

  669
  the British Embassy in Cairo, there is no reason why my constituent should not, before long, find himself adequately recompensed for what, after all, is a situation which was due to no fault of his.
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. William Yates: I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Hollingworth) speak about the cases of those who have not yet been able to get their accounts settled under the agreement between Great Britain and the U.A.R. Nevertheless, I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me on the diligence of Mr. Fletcher in our Embassy in Cairo and on the efforts of the committee which has been responsible in Cairo and has done its best to investigate a large number of these cases.
  I can only say in support of my hon. Friend's case that I think it is a great mistake that the U.A.R. has not allowed his constituent an opportunity to go back and investigate the case for himself. But he can rest assured of one thing. The British Embassy in Cairo, as far as I have knowledge of other cases, has assisted my constituents and all those who have written to me. I hope that this case, like others, can be settled, because no good can come to Britain's future relations in the Middle East unless these matters concerning our constituents are settled properly, suitably and quickly.
  10.43 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Mathew): May I first of all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Hollingworth) for the kind words which he said about myself and for the good wishes which he expressed at the beginning of his speech. I appreciate them very much indeed. I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of commenting on this case and explaining what steps my right hon. Friend has taken to help Captain Levy. Captain Levy has, over the past few years, furnished my Department, among others, and, as we now know, the hon. Member himself, with a wealth of documentation on every aspect of his affairs, so that his problems have been constantly before us.
  670
  As I understand it, his main difficulty is the delay in the granting of authority to transfer his liquid assets in Egypt into sterling in this country, which he has a right to do under Article V(i)(a) of the Financial Agreement of 1959. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that we received only yesterday a telegram from Her Majesty's Embassy at Cairo reporting that the tax dispute which has caused this protracted delay is now being submitted to the Tax Revision Committee, and Captain Levy's present agent has said that he is confident of obtaining a tax clearance certificate soon.
  Although, of course, these tax disputes are strictly an internal matter to be dealt with under Egyptian municipal law, Her Majesty's Embassy is doing everything possible to further Captain Levy's interests, and I am grateful for the words that were said about the Embassy by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates). The Embassy is trying to secure the effective release of his holding of 3½ per cent. War Loan held by the Ottoman Bank in London to the order of the Gumhuriya Bank in accordance with Article III(g) of the Financial Agreement.
  According to the exchange of Notes of 7th August, 1962, authority had been given for he release of these securities, but the Egyptian Bank appears still to be holding them pending settlement of the tax dispute which I have already mentioned. We are, of course, aware of the lawsuit to which my hon. Friend referred, although in two letters dated 30th August and 6th September, 1963, Captain Levy assured my Department that no such action was in progress. Her Majesty's Embassy reported this morning that the other parties to the suit were at present not to be found; but in any event this is also a domestic Egyptian issue in which Her Majesty's Government cannot properly intervene.
  As to the difficulty of obtaining bank statements, to which my hon. Friend alluded, I would remind him that on 7th August, 1962, the Egyptian Minister responsible authorised banks and other authorities to supply such statements either direct to applicants, through their agents or the Embassy. Some administrative confusion seems to have arisen through Captain Levy's maintaining

  671
  accounts with three separate banks. I understand that these were eventually amalgamated into one account with the Bank of Alexandria; and Captain Levy's solicitors in Birmingham sent to my Department on 30th January, 1963, a copy of a statement of account from the Bank of Alexandria which they had obtained for him, showing a balance of £E4,685 placed in a non-resident account.
  Captain Levy has been awarded compensation amounting to £7,016 through the Foreign Compensation Commission, £6,049 of which represents an award in respect of loss of income in Egypt. He has protested that this award is inadequate and has been invited to submit further evidence to enable his claim to be re-examined on review. This review is unlikely to take place for some time; and since the Commission is in its judicial functions an independent body it would be improper for my right hon. Friend to attempt to bring any influence to bear on it. Of these awards, £5,803 was withheld in partial liquidation of the ex-gratia, interest-free loans amounting to £7,500 made to Captain Levy. These loans were made through the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board in 1957 and 1958 out of public funds against his undertaking to repay.
  As the then Foreign Secretary stated in the House on 15th July, 1957, these loans were repayable out of "returns from Egypt"—and awards by the Foreign Compensation Commission, since they came out of the money paid in compensation by the U.A.R. Government under Article IV of the Financial Agreement, are held to constitute such "returns". Captain Levy therefore still owes Her Majesty's Government £1,697; but the Egyptian Loans Advisory Board, which advises the Foreign Secretary on the amounts of these deductions, always takes account of any hardship that may arise. Captain Levy appealed for a lower sum to be deducted, but the Board, after a personal interview by one of its officers and after full consideration, found no satisfactory evidence of hardship and felt obliged to maintain its previous recommendation.
  From what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the figures he quoted were not all quite in context. The sum of £32,000 which he mentioned repre-
  672
  sents the amount of the original claim which Captain Levy lodged with the Foreign Compensation Commission for loss of income. He based it, I understand, on an average of £E3,000 a year income over 10 years. The Commission did not accept that basis of calculation and assessed and awarded his claim, as I have said, at £6,049.
  Similarly, the £15,000 which my hon. Friend quoted as the value of Captain Levy's assets in Egypt was not the valuation made by Her Majesty's Government; it was Captain Levy's own valuation—actually £E15,679 after the subtraction of certain irrelevant items—when, in common with some 8,000 other refugees in Egypt, he registered his assets for the information of the Foreign Office in 1957. I should, add, for the sake of completeness, that these "registrations" in no way constituted any kind of application or claim for compensation.
  Captain Levy also applied to the Egyptian Grants Committee for a grant on grounds of comparative hardship out of the fund whose establishment was announced in this House on 7th February, 1963. The Committee is actively studying his application—which, again, is amply documented—and will, I am sure, reach a decision as soon as possible.
  My hon. Friend has alluded to the repeated refusals of a visa to Captain Levy to revisit Egypt, and this matter was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. It is, of course, the internationally recognised right of all sovereign States, and one which we ourselves exercise, to refuse entry to their territory. There is thus no way in which we can enforce the observance of Article VII (1) of the Financial Agreement.
  In conclusion, let me assure my hon. Friend once more that my Department, as well as Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo, has always been fully informed of Captain Levy's difficulties. It is only fair to say that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that, in failing to give prompt effect to some of the provisions of the Agreement, the United Arab Republic authorities are not acting in any spirit of ill will. On the contrary, we have received many indications that they are as anxious as we are ourselves to bring this unhappy and long-drawn-out

  673
  situation to a conclusion satisfactory to all concerned. In particular, they have recently set up a special department to deal more expeditiously with applications for tax clearances and, although it is still early to be able to assess results, we hope that this measure will prove effective.
  We have never ceased, either in this country or in Egypt, to do our utmost
  674
  to help all these unfortunate British subjects who had to leave property behind them in 1956, and we shall continue to take every action properly open to us to assist Captain Levy, as well as all those who are in similar difficulties.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  British Service Personnel
  British Service Personnel
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Aircraft Industry (Sales Campaign)
  Aircraft Industry (Sales Campaign)
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  British Lion Films Limited
  British Lion Films Limited
  Cotton Imports
  Cotton Imports
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Consumer Council
  Consumer Council
  O.E.C.D. (Committees for Industry)
  O.E.C.D. (Committees for Industry)
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee
  Migration
  Migration
  Advance Factory, Stranraer
  Advance Factory, Stranraer
  Local and Central Government
  Local and Central Government
  British Honduras
  British Honduras
  Yorkshire (Minister's Visit)
  Yorkshire (Minister's Visit)
COAL
  Coalite Supplies, Bolton
  Coalite Supplies, Bolton
  Manufactured Fuels
  Manufactured Fuels
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Electricity (Bulk Supply Tariff)
  Electricity (Bulk Supply Tariff)
EDUCATION
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Wales
  Wales
  Cardiff
  Cardiff
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Don Valley
  Don Valley
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Supply and Transport Branch (Transfers)
  Supply and Transport Branch (Transfers)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Sunday Observance (Report)
  Sunday Observance (Report)
  Greater London Council Election
  Greater London Council Election
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Boundary Commission for Wales
  Boundary Commission for Wales
  Terence Brett
  Terence Brett
  Mrs. Searle
  Mrs. Searle
  Betting and Gaming Act, 1960
  Betting and Gaming Act, 1960
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  MALAYSIA
  MALAYSIA
GHANA
  Ex-Civil Servants
  Ex-Civil Servants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Allowances (Travel Expenses)
  Tax Allowances (Travel Expenses)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bala Lake, Merioneth
  Bala Lake, Merioneth
EMPLOYMENT
  Plastics Works, Mauchline
  Plastics Works, Mauchline
TRANSPORT
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
RAILWAYS
  Rail Closures
  Rail Closures
SCOTLAND
  Noise Abatement
  Noise Abatement

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF RHODESIA
3.5 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: 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 what future financial arrangements have been made respecting the University College of Rhodesia in Salisbury, and what contribution will be made to its maintenance by Great Britain.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONMWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, most of the recurrent costs of the College for 1964 have been met by the transfer of a Federal grant. Arrangements for financing the College after 1964 are at present the subject of negotiation between the Governments concerned. We hope to arrange for a meeting to be held in Salisbury to discuss the future of the College in the near future.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer, and I am sure that he will recognise, as all of us do, that the delay in reaching a final decision with regard to the financial future of this very important educational institute, important not only to Central Africa but also to Africa as a whole, is in fact doing damage to it. I hope, therefore, that when the negotiations are started in Salisbury Her Majesty's Government will regard the part that they can play financially in the future of the University with as generous an attitude as is possible, particularly in relation to the new medical school.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself
1244
with my noble friend in agreeing that the sooner this question can be settled the better for all concerned. I would add one word of warning. Of course, it is not our general practice to contribute to the recurrent costs of overseas universities.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I urge my noble friend that the Government should not close their minds to the possibility of having to make an exception to that rule in the particular case of this university, which has provided a very important forum for higher education on a multiracial basis in Central Africa?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, with these talks due to be held very shortly, I think it would be unwise of me to say anything which might prejudice them.

FORCES IN CYPRUS
3.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: 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 they will make a statement of policy on the replacement of British Forces in Cyprus by contingents from NATO countries.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, after the opening session of the Cyprus Conference my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary held a series of separate meetings with the representatives of Greece and Turkey and of the two Cypriot communities, with a view to finding a basis for the discussion of a settlement of the Cyprus problem. However, it soon became evident—and this was not unexpected—that the task of reaching agreement was going to be difficult and protracted. In the meantime the situation in Cyprus has been growing extremely tense, which inevitably increases the danger of a renewal of the earlier disorders. In these circumstances we felt it desirable that the present peace-keeping force should be enlarged by the participation of additional countries. Negotiations to this end are now proceeding. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do

1245
not go into greater detail at this juncture. I will make a further statement as soon as practicable.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him two short questions? First, was consideration given to the transfer of a British Division from Germany to a NATO commitment, obviously more immediate than the existing German commitment, and, if so, why that was not given effect to? Secondly, is it true, as I hope it is, as reported in The Times to-day from Washington, that the United States Administration requires Britain to remain in command of the peace-keeping Division, and does that mean that the force commander will be a British commander?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first supplementary question, I said in my original Answer that we felt it desirable that the present peace-keeping force should be enlarged by the participation of additional countries. As that is so, I do not think that his first supplementary question arises. With regard to the second, this will, of course, be one of the matters to be discussed in the negotiations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether Her Majesty's Government will give special consideration to the second supplementary question of the noble Earl. For, of course, though we all welcome the participation of other countries in a problem which certainly has wide international implications, Cyprus is still part of the British Commonwealth. Therefore, I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would not think it appropriate that, even if there are other contingents, the actual command should be in the hands of someone belonging to the Commonwealth.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the point which the noble Marquess has made will be borne very much in mind.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Leader that we were very satisfied in general with his first Answer, and I think that at the present
1246
moment of negotiations I do not need to put any further questions.

LUGGAGE ACCOMMODATION ON BUSES
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM had given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when buses are approved as an alternative to branch line railway passenger services, they will implement their promise of an adequate alternative, by ensuring that the buses have sufficient capacity for bulky luggage and that they provide reasonable connections with main line trains.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stonham has asked me to apologise to the House because he is not present to ask his Question. He is indisposed and hopes to be present next week to ask it.

FIXED CHANNEL LINK
3.9 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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 when they expect,

(a) to be ready for a further exchange of views with the French Government,

(b) to make a joint announcement of policy,

in regard to the Report Proposals for a Fixed Channel Link [Cmnd. 2137] which was presented to Parliament in September last.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I regret that there is little I can add to the Answer my noble friend Lord Ferrers gave on Thursday last. The reply to both parts of my noble friend's question must therefore be, "Soon".
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, my noble friend will recall that one of the words used by his noble friend last Thurs-

1247
day was, not "soon" but "hope". Would he bear in mind that he who lives in hope has but a slender diet? Also, could my noble friend's right honourable friend not work to a more definite timetable, and therefore be more specific in his reply than my noble friend when he is considering the various aspects of this matter?
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend must by now be aware that there are so many implications of national importance in this matter that I do not think they can be put down to be worked upon under a timetable.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read la; and to be printed.

HIRE-PURCHASE (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Extension of application of Hire-Purchase Act 1938]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN)THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN) had given Notice of several Amendments dealing with bodies corporate, the first being, in subsection (1), after "shall" to insert:
"(except as provided by section (Exclusion of bodies corporate) of this Act)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Molony Com-
1248
mittee recommended that the Hire-Purchase Acts should apply only to consumer transactions. We did not follow this recommendation in the Bill as drafted. As I explained previously, there would have been great difficulties of definition. Instead, the Bill raises the monetary ceiling to £2,000 and we did not think it likely that practical difficulties would arise if purely commercial agreements up to that figure were brought within the scope of the Acts.
Since the Bill came before your Lordships' House we have received a number of representations about such agreements. There are, of course, many instances of commercial firms acquiring goods under hire-purchase agreements within the £2,000 ceiling; for example, there are acquisitions of industrial plant and motor vehicles. It has been represented to us that consumer protection safeguards are not really appropriate to such purely commercial transactions. Further, it has been represented that commercial hire-purchase agreements are concluded on terms which are quite normal between business concerns but which could not be made to satisfy the requirements of the Acts. As an example, there is quoted to us a variable rate agreement under which the parties agree that the hire-purchase charges shall vary during the lifetime of the agreement in sympathy with movements of hire-purchase rates generally. When the agreement is made the amount of the hire-purchase price and of each instalment is not known, so the requirements of the 1938 Act cannot be complied with.
My Lords, we have considered the matter further in the light of these representations. The protection which the Hire-Purchase Acts give to the hirer is something exceptional, in recognition of his comparative weakness and lack of knowledge in relation to the finance house and the dealer. There is no particular reason why normal business concerns should be so specially protected in their dealings with other business concerns. Our conclusion is that, particularly since the application of the Acts to purely commercial agreements could cause practical difficulties, we should deal with the problem by exempting from the scope of the Hire-Purchase Acts all hire-purchase and credit-sale

1249
agreements where the hirer or buyer is a body corporate. Your Lordships will recall that during the Committee stage I accepted an Amendment doing just this in relation to the cooling-off provisions. We have now decided to apply that principle generally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("shall") insert ("(except as provided by section (Exclusion of bodies corporate) of this Act)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, this Amendment is the logical outcome of the Amendment moved from this side of the House excluding corporate bodies, particularly with regard to the safeguards in connection with the cancellation of agreements, and we would accept the point of view which indicates that corporate bodies should not come within the provisions of this Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not disagree with this at all; I am just seeking some information. What exactly is meant by a "corporate body"?—because the Minister in his remarks referred to "normal business transactions" and "commercial concerns". I know that it would include the limited company, presumably public or private. Does it include a partnership or a one-man business?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HUGHES: Some of my noble friends say, No. I do not know whether they are saying "No" to a one-man business, or to a partnership. Some partnerships and, in fact, some one-man businesses are still very large concerns. Would they be excluded, or would they get the benefits of the Bill irrespective of their size?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that what is meant by "corporate bodies" is any organisation incorporated under the Companies Act, any corporation established by Statute or any corporation established by Charter.
LORD HUGHES: That means that a business partnership which was not a limited company would have the benefit of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Only if not incorporated under the Companies Act. There is a great difficulty in drawing the
1250
line here. In theory, the easiest way would have been to define consumer transactions; but we found that it was not possible to do that. In any event, we do not want to take out of the Bill the small businessman, because often many of the hardships of repossession affect him in particular. What we do think is reasonable is to take out the body corporate, and that is the purpose of this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I think the position is that there are still a fair number of fairly large businesses which are not limited companies. On the other hand, there are a great number of very small businesses which are private limited companies. So that we can have the situation that the way this matter has been dealt with will deprive a very small company of the benefits of the Bill while conferring them on the organisations very much more able to look after themselves.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hughes has raised a very important point, and I hope that the Minister will look into it between now and the time this Bill comes before another place. Some very large manufacturing concerns are still, of course, run as partnerships. All the disadvantages, in respect of sliding arrangements for prices and that sort of thing, will continue to apply to them. If some way out of this could be found, I am sure that it would be of great advantage to the commercial and industrial interests of the country.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I admit that there are anomalies; but I think that, whatever we did, there would be anomalies in this matter. I should have thought the large enterprises referred to are unlikely to be affected by this Act. For one thing, the provisions of the 1938 Act, on which this Bill is based, apply to a limited extent, and this Bill raises the upper limit of the transactions to £2,000. While it is perfectly true that large organisations who make hire-purchase agreements below the value of £2,000 will, if they are not corporate bodies, be covered by the benefits, I should not have thought that that fact had any great practical significance. We are perfectly willing to look at the position again to see whether we

