I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out sub section (1).
The subsection which we are inviting the Committee to delete from the Bill is one which has given rise to considerable comment and criticism outside the House, and particularly among the workers, with whom some of us are in especially close contact. It contains the one provision in the Bill which the Minister, on Second Reading, seemed least willing to explain or defend. It provides that the contributions called for from insured workers and their employers in regard to the industrial injuries provisions of the scheme shall be raised by 1d.
I say at once that to me it seems quite extraordinary that, in a Bill which proposes, in any case, to make quite considerable increases in the contributions that have to come from insured workers, among whom there is a good deal of feeling—about which arguments will emerge during the debate today and tomorrow—any particular increase should be put on unless there is a really good reason to be adduced before doing so. I was very interested to see the way in which Ministers dealt with this in their various speeches last week.
The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, as I think he will admit, did not deny himself time—and, of course, quite rightly—in introducing this important Measure. When he had been speaking for 65 minutes, or a little more, without having mentioned this point at all, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked:
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the industrial injuries part of the Bill?
To that question the Minister gave this extraordinarily clear and detailed reply:
I have already spoken about the benefits, and everybody knows that the extra contribution is Id. The House probably thinks that it has listened to me long enough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1954; Vol. 535. c. 981.]
Among millions of workers there is already a good deal of feeling about the operation of the Industrial Injuries Act. In that Act there are a large number of anomalies and problems, about which those of us who sit for constituencies which include the heavier industries have to talk almost every week. To tell those people, "You know that the extra cost will be 1d. you have already heard enough from me, and that is that," is treating all concerned with a good deal less than the frankness to which they are entitled.
The unwillingness of the Minister to explain the extra ld. was, in fact, repeated by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary either at the end of that day or at the beginning of the following day. He did not touch upon the extra cost at all. He spoke at length about the extra cost in general, and told us that he had discussed it from the point of view of the man in the street, and several other points of view, but at no stage did he deal with the extra cost under the Industrial Injuries Act. Indeed, to hear anything at all, we had to wait for the Minister of Health—who is usually to be found facing up to the balls which his colleagues try to avoid seeing at all.
The Minister of Health referred to "most important points" in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), and paid tribute to his knowledge. All Ministers and all Governments pay great tribute to the knowledge of an hon. Member when they do not wish to meet the points put by him. In reply to my hon. Friend, the Minister said:
All I need do at the moment is to refer the hon. Member to paragraph 6 of the Government Actuary's Report, which makes it clear that the problem will later form part of another review, as the House will expect, and the Bill deals only with the problem of rates and benefits under the 1946 Act."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1238.]
Up to that point four Ministers, I think, had spoken, but, apart from the statement of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance that we had already heard enough and that he did not propose to tell us more, that was the only reference to this increase. Even then, the Minister of Health did not tell the House why there had to be the increase, but only said that the matter would have to be dealt with when the Actuary's Report was produced.
Our complaint, therefore, is that we are being asked to lay on millions of insured workers an additional imposition for which no one has yet produced a single argument. We have not been told that the National Insurance Fund needs it; we have not been told that it matches the increased costs of benefits; nor have we been told what will happen to it. The Minister says, almost sotto voce, that it is in the Government Actuary's Report; but it was not the Government Actuary who presented the Bill. The Government presented the Bill, and we are entitled to know what they feel about it. I will deal with the Government Actuary's Report in due course.
The Ministers responsible have not yet advanced a single argument to justify the increased contribution. We, on this side, are not at all sure that any of the general increases have yet had a really solid case made out for them, but, whatever emerges about that, I think that the Committee will agree that, industrially, it is a very bad thing to unload on to either industry or the workers in it charges which are not, in fact, required. My contention is that this charge is not required; that, whatever the reason for levying it, it has nothing to do with the actual need at this moment.
As I say, the Minister mentioned that the Government Actuary's Report contains all that we need to know about this—but does it? I quote paragraph 3 of Cmd. 9332, the Report by the Government Actuary:
The new rates of contribution"—
which are what we are inviting the Committee not to impose—
will increase the income of the Industrial Injuries Fund by about £5,400,000 in 1955–56 and £6,500,000 in the first full year, 1956–57.
That is the extent of the additional charge which the Government are seeking to impose upon industry, employers and employed persons.
The paragraph continues:
To these sums must be added the Exchequer supplement of one-fifth under Section 2 (b) of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946.… The additional Exchequer charge will thus be about £1,100,000 in 1955–56 and £1,300,000 in 1956–57, so that"—
and this is the important point—
the total extra receipts in those years will be about £6,500,000 and £7,800,000 respectively.
Paragraph 5 deals with the cost of the additional benefit and says:
It is estimated that the proposed increase in benefits will entail additional expenditure from the Industrial Injuries Fund of about £5,500,000 in 1955–56 and £7,000,000 in 1956–57. The additional expenditure will, however, increase steadily from year to year with the growth in the numbers of disablement and widow pensioners, and will ultimately be considerably greater than the estimated additional receipts.
In the years 1955 to 1956 and in the subsequent years, until an unstated time in the future, the actual charge we are being asked to impose will bring in over £1 million more than is required in the years 1955 to 1956 and very nearly £1 million more than will be required in each of the subsequent years.
I find it extremely difficult, therefore, to accept the Minister's comment that all that we need to know about this is in the Actuary's Report, and it is difficult to avoid the feeling that the reason all the Ministers who have spoken on the subject so far were so coy about it, varying in conduct from complete silence to the merest tentative genuflection in the direction of the point and immediate withdrawal, was that there was not, in the Actuary's Report, enough evidence to support the charge proposed.