1251
can define it more closely, but I think your Lordships will appreciate the great advantage of a clear division of this kind that will be well understood.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move that the new clause be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
Exclusion of bodies corporate
". The principal Act shall not apply to any hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement which is made by a body corporate (whether incorporated in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) as the hirer or buyer of the goods to which the agreement relates.".—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Requirements relating to hire-purchase agreements and credit-sale agreements
2.—
(2) The Board of Trade may by regulations provide that in any document which constitutes a hire-purchase agreement to which the principal Act applies, or constitutes a credit-sale agreement to which that Act applies under which the total purchase price exceeds £20, the signature of the hirer or buyer shall be inserted in a space marked in such manner, and accompanied in the document by such words, as may be specified in the regulations; and the regulations may include provision as to the size and colour of the lettering of those words and as to their location in relation to the space in which the signature is inserted.
3.24 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
Amendment of sections 2 and 3 of the principal Act
"(2) Section 2 and Section 3 of the principal Act shall have effect as if:—
(a) there were inserted after subsection 2(b) of each section—
(bb) the agreement contains a statement of the amount of any commission in any way attributable to the introduction or acceptance of the agreement if such commission is paid or to be paid to any person (in this subsection referred to as a 'dealer') or to the servant or agent of a dealer by the person to whom the dealer has supplied or is to supply the whole or any part of the goods comprised in or to be comprised in the agreement; and
(b) there were inserted after '(b)' in the provisos to subsection (2) of each section '(bb)'".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 3, which deals once again with the question of secret commissions. This was a matter which we debated on a different Amendment, concerned with charges, moved by my noble friend Lord Shepherd on the Committee stage. This Amendment is a narrower one, and its purpose is to ensure that the agreement signed by the hirer reveals the amount of commission that is paid to the dealer. If I may take an example similar to the one that my noble friend Lord Shepherd mentioned on the Committee stage, on a car costing £1,000, which might be payable over two years, the payment to the dealer for negotiating the agreement, if it was negotiated with a motor agent who was in fact dealing with one of the Finance House Association members, might be £22 10s. 0d., while if it was another one it might be as much as £37, because the amount of the commission varies between 10 and 25 per cent. I have a later Amendment to restrict the amount of commission that shall be paid. Whether or not that is acceptable—and I can see that there are arguments against interfering in that type of arrangement—there surely can be no argument against revealing the facts to the average hirer of a motor vehicle.
It would be our submission, and the submission of those who support this Amendment, that the average hirer does not know how the charges are made up, and in particular does not know that there is a commission payable to, say, the motor car agent. The hirer comes along, chooses a car of a certain value and price, and then he has to think how he is going to pay for it. He does not know at any time that the motor agent, who he thinks is rendering him a service, is already being fully remunerated, for rendering little in the way of service at all. Indeed, it would be perfectly open for the individual to go direct to one of the Finance Houses and arrange his own hire-purchase; and if he were to do that, it would save him something like 1 per cent. of the charges he would pay in the course of the year.
I submit that there is everything to be said for bringing this situation out into the open. It does not occur to the average hirer, the average individual, to inquire the rate of the hire-purchase

1253
company's charges, or how they are made up. He has no idea at that stage what total he has to pay over and above the cash price (and this was the matter which my noble friend Lord Shepherd dealt with), and therefore has no inducement to find out whether he could get better terms elsewhere. We should like to see that it is brought home to the hirer that he is, in fact, having to pay quite heavily for this accommodation. We also think it is undesirable that there should be such a strong incentive to the motor agent who is selling the car—and I am relating this mainly to the motor car as the best example—to persuade the individual to take out a hire-purchase agreement, as opposed to paying cash; and, furthermore, to enter into an agreement which it is also in the interests of the agent to stretch over as long a period as possible, because, again, his own commission will be to that extent higher.
When we debated this matter on the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that no case had been made out for this Amendment, but I should have thought it was a case which has only to be mentioned to be apparent: that it is highly desirable that people should know what they are dealing with. This is not just a single transaction; it is not lake going into a shop and buying a car for cash. It is an additional transaction. Whereas they may know the price of the car, the monthly charge and the total charge, they do not know the rate of commission payable to the dealer, and are not in a good position to compare one price with another. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming to-day than he was on the last occasion. This is a comparatively simple Amendment. Furthermore, it is one that I think most reputable people concerned in the provision of funds for hire-purchase would support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shackleton.)
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, perhaps I might add a word in support of what my noble friend has said. In a previous existence (if I may put it that way) I had a certain amount to do with the motor car industry in my constituency, and I should not have
1254
thought that there was any real argument against the case put forward by my noble friend. I agree with him that most people have no idea that the motor agent gets this commission, and I should have thought it not a bad idea that they should know. I do not know about the rest of. your Lordships, but the wide range of possible amounts of commission quoted by my noble friend as charged by different agents was, to me, quite staggering. The Government at the moment seem rather concerned with the consumer—in the first place, that he should be supported, and, secondly, that he should also be able to buy things at the cheapest price available: that he is to have this freedom of choice—and I should therefore have thought that this particular Amendment might have carried more weight. I think that the House will agree that there seems no reason at all why, if commission is paid, the amount should vary to the extent indicated by my noble friend. Furthermore, I should have thought that if it were possible for the purchaser of a motor car to have a hire-purchase agreement which would cost him considerably less if he went to another source, at least he might be made aware of it. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming on this occasion.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this Amendment. I do not understand the need for commissions to be paid to dealers by hire-purchase companies. It seems to me that the finance companies confer a benefit upon the dealers by enabling them to sell goods which otherwise they would not be able to sell at all. I see the justification for what one might call a documentation fee to be paid to a dealer who fills in documents which would otherwise have to be filled in by the representative of the finance company, and at their expense. A properly worked out documentation fee, which recompenses the dealer properly for the work that he undertakes in filling in forms, I can understand and would agree with; but I cannot see the justification for commissions in excess of that sort of fee; and if one cannot see the justification for these commissions, one certainly cannot see a justification for their being paid in secret. I support this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I support my noble friend, but perhaps from a different aspect. We now know that finance companies are paying varying rates of commission to their dealers. Those within the Association, I believe, have limited themselves to 15 per cent. There are others outside who are offering terms of 25 per cent., and some, at one time, were a good deal higher than that. Therefore the House will recognise that finance companies are under considerable pressure to increase their rates of commission. Those who are offering 15 per cent. may well see good business going to those hire-purchase companies that are offering 20 or 25 per cent. This means that the pressure is on the whole range of finance business. If we ever expect—and I think we should expect—charges on hire-purchase business to be reduced (and I think many would wish to see this, even those within the industry itself) it is quite obvious that if 15, 20 or 25 per cent. of the total charge of the agreement is immediately going to the dealer, the opportunity for a hire-purchase company to reduce its charges to its customers will be a good deal less. I think the House should recognise that the dealer receives his commission on a percentage basis of the total charge, and therefore the dealer will increase his rate of commission, his profit, if he can persuade the customer to take perhaps a three-year agreement—the longer the better so far as the dealer is concerned. Therefore, the pressure is not only upon the hire-purchase company for higher commission, which in itself must be a higher charge on the agreement, but also upon the customer for the length of the agreement.
But I think there is another danger in this connection. In practice, the companies that are offering these higher commissions are those which are the more likely to be found in what is called "snatch-back" or various other practices which have brought hire-purchase business into disrepute. At least the customer would be able to judge roughly the position of the hire-purchase company by the mere sight on his agreement of the amount of commission that that company was prepared to pay the dealer for the business to be sent to him. It would be a pretty good guide as to the position of the hire-purchase company.
1256
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has read the Molony Report—I am sure he has read it two or three times—and he will agree that the Molony Committee were most strong on this matter. They felt, and they said in clear terms, that where these commissions were being paid the customer was entitled to know. I beg the House to support this Amendment, to see that the customer shall be aware of the charge that he will be paying on his agreement, and also that part of it which the dealer receives merely for introducing the customer to the hire-purchase company and perhaps assisting him in the filling in of the documents.
3.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the way the House has to look at this matter is to ask what additional advantage the hirer will get from having this particular piece of information. The Amendment seeks to insert immediately after Section 2(2)(b) of the principal Act, a subsection which would make it obligatory to disclose to the hirer any commission attributable to the introduction or acceptance of the agreement. Paragraph (b) states that the agreement must contain a statement of the hire-purchase price and of the cash price of the goods to which the agreement relates, together with a statement of the amount of each of the instalments, the dates on which they fall due and a list of the goods. I think the House would wish to consider whether the information that is now being asked for is in line in any way with that and will really help the hirer to make up his mind whether or not to sign the agreement.
There are, after all, only two major figures with which the hirer is concerned. One is the cash price and the other is the hire-purchase price. He is perfectly able to see the disparity between the two. If he thinks that the hire-purchase price is too high, he will either proceed with the agreement or he will look around to see whether he can get better terms elsewhere. What this Amendment proposes is that the amount of commission Paid to the dealer should be set out separately in the agreement. I should not have thought that this would have been of direct concern to

1257
the hirer in reaching his decision, since any commission which is payable to the dealer by the finance house will already be included in the charges and therefore in the hire-purchase price. The purpose of the Hire-Purchase Acts is to make available to the hirer information which is essential for his purpose in deciding whether the extra costs of buying through hire-purchase are worth while. We shall certainly risk some confusion if we prescribe information which is not essential for that purpose.
One of the fallacies which lies behind this Amendment, if I may say so, is that the amount of the commission is necessarily an extra charge on the consumer. In so many cases there is a trade-in price given for the second-hand goods which are handed in as part of the transaction. Quite obviously, if the dealer gets a commission he is able to shade the price for those trade-in goods. It is not as if there were a fixed market price for the trade-in goods. There may not even be a fixed market price for the cash value of the goods which the hirer is going to acquire on hire-purchase. There is no fixity about this, and it may easily be that the amount of the commission is of advantage in this way and that part of the advantage may be passed on to the hirer.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, does this not discriminate against the hirer who has not got something to trade in?
LORD DRUMALBYN: What is to be borne in mind, surely, is this. The finance houses themselves are in business to lend money on hire-purchase transactions. They are not going to give a higher commission than is required to enable them to get the business. They are competing for business and if in such competitive circumstances they give too high a commission in relation to other finance houses they themselves will very soon be out of business.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that interesting point, that the dealer shades his price, does he suggest he will have one price if there is a hire-purchase agreement and another if there is a cash transaction and that he will vary the price according to the rate of his commission? This is what the noble Lord is saying. He is saying that the hirer will be asked, before he is told what he is
1258
going to be given for his trade-in whether he is to enter into a hire-purchase agreement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know the answer to that in any particular circumstances, but, with great respect, I do not think it matters because the dealers are in business to dispose of their goods. They may make a higher profit on one transaction than on another, but they will be considering their business as a whole and their ability to make sales as a whole.
Quite apart from this, there is the practical point about these commissions. The provision in the Amendment could not be satisfactorily enforced. Apart from the possibility of cash payments which could not be traced, there would be obvious ways in which finance houses could make payments to dealers in cash or in kind which need not be related to particular hire-purchase transactions. Indeed, any figure given as the commission could not be readily proved or disproved. Whatever the merits of this may be it really is quite unenforceable. This was one of the reasons why Molony came out against compulsion in the general sphere of commission. I agree that the Molony Committee did not like them, but in the end it was forced to the conclusion that it was not possible to introduce compulsion into this field.
I strongly submit to your Lordships that this is not a matter on which it is appropriate to legislate. The two things the hirer is interested in are what he can get for the goods for cash and what he is being offered by way of a hire-purchase transaction. He may quite easily know what he is getting the goods for for cash—the cash prices of the goods may be much the same in a number of shops. Therefore, if he looks round he is able to compare what he could get the goods for on hire-purchase as between varying shops and can make up his own mind between them. It will not help simply to state the amount of the commission. That is only one element in the total charges, and I would ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am sure the House will find little satisfaction in the reply given by the noble Lord opposite. He bases his objection to this Amendment, first on the ground that it

1259
is likely to offer little advantage to the hirer; and, secondly, on the ground that there are difficulties in regard to enforcement. I do not know on which particular argument he truly rests his case, but when we come to the question of an advantage to the hirer—an advantage which the noble Lord apparently doubts—the main virtue of this Amendment is that it would be a decided advantage to the hirer. Indeed, as the noble Lord has indicated, under the principal Act it is necessary for there to be a declaration of the cash price and the hire-purchase price, and the sole purpose of including those two pieces of information is so that the hirer will be able to assess truly the real cost of the credit. Therefore with the exclusion of this other element, the commission, he is not in fact in possession of information which will give him knowledge as to the true cost of that credit.
The noble Lord asked, "Will it help him to make up his mind?" Of course it will help him to make up his mind. It will enable the hirer to have clear knowledge as to what sort of commissions are being paid to dealers, motor car salesmen, and the like, in order to encourage the hirer to take up one hire-purchase transaction or another. Therefore, without any shadow of doubt it is to the advantage of the hirer and unquestionably will help him to make up his mind. It will at least help him to make up his mind with regard to the decision as to which hire-purchase company he deals with; there is no doubt about that.
In regard to the point made by the noble Lord, that it is a fallacy to say that the commission is a charge on the hirer, surely the House will not accept that. Is it seriously suggested that there will be no impact at all on the hirer in this regard? The House cannot possibly accept that argument. I would ask the House to compare the arguments advanced on both sides, and to come quite strongly to the conclusion that this Amendment unquestionably would strengthen the Bill for it would add to the ability of the hirer to understand the agreement and the true cost of the credit which he is seeking.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his
1260
support. I, too, found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, quite astonishing. To start with, he rather suggested that the Amendment would not be enforceable. A good number of the finance houses regard it as being enforceable, would welcome it, and regard it as perfectly satisfactory.
There are three items in this. There is the basic charge which the hirer pays for the goods, for the motor car; there are the charges of the hire-purchase company, which are difficult to dissect because they include what they have to pay for the use of the money that they are lending, and so on; and there is the third item, which is the commission that the dealer gets and which is entirely concealed at the moment from the hirer. There is this argument that the Amendment would enable the hirer to look with rather clearer eyes at any pressure upon, any cajoling of, him to enter into a hire-purchase agreement—and there are such instances. There is a difference in the price that is paid for a hire-purchase agreement. It may be that we cannot restrict completely what that should be, but at least we can let people know what the components of the hire-purchase price are; and if they know that the dealer's commission ought only to be 10 or 15 per cent., and they see that it is 25 per cent., it will make them think. They might even begin to wonder whether they should sign a particular agreement.
The noble Lord suggested that hire-purchase companies could get round this provision. He talked about inducements, payment in cash or kind. I wonder whether he could specify what he means. Is he, in fact, implying some kind of corrupt practice on their part? I really think that, if this is a serious argument, we ought to know what this sort of practice is. I should have thought this was a perfectly simple proposition. It is regarded through large sections of the hire-purchase trade as entirely enforceable, and I really cannot see why the Government should resist this. In these circumstances, I hope the House will support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henley, L.

Peddie, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Hobson, L.

Rea, L.

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Shackleton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Killearn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Chorley, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Listowel, E.

Summerskill, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Meston, L.

Walston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Moyne, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Mountevans, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Polwarth, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Poulett, E.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Rothes, E.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Bossom, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hastings, L.

Sandwich, E.

Chesham, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Spens, L.

Craigton, L.

Lambert, V.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Crathorne, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonshire, D.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Suffield, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Dowding, L.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mills, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.3 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "and as to" and to insert:
"any other terms or statements contained in the document".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 4. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Board of Trade to regulate the size and colour of the lettering of the whole of an agreement, and not merely one section of it, so that there will be the opportunity, by the exercise of this power, to emphasise particular aspects of a hire-purchase agreement which it is felt, in the interests of the hirer, should be emphasised. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in opposing this, said that such a deletion would reduce the power of the Board of Trade to warn the hirer that he is signing an agreement; but, in fact, it does not, for there is power in Clause 2, subsection (2), which says:
1262
"… the signature … shall be inserted in a space marked in such manner, and accompanied … by such words, as may be specified in the regulations;"
Thus there is power there to make certain that the hirer is duly warned. Important though the location of the signature is, what is much more important is how it is displayed.
On Committee stage the Minister indicated that he was prepared to look into this matter. He said that also with regard to many other Amendments, but he has apparently looked long and seen little. I hope that on this occasion he will accept this Amendment, because it undoubtedly strengthens the Bill. The clause as it stands limits the power of the Board of Trade to the control of only the marking of and location of the hirer's signature on the document, and the size and the colour of the lettering: it does not go beyond that. But this Amendment permits an extension of those powers. It would extend the Board of Trade's powers, which are now limited under the Bill to the signature box, to all the

1263
agreement. If there is virtue in bringing the attention of the hirer to a special section of the agreement—namely, where he signs his name—surely there is also same advantage in giving power to the Board of Trade to enable steps to be taken to enhance particular aspects of the agreement that are important to the hirer.
I might also make reference to another point, which is that, in the past, there has been considerable criticism of hire-purchase agreements in the courts, particularly with regard to the size of the type—the minute type. It is important to remember that even the most intelligent people are frequently deterred from reading a document when the type is exceptionally small. This Amendment, without doubt, helps to bring to the attention of the hirer the more important terms of the agreement. Indeed, I would say that if the only objection on the part of the Minister to this Amendment is that it deletes the reference to location, then there is nothing wrong at all, because I would be prepared to accept the retention of the reference to the location provided there was an acceptance of the principle involved in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("to") to end of line 40 and insert ("any other terms or statements contained in the document").—(Lord Peddie.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend, I do not want to say a great deal more on the merits of this particular Amendment. In fact, I want only to add this—because the argument was put very fully and clearly to the Minister on the Committee stage. He himself attached great importance to the box for the signature, and seemed to think that, provided the box was there and the signature was in the box, that was all the protection the consumer needed. I do not think he knows very much about the high-pressure methods of salesmen, who have little difficulty in getting the signature into the box. Proper print, which is large and which brings the main matters to the attention of the consumer very clearly, seems to me to be much more important.
1264
But what is worrying me is that, judging by the Amendments which are down on the Paper in the Minister's name, in spite of all the promises he made about giving careful consideration to these matters—though I have no doubt he has done that—he has not, in effect, made any concessions of any substance whatever. If he would indicate that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, which was to the effect that we should adopt the very successful procedure which has been applied throughout the Commonwealth of Australia (I think in all the different constituent States there) would be welcome to him and would receive Government support, that would go a good way: but he has done nothing of this—and not only in connection with this Amendment, but in connection with practically all the other Amendments. This really is reducing the value of our Committee stage on these Bills to a minute amount.
One of the great values of the work in this Chamber surely is that we have a proper Committee stage here, and that when useful Amendments are put forward there is a reasonable chance of their being accepted. If we are to be confronted with this sort of thing the value of the Committee stage in your Lordships' House is going to be greatly lessened. Indeed, it is not going to encourage Members of this House to spend the amount of time which my noble friends and I have been spending on this matter over these last weeks. I take a very serious view of this business; and I hope the Government will realise that if they go on in this way—and this is not the first occasion that this has happened—they will, in fact, be doing a great deal to destroy the value of the work of this House in connection with Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will realise what is going on.
It is difficult to know what is in the mind of the Government over this. These Amendments, quite obviously, are in the interests of the consumer; from time to time on Committee stage the Chairman of the Consumer Council has supported them. That seems to me to make no impression on the Government. The Government are obviously going to "play" the consumer interest in the General Election. That is pretty obvious from this Bill and from the Resale

1265
Price Maintenance Bill, and from all sorts of other straws that are blowing in the wind. I cannot myself understand the attitude they have been taking at the Committee stage and at the Report stage on this Bill. If that is their purpose, why are they rejecting these Amendments? It cannot be necessarily because they come from the Opposition, for several of the most important have come from the Consumer Council. Yet the Government make no sort of gesture in the way of acceptance. I hope that the Government will realise that this is quite a serious matter. There is time even now for them to change their mind over this business.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I supported it at Committee stage and I was attracted to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair. It seemed to me highly practical. I cannot see why the Government should feel that just to print a document in which there is a clear space for somebody's signature is the only simple method of making the document intelligible. I have been reading several hire-purchase agreements, just out of interest, because they are so important in this Bill. Some of them are much better printed than others. But, on the whole, it would be very much better if the whole of the document were printed in a straightforward, honest-to-God type, of whatever size may be decided—and Lord McNair in making his proposal said that in Australia a certain type is used. I cannot see the reason why you want to have something which is readable but accentuate only one part: the place for the signature. The whole of the rest of the document is of great importance. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to look at this in a simple, practical manner. If somebody wants to read and understand a document it would be easier if all the type were good, clear type. I hope the Minister, even if he cannot accept this Amendment, at least may say that some regulation can be brought in insisting that the document shall be printed in proper, legible type.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, if my support would not condemn the Amendment, I should like to acid it. I was very drawn to the sug-
1266
gestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, on the Committee stage, and I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said. I think I remember what the Minister said in rejecting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, on the Committee stage. I believe it was to the effect that if we accepted this we might then have all the type made bigger and, in that case, nothing would stand out from the rest. think we all agree in this House or in another place that if we want to do something we can do it; and if we do not, then we can very easily find every reason in the world for not doing it. If the Minister were to say to his civil servants (if they are the people to whom one should say it), "This is a principle we are determined to have; we are going to have this printing made of whatever size it may be. You draft something to cover it", nothing will convince me that the civil servants could not do it. I would say to the Minister that I am quite convinced that wherever he went in this country or in Scotland, quite apart from any political points of view, there is not one person who would not agree with a suggestion that all typescript on hire-purchase agreements should be large enough to be read. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give way on this particular point.
LORD McNAIR: My Lords, I wish to support the object of this Amendment. It comes very close to the Amendment that I put down when the Bill was in Committee, and which I have put down again in order to keep it alive. The object of that Amendment was to enable the hirer to read the document that he signs; and I think there is agreement in all quarters of this House that it is desirable that a man, especially a humble man who is not very familiar with business, should be able to read, and to the best of his ability understand, any agreement that he enters into.
The Amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Peddie and Lord Chorley, raises the question whether the object of my Amendment ought to be achieved by specific requirements throughout the Bill, saying that this and that shall be in certain sizes of type prescribed by the Board of Trade, or whether it would be better to have a

1267
global clause, such as I envisaged, which could cover not only the whole of the hire-purchase agreement but all the notices and other documents that come into being as a result of it. The clause I put down was based on the Australian legislation. I am in no way wedded to the terms of that clause, and I wonder whether the Minister—who, without giving any promise, was very fair-minded and rather sympathetic to my Amendment—would, with all the resources of skilled Parliamentary draftsmen at his disposal, put down a clause of a global character which would either directly require the agreement and all other documents to be in a certain type or give power to the Board of Trade to require that these documents should be printed in a certain type. In that way I think he would without doubt be removing one of the evils which at present beset hire-purchase agreements.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Minister and the House may remember that on the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to entitle the prospective hirer to have a copy of the agreement or proposal for his perusal between the time in which he had signed the proposal and the time he received the relevant documents. The Minister then said that what we wanted to ensure was that the prospective hirer should study the agreement before he puts his signature to it. I agree with him that that is what we want. We want the prospective hirer to read the document; but anyone who has seen a hire-purchase agreement—and I showed one to the Minister the other day—will see a long list of terms, qualifications, responsibilities, and the like, placed upon the prospective hirer and printed in such type that unless he gets very close to it, it is a mass of colour instead of letters. The noble Ladies opposite nod their heads and I am glad they agree. I think it is obviously in the interests of the hirer that the facts which the Government regard as necessary to be drawn to his attention should be clearly marked.
It might be argued that the drawing of special attention to particular parts of an agreement might draw the attention of the prospective hirer away from other parts. That is a question of judgment, as to which terms should be clearly marked and clearly identifiable as of
1268
essential importance to the hirer. This Amendment seeks to achieve that. If the Minister says that we should place on the hirer the responsibility of reading the document before he puts his signature to it, I would say that, taking into account the difficulty of reading present agreements and the pressures that perhaps may be used in getting a signature in a shop or store, or even in a home, we should ensure that the facts important to the hirer, not only in regard to the benefits he may gain from the agreement but also, above all, in regard to the responsibilities he has undertaken, shall be clear. I beg the Government to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken begs me to accept this Amendment, yet the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said earlier on that he would be quite prepared to have the Amendment varied, so to speak, and recognised that some of the words proposed to be left out should not be left out. Some fairly vigorous blows have been levelled at my head in the course of this short debate and I think I am entitled to reply to them. I think your Lordships recognise the difficulty that we are in—namely, that this Bill was taken fairly soon after Recess and so, in the nature of things, noble Lords were bound to put down Amendments fairly late and we did not have much time to consider them before Committee stage; and because of the many implications of a Bill like this we have not had much time to consider them since then. I think I should be entitled to ask at least for an understanding of this point.
Noble Lords asked me to accept the Amendment which they put down on Committee and which I agreed to consider, and they put down the same Amendment again on Report and expect me to accept it. If they want the principle to be accepted, by all means let us consider the principle, but if they want the Amendment to be accepted they have had time to revise it between Committee stage and Report. I am bound to ask what noble Lords really mean by this Amendment, because if we read the clause as it will read if amended, it will say:
"… and the regulations may include provision as to the size and colour of the lettering of those words and as to any other terms or statements contained in the document."

1269
Not,
"as to the size and colour of the lettering of any other terms or statements"
but,
"as to any other terms or statements".
Surely noble Lords do not want that. Surely they do not want the Board of Trade to dictate, by regulation, what the contents of agreements should be. Surely they cannot press this Amendment.
Having dealt with the text of the Amendment, may I deal with what I think is in the minds of noble Lords? As I said before—and I think it is important—the purpose of Clause 2(2) is to warn the hirer as clearly as possible of one simple thing: that by his signature he is offering to enter into a hire-purchase agreement. That is the purpose of this subsection.
LORD LATHAM: Which he cannot understand.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Latham, says, "Which he cannot understand''. Some of us may never be able to understand.
LORD LATHAM: Indeed, my Lords, he may not be able to read it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I quite appreciate the noble Lord's point. What I am saying is that the purpose of this Amendment is different from that set out in the subsection. Even if it were right to provide this by regulation, it is not necessarily right to do so in this subsection. What Molony stressed was the need to make certain that the hirer should know that he was signing a hire-purchase agreement. This Amendment, as well as deleting the power to prescribe the location of, and draw attention to, the more important parts of the agreement, which I gather is not the noble Lord's intention, might equally not draw the hirer's attention to a particular provision, which in the end might turn out to be the vital provision so far as he is concerned, and he would have a grievance. It is difficult to ask the Board of Trade to distinguish in importance between the terms of a particular agreement, and this is what noble Lords are doing. This is quite a different purpose from that of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, which is that all parts of the agreement should
1270
be in legible type. That is not what this Amendment is asking us to do nor is it what I believe to be its purpose.
I said on Committee stage that I did not really see the need for this power, but, as I undertook to do, I have looked into the question further. The 1938 Act, as amended by Clause 2(1) of the Bill, already prescribes a statutory notice to be included in a hire-purchase agreement drawing the hirer's attention to his right to terminate the agreement, to the amount he will then have to pay and to the restriction of the owner's right to repossess the goods. To go further than this would be tantamount to deciding what parts were more important than other parts.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, later there is an Amendment providing that the quality of articles to be received under hire-purchase agreements must be up to the sample in quality. On Committee stage I drew attention to the fact that when the hirer signs a proposal form, he recognises that he receives the goods in good order and condition. I think that that is a point to which the hirer's attention should be drawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the words used are "at the time of acceptance" of the goods, and that introduces a technical consideration.
If I may continue to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNair—it may be convenient to do so now rather than later—I would point out that there are difficulties about specifying the use of a certain type face, like Times. It might be that in certain parts of the country, if the actual type face were prescribed, one would be able to place contracts for printing hire-purchase agreements only with printers who had that particular face. I do not think anybody really wants that. Secondly, as the Amendment is drafted, it would be possible to print the whole document in capitals and therefore make it practically illegible. I do not know whether we should actually discuss this. All I would say is that we are considering this matter carefully and sympathetically, but we are not at the present stage in a position to frame words that we think would do what noble Lords want done. With that, I hope that we can

1271
pass on to the next Amendment. I am sure noble Lords will not press this Amendment, because it really does not do what they want it to do.
LORD McNAIR: My Lords, may I point out to the Minister that my Amendment does not specify the particular fount of type. The words are:
"or be printed in type of a size not less than the type known as ten-point Times."
When I moved the Amendment in Committee I made it clear that, while the expression "ten-point Times" was current in Australia, I felt sure that the Government printer could advise the Minister as to an appropriate similar expression in this country. It is the size to which I attach importance, not the fount.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I entirely take the point. As I said, we do not feel we can accept these particular words. For one thing, it is the clarity of the type rather than the size of the type that is important. Also important, as has been said, is the colour of the paper used and the colour of the printing on that paper, which can make the text either practically illegible or very legible indeed. There are a number of different things. It may be better to leave this to be dealt with by regulations when the time comes, but we are carefully considering the whole situation.
LORD McNAIR: May I take it that I shall not be expected to move this Amendment again when we reach it, but that at a later stage the Minister will return to the matter?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am afraid I cannot undertake that we shall necessarily be ready with an Amendment at a later stage, but we will certainly see whether the result of our consideration will permit us to be.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, it seems to me rather unlikely that hire-purchase companies will go quite so far as to use the most illegible types for those paragraphs which they do not want read. This would seem to go against them somewhat, and the cases in which they did it would be rare. So perhaps the Minister may feel that some Amendment to define the size of type,
1272
without being watertight, should achieve the result.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, the debate seems to have got into some confusion by mixing the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, with which we agree, and the Amendment standing in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, for their support. I am somewhat at a loss to understand precisely the reactions of the Minister to this Amendment. He had something to say about not having had time to consider. May I assume from that that if he had had time, or more time, to consider it, the Amendment would have had a more favourable reception? Frankly, there is little in the way of argument advanced against the proposition incorporated in the Amendment, and much of the comment the Minister had to make related more to Lord McNair's Amendment than to the one standing in my name.
I cannot follow the point the noble Lord makes and the intimations he gives to the House that it would restrict the power of the Board of Trade to do what the Bill itself would permit them to do. I would draw the attention of the House to the precise words of the Amendment. I will read from Clause 2(2). That says:
"and the regulations may include provision as to the size and colour of the lettering of those words and as to"—
then comes the Amendment—
"any other terms or statements contained in the document …"
All that is asked is that power should be conferred to give emphasis to those particular aspects of the agreement to which it is necessary to draw the attention of the hirer.
The noble Lord went on to state that he may accept it in principle. My noble friend Lord Shepherd called for the acceptance of this Amendment, and I indicated a willingness to welcome the acceptance in principle. I recognise the necessity for changing words. I remember that on Committee stage, for instance, there was an acceptance of my Amendment with regard to the exclusion of a body corporate in connection with the question of non-acceptance of agreements. The Government have accepted that and extended it into other

1273
fields of this Bill. I have no objection to any variation of the words, provided there is acceptance of the principle that the Board of Trade should have wider powers to determine lettering and all other matters relating to the agreement itself.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I really must ask the noble Lord to consider this Amendment again, because I do not think he has said what he wants to say. He read it out, and he made it clear that the Amendment as drafted goes much wider than what he seems to have in mind. If I understood him correctly, what he really wanted was:
"the regulations may include provision as to the size and colour of the lettering of those words and as to the size and colour of any other terms or statements contained in the document. …"
LORD PEDDIE: Yes.
4.47 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) If an owner or seller or any person who (whether by virtue of this Act or otherwise) is the agent of the owner or seller fails to comply with any one or more of the requirements contained in Section 2(2)(b) and Section 3(2)(b) of the principal Act (which
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is not what the noble Lord says. He says:
"as to any other terms or statements contained in the document",
which would give the Board of Trade power to regulate the content of any other terms or statements contained in the document. I do not believe he can mean that, and, in those circumstances, I should have thought it would be better to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD REA: My Lords, is this not Report stage, when each Member speaks once only?
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 32; Not-Contents 45.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Hobson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Taylor, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Walston, L.

Chorley, L.

Lindgren, L.

Williams, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Listowel, E.

Williamson, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Longford, E.

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Moyne, L.

Wise, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Yarborough, E.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Radnor, E.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Sandford, L.

Bossom, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

Sandwich, E.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Conesford, L.

Lothian, M.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Congleton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mills, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Suffield, L.

Derwent, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

prescribe the details of the hire purchase or credit sale agreement to be shown on the relevant document) as amended by Section 2(1)(b) of this Act, or fails to comply with regulations made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of Section 2(2) of this Act which may specifically refer to this section of the Act, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to a term of imprisonment for any period not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment. We discussed it on the Committee stage, but I think I am justified in raising it again because it was one of the points about which the Molony Committee felt extremely strongly. This Amendment applies criminal sanctions for failure by a dealer to provide details (which include the total purchase price, the cash price, the amount and dates of the instalments, and the description of the goods) on the offer signed by the hirer or buyer, and also for failure to comply with such regulations to be made by the Board of Trade under Clause 2, as may be deemed to attract these penalties. The purpose of these regulations is, of course, to draw the customer's attention to what he is signing by ensuring a clear method of presentation. As I have said, this Amendment has the same intention as one that I moved in Committee—that is, to deter the doorstep salesman from short-circuiting the customer's safeguards by obtaining a signature to a blank form or obscuring the nature of the transaction in other ways. I am asking the noble Lord to reconsider this Amendment, because I am trying to strike at the unscrupulous salesman who will always have an opportunity to confuse and abuse customers who are often alone in the house and cannot get redress. There are, unfortunately, too many such happenings at the present time.
On the Committee stage, the noble Lord said that the owners would be more effectively deferred by the fact that an improperly conducted transaction would be unenforceable by them against the customer. This may be true, but it is not the purpose of this Amendment. This Amendment is directed at the individual doorstep salesman, whose un-scrupulous behavour is often unknown to, or is denied by, the owner. It is a fact that some of the salesmen employ methods of which, I am sure, some of the owners might not approve in this door-to-door salesmanship business. My Amendment is directed at that type of salesman. In any event, criminal penalties falling on the dealer are not in substitution for, but in addition to, the fact that the agreement may be rendered void. The sanction against the owner of unenforceability remains.
There are inherent difficulties in the circumstances surrounding doorstep selling which make control extremely difficult. We on the Consumer Council are at the moment going into these problems. Many methods have been studied, and are being studied, and I do not lightly propose the introduction of criminal penalties where other means would serve. Knowledge of these circumstances fully endorses the comments of the Molony Committee, in paragraph 527 of their Report, which I shall quote briefly. After referring to the new requirements about the style of the agreement and the cooling-off period, the Committee go on:
"Our confidence that it would be universally honoured, and not cunningly discouunted in some way by a salesman, is not so high that we can forgo recommending that failure to comply should be a criminal offence on the part of the owner and any person knowingly participating in delivery of an agreement defective in the relevant respect; as well as making the agreement unenforceable without possibility of dispensation by the Court."
Those are strong words from the Molony Committee, who made a very careful study of these matters, and in the interest of protecting the buyer, the hirer, the consumer (whatever word you like to use) I believe that it is necessary to accept that failure to comply with the recommendations is something of a very serious nature indeed and could lead to very grave consequences for the buyer or the hirer. Therefore, I think that Molony was justified in asking that these matters should be treated very seriously indeed and should be brought within the terms of the law. I hope that the noble Lord who is taking this Bill will tell me whether or not he has reconsidered this matter, which I raised previously and which I raise again because this is one of the ways in which we could protect the buyer or the hire-purchaser in this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this Amendment which the noble Lady has moved does two things. It creates a criminal offence in regard to two separate contingencies. First of all, where Sections 2(2)(b) and 3(2)(b) of the 1938 Act are not complied with, and, secondly, where Section 2(2) of this Bil1

1277
is not complied with. Perhaps I ought to say with regard to the first, that I do not think there was any recommendation by Molony that there should be criminal sanctions in regard to what seems to have worked reasonably well in the past. I think there can be no doubt at all that if Section 2(2)(b) of the Act is not complied with—that is, the provision that requires a statement of the hire-purchase price, the cash price, the amount of each instalment and list of goods, and so on—the agreement would not be enforceable, unless, of course, the court agree that it should be enforceable. To add criminal sanction to a provision which has not had it so far, and which the Molony Committee did not recommend, is, I should have thought, quite unnecessary.
With regard to the second point, this is a case where the Molony Committee did recommend that there should be a criminal sanction, for the reasons that the noble Lady stated. It is where the agreement does not contain the box, as it has so been described, and does not comply with Section 2(2)(b) as to what should be in that box. We believe that, here again, the need for enforceability is the best sanction. If the contract is not enforceable, I should have thought that the salesman would be very wary indeed of trying to evade this in any way; and I really do not see how it is possible, since the contract is not enforceable unless these requirements are complied with. Enforceability, surely, is the main sanction, and we did not think, and still do not think, in spite of the fact that we have reconsidered the matter since the noble Lady put the Amendment down again in this form, that it would be right in this case or necessary to provide a criminal sanction. I am sorry, but I must resist the noble Lady's Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved to add to the clause:
"(5) Any power of the court⁁

(d) under the proviso to section 2(2) of the principal Act, to dispense with the
1278
requirement specified in paragraph (d) thereof, or

(b) under the proviso to section 3(2) of that Act, to dispense with the requirement specified in paragraph (c) thereof,

shall not be exercisable except where the copy of the agreement has been sent to the hirer or buyer but not within the period of seven days of the making of the agreement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment, which I moved at the Committee stage, is to restrict the exercise of the court's discretion in the same manner as is indicated in Clause 4(5) of the Bill. Here the provision relates to cases to which the cooling-off period applies, and the Minister on Committee stage quite rightly said that it was necessary to ensure that in no circumstances should the rights of the hirer be diminished in this regard; and with that I would agree. But I find it somewhat strange to hear the argument that because it is justified in one set of circumstances it must of necessity not be justified in another.
Under Clause 2(2) of the principal Act, the court is given discretion in cases where the non-supply of all relevant information was felt not to prejudice the hirer or buyer; and the information to which it refers is indicated in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of the principal Act. These include the statement of the hire-purchase price and the cash price, the mode of determining the date on which the instalments should be paid, and the lists of goods covered by the hire-purchase agreement. It is true that the Minister said at the Committee stage that the exercise of this discretion had presented no difficulty in the past. We have no evidence to challenge the truth of that statement, but, even if it is true—and I will assume that it is—we have to remember that the past is past and new provisions and new circumstances are involved in this Bill. Therefore, the fact that the exercise of discretion by the court has created no difficulties since the passing of the 1938 Act, does not necessarily mean that we shall have the same set of circumstances following upon this Bill becoming an Act.
It was also said in the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Chorley that the fact that the principle expressed in my Amendment is accepted in Clause 4(5) of the Bill could not be without

1279
its influence. To accept it in one clause of the Bill and not have it in another could have its influence; indeed, it could possibly be argued that the non-delivery of an agreement could not prejudice the hirer. No one believes that the non-delivery of an agreement would not be of prejudice to the hirer. Therefore, this Amendment simply ensures that all relevant documents are, with certainty, completed. That, surely, offers greater protection to the hirer or the consumer. But it does give the court discretion where a copy of an agreement is sent to a hirer but not within the period of seven days of the making of the agreement. In other words, if an agreement was sent after eight days or nine days, discretion could be exercised. I would urge as an argument in favour of this Amendment that the effect of the acceptance of this Amendment and its incorporation in the Bill would, without doubt, give the court greater guidance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Peddie.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say a word in support of my noble friend? The argument about this Amendment was deployed, I hope sufficiently fully, in the Committee, and the Minister really did not, in my submission to the House, deal with it. It is a very common experience among lawyers—I am sorry the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair is not here; I am sure he would have borne me out—that if in one particular section of an Act of Parliament discretion is limited in some way by some condition or stipulation or something of that kind, and in another section an exactly similar discretion is conferred which is not limited in that particular way, then the obvious argument is that it was not intended to limit it, because if it had been, the same stipulation would have been used in that particular section as in the other. That argument has succeeded, time after time, in actions before the courts, and it seems to me that if the Bill is left in this state there is a very real chance that it may succeed again. The Government cannot do any harm by inserting the Amendment here. As the noble Lord said, the object is to "mak' siccar". I think there is everything to be said for that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said in suggesting that the presence of a rather more limited power of discretion in Clause 4 (5)—that is, in cooling-off cases—might lend support to the argument that non-delivery of the agreement would not prejudice the hirer in other cases. We have been looking at the clause in that regard. But the hirers knowledge of his right to cancel the agreement in cooling-off cases may depend on the receipt of the notice required to be set out in the statutory copy of the agreement, and the ending of the period during which the agreement may be cancelled depends on the receipt of that copy. We therefore felt that in a cooling-off case there can be no question of dispensing with the requirement to send the hirer a copy of the agreement. But in non-cooling-off cases the court can dispense with the requirement to send a copy of the agreement only if it is satisfied that the hirer has not been prejudiced by that failure and that it would be just and equitable to dispense with it.
I have considered the point made by both noble Lords, but I can see no reason why the court, when making its assessment of the facts and deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion, should be influenced by Clause 4 (5). The court is given discretionary powers to dispense with some, but not all, the important provisions in Sections 2 and 3 of the 1938 Act for the protection of the hirer or buyer in relation to the making of the agreement. And surely the reason why it is given is to ensure that business is not impeded in order that there is no prejudice to the hirer. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a considerable point about this in several parts of this speech, and I should have thought that we do not want to interfere with business—and this is what he said—more than is strictly necessary. I think this matter can safely be left to the discretion of the court, and I would not recommend the House to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.4 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) Section 4(1) of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the reference to one-half

1281
of the hire-purchase price there were substituted a reference to one-third of the hire-purchase price."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the general purpose of this Bill is to make conditions easier—perhaps a better way of putting it would be more favourable—for the purchaser. That is the object of Parts I and II of the Bill, and I think it would be reasonable to say that the intention in Part III is to make things more sure for a second purchaser; to see that he is not acquiring something which the hire-purchaser has no right to sell. So, generally speaking, the entire purpose of the Bill is to make things more favourable to the hire-purchaser. But there is one exception. Perhaps because of shortage of Parliamentary time, or a desire of the Board of Trade to bring everything into its own hands, there is no separate Scottish Bill. One of the results of this is that the Government have decided to apply a less favourable English condition to Scotland than presently exists. The purpose of my Amendment is to seek to reverse that process and to follow what is the usual thing when on a is seeking to better the lot of individuals; that is, if some people have a good condition and others have a less good condition, when you equalise them you apply the better condition all round.
The present law in Scotland is that where a hire-purchaser, for reasons good to himself, wishes to terminate a contract before it has run its full course, he can do so without further obligation, provided that he has paid, or makes up his payments to a sum equal to, one-third of the purchase price. This power is subject to the further condition that if he has damaged the goods more than is reasonable during that period, he may have to make payments in that respect—and that is a second provision that is common to both Scots and English law at the present time. That position has existed since the first Hire-Purchase Act was passed for Scotland in 1932; and in succeeding legislation—for England in 1938, for both countries in 1954 and for Scotland in 1961—that principle is not altered so far as Scottish law is concerned. I doubt very much whether, contrary to common belief, English people are any more willing to throw away their money than Scots are, and it would be reasonable to assume that a
1282
person who enters into a hire-purchase transaction and finds he is unable to proceed with it will take every step he possibly can to carry the thing through to its conclusion, so that at the end of the transaction he has the ownership of the goods for which he has paid. And whether the payment is one-third or one-half he will make up the payment to such a sum and have nothing to show for it only if such action is quite unavoidable. In this connection, it seems to me to be quite unreasonable that this benefit which the people of Scotland have enjoyed for all this time should be withdrawn in favour of the less favourable English conditions.
It may be argued that there are other advantages conferred on Scottish people which more than make up for what they are losing in this connection. But I would refer to the Amendment we have agreed to, removing from the benefits of this Bill bodies corporate—and it was because I wanted to know exactly who was removed from it that I asked my question earlier on as to what was meant by "bodies corporate". These bodies corporate, and commercial bodies of that kind, will, in the main, be the people who will be entering into most of the larger transactions, except perhaps in the case of the purchase of motor cars. Much of this motor car business will, of course, be domestic transactions, and the higher figures in this Bill will apply to non-commercial purchasers. But leaving out of account motor cars, the vast bulk of hire-purchase business is done in things like articles of furniture, washing machines, refrigerators, television, radio sets, carpets, and to a certain extent clothing. And there will be very few cases where the aggregate value of the transaction exceeds the figure in the present law of Scotland of £300. I doubt whether other than a small minority of those buying furniture and so on on hire-purchase will be entering into a contract where the higher figure confers any greater advantage upon them.
If I am right in this supposition, it follows therefore that the vast bulk of the transactions, being for smaller sums, are not going to get any particular benefit from this Bill, but are going to lose the substantial advantage that they have at the present time. I should have thought that, having had for the first time in I do not know how many years

1283
a Scottish Minister at the Board of Trade, we would have seen a reversal of the conditions where the feeling in Scotland is—and, I must admit, with a great deal of injustice to the Board of Trade—that the Board of Trade is an enemy to be fought rather than a friend to be run after. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, smiles, but he knows how often the Scottish Office is sought as an ally against the Board of Trade. Here is a case where a former Scottish Minister and a Scot lands at the Board of Trade, and in this Bill he gives away the one advantage that Scottish hire-purchasers have had over their English colleagues.
It seems to me that, if the Government wish to give the full benefit of this Bill to people in both Scotland and England, they will accept my Amendment, on the basis that the English, having suffered for some thirty years under these inferior conditions, are entitled to receive the benefits which we in Scotland have enjoyed during that time. I must admit that my prime reason for moving this Amendment is not to confer any such benefit on the English at all, but to preserve it for the Scots. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel inclined to support the Amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, opposite. As a fellow Scot, I cannot add anything to what he has said, and I share with him the anticipation of the reply which we are to receive from the Minister at the Board of Trade
5.13 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, not only upon the convincing grounds which he has brought forward, but also from another point of view—namely, that if this Amendment is carried it will at any rate help to mitigate a fundamental injustice in this set of legislative provisions; that is, the fact that in many of these cases the amount which the hirer has to pay in order to get rid of his contract is quite excessive. This is related, of course, to the question of the true measure
1284
of damages which was raised on the Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry.
Let us take quite a simple illustration. Suppose somebody enters into an agreement for the hire-purchase of a motor car under which the hire charges which he has to pay amount to £900. After he has entered into the agreement and it has become binding, some unforeseen chance occurs—he may meet with an accident; he may lose his source of living, or something else may happen—and he has paid, let us say, £50 by way of hire-purchase charges and he finds that he cannot go on. Under the Bill as it is drafted, he has to pay another £400, give up the motor vehicle which he has been hiring, and he is put to terrific expense. Of course, if he is wise he does not go about it in that way at all; he just fails to pay the instalments as they become due and so causes a breach of the contract, in which case he can escape. But if he does what the ordinary person, as an honest man, will do and says, "I am sorry, but I cannot go on with this", he becomes liable, after paying £50, to return the vehicle in perfectly good condition and to pay another £400. The Amendment which my noble friend has moved will at any rate reduce that position to a certain extent, and to that degree will mitigate the inequality which arises out of this totally arbitrary provision which has no relation whatsoever to the injury which the hire-purchase company suffers.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, started by offering us a picture of England and Wales having been groaning for thirty years under an intolerable injustice which he was now proposing to remove by bringing the position into line with that in Scotland.
LORD HUGHES: Just incidentally, you must admit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was going to say that this was just incidental. Later on, he made it clear that what he really wanted was to maintain the position as it is at present in Scotland, and to bring England and Wales into the same position. But, of course, there is something of the order of a package deal involved in this. I think

1285
perhaps the noble Lord rather underestimates the advantages which Scotland is to get under the present Bill—for instance, the power of a court to make a postponement order which does not at present exist in Scottish law, and not least the provision regarding the implied stipulations: what are called the conditions and warranties in England.
Here, I think we have a package deal of the kind which does not do an intolerable injustice to Scotland. It is true that, in relation to agreements under £300, the Scottish position will in future be slightly less favourable than it is now; but it is only in regard to agreements of under £300. One of the big factors in this Bill is, of course, that the upper limit is being raised to £2,000. This is of considerable significance. At the earlier stages of this Bill the implications of this were discussed at length. One of the most important of them is that hire-purchase agreements for motor cars will be subject to the provisions of the 1938 Act: that is, the hirer will have the right to terminate the agreement on payment of a minimum of one half of the hire-purchase price. I have explained why I think that on balance this is reasonable, and I think that on balance also it is not unreasonable since the benefits of the 1938 Act are being extended to the earlier Scottish Act which rather pioneered the hire-purchase provisions.
At any rate, under the 1938 Act the benefit of the later experience was incorporated into the Act for England and Wales, and it has been well recognised that for one reason or another Scottish legislation has never caught up except on this particular point in regard to the advantages to the hirer. As there are advantages to the hirer in the 1938 Act which are being still further extended under the present Bill, the combination of those advantages far more than counterbalances the difference in regard to the one-third and the one-half.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, I do not think it should be too readily assumed that this provision is in any way harsh. One has to look at it from both points of view. There are many articles which lose a substantial part of their value—possibly up to 50 per cent.—in the first year of use. In addition to that, one has the outlay in initial charges and so
1286
forth. There has been no great demand for the half-price to be changed. The Molony Committee did not suggest that it should be changed; indeed, they suggested in this respect that Scotland should be prepared to sacrifice its advantage in return for the other advantages which it would gain under the Bill. I am sorry not to be able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I think that in this package deal Scotland really gains an advantage.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am most disappointed in that reply. It is certainly not one which is worthy of a Macpherson or a Drumalbyn. I just do not understand it. The suggestion is that this is a "package deal". My understanding of a "package deal" is that you have two parties negotiating: one wants to do a certain thing and the other wants to do something else. Neither gets exactly what it wants, but they both agree to the combined transaction and accept it as the best both can do to their greatest mutual advantage. In this transaction who has been asking that Scotland should give up a third? Who are the other parties to the package deal? Who is making the package deal? I thought that the Government were seeking to do the best they could for the country as a whole, and in that transaction we expected them to follow the usual position of seeking to apply the better conditions all round.
It looks from this as though the Government, or sections of the Board of Trade or perhaps the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office—have been "in a huddle" about it, and somebody has said, "Scotland has got to pay something for getting these other advantages", rather than the Board of Trade in England being told: "You have thought up a whole lot of things which are very much better than we thought of in 1932, and we are very happy to accept all the better things you have done". But the Board of Trade, or the English, whoever it may be, say: "No, we cannot admit that the Scots have thought of something even better than we thought of ourselves, and in order to get our advantage they have got to give away the one-third". I do not understand it and I am quite sure that neither Mr. Macpherson nor Lord Drumalbyn would ever have thought of that as being a

1287
perfectly good thing when he was on the other side of the Border. It shows that the normal Scottish reaction to the Board of Trade is well-founded. I am quite certain that the Board of Trade will hear quite a bit more about this in another place.
I should have pressed this matter to a Division to-night, because I feel that the Government have not a leg to stand on on this matter. But I recognise that to a certain extent I am at fault in having presented this Amendment for the first time at Report stage, and part of the price I must pay for having brought it in at such a late stage is not to force another Division and thus ruin completely the tea of those who have not yet had it. I will give the Government time to think about the matter again, in the hope that, when the measure is considered in another place, wiser counsels may prevail. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Section 6 of the Principal Act
". Section 6 of the principal Act (which relates to the duty of owners and sellers to supply documents and information) shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end of subsection (1) the following:—
'(d) the amount or amounts which become payable by virtue of a rebate scheme that may be offered by the owner or seller to the hirer or buyer.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend deployed very fully and very well the arguments in support of this Amendment, and the noble Lord opposite on that occasion stated that he had a great deal of sympathy with it. We have therefore put down the Amendment once again in the hope that we may be able to have from the Minister some clear indication of his willingness to accept the principle of this Amendment. Its purpose is quite clear. It is to make possible the application of a rebate scheme whereby a hirer who is in a position to pay off the contributions at an earlier date and settle the whole transaction will know from the start on what particular basis these rebates would be paid. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Peddie.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I said on Committee stage, I think that for finance houses to give rebates to hirers and to buyers who complete their payments ahead of time is a desirable thing and is recognised by many as such. But I have come to the conclusion that it would be neither practicable nor appropriate to make such voluntary rebates, which are not part of the terms of the agreement, the subject of a statutory requirement, as this Amendment would do. The Amendment only requires a finance house to tell a hirer what rebate he could get if that finance house has a rebate scheme. I feel that such a provision might actually discourage finance houses from having rebate schemes at all. If they had to give information about such schemes, they might not be prepared to operate a fixed rebate scheme at all.
In any case, the practical aspects of this matter are far from simple. The Molony Committee, in paragraph 553 of their Report, took the line that the moral case for conferring an entitlement to the hirer applied only to the interest element in the charges. The basic allowance would have to be shaded to take account of other elements in the deal—for example, earlier delays in payment by the hirer. In practice, the finance house decides in each case what rebate the hirer's performance justifies and what part of the charges they regard as interest and available for rebate. In the last resort the matter is one for a bargain between the hirer and finance house; unless the finance house offers a sufficiently attractive rebate, it will miss its chance of getting its money back early when it knows the hirer has it and is willing to pay. I believe that where the hirer is anxious to bring a contract to an early end, the matter is better left to arrangement between the parties.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must say that I am rather disappointed with the reply. The Minister in his first few words welcomed the idea that a finance house should give rebates for early payment. The noble Lord is aware that the more responsible hire-purchase companies operate rebate schemes; it is

1289
part of their method of business. There may be discussion between the prospective hirer and the business house or dealer as to what should be the period of the agreement. It might then be pointed out to the hirer, "You can take a three-year agreement, but you have the right to pay off earlier and we operate a rebate scheme". This is part of the understanding when the agreement is signed. But at present the prospective hirer has no right whatsoever to a rebate scheme. As the noble Lord has said, it is at the discretion of the hire-purchase company when the hirer goes to them and offers to pay. The noble Lord said that the finance companies might welcome early repayment under an agreement. That is not true. The hire-purchase company makes its money by the length of the agreement. The longer the agreement is in existence the greater is the company's profit. Therefore, it is against the interests of the hire-purchase company for an agreement to be paid off earlier, unless of course in the judgment of the finance company a person may be a special risk because of his profession.
I am very sorry that the Minister has taken this line. He may feel that to lay a responsibility on a finance house which operates such a scheme, to state details and terms in the agreement, will be restrictive and make them feel that they should not commit themselves at an early stage when others are not so doing. But I hope that the Government, and the Minister in particular, will consider very much the question of perhaps having a. statutory scheme to govern rebates on all hire-purchase agreements, as I suggested was operating most satisfactorily in the United States. It would then be quite clear to the hirer and to the hire-purchase company what can be received if an agreement is paid off earlier. If they can operate such a scheme, why cannot we? I beg the Government to consider this matter between now and their discussions on this Bill in another place.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Requirements relating to Commissions
".—(1) No person shall, in connection with a hire-purchase or credit-sale agreement offer, promise or give to any other person (in this section referred to as a 'dealer') or to the servant or agent of a dealer, nor shall a dealer or the servant or agent of a dealer seek or accept, a commission exceeding one-hundredth of the difference between the price at which the goods (in this section referred to as 'the relative goods') comprised in or to be comprised in the hire-purchase or credit-sale agreement could be bought for cash from the dealer and the amount of the initial payment or deposit paid by the hirer or buyer as the case may be nor a benefit of any other nature if:—

(a) Such commission or benefit is in any way attributable to the introduction or acceptance of a hire-purchase or credit-sale agreement, and

(b)All or any of the relative goods have been or are to be supplied by the dealer to the person by whom the commission or benefit is to be paid or given.

(2)Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction:—

(a) If it is his first conviction of an offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;

(b) In any other case, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

(3) Proceedings for any offence under this section may (without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable apart from this subsection) be taken against a person at any place at which he is for the time being.
(4)Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 10, the purpose of which is to limit the amount of commission that can be paid to a dealer by a hire-purchase company for making arrangements with the hirer to have a hire-purchase agreement. On the Committee stage I moved a similar Amendment in the sense that the purpose was the same. But, if anything, this is even better than the one which the Government turned down, because whereas my previous Amendment was designed to limit the commission to one-tenth of the difference between the price at which the goods could be bought for cash and the hire-purchase or credit-sale price, this Amendment limits the commission to one-hundredth of the

1291
difference of the amounts mentioned in the Amendment. Therefore the rate of commission remains the same, however long the hire-purchase agreement may go on. It is not related to the variation in the amount paid in the way of charges, as a result of a longer type of agreement.
We discussed a little earlier a proposal to bring daylight to bear on these secret commissions. The last time we debated this matter it was interesting how even such well-informed Members as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, were not only unaware of the existence of such commissions, but did not even know the rate that the individual hirer had to pay, so they were rather shocked, I think, to find how much he did in fact have to pay. There is little doubt, indeed I would say there is no doubt, that these commissions raise the price of hire-purchase. I have details of rates, and certain hire-purchase companies do in fact have two rates; one according to whether they have, so to speak, sold the hire-purchase through a dealer, and another according to whether they have sold it direct—the difference between them being as much as 1½ per cent. for a twelve months' agreement.
In limiting this commission to one-hundredth of the difference of the amounts in the Amendment, I am, in effect, establishing a rate somewhere around 10 per cent.; and this is a rate which I think would be acceptable to the majority of responsible finance houses. It has already been argued, particularly by my noble friend Lord Peddie and others, that this variation is a very expensive one for the hirer. The amount of the commission may vary between 10 and 25 per cent. If my Amendment is adopted we shall fix this, and this will be a definite contribution towards saving money and keeping the price of goods down.
On the Committee stage the Minister, who has been singularly unaccommodating in his usual very charming way, used against my previous Amendment a number of arguments which I have had an opportunity to consider further. He argued, for instance, that these commissions are no different from any other commissions introduced in respect of other types of business. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, proceeded to point
1292
out that he was wrong in this. I would again say that this is an argument which is false. It has a certain specious analogy. If, for instance, we were to try to compare it with a retailer's mark-up we should find there was, in fact, no comparison. A retailer renders a service; he provides the goods. The motor agent provides a service when he brings a car to his garage and sells it, and he very properly gets his margin on it. But in this case the dealer does absolutely nothing for his commission. He may fill in a few documents, but I should have thought a small commission was enough.
In equity, one could even argue that he ought to have to pay for the loan, because he otherwise might not have been able to complete the sale. He does not have to do very much except possibly to look for the finance house which will give him the biggest commission. The unfortunate hirer does not know what this commission is, because the Government have refused to accept an Amendment designed to make that possible. Therefore, the secret commission goes on, and it goes on at a rate which definitely adds to the cost of the goods. I would argue that any analogy with an insurance agent is equally false, because the insurance agent usually has to go out and get the business. Although I know quite a number of people who act as insurance agents to their friends, and do not perhaps do very much in the way of getting business, none the less it is their job to get the business. But in this case the hirer is already captive. There is a subtle distinction. He is not free in these matters; he is not allowed to be given all the information he needs to judge these matters. Therefore, I would strongly argue that we should impose a limitation by this Statute.
This new clause would be perfectly fair to all parties, and I would urge that this is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I do not think the dealer has any particular right to commission; but, all right, let him have a small commission. I do not accept for one moment the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that as a result of these commissions he is able skilfully to vary the price of the motor car which he is about to sell. I am certain he cannot do this in the individual transaction. He does not say, "If you have this hire-purchase agreement, I shall

1293
have the highest commission and you can have the car cheaper". He does not even say, "You can have it cheaper", without revealing the secret source of income. If the noble Lord is going to argue that that is fine, and it goes into the dealer's profits so it all comes out at the end, this is really to have a complete disregard for the rôle of the dealer in this connection. His rôle is to provide the cars and to do business; it is not to increase, possibly against the public interest, the amount of hire-purchase.
Indeed, it would be possible for an agent to go very aggressively into the hire-purchase business, and to be less inclined—indeed, he must be less inclined, because it is less profitable for him—to do straight cash sales. One can see the motor agent "ticking off" his sales manager and saying, "You are getting far too many cash sales; it is wholly against the interests of our company". But, my Lords, it is not against the public interest. I put this Amendment forward; and may I just add that it is one which would be acceptable to reputable finance houses. I hope, therefore, that the Government will treat this more kindly than its predecessors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I ought to draw the attention of your Lordships to what the Molony Committee actually said, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, at one time quoted one sentence. I propose to quote that sentence and the following sentence. The noble Lord quoted the sentence:
"Like other secret commissions, this is a bad practice which ought not to continue."
The Committee were there talking about dealers' commissions. Then the Report goes on:
"However, we do not think that the prohibition of the Australian Acts ought to be adopted, for the reason, which we regretfully recognise, that it is impossible to stop such practices."
So the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is moving an Amendment here to put a limit on a practice which the Committee say cannot be stopped. Surely there
1294
are practical objections to that, and practical considerations to be borne in mind. If a prohibition cannot be enforced, could a limitation be enforced? One knows what happens when a fixed limitation is imposed: normally, something of the order of a black market arises. The noble Lord says that the hirer is already captive in these transactions. But surely that is not so. The hirer is perfectly capable of breaking off negotiations and seeing whether he can get his hire-purchase transaction cheaper elsewhere.
On the other hand, does the noble Lord seriously suggest that an artificial limitation of this kind, however welcome it might be to those who have to pay the commission, would in fact result in people not entering into agreements because in effect they might be expected to pay more consideration to them? This is a very difficult question indeed, and I really do not think an artificial restriction of that kind would work. I say that because, apart from the possibility of cash payments (which, as I said before, would be very difficult to trace), there are obvious ways in which finance houses could make gifts of various kinds to dealers which would not come within the limit of the commission laid down. It might be anything from cases of whisky or boxes of cigars at Christmas to free summer holidays. That is the sort of thing which could easily happen. You prescribe a fixed commission and they work within that, no doubt, but they give additional incentives of one kind or another—gestures of friendship, as they might be described. You could not possibly avoid that; and, even if it could be established that a dealer had received payments in cash or in kind from a finance house, it would be impossible to relate these to particular hire-purchase agreements and to prove that they had been paid as commission on those particular hire-purchase agreements. They would be general concessions of one kind or another.
Moreover, there are many cases in which the dealer performs some continuing service to the finance house. He may, for example, act as their agent for the collection of instalments. He may quite easily be given a commission for that service; and it certainly would not

1295
be right to debar the dealer from being paid for such a service. But, equally, a finance house could easily conceal commissions for the initial transaction within payments of this kind. A dealer often performs the service of warranting the accuracy of the statements of the hirer regarding his earnings, and so forth, and his general credit-worthiness; and he is at risk in so doing. The noble Lord said, "The dealer does nothing, absolutely nothing"; but this is an important service, or may easily be an important service, so far as at least some of the finance houses are concerned. Admittedly, they will have their own means of checking up on creditworthiness as well, but, all the same, it cannot be said that the dealer carries out no service whatsoever—and it is very difficult to evaluate those services, certainly at one-hundredth part of the total of the charges.
I think noble Lords tend to have too fixed a view of the charges. They say that, of course, there are the interest rates and there are the administration charges, and then they say, as was the suggestion in the earlier Amendment, that all the rest ought to be stated as commission; but it does not work out as easily as that. There is a certain interplay between them, and I really do not think that this would be a practical Amendment at all. I must ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment for this reason, and on the basis of the advice which the Molony Committee gave—namely,
"…for the reason, which we regretfully recognise, that it is impossible to stop such practices";
and, equally, I think they would have said that it is impossible to limit commissions in this artifical way.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, has the Minister not been using an argument which the Molony Committee said they did not think much of, as they did in the words following those which the Minister quoted when he accused me of not quoting enough of the paragraph of the Molony Report?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I answer that question, with the permission of the House? I did not actually quote: I cited a service which is given. I quite agree that the Molony
1296
Committee considered that, so far as commissions were concerned, this service was irrelevant to their consideration of it; but I was pointing out clearly, in reply to the noble Lord who said, "The dealer gives no, absolutely no service", that this is the answer there.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, do I understand from the noble Lord that one of the arguments advanced in justification of commissions is that the agent or the dealer fulfils a certain function in checking the credit-worthiness of the potential hirer? That is something of a surprise to me. I rather think there is stronger force in the argument advanced by my noble friend, that he ought really to be paying a contribution himself, because in many cases the deal would never go through—the sale of the motor car, or whatever it may be—were it not for the fact that hire-purchase facilities were available.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I think it is a little unfair for the noble Lord to cite the observations of the Molony Committee made upon a totally different proposition—namely, to prevent the giving of commissions altogether as an argument against the proposal which has been made by my noble friend. More than that, I am very surprised indeed, for the second time this afternoon, to hear an Amendment dealing with this subject rejected upon the ground, in effect, that all the companies giving hire-purchase facilities are so dishonest that it is absolutely impossible to give effect to it—for that is the substance of the argument which the noble Lord has used. I do not believe that that is true, and I think it is only an excuse for not dealing with something which the Molony Committee quite properly said was a serious abuse. The hirer does not know that the dealer has a financial inducement, in the shape of a commission, to place the business with a particular hire-purchase company; and he ought to know it.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I regard as very confusing the comments I have listened to, particularly the speech of the Minister. I was under the impression that this Bill was designed to protect the purchaser in hire-purchase transactions, but, having listened to the

1297
Minister, I begin to wonder whether, in fact, it was not designed to protect the interests of the salesmen involved. He made a passionate plea on behalf of the salesmen, saying that they did admirable work, obviously had to be recompensed for this, and were labourers worthy of their hire. It made one wonder why there were not minimum commissions so that the salesmen could charge 10 per cent. instead of 3 per cent. Surely, we must go back to the object of this Bill, which is to safeguard the purchaser. There are many matters which have been under discussion in this Bill where the purchaser needs safeguards. One of them, manifestly, is in this matter of commission which is paid to the salesman in any hire-purchase transaction. It is further manifestly clear that in certain cases it is very much in the interests of the dealer or the salesman that the transaction should not be for cash but should be on deferred terms, because his recompense will be more. Not only is that not in the interests of the purchaser; it cannot be in the interests of the country.
It seems to me extraordinary that a Government spokesman should defend something in this Bill which is against the interests both of the purchaser and of the country itself. So far as I can make out, the only reason he gives is that in certain cases—not in every case what the Amendment provides would be difficult to enforce. The Minister brings in what I respectfully suggest is the "red herring" of boxes of cigars and cases of whisky at Christmas. We know these things are given by some people to others. Unfortunately I am not one of the recipients of these. But that is a moral question, dealing with corruption of all sorts, and it does not really come into this Bill at all. If this Amendment is a good one, the fact that it can be got round by some dishonest people giving cases of whisky and boxes of cigars is not an argument which ought to carry weight with your Lordships. We should really listen to whether it is going to act in the interests of the consumer and whether, in the long run, it is likely to lead to a better form of hire-purchase and lower costs.
My view is that the original Amendment which was defeated earlier this afternoon was very much better, because
1298
it would have allowed the freedom—which we on this side of the House would like even more than noble Lords opposite—for people to charge different forms of interest, with the proviso that it must be made abundantly clear to the man who is eventually paying how much he is to pay and where that money is going. But that Amendment was defeated. As the second best, which is forced on us through the Government's action, this is the only way left now to protect the consumer. I hope your Lordships will not be led astray by the hard plight of the motor-dealer and other salesmen who deserve their 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 22½ per cent., nor by the fact that this can be got round in some way by some dishonest people; but regard it solely on its merits and support this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, think we are going to have to press this Amendment. The Minister has not given an answer. He could, of course, as my noble friend has said, have given an answer by accepting our earlier Amendment and letting the ordinary processes work. Incidentally, he referred to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It was not the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who quoted Molony; it was the noble Lord, himself; and he said that that is another point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said he did not think it necessary to remind the noble Lord of what he said. But his arguments are simply these: that, first of all, a service is rendered. Well, we are prepared to concede 10 per cent. for that; and this is the view of many of the finance houses. He used the additional argument that the seller might have to supply some warranty. In how many cases, in fact, does the dealer supply that warranty so that he takes a financial risk? I doubt whether the Minister knows; I certainly do not. Secondly, he may render other services for which he is paid. That is certainly not an argument for being paid for this.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Walston pointed to the old cigars and whisky argument. The amount you can give away in this way is very limited. And, in any case, it is not possible to make up £500 or £1,000. Moreover, there are certain standards of business behaviour

1299
to consider. I do not know the motor dealers well enough, and therefore I would not pass any remarks; but I would suggest that there are some sections of industry who would not do this sort of thing. I am sorry that this argument has been used against a perfectly
Clause 3 [Right of cancellation of certain hire-purchase and credit-sale transactions]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential on the Amendments I moved to Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("not being a body corporate").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.5 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved to add to subsection (1):
"A copy of the relevant document shall be retained by the prospective hirer or buyer and it shall contain particulars of the name and address of the person to whom cancellation may be delivered, and to whom goods may be returned."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope, with a high degree of optimism,
sensible proposal which is regarded as workable by the industry themselves.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause (Amendment No. 10) shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Hobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Latham, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Taylor, L.

Chorley, L.

Meston, L.

Walston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williams, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Bradford, E.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Furness, V.

Mountevans, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Greenway, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L

Congleton, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hastings, L.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Derwent, L.

Headfort, M.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

that this Amendment will receive a more favourable reception than others that have been moved this afternoon. At Committee stage, arguments were advanced from both sides in favour of this Amendment, which makes it necessary for a copy of the document to be retained by the hirer after he has first appended his signature. I think that your Lordships will agree that no one could dispute the common sense of having a copy of any document that one has signed. But the Minister, in reply, made great play with the fact that at the stage when the signature was first appended to the document, the agreement is not complete, and that when it is complete, both sides will have a copy. We are aware that upon the completion of the agreement, when the hire-purchase company has accepted the proposal, a copy of the agreement will be forwarded to the hirer. We are quite aware, too, that the four-day cooling-off period starts when the copy of the agreement is received.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, went on to point cut [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 254 (No. 25), col. 818]:
"We certainly do not prohibit the leaving of a copy. There is no question of denying a right to a copy if it is thought right by a finance house …"
That, to my mind, is an incredible statement. On the one hand, there is no argument against the point we made in favour of having a copy retained by the hirer, but there is a suggestion that if the finance company, on their part, think it necessary, then there will be no objection to it. The noble Lord goes on to make what, to my mind, is an equally incredible comment. He makes the suggestion, as an argument against this Amendment, that it is likely that the receiving of a copy at the time of signing will cause people not to read the agreement. I do not want to misjudge the point which has been made by the noble Lord. Therefore, I will quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date (col. 818) his words:
"…it will tend still further to deter the potential hirer from reading the document before he signs."
In other words, the argument is that if a hirer receives a copy of the document he has already signed, that will cause him not to read it, because he has a copy. In the absence of a copy, he does not have any opportunity at all to read the document. So I am completely at a loss to understand the argument that was advanced at Committee stage against the Amendment.
Let me explain how the process would operate under the Bill as it stands. In the first instance, probably on the doorstep, the hirer receives no copy at all. Later on, when the hire-purchase company has accepted his offer, he then signs a completed agreement, and at that point, or subsequently, the hirer receives a copy of the agreement. The effect of this Amendment would be to lengthen the period of consideration on the part of the hirer—and that is the purpose of this Bill—without imposing any disability on the owner or any lengthening of the period before the completion of the transaction. Therefore, all the virtues are on the side of this Amendment. There is no disability so far as the hire-purchase company is concerned. There is no lengthening of the full
1302
period of consideration, because the hirer would have the copy at the time of signing and the four day cooling-off period will operate from the moment when the hire-purchase company signs the document.
I would also point out that Clause 3(4)(b) says
"in any other case, the service of the notice shall operate as a withdrawal of any offer to enter into such an agreement which is contained in, or implied by, the relevant document, and as notice to the owner or seller that any such offer is withdrawn."
I mention that because there seemed to me to be an assumption on the part of the noble Lord opposite that the cancellation could be exercised only after acceptance. In other words, one did not operate the cancellation of the agreement until the agreement was completed. But in Clause 3(4)(b) it is clearly laid down that it is possible to cancel or withdraw even before the agreement is completed, merely during the period when the offer is being made by the hirer. If that be the case, and the Bill anticipates the possibility of such a cancellation, surely there is every justification for ensuring that the hirer, the first time he appends his signature to the document, has the right to secure a copy.
I hope the noble Lord opposite will accept this Amendment. I know that the officials responsible for the Bill do not like anyone messing about with their draftsmanship—that seems to be the dominant factor underlying the brief from which the noble Lord opposite has operated. But, quite frankly, here is a proposition, supported on the last occasion by noble Lords on both sides, which imposes no additional liability upon the hire-purchase company. Without any question of doubt it brings advantage to the hirer, and it is in complete conformity with Clause 3(4)(b). In the light of these arguments, and in consequence of the support demonstrated on the last occasion from both sides, and since this is not a political Bill, one might on this occasion expect noble Lords on both sides of the House to give support to a point of view that I believe is in the best interests of the Bill and of everyone likely to be affected by it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Peddle.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, on this Amendment at the Committee stage, and I rise with great pleasure to support him again on Report stage. I endorse every word that he has said. He has put the question of the importance of this far better than I can. But I am thinking now of information that comes into the Consumer Office from all over the country—from citizens' advice bureaux and elsewhere—about this question of whether or not the terms of the hire-purchase agreement, the object of it, the way it is put out and so on; and how they can best be discussed by a husband and wife. Usually it is the wife at home who receives the man who comes to sell the object, and the husband is away all day. The transaction may be quite a complicated affair; it may be quite difficult for the wife to explain to the absent partner, when he comes home in the evening, what was in the agreement or proposal. We have been talking about the difficulty of reading the documents and of getting them into clear type so that people can read them. These things are not easy. If a wife receives a call from somebody, and signs a document which is then taken away, it is difficult for her, if she has nothing to show, to explain to her husband, when he comes home in the evening, what she has done. I should hate to have to do it, and I daresay I might be better qualified than some of those who are called upon to do it in their homes
As the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said, there does not seem to be any reason why what I propose should not happen. It would, in my opinion, be in the interests of the people selling the goods, because they have the time, the patience and the interest. It is said that people do not read things—and I agree that they do not, if they are not interested. But presumably, if they want to buy the object, they want to know what the conditions are and are interested. Yet they cannot read anything about it if the document has been taken away by the salesman to his place of business. They have to wait for it to come through the post and then have time to look at it; but that may be quite a little time later. Perhaps the wife may be rather excited about the purchase; it may be something she desperately wants and
1304
longs to discuss it with her husband. The husband asks his wife questions, but she cannot answer them; and I do not blame her: she has nothing in her hands to show for it.
All the evidence that we get from the country points to this as being a perfectly simple proposal: it is not elaborate and complicated, but quite simple. I beg the Minister to consider this seriously. It will be to everybody's advantage. Of course it is to the advantage of the consumer, because he has much more time to look at the document. It is also to the advantage of the seller, because if the document is a good one, well drawn up and so on, perhaps the mind of the purchaser will be made up by the time it comes in the post and the transaction will go through much more quickly. In every way I think this is something that we ought to support, and I hope the Minister will reconsider it. As I say, it does not add any complications or costs. If any of us were going into, let us say, a store where we had purchases charged to an account, we should certainly be given a copy of whatever we ordered, whether it was on hire-purchase or in another way. We all know that a carbon copy is made of a bill which is torn off and you are given it and you go off with it in your pocket. If it can be done in a store, it can be done on the doorstep. The salesman has only to come along with a book containing a duplicate and it is as simple as can be. It does not seem to me that there is any complication about this at all. I beg the Minister to accept this Amendment. It would make a great deal of difference to the consumer.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I support this Amendment, and I would make only one point. If you go away, having signed a document, you have not then got it. So you have no opportunity to find out whether you fully understand it until it comes through the post, when you have a four days' period. If there is something that you do not understand, and you want to go back to the hire-purchase company and find out, you have not time to do it without losing your option to cancel the contract. This is a small point, but I think it is important. Many people are not capable of understanding all the terms written

1305
down in this document, and they should have the opportunity of going back and inquiring about it from the hire-purchase company, if they so wish, without losing their option to cancel the contract.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Amendment, because it tends to lengthen the four-day cooling-off period, which in all conscience is not too long. It may begin, for instance, upon the day on which a long-distance lorry driver sets out on a journey from the South of England to Scotland and back again. In those circumstances, four days is not a very generous cooling-off period. This Amendment, which tends to lengthen the time for consideration, is very much to be commended.
6. 20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that there is nothing between us on this, that in this matter we are out to protect the consumer. One has to admit right away that, as between what is in the Bill and what is proposed in the Amendment, there is a much longer time in which to consider action. What we are not so certain about is whether action will so readily result if we have a copy. I may make myself plainer as we go along—I see the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, frowning. It is, I have no doubt, good practice to leave a copy in such circumstances, but there are many things that are good business practice which we should not wish to prescribe as a statutory duty. I do not lay any stress on the fact that this was something which was not actually recommended by Molony, but it is inconceivable, that, in their consideration of what the proper degree of protection should be in this case, they should not have considered this suggestion. Nevertheless, they did not recommend it.
I must come back to this again, and I do not think it quite deserves the scorn the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, poured upon it. What the Molony Committee were really after in their recommendation as to the box, and the necessity for the signature being placed in that box, was that the attention of the hirer should be drawn to the fact that the document was a hire-purchase contract. We feel that we should go even further than
1306
this. We want to make certain that as many people as possible read the contracts before they sign them. Noble Lords have been laying great stress on the point that the contracts themselves should be legible so that reading of them can be encouraged. Surely this is right. We want to encourage reading them before they are signed.
I know that this Amendment applies particularly to the cooling-off provisions, but outside those provisions it would be quite normal for somebody who is going to sign a hire-purchase contract to take a copy of the agreement and read it. This is what we want to happen. This is surely what we should be encouraging: that the document should be read before the signature is appended. In the cooling-off provisions we are talking of special circumstances where the salesman may be in a special position very strongly to influence a person in his own home to sign a contract, and we are providing special arrangements for that case. Those special arrangements are in accordance with what Molony has recommended. It is said that four days is a short time in which to consider this matter, but these matters have to be brought to a point. It is much more effective if they are brought to a crucial decision, when they have to make up their minds in a certain time and must get on with it and make that decision. This must have been in the minds of the Molony Committee when they suggested this four-day period, and the concentration on making the hirer understand that when a copy of the agreement itself came along he was able to exercise his right, if he wished to do so, to withdraw from the contract. If we lay a statutory provision that a copy should be left with the hirer in the first place, there is undoubtedly a danger that when the actual agreement comes along later less attention might be paid to it than otherwise would be. We do not want to give any salesman an opportunity of explaining away the cooling-off period. The salesman could quite easily say, if he were leaving a copy, "Of course, you will be receiving a copy later on. You need not take any notice of that. By that time you will have received the goods and, of course, everything will be fixed up." This is a danger, and I do not

1307
think it is a danger which should be underestimated.
One could refer to a technical point, which is that at the time when the hirer actually appends his signature the name of the finance house may not even be known. I know the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, thinks that this is a rare occurrence, but I am told that it is not as rare as he may think.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on this point, is it possible legally to undertake to make a proposal to an unknown person—to make an agreement with an unknown person?
LORD DRUMALBYN: You are making a proposal through an agent who may be representing more than one principal. That is what it amounts to, does it not? I am afraid one has to face the fact that, in the pursuit of this kind of business, things do not run exactly according to the book, and I daresay that goes for other businesses. For that reason, if for no other, we must try to maintain the provisions as simple as possible in the interests of the consumer.
The point I was going to make is this. Supposing a copy is not left. What then? What is going to be the sanction? There is no sanction provided. Is it that the contract is to be unenforceable simply because a copy has not been left, simply because this additional period has not been given, in spite of the fact that the main Molony recommendation is being implemented in the Bill and that the person will have his cooling-off rights under the Bill? Is it seriously supposed that, simply because a copy is not left, the contract should be unenforceable? If somebody says, "Yes, it should be made unenforceable", how are you going to get the evidence? A dishonest hirer will say, "I never received a copy." A dishonest or a forgetful dealer who may have made an error may say, "I left the copy. Look, here is a duplicate. I have it here." But he may never in fact have left the copy at all.
This really is a very difficult field. I appreciate entirely the excellence of the motives of noble Lords opposite, and I think every encouragement should be given to the leaving of a copy. But it is a totally different matter to make it a statutory requirement to do so. It is
1308
always a principle of legislation that you should not legislate unless what you are legislating for is capable of enforcement and is sensible. I do not think that this would really be true here. I am bound to say that we shall go on considering this, because it has apparent merits. But, against that, I think there are weighty considerations, and so far I am bound to say that I am not convinced that this safeguard which noble Lords would like us to write into the Bill would prove to be an effective safeguard at all. I would ask noble Lords to allow us to consider this matter further and not at the moment to press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, it was perfectly obvious, at least from this side of the House, that the noble Lord opposite was in some difficulty in replying to the case made in support of this Amendment. I do not know whether he plays cricket, but if he plays it in the style in which he handles this Bill he will not be pretty to watch, because he does too much stonewalling. I think we have had an admirable example of stonewalling in his reply. Quite frankly, I think the noble Lord must come to the conclusion that there is little case in the argument that has been advanced against us. The suggestion is that it is good practice to leave a copy, and yet the Minister goes on to suggest that one need not have statutory authority to take up that good practice.
We have made it clear—and the noble Lord has accepted the point—that there is no disability and no extra cost involved in leaving a copy at the time when the document is first signed. And surely at the time when (to use the noble Lord's own words in Committee) the owner or the agent is "breathing down the neck" of the hirer, it is extremely unlikely that he will be able to give careful consideration to the document. But after the document is signed at the time of the offer, the leaving of the document would enable that person to make a very detailed consideration of what he had signed.
Surely the suggestion that less attention will be given to the agreement if a copy is left will not be accepted by any noble Lord; nor the suggestion that if a copy is left at the time of signing the

1309
hirer will be likely to give less attention to the document than later when he gets a copy at the end of the period when the hire-purchase company has accepted it. We have taken note of the point that the noble Lord will give consideration to this matter. Can we assume from that that there will be a serious attempt to accept the principle on the basis of this Amendment? I should be glad to have an assurance at this stage, because I was not quite certain about it. Can the noble Lord give us an assurance that he will accept the principle behind this Amendment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the consent of the House I should like to speak again in answer to this point. I cannot, of course, commit myself to saying that we accept the principle. I cannot accept the principle of the Amendment, because it involves putting a statutory requirement to do something to which I am not yet satisfied it will be wise to apply a statutory requirement. I must be quite frank with the House: If am not at all certain that this will be the right thing to do. What I said was that I thought it would be good practice, but always with the qualification that at the same
time as the copy is left it is made absolutely clear that when the copy of the agreement arrives it is then that the time for action comes, not before. As I said before, the danger lies simply in the fact that if you leave the copy before, the emphasis on the right of the hirer to exercise that right when the copy of the agreement arrives, and to have four days in which to emphasise it, may be prejudiced. This is what we have to consider. I have said that I will go on considering, but I am afraid I cannot commit myself to acceptance even of the principle, because the principle involves a statutory requirement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is always fair, but my feeling is that we should commit ourselves this evening on the principle, and I hope that my noble friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Headfort, M.

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Hobson, L.

Sandys, L.

Auckland, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Latham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strang, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Longford, E.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Ferrier, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Summerskill, B.

Furness, V.

Merrivale, L.

Swansea, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Meston, L.

Taylor, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Grenfell, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bessborough, E.

Derwent, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bossom, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carrington, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Ferrers, E.

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hastings, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
6.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, it occurred to me that it might strike some of your Lordships as curious that a North-countryman should be submitting this Bill for your consideration and asking the House to give it a Second Reading. But the answer is a very simple one: I was asked to undertake this task by the Promoters of the Bill. I readily accepted, for three very simple reasons: I am a lover of anything connected with the countryside; I am a lover of animals; and, thirdly, I feel that this is a good Bill and one that is required in the area for which it legislates. So I submit it with confidence to your Lordships.
As is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, in the first sentence:
"The main purpose of the Bill is to reduce the number of accidents in and adjacent to the New Forest involving animals and motor vehicles by providing such fences and cattle-grids as may be necessary to contain animals within the New Forest."
This is really only a further extension of many Acts that have gone before, but the New Forest goes back far in our island history. From the researches I have made I find that the first record of the New Forest is as far back as the days of King Canute, when it was known as the Forest of Ytene, or, in other words, the Land of the Jutes. After the Norman Conquest, it was enlarged and became the New Forest; and it was, in fact, the last Royal forest to be created in England.
Since those days Parliament has from time to time interested itself in the wellbeing of the forest and of the people and animals who live in it. I do not propose this evening to go back further than 1851—and I shall deal with that only very shortly. In 1851 the Crown
1312
surrendered the rights to keep deer in the forest, and in exchange for that right the Crown received powers of inclosure which might easily have threatened the whole future of the forest. Shortly after that, in 1877, an Act was passed curbing the power of the Crown to a limited acreage for inclosure and reconstituting the Court of Verderers. Under that Act the verderers were charged with the duties of maintaining the open forest and ensuring the rights of the commoners. Unfortunately, at that time no adequate funds were provided for this purpose, and the verderers had to depend entirely on marking fees. These were fixed under the 1877 Act at the rate of 2s. 6d., and this maximum remained unaltered until 1949, which was the last occasion upon which your Lordships and another place were asked to legislate about the New Forest.
In 1949, as a result of the Baker Committee, a new Bill was introduced and passed into law. This Act did not fully implement the Baker Report—and that is important to note at this particular juncture, particularly in regard to adjacent commons, which this Bill now seeks to rectify. It did, however, apportion responsibility between the Forestry Commission and the verderers for the upkeep of the Forest, and also allow greater revenue to be obtained by charging extra marking fees. In point of fact, the scales of marking fees at this moment are 20s., plus 10s. per animal. But, above all, the 1949 Act reconstituted the Court of Verderers on the basis of five elected verderers, four of whom were nominated and are nominated, with the Crown appointment of an Official Verderer—and here I know your Lordships will be pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, with us this evening, as having given up the arduous duties of the Forestry Commissioner he has now become Official Verderer for the New Forest. The mere fact of creating this body once again under the 1949 Act healed the running sore which had existed for many hundreds of years between the commoners and the Crown, and to-day I think I can assure your Lords, with complete confidence, that the verderers and the Forestry Commissioners work hand in hand for the benefit of all that goes on in that corner of our country.

1313
In doing this work they are both ably supported by various local societies. I will just mention the three perhaps most important. There is the New Forest Association. This is a semi-national body concerned with preserving the amenities of the public and the special fauna and flora of the New Forest. Then there is the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, and they particularly concern themselves with trying to improve the grazing and thereby the standard of farming that can be obtained by those with rights over the New Forest. And, thirdly, there is the New Forest Cattle and Pony Breeding Association. Their special task is to consider the well-being and the standard of ponies in the New Forest; and strict rules are enforced as to the stallions which may roam in the Forest. One result of their work has been that the New Forest pony is now accepted as being one of the most popular breeds of pony in our country. All these associations support the Bill which your Lordships are considering this evening.
However much the 1949 Act did for the New Forest, much has happened since then; and during these last fifteen years, owing to the vast increase in motor traffic and the speed at which it travels, as well as the advent of the caravan (to give just one figure of interest, in the last two years the number of caravans in the New Forest has increased by over 100 per cent.), and because of new urban development in that part of the country (to give examples of that, the Fawley Refinery, the Monsanto Chemical Works on the East side, and on the West the big expansion of Bournemouth), it became clear to the verderers that further legislation was required.
In view of these facts, in 1961, three years ago, the verderers decided to approach the Hampshire County Council and to initiate discussions to prepare new legislation. These negotiations led to the establishment of an unofficial Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, who, as noble Lords will know, is the representative in another place for the New Forest, to try to reach common agreement on the form that future legislation might take. The following
1314
bodies have taken part in and have expressed general approval of the Bill: the Forestry Commission; the Council for the Preservation of Rural England; the National Trust; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; the British Veterinary Association, and the National Farmers' Union.
So far as the National Farmers' Union is concerned, I must here tell your Lordships of a proviso. Negotiations are still taking place with one local branch, and it is hoped that these may be resolved before the Bill reaches its final stages through Parliament. Negotiations are, in fact, taking place at the present time, but I am not in a position to say that a result has been reached by the whole of the county branch of the N.F.U. The local authorities are also in general support of the Bill, and include the Hampshire County Council, the Wiltshire County Council, the Borough of Lymington, Ringwood and Fordingbridge Rural District Council, the New Forest Rural District Council, the New Forest District Association of Parish Councils and the Salisbury and Wilton Rural District Council.
There is just one general criticism I have heard in regard to this Bill. It has been said in certain quarters, and especially by those who have petitioned against the Bill, that it is a personal Bill of Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre. But I have his authority to state to your Lordships that, whilst he had the honour to be the Chairman of the Committee which framed this Bill, it is in no sense his own personal Bill. All the various bodies who attended the meetings of the Committee made it clear at those meetings that they must report back before committing themselves to any proposed legislation. This has been done, and no Petitions have been submitted by any local authority against the Bill.
Now if I may, I would turn to the detailed clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 alters the perambulation of the New Forest so as to take in certain common and other land adjacent thereto and so as to extend the powers of the verderers to the added areas. In addition to taking in certain areas, it also excludes certain

1315
areas, and these two areas almost balance each other out. Under subsection (1) the effect of the alteration is the addition of approximately 7,500 acres and the exclusion of 9,000 acres. These definite areas are shown on the plans which have been deposited in connection with the Bill. One further point with regard to subsection (1) which is of importance is that if your Lordships agree to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight, Amendments will be proposed during the Committee stage under which part of Wiltshire known as "No-man's-land" will be excluded from the proposed added areas.
Subsection (2) extends to the added areas the powers of the verderers under the present enactments relating to the New Forest. Here I should like to emphasise that, except to a limited extent to which I shall refer in a moment, the powers of the Forestry Commissioners under those enactments (which, broadly speaking, are confined to the part of the existing New Forest in Crown ownership and subject to common rights) will not be extended to the added areas. The verderers' by-laws are mainly directed to protecting the health of animals. Under subsection (3) it is proposed to extend the Forestry Commissioners' bylaws under Section 2 of the Forestry Act, 1927, to the parts of the added areas already subject to common rights. So far as this subsection is concerned, it is proposed to introduce an Amendment during the Committee stage to make the position somewhat clearer than it is at present under subsection (3) as drafted. In this connection, it may be mentioned that by-laws made under Section 2 of the Act of 1927 may not take away or injuriously affect any right of common without the consent of the person entitled thereto. The Forestry Commissioners' by-laws relate to such matters as the lighting of fires, camping, the parking of motor vehicles and the prevention of nuisances. So much for Clause 1.
Clause 2 really contains the machinery provisions for preparing the additional plans to which I have already referred. The proposal amounts to reopening what is known locally as "the atlas"; that is to say, the plans prepared by the Forestry Commissioners under the New Forest Act, 1949, showing the lands to
1316
which are attached rights of common within the New Forest as it exists to-day. The clause also contains provisions for appropriate consultation, and also confers rights to object to the additional plans when they have been prepared. These rights are the same as those conferred by the Act of 1949.
Clause 3, which is an important clause, deals with fencing. By subsection (2) the verderers are enabled to erect fencing along or adjacent to the altered perambulation for the purpose of containing animals. This fencing, with the cattle grids to be construced by the Hampshire County Council as highway authority, will provide a protective seal around the New Forest which will prevent animals from straying outside the perambulation and so help to reduce accidents.
Under Clause 3(4) the verderers will also be able to erect what is known as "drift fencing" within the New Forest. This is a safeguard, because animals become accustomed to crossing highways within the New Forest, for example to reach a watering-place, at a point which is extremely dangerous from the traffic aspect, especially near some blind corner or other. Drift fencing would enable the animal to be diverted to a safer crossing place. It would be of benefit to the animals themselves and also to the general public and the motorist. It is emphasised that the powers for both perimeter and drift fencing are confined to the open waste lands of the Forest—that is to say, Crown land subject to common rights —and to a small portion of land which is marked on the deposited plans. This clause also contains certain safeguards in respect of highway matters and amenity. Since the erection of fencing amounts to an interference with private rights, notices had to be served under the Standing Orders upon the owners, lessees and occupiers of the lands concerned. No Petition has been deposited against the Bill by any such owner, lessee or occupier.
I turn now to Clause 4, which contains permissive powers to fence the main road A.35 from Southampton to Christchurch where it traverses the New Forest. These powers are similar to those conferred by the Act of 1949 in respect of the trunk road from Cadnam to Ringwood. Again, these

1317
powers are intended for the reduction of the number of accidents. There is one further point I should mention, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Molson (who is unable to be in the House this evening), on behalf of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society. It deals with possible interference with public rights of access if and when A.35 is fenced. I should like to assure your Lordships that wicket gates or stiles will be provided at points where defined paths meet this main road and that the appropriate bodies will be consulted about the location of these wicket gates or stiles.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Does that mean—and I may have misunderstood the noble Lord—that access will be only at a point where there is a side road; that there will be no access on a long stretch of road where there is not a side road?
LORD CRATHORNE: The noble Lord has misunderstood me. The point with which I was dealing was the importance of not interfering with public rights of access to the New Forest if fences are created along the main road. I was thinking more of paths rather than side roads. The public would be prevented from getting access unless these stiles or gates were created.
I turn now to Clause 5. This clause is intended to preserve the protective seal around the New Forest when it has been created. It prescribes that no alteration is to be made so as to provide or enlarge a means of access to the New Forest unless a cattle grid or other works are installed to prevent or restrict the passage of animals. It will be appreciated that, for example, the building of a new housing estate within the altered perambulation, with a new highway to give access thereto cutting across the protective seal, might allow animals to stray outside the New Forest. This would defeat one of the main objects of the Bill. Clause 6 is an amendment of Section 18 of the 1949 Act. It does not extend to the added areas and calls for no comment.
Clause 7 deals with an entirely different subject, the question of pannage. Pannage is the term used to define the time when one is allowed to turn out
1318
pigs. I am not an expert on this subject. Up to now, the existing time of pannage has been September 25 to November 22 in each year. This has been found to be inconvenient in practice, and power is now sought under this clause to enable the Forestry Commissioners to fix pannage time (of not less than 60 consecutive days) after consultation with the verderers. This clause has no application within the added areas.
Clause 8 enables verderers to make temporary enclosures for the purpose of preventing the suffering of animals during severe weather. That is a measure which would be used, such as in the severe weather of last year, to give temporary shelter. Clause 9 seeks a permissive power to pay the reasonable travelling expenses of the appointed verderers in attending official meetings.
Clause 10 would enable the verderers to authorise the Forestry Commissioners to create new ornamental woods and to enclose land for the purpose. These powers are restricted to the part of the New Forest now owned by the Crown and subject to common rights, and therefore do not extend to the added areas. Here, again, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has asked me to raise a point on this clause. He feels that some maximum acreage that may be used for ornamental planting should be inserted in the Bill. The verderers accept in principle that the powers under Clause 10 should not be over-used, but there would be great difficulty in arriving at a proper figure for the purpose of describing a maximum acreage in respect of enclosures made under the clause. However, the verderers would, of course, consider carefully any suggestions which might be made on this point. It may be worth noting that the verderers' powers cannot be exercised except "on a presentment". This is a form of procedure before the Court of Verderers which gives an opportunity for objections by interested parties. Your Lordships will see that in the clause as drafted no one enclosure made by virtue of this clause shall exceed 20 acres in area.
Clause 11 refers to the Forestry Commission by-laws. Clause 12 makes provision for the increase of certain maximum fines for offences under the verderers'

1319
by-laws. The present maxima were fixed as long ago as 1877 and are now considered to be out of date. Clause 13 makes similar provision in respect of the Forestry Commission's by-laws. Clause 15 safeguards the position of the National Trust, and this clause has been approved by them. That concludes the detailed clauses of the Bill.
It remains for me to inform your Lordships that two Petitions have been deposited against the Bill; one by a small minority of commoners who allege that they hold rights over parts of the added areas; the other by the New Forest Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals. If the Bill is given a Second Reading by your Lordships, these Petitions will stand referred to a Select Committee upstairs. My Lords, this Bill is a necessary Bill; it is a helpful Bill; and I hope your Lordships will see fit to give it an unopposed Second Reading. I move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Crathorne.)
7.10 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes on this Bill, especially since my fellow-Yorkshireman felt it necessary to explain why he was involving himself in the affairs of the New Forest. It seems to me that it will be far more useful to hear the views of noble Lords on this complex and, to some extent, controversial subject: and I may say that the Government are anxious to hear such views. Indeed, this is why I have sought to speak rather earlier to-day than is customary for a Government spokesman on a Private Member's Bill.
My noble friend Lord Crathorne has stated with clarity and force and feeling the objects of the Bill, and I do not need to tread the same paths. From the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, the provisions of the Bill seem to have two sides, requiring separate treatment. The first is the question of the gridding and fencing of the perambulation or perimeter of the Forest. In this connection I understand that the County Council have
1320
put in certain sections of gridding and fencing to fill in the gaps between existing fences. This fencing follows closely the perimeter line proposed by the Bill, but the powers conferred in Clause 3(2) will be useful in filling the relatively few gaps which I understand still exist. The Government can, therefore, give its support to this side of the Bill.
The second side of the Bill, and one on which I think it would be proper for Her Majesty's Government to maintain an open mind for the present, covers various proposals dealing with or affecting common rights. Some of these are controversial, and my noble friend has informed your Lordships that some owners of common rights in the area have presented a humble Petition to Parliament praying against the Bill. I do not think noble Lords will expect me to say more about this, which is essentially a matter for consideration under our Select Committee procedure. Your Lordships may be aware that this is fully in keeping with the quasi-judicial attitude which my right honourable friend must maintain towards applications in respect of common land which are put to him under Statute. My Lords, I look forward to hearing the views of your Lordships on this Bill.
7.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Crook, I am speaking from this Despatch Box, but I should make it clear that I am not speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition. I suppose that it would be right if I were to declare an interest. I am a constituent of Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, though deprived of the right to vote either for or against this matter, and there are common rights attached to my small property in the New Forest. Anyone who knows the New Forest will realise that this subject is one which is of great importance, not only to people living in the New Forest, but to tens of thousands of people who enjoy the quite extraordinary beauty and amenity of that area. It is an extraordinary thing that you can walk off the road and you are then, suddenly, in country as wild as you can find anywhere.
The fact that there are so many qualities in the New Forest does not make it particularly easy to legislate. I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord

1321
Crathorne, on the extremely agreeable and uncontroversial way in which he introduced this Bill, but it would be quite mistaken not to recognise that this is a controversial Bill. The fact that the majority of commoners in the New Forest support it does not alter the fact that public interests are involved; and, indeed, the interests of others such as the National Trust commoners—those from outlying areas—who are also affected. The Bill is, of course, subject to the Hybrid Bill procedure and, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said, a Select Committee of this House will have an opportunity to hear the Petitions. We cannot, however, give the Bill its Second Reading unless we at least give some consideration to the arguments for and against; and the Petitions themselves go very much to the heart of the opposition to this Bill.
If this Bill has an easier passage than the last New Forest Bill, it will be doing well; because I well remember (and I think the noble Earl. Lord Radnor, will remember) that that Bill aroused passionate feelings. Indeed, the New Forest commoners almost came out with their reaping scythes, if they had any, prepared to defend their rights against the King's Woodsmen. It is ironic that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who shortly after became Chairman of the Forestry Commission, was, in fact, the biggest commoner of them all. But, one way and another, thanks to the wisdom of this House, passions were assuaged and a solution was reached which I think it will be agreed on all sides has worked extremely well, whatever difficulties there may be. One thing we can be quite certain about is that, even if this Bill is passed, there will be a large number of difficulties still to be resolved in the future. I must say straight away that, despite my doubts about this Bill—and I shall refer to them, because I think it is right that we should consider them—I am inclined to give it qualified approval. Indeed, I would recommend that it should have its Second Reading. But we shall have to rely a great deal on wisdom upstairs to solve some of the difficulties.
I must refer, first of all, to the problem of the outlying commoners. The outlying commoners' position is an obscure one legally. If, one day, the Government
1322
found time in their timetable, they might deal with the question of commons; indeed, this matter really ought to be the subject of Government legislation. I congratulate the sponsors of this Bill upon producing such a very ambitious Bill and bringing it forward, when clearly there was no chance of the Government's doing so, possibly because they were afraid of getting their fingers burnt as a previous Government did with a New Forest Bill.
But some of the outlying commoners have a genuine complaint. There is the man who has been turning out animals. I know of one case—I think it is true; I was told of it by a leading figure in the New Forest—of a man who is every day turning out 50 head of a dairy herd and bringing them in for milking, and they never stray into the New Forest. At present, he turns them out free, but in future he will have to pay marking fees equivalent to £50 a year. We ought not lightly to take away rights of this kind. Common rights are inevitably very contentious things, and of a doubtful legal validity. None the less, so far as that individual is concerned, he reckons that he has these rights; and his fathers before him, probably. If there is any considerable number of these outlying commoners who are aggrieved at the proposal, we must clearly try to persuade them, though efforts so far appear to have failed.
I rather regret that the noble Lord called them, I think, "just a small minority". How small? I am told that there may be 50, 60 or more; and of course, as the noble Lord knows, there is one branch of the N.F.U.—probably not a very largely attended meeting—which voted against this change. We must recognise that the opposition has not yet been satisfied, and I think it will be for the Select Committee (I will not go too far into this aspect to-day) to see whether a solution can be found. But certainly I think it a very dangerous precedent to take away rights of any kind by means of a Private Member's Bill of this sort. It may well be that some kind of compensation, some undertaking to delay the demands for marking fees, will meet their particular problem.
When we turn to fencing, all I can say is that anyone who knows the New Forest must very greatly regret the idea of having these endless fences along either the A.35 or the A.31. It is one

1323
of the glories of the New Forest that you can drive along, stop and then walk off straight into the forest, and that it is open with a spaciousness that is not found anywhere else, at any rate comparably as beautiful, in the South of England. The fencing is not going to be attractive. The original suggestion, to build ha-ha fencing (if that is the correct term), is not, I am told, likely to be possible, and I can well imagine that it would be prodigiously expensive. I do not know why nothing has been done to fence the upper road, the Cadnam—Ringwood Road, under the 1949 Act, but we have to face the fact that it must be done. My Lords, this is going to be very expensive; and to fence the A.35 is going to be even more expensive. A charming thing about this Private Member's Bill is that if, in fact, the public authorities choose to exercise the powers given to them, it will enable them to spend between £80,000 and £100,000 of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. Clearly, this is not a matter about which, by Private Member's Bill, one can do anything, but the power is to be given.
Even then, my Lords, this problem of animals on the road will not be solved. Anyone who knows the New Forest knows that these animals are a perpetual hazard. I doubt whether there is any resident in the New Forest who, if he has driven regularly, has not been involved at one time or another in an accident. I myself have been. The slaughter of animals on the roads is pretty grim at the moment. It is distressing how often one comes across a car with a dead animal, or possibly an animal that is not dead, lying beside the road. If the Government and the authorities decide to do so, we shall fence the main roads, but there will still be many miles of forest roads which will not be fenced; and drift fencing will not solve this problem.
There is an argument that animals should be kept in enclosures within the forest. This is a proposal which, to my prejudiced mind, I admit, is a rather alien one. The essence of the New Forest is that animals have been able to wander at large. It is they who have to a large extent created the countryside. But this was before the days of motor cars; and people and animals
1324
will continue to be killed. I have details, with which I will not bother the House now, of animals that have been killed on back roads. I have known motor-cyclists from my own village who have been killed through running into an animal on a dark night—and there are, of course, a number of animals which are particularly difficult to see. There are some black steers which wander around the New Forest at night, and, with a car approaching from the other direction, the chance of seeing them is very slight indeed.
We shall not solve this problem by this particular Bill, and it is a matter for consideration, even if we do pass it, whether, in the light of the present circumstances, there should not be set up a further Committee of Inquiry, comparable to the Baker Committee. There is some controversy, of course, as to whether the forest is over-grazed or under-grazed. I have always been brought up to believe that it was under-grazed, but there are those who suggest that it is over-grazed. We have to take into account (and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, will correct me on this) the fact that if these outlying commons are brought in—and I shall be interested to know why one particular common is to be excluded; the noble Lord will no doubt tell us why during the Committee stage—this may bring an extra 2,000 animals into the forest. My Lords, it will probably be necessary—indeed, I think public opinion will demand it—for the agistor service to be considerably strengthened, and particularly for powers to be given for quicker action in regard to the destruction of animals that have been injured. Had the proposal been to enclose certain areas and to confine animals to them, it might well be that there would be plenty of grazing to sustain them; but I am concerned about what would then happen to the edges of the Forest that would be visible to the roads. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, might be involved in some toxic chemical-spraying exercise: his propensity in this direction is well known to us all. I think we should all regret this.
I think the economics of this scheme need to be looked at. A number of differing views have been expressed on the cost, and we have to face the fact

1325
that, to preserve the New Forest as it is, to preserve it for the commoners, the taxpayers and the ratepayers will have to pay a great deal of money. But I must also make it clear that I do not regard the commoner as someone who is exercising a right which works only to his own advantage: it certainly works to the advantage of the whole area.
There is one point about which I am concerned, and that is a point which I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne: the extent to which there genuinely is local authority approval. I was informed—and this may or may not be aecurate—that the Hampshire County Council had not specifically lent support to this Bill. I think this is a matter of much importance—because, in a way, this is a matter of great concern to the authorities—that their views should be at least as well represented as those of either the verderers or the commoners, or of the voluntary societies. It would be helpful to know in what terms the County Council, the Ringwood District Council or the New Forest Council actually gave their support. I am particularly concerned with Hampshire, since they presumably will be the highway authority.
My Lords, I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time now, other than to remind the House again that this is not a straightforward, simple proposition. Individual rights are involved—the rights of the outlying commoners—as well as the safety, survival and relief from suffering of large numbers of animals which at the moment suffer an unpleasant death and also cause the death of human beings. These are matters that the Committee may be able to resolve, but we shall undoubtedly have to look at this Bill again after it emerges from the Committee. I hope that those who are supporting and sponsoring the Bill will go as far as they possible can to meet the very real objections that have been made against it.
7.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of the New Forest Bill. I speak not as one who has any special knowledge of the New Forest, or even lives in the area, but as one who is keenly interested in both forestry and the adjustments of the countryside that are necessary to meet present-day conditions. Large numbers
1326
of interested parties are concerned with the New Forest, and although this Bill set out originally to be both non-political and non-controversial, the petitions lodged have proved that not all parties agree. Whatever one's views on fencing animals in special enclosures, or on carrying out the intentions of the Bill, it must be unanimously agreed that some immediate steps must be taken to prevent the needless slaughter of the animals that occurs year after year. Indeed, the Forest is earning itself a bad reputation in this respect, and the verderers are virtually powerless at present to act. For this reason I am supporting the Bill, and, in my opinion, new legislation is urgently required.
The argument expressed by the Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals in their Petition is economically sound, as regards fencing. But I wonder whether it would be the right answer in practice. First, the character of the Forest would change, and this is something that everyone for generations has jealously guarded. Secondly, the number of animals will be restricted severely. Finally, the areas outside the enclosures would require continual maintenance and expense. I believe the power this Bill will give to the verderers in regard to fencing would make a considerable difference, and if it were coupled with a speed limit imposed on all roads (except the trunk roads) crossing the forest this could well be a successful combination.
The most controversial part of the Bill would appear to be Clause 1. Much as I respect everyone's private and public rights in this country, I feel that for the good of the Forest the perambulation should include the areas specified in the Bill. I understand that if it does not then it will not be practicable to fence off the Forest, and further slaughter and unnecessary danger to the animals will result. It is my opinion that the benefits of the grazing of the whole Forest, which many of those who petitioned do not at present have, coupled with the care in winter and the all-the-year-round supervision by the agistors more than outweigh the present marking fee of 30s. per animal.
Under Clause 6 the question of camping sites is dealt with by the Bill, and here again I feel that this legislation

1327
is long overdue. The present unrestricted sites used by the public are proving a disgrace to the Forest; and over 7,000 milk bottles alone were picked up last year, together with tons of rubbish. It seems very sensible that the verderers should have the power to allot certain camping sites and prevent the whole Forest from being made into a disorderly mess. I should like to conclude by saying that, in my opinion, this Bill gives the powers necessary for the verderers to manage the Forest in a proper manner in the interests of the Forest itself, the animals and the public. I therefore trust this Bill will pass during this Session of Parliament as speedily as possible.
7.33 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, when I first heard that a Bill was to be introduced to reduce the number of accidents to motorists and animals on the roads of the New Forest I was delighted, because these accidents have for many years been something of a blot on our civilisation. But when I read the Bill I was sadly disappointed. It seems to me that the Bill is really an elaborate means of giving powers to all the authorities to do nothing. This may seem rather an extreme statement, but my reason for saying this is that the Bill is permissive and not mandatory. It says to the highway authority and to the verderers of the Forest, "You may do this or that"; but it does not say, "You must do this or that, and do it without delay." We can see the result of this type of permissive legislation by looking back to the Act of 1949 in which permission was given for the fencing of the A.31 trunk road from Cadnam to Ringwood. I recently asked how the work was getting on and if it was nearing completion. I was informed that the work was not started until the autumn of 1963. Fifteen years' delay in starting to implement a permissive Act of Parliament! The trouble is that this Bill will still contain the permissive element. So much for the highway authority.
This Bill also gives permission to the verderers of the Forest to carry out certain operations: to fence the new perambulation which is intended; to enter into an agreement with the high-
1328
way authority concerning the provision and maintenance of cattle grazing; also to erect such drift fences as may be considered necessary for the safety of animals and such other fencing as will obviate dangers to persons or animals. But I am informed that the verderers are at present unable to maintain more than four agistors.
If any noble Lord does not know what the duties of the agistors are I will tell him. They are a small body of men enrolled and paid by the verderers and they are responsible for the food, drink and general welfare of the animals in the Forest. The commoners and those who turn out animals into the Forest relinquish the right or duty of looking after their animals to the verderers, who engage the agistors to carry out the work; but they are unable to pay more than four agistors for the whole of the Forest, and that number is not enough. For one thing, if a pony is wounded or injured on the road and has to be killed an agistor has to be sent for to put it out of its misery. It is at present imperatively necessary that that number of agistors should be increased.
Of course, if a large area is to be added to the Forest then still more agistors will be necessary; but I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said in his opening address that the amount of land which will be subtracted from the Forest will be roughly equal to that added. The verderers are already committed to a sum of £7,000 for the work with which they were saddled in connection with the fencing of the A.31 fifteen years ago. They are in no position to pay that sum. I am informed that their accounts show that their total possessions—investments and cash in the bank—fall far short of that amount. How, then, can they be expected to take on these new commitments with any hope of fulfilling them in the foreseeable future?
As to the cost of the scheme, the A.31 fencing is estimated to cost £53,000 (I am taking figures based on the findings of the Hampshire County Council and the Ministry of Transport), subject to an increase when the dual carriageway is built—that is to say, certain fencing that is put up for the single carriageway will have to be pulled up

1329
and moved farther back when the dual carriageway is built. The perimeter gridding and fencing is estimated to cost £55,000. Fencing the A.35, which is a new operation, sanctioned by this Bill, will probably cost £88,000. Then we must consider the compensation to be paid to the commoners for the loss of grazing rights on the verges, and that will be quite considerable. The total cost for the fencing of these two main roads, with the ancillary work, is likely to come to over £200,000. This is so far as the Bill takes us; but it would be absurd to fence in the A.31 and the A.35 and leave the A.337, running from North to South, and the 36 miles of B-class road, unfenced. So, the job of protecting against animals by fencing the roads would ultimately cost something in the neighbourhood of £400,000 of public money.
An alternative plan of leaving the roads unfenced and making enclosures within the Forest has much to recommend it. A tentative plan to make four enclosures of about 2,000 acres each within the Forest has been worked out, and the cost is estimated at £39,000, including cattle grids, stiles and other devices to allow the public to have free access to the enclosures. One of the arguments that have been raised against these enclosures in the Forest comes under the heading of amenities—that is to say. People may object to seeing lines of fences stretched across open spaces of the Forest. I think the people would have to be very aesthetic to allow that to worry them very much. At any rate, I would put to them a question: Which would they rather see—some fences running across the Forest, or dead and dying ponies on the road?
I am now coming to a very important point. The verderers could not possibly be expected to find such a sum of money, but it is only about one-tenth of the ultimate cost of protecting the lives of the stock in the Forest by fencing the roads. I suppose it would be possible to find some way of making the money available out of the great saving which would accrue to the highway authorities if this plan were to be accepted. After all, it is all public money, and if the highway authority is saved a very large sum it ought to be possible to find the
1330
much smaller sum for the alternative plan.
It is no job of mine to try to reform the somewhat archaic procedure of the verderers' organisation, but I think that it is important that the verderers should have some source of income adequate for the duties which they are called upon to perform—putting up safety fencing, cattle grids and so on. I do not know whether the suggestion that I have to make will commend itself to the authorities, but it is as follows. There are commoners and non-commoners who graze their stock in the Forest. The commoners have what amounts to an immemorial right to graze their stock in the Forest, but the non-commoners, who have been allowed to graze their stock, so far as I can understand without any limitation to the number of head that any non-commoner may introduce, have rights which are much more modern and much more tenuous. My suggestion is that the fees which non-commoners pay for grazing their stock should be raised so as to give the verderers a working income for the duties which they have to perform.
At present, supposing the highway authority is blamed for being slow in getting on with the work, they can always say that the verderers owe them £7,000 for this, and when the verderers pay up what they owe, they can get on with the work. As I say, I think it is important that the verderers should have an adequate income for the duty which they will always have to perform, whether the scheme adopted is the fencing of the roads or enclosures within the Forest.
There is one other point which I will mention in conclusion. If the insurance companies would adopt a self-denying ordinance and refuse to pay insurance on ponies that were killed on the roads, I am sure that the accident rate would almost certainly decline. At present, for a dead pony an agistor has a power of signing the death certificate up to a value of £50. He signs two copies of the certificate, one going to the insurance company and the other to the knacker. If the pony is valued at over £50, then the certificates have to be signed by a veterinary surgeon.
The present situation is strongly criticised by a large number of voters in the

1331
New Forest area. They are indignant at the continued mass slaughter of animals on their roads. It may be thought, perhaps, that this Bill will allay their indignation by the prospect of some early and practical steps being taken; but I fear that such expectations will be disappointed, especially when the voters consider the fifteen years' delay which followed the last permissive Act of this nature. This Bill, in my opinion at any rate, is too basically unsound to be licked into shape by any Amendments in Committee. I earnestly hope that it may be withdrawn, and an alternative mandatory Bill, such as would have the effect of putting an early stop to this slaughter on the roads of the New Forest, substituted in its place.
7.56 p.m.
LORD CONGLETON: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I do not follow him in the arguments he has put forward. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I must declare my own position, because, in spite of having a North-country name, I was born and brought up in the New Forest, and I live there and farm there. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Crathorne was able to say in his preamble. I am also a member of the Council of the New Forest Association. I was a member of the small committee which met on several occasions during the last two years and advised Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre on his Bill. I may say that some of the things he wished to do we advised him not to do, and he did not get it all his own way.
I approach this Bill from a slightly different angle than any that has been put forward so far. I should like to go back to the Baker Report: that is the Report of the New Forest Committee which reported in 1947. Various things in that Report were not included in the 1949 Act. At that time I was not in this country, and I do not know why this was not done. But it is interesting to look now at some of the recommendations and comments that they then made and see what has happened. First of all, I should like to look at page 45, which refers to war-time encroachments. There they refer to the aerodromes in the Forest and to the danger of industrial development immediately adjacent to the Forest, particularly in the area between
1332
Southampton Water and the New Forest. In their recommendations they recommended that on no account should industrial development be allowed, because they thought it would be injurious to the Forest.
On page 69 they refer to the growth of population and the effect that house building, the increase of population which would result, and subsequently more house building, would have on the New Forest. The Industrial Revolution has now arrived, subsequent to the war, alongside the New Forest. A large oil refinery has been built in this area, where it was recommended that there should be no development. Factories are following; and of two large power stations, one is built and one being built. This has necessitated a considerable influx of population to work in the area. There was not housing available for these people to live in, and, in the first instance, they had to be brought considerable distances to work. Those houses are now being built or have been built. Roads have had to be laid to approach the factories and the new housing estates. Electricity pylons have had to be put up to carry the electricity from the power stations. There was not land in this small strip for all these things to be done, and part of the Forest has had to be taken and used for this purpose. I am sure that this was a warning sign which made it imperative that the boundaries of the New Forest should be established quite definitely so that this process should not continue. I cannot think of any way of doing that other than by putting a fence round the whole area, much though that goes against the grain
I think it is also of interest to look at page 70 of this Report and to observe that it was the view of the planning authorities that this sort of development should not be allowed. On page 81 the Report also recommended that the adjoining commons should come within the New Forest and under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Commission. That obviously raises difficulties. But, if I may revert for one moment to the social question, housing in the New Forest is now a difficulty. The population is changing. There is the old commoner population of horticultural, forestry, and agricultural workers and employers who belong to the area and are natives. But coming in are the commuters and a large

1333
number of retired people. A great many of these people come to the area not realising quite what they are coming to, and they are not altogether in sympathy with their surroundings or the conditions under which they live.
For instance, one of the new housing estates put up for the people who are to work in new factories was an open-plan housing estate and, quite naturally, the inhabitants of these houses were very angry to find that their gardens had been trampled and spoiled by forest animals. There is only one way to get over that problem in so far as I can see, and that is to put something between these people and the animals. That, surely, must mean a fence.
When it comes to the accidents on the roads, I think it is true to say that in recent years at least one-third of those accidents have taken place outside the boundaries of the forest. Animals have strayed from the forest. This also can be stopped only if the animals are to be kept within the area, and that difficulty can be overcome by fencing.
If I may now revert to the Bill, I see that the provision; within it are all in line with the Report of the Royal Commission, but I will not bore your Lordships with the detail. The amending schemes and the planting of trees and the cost of fencing are all deliberately mentioned in the Royal Commission on Common Land, and so far as costs go it was the opinion of the Ramblers' Association at least that the cost of such things should be met from public funds. Clause 1 of the Bill, dealing with the alterations of the perambulations, and including certain of the outside commons within the New Forest, I find very complicated indeed. But as I understand it, the commoners who turn animals into the New Forest have also the right to turn them on to the exterior commons. The commoners who turn their animals on to the exterior commons do not have the right to turn their animals into the Forest. This, if I may say so, is a ridiculous situation. It could be solved by including the commons within the New Forest, and giving the commoners of the exterior commons the right to turn their animals into the Forest as well.
There are certain difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. re-
1334
ferred, and I think these probably are better dealt with upstairs. As to the fencing of the main roads, provisions were put in in the 1949 Act and an excellent scheme for putting up ha-has was included. Part of that work has been done, and I hope that it will be finished under the ha-ha scheme. As you drive along the main road you see on the left or right of you a bank, and beyond that you see the open forest. You do not see a fence, bys, posts and the rest of it. As you look from the Forest you look up to an even bigger bank, and if you are lucky you do not see cars. They can go along the road and not be seen. I think that achieves the object for which this scheme was developed, and I hope that will be continued. It is my personal hope that it will be unnecessary, when the scheme on the Cadnam-Ringwood Road is completed, to fence the land from Bournemouth to Lyndhurst, because, as in the instance to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, I think it will be entirely against everything which I have known and have been brought up to believe in so far as the Forest is concerned. It will, in fact, cut the whole Forest in two, and there will be a considerable restriction on both the commoners and on the public.
Next may I turn to Clause 7, which deals with the alteration of the time of pannage and the turning out of pigs. This is an old fixed date which is fitted in with other arrangements for shutting up animals in the Forest. It is true, however, that the acorns and beech mast do not stick to a fixed date, and the object of turning pigs out into the forest is to clear up the acorns and beech mast which fall. Provided the period of 60 days is included, as it is, I can see that there can be little objection to the date being adjusted year by year in order to coincide with the fall of the food the pigs will eat, the acorns and the beech mast.
Clause 10 refers to the creation of new and ornamental woods. One of the particular difficulties here is that there are in the forest individual trees which are of interest. They may be landmarks, or special trees which are situated in the open common lands of the forest, and they do not come under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Commission. Quite a number of these trees are reaching the state where they are dying and about to

1335
fall down. Nobody can do anything about replacing them at the present moment because they cannot fence an area, put up a tree and leave it to grow, eventually taking away the fence. Under this clause this will now be possible.
May I turn now to what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said about the camps? I should not like the House to have the impression that the establishment of fixed camping sites would stop people camping in the Forest. It is the inalienable right of the public in general to camp, walk or caravan in the Forest where they like; and while they may be directed to sites, they may still camp anywhere in the Forest. That is written into the Bill, and this new Bill does not in any way alter that existing right. As to the position of the commoners on the adjacent commons, I find myself in great difficulty. I am sure that there will be objections here, but, the owners of these commons, (who in time to come might get some benefit from them if this area were allowed to be developed; and it is possible that that might happen in the future) have not objected, and in this instance they are sterilising a possible improvement of an asset which they have.
My Lords, having seen some of the background to this Bill, I can only commend the Bill to your Lordships and hope that you will give it a Second Reading. Then, when the Select Committee have dealt with the arguments upstairs, we may again see it and be able to consider it in detail at that time. I give my wholehearted support to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne.
8.10 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to express strong support for this Bill, but at this hour I feel that it will not be necessary for me to say very much more than that. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, in introducing the Bill gave such a comprehensive explanation, both of the background to the Bill and of the individual clauses, that it would be futile for me at this hour to go over any of that ground. Also, if I may say so with due respect, I listened with great interest and appreciation to the very fair speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in which he sketched the
1336
difficulties inherent in this Bill; and no doubt more will be said about them at a later stage in this House. All these, however, are matters for the Select Committee in the first place, and I will not waste your Lordships' time now by attempting to go into them.
This question of the New Forest is one of the oldest in the land. It goes back to the days of King Canute, and over the centuries there has been a constant series of disputes between representatives of the Crown and commoners. The only time when one could safely say, without fear of much contradiction, that that situation ended was in 1949, when the Act was passed as a result of the recommendations of the Committee of 1946 I think it would be fair to say now that the day-to-day life in the Forest has shown a noticeable improvement of atmosphere since the 1949 Act came into operation, and the relationship between the Forestry Commission, acting on behalf of the Crown, and the commoners and the general public, has been unquestionably that of friendly co-operation and understanding. But experience has shown that some revision of the Act is now needed to bring the administration of the New Forest into harmony with modern thought and modern conditions. This is what this Bill endeavours to do, and I strongly support its Second Reading.
8.12 p.m.
LORD CRATHORNE: My Lords, at this late hour certain of your Lordships would not want a second long speech from me, but I should very much like to thank all the Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in this debate and who have made such extremely interesting and constructive speeches. I should like to answer the two main criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, brought out extremely well and which, of course, are very difficult to answer. The first deals with the outlying commoners. He kindly gave me notice of this when we were discussing this Bill, and I have done my best to look into it. No doubt we shall all have an opportunity of studying it before the later stages.
It is impossible to answer precisely how many outlying commoners will be affected by the Bill. When I said that a Petition had been submitted by a small minority,

1337
I used the words advisedly, because however we like to look at it, it is a minority. How one can get exactly at the right figures it is very difficult to know. In the villages concerned the number of holdings, which corresponds to the number of ratepayers, is 1,846. So if, for instance, you accept (which I understand the Promoters do not) that all the 60 signatories to the Petition represent 60 separate holdings, then it would be 60 out of 1,846. Another way, which might give a better comparison, would be to take the number of electors on the electoral roll. For those parishes the number of electors in the area concerned is 3,830: and compared with that figure 60, of course, is smaller. Those are the two possible ways of making the comparison, but it is very difficult to give a precise answer, for no precise figures are kept.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Would he then tell us the number of commoners who exercise their common rights in the New Forest, and the number of electors?—because he would find the minority was about the same. I do not think these comparisons are at all valid.
LORD CRATHORNE: They are pretty reasonable.
LORD SHACKLETON: No.
LORD CRATHORNE: All right; but they are the only figures you can get. You cannot get precise figures, and it is for the noble Lord's colleagues in the Select Committee to try to analyse the figures of those who have sounded the position and see whether these signatories do, in fact, all represent different holdings.
The other point which I should like to clear up to the satisfaction of the noble Lord is in regard to the local authorities' consultations. From the inquiries I have made, I am perfectly satisfied that the consultations have gone on all the time, although it is quite fair to say, as the noble Lord indicated, that no local authority has actually passed a resolution saying that they were in favour of the Bill. Throughout last year there were various meetings. Although it was an unofficial body, there were two local meetings during 1963 attended by the representatives of the local authorities concerned. Minutes were circulated and the local authorities were given drafts of
1338
the Bill before it was introduced. Therefore, there has been full consultation with them.
So far as the Hampshire County Council is concerned, which the noble Lord quite rightly said is most particularly concerned with the Bill, being the highway authority, while they support the Bill in general, they at the outset had certain points to raise on clauses, but these have been met. Although I cannot say for certain, I am informed that at me next meeting of the appropriate committee of the County Council in early March they are likely to accept the Bill. It is for the future to determine what happens. For all those reasons, I think the noble Lord will agree that it can properly be claimed that the Bill meets with the general approval of the local authorities, since no local authority has thought fit to petition against it. Some of the other points raised by the noble Lord are more for the Government than for me, but all points will be given most careful consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, was in a rather gloomy frame of mind, and I prefer to take the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Milverton, to the effect that, although the 1949 Act was far from perfect, the results since it came into force have been all for the better. My noble friend Lord Congleton, who actually lives there, referred to the Baker Report, and although he, again, regretted that more was not put into the 1949 Act, he also intimated to your Lordships that there has been improvement since then.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, my interest is almost entirely concerned with the ponies on the road; and very little has been said about them this evening. That is the problem which I consider to be the most important.
LORD CRATHORNE: Thank you very much for those remarks, but I think the whole of your Lordships' House is equally anxious and worried about the ponies as the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, himself is, and it is thought that, although it may not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton said, the complete answer, if this Bill, as eventually agreed, I hope, by this House comes upon the Statute Book, it will do much

1339
to help in regard to the mortality of ponies in the New Forest.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think I would ever have said "although it would not produce the complete answer". I think it is very doubtful how much of an answer it will produce; I am genuinely doubtful about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, said, it is an Enabling Bill, and whether anybody is going to do anything about it I do not know. I do not think we want to be too optimistic.
LORD CRATHORNE: We do not want to be too optimistic, but I think we want to be more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, who, I thought, was very gloomy. There were other parts of his speech which deserve very careful thought and will be given very careful thought by all those concerned, and I thank him very much for that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, also for his contribution to the debate, and hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

FINANCIAL TREATMENT OF RHODESIAN EX-PUBLIC SERVANTS
Following is the letter referred to in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT (Col. 1128) in the initial Answer by The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies (The Duke of Devonshire) to Lord Colyton's Starred Question on the results of Her Majesty's Government's further discussions with the Staff Association of the former Federal Public Service of Rhodesia and Nyasaland:
"In my reply to your Question on the representations of the Staff Association of the former Federal Public Service of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 29th January I undertook to let you have a written reply covering the detailed points on which you sought information.
"Your first point concerned the provision of a sterling basis for the calculation of pensions. In view of the local character of the Federal Public Service and the nature of the Fund from which pensions will be payable, the Governments concerned did not feel able to accept the proposal that pensions should be calculated and paid in sterling. They have agreed, however, that arrangements should be made for every pensioner to have an option between
1340
having his pension paid in the currency of one of the constituent territories of the former Federation, the choice of territory being his own, or in the currency of all three, in the proportion Southern Rhodesia 5. Northern Rhodesia 4 and Nyasaland 1. In the event of a pensioner failing to make an option his pension will be paid either in the currency of his home territory, his territory of residence, or if he has neither home territory nor territory of residence in the proportion already indicated. Pensions will of course continue to be paid in Federal currency until separate territorial currencies are introduced.
"You enquired whether the suggestion of the Staff Association that Federal Pensions should be brought within the scope of the United Kingdom Pensions (Increases) Act had been accepted. This Act provides for the payment of pension supplements to Officers of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service and certain other persons, for example, members of the Sudan Political Service, for whose recruitment the British Government was responsible. The position of ex-Federal Officers is basically different since they were recruited by their own Government as members of a locally based Service and not by or on behalf of a Secretary of State. Moreover for the British Government, unilaterally, to provide for payments to ex-Federal Officers under the Act would have been inconsistent with the agreement reached on this matter between the Governments concerned.
"You also enquired about the Staff Association's proposals for compensation. They suggested that, to give effect to the undertaking by the five Governments to give sympathetic consideration to cases of hardship among officers to whom no offer of further employment was made, there should be a general scheme of compensation, over and above the terminal benefits for the Public Service on which the five Governments had previously agreed (and for which provision was eventually made in the Order in Council). Proposals on these lines were carefully considered, at the instance of the Federal Government: but the territorial Governments and the British Government took the view that a scheme of this nature would go beyond the intentions of the undertaking that had been given and would involve reopening the principles of the agreement on terminal benefits already reached. The Governments have, however, agreed to a scheme for the relief of individual hardship in the case of Officers unable to obtain suitable employment and to the appointment of a Special Commissioner to deal with such cases.
"On the question of future security of employment in the Territories. Federal Officers accepting pensionable employment in Northern and Southern Rhodesia will become in all respects Officers of the Public Service of those territories and entitled to the same consideration and treatment as other locally recruited officers. The British Government are confident that the Governments of Northern and Southern Rhodesia accept this position.
"Finally you referred to the arrangements for supplementing the Pensions Fund to enable requirements for payment of pensions to be met. The obligations of the three Territorial

1341
Governments and the British Government to contribute in agreed proportions towards any deficiency revealed by actuarial examination to the extent needed to meet pensions and terminal benefits as laid down in the Second Schedule of the Order in Council will be set
1342
out in the Public Officers Agreement between the Governments, negotiation of which is nearing completion."
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.