I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government feel it proper to charge industrial workers, on top of the extra charge they are laying on them by other provisions of the Bill, this extra 1d. in respect of industrial injuries, particularly having regard to the feeling that already exists on this subject. What is the reason? Why do we raise £1 million more than we need to raise, even on the actuarial basis?
Secondly, I invite the Minister to tell us why nothing was said about this by the Government in the Second Reading debate, despite the frequency with which the question was raised. Thirdly, I ask, am I right in believing—I have not had the time to check this myself, but I am advised that it is so—that in March, 1953, the Industrial Injuries Fund alone had balances standing at £93,712,000? If there is very nearly £94 million already in the Fund, whatever may or may not be the argument for increasing the contribution enough actuarially to cover the cost, what is the point of proposing to build the Fund up at a rate in excess of £1 million a year now and hereafter?
We were all agreed, in 1951, that there was no point in going on building up balances in the Fund that could be used elsewhere, that were not particularly required in the Fund, yet here we are with nearly £94 million—quite £94 million by now, I suppose—in the Fund, and proposing to build it up at a rate of £1 million a year until an unstated time in the future, and, in order to do so, proposing to charge industrial workers and their employers an extra contribution which otherwise would not be required.
I can see no argument for it at all, no argument in equity. I had to discuss this subject in my constituency at the weekend. Indeed, I had to discuss the whole Bill in my constituency. There were differing views about it, of course, and one had to meet fundamentally different approaches to the whole question.
Most of the difficulties and contentions one could meet, but I could not meet this one. There is no argument in equity or on any other basis that can be used in defence of this charge.
The only argument the Minister can advance is that at some time in the future the snowballing effect will catch up and that the Fund from that time will begin to run down, but we are told by the Actuary in paragraph 6 of his Report, to which the Minister of Health referred in his winding-up speech on Thursday, when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan:
In my report (Cmd. 8518) on the financial provisions of the 1952 Bill I pointed out that its effects would require further examination in the first quinquennial review under Section 59 (1, a) of the Act of 1946. This review, my report on which will shortly be laid before Palriament, is concerned only with the period up to 31st March, 1954, and the effect of the prsent proposals is therefore beyond its scope.
The paragraph then indicates what the results of the review are.
The whole point of that is that there will have to be further action. This is an interim arrangement. There will have to be a further attempt to deal with this problem, to deal with all the problems, too, I imagine, the benefit problems as well as the contribution problems. Why, if we are to have a further major attempt to clear the matter up, must we make an interim arrangement that simply has the effect of building up balances in the Fund? Why must we, as an interim arrangement, charge the workers more, when we are to have a more permanent arrangement later?
This proposal seems to me to be a major mistake of the Government. It complicates the problem outside; it complicates the approach to it. It has no justification in itself; there is on actuarial basis for it. Why is it made to deal with difficulties that may arise in the future when the Government themselves say they propose to deal with them on a proper basis later? In the circumstances. this charge is an absurd, illogical, irrelevant and improper charge to lay upon the workers.
I hope that whoever replies to the debate for the Government this time will be a little more willing to face up to the arguments, and that when he speaks we shall be able to learn—for the first time—what it is the Government have in mind.
I do not think that in the whole sphere of industrial injuries or National Insurance there can be any proposition more spiteful and more unnecessary than the one which the Minister is now proposing. I would ask him particularly to remember that when he was endeavouring to substantiate the arguments, as he called them, in support of a general increase of contribution to the National Insurance Fund itself—and, of course, with that general increase he included this 1d.—he drew attention to the age and sanctity of the contributory principle. The right hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time the other day in attempting to convince the House that this principle was one which had gone through the years and which had been applied to previous insurance schemes, and that it was something which had the blessing of Lord Beveridge in his Report.
I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the fact that there is a great distinction between the lineage of the contributory principle in relation to industrial injuries and that in relation to national insurance generally. Although the most terrible things have been said, justifiably, to the discredit of the old workmen's compensation system, at least it was a non-contributory system, and it was a non-contributory system under which the beneficiary, however limited his benefits, had these benefits as of right.
Consequently, any arguments which might have influenced the right hon. Gentleman in relation to the general principle of payments of contributions cannot have had any relevance at all in respect of industrial injuries, except at one point only, and that is in relation to the 1946 Act.
The Minister will note that when bringing the contributory principle into effect there were very strong arguments which were then put, but I ask him to bear in mind that they were of such a nature that any advance in relation to the contribution of the worker should be taken with very great care, particularly in present circumstances when the representatives of Her Majesty's Government seem to be falling over themselves in trying to persuade themselves how prosperous they are, and how fortunate we are to be living under this Government, with so many resources available. If there are so many resources available, why impose this little poll tax on the people who are making the increase in productivity possible?
What the Minister is arguing is that injured people shall not only bear the consequences of their own injuries, and not only have that anxious necessity, but, in addition, shall pay for the benefits they will receive, and pay at this level when the Minister has ample funds to account for every contingency that he or the Government Actuary, in their wildest imaginings, can devise. In these circumstances, I say that this is a shocking thing to do; that it has no justification at all, and that if it had any justification it should have rested on an argument so powerful that it would have commanded the assent of the whole House.
Another point in the argument put forward by the Government Actuary refers, almost in passing, to the industrial injuries cost. How can the Minister and his advisers have the effrontery to impose extra burdens on the workers before bringing forward the quinquennial review in relation to industrial injuries? They have done it without the facts having been examined. There, again, I hope that I have shown that in relation to the general case for a general increase of the contributions under the National Insurance provisions, he has no argument in relation to industrial injuries. What argument has he in relation to the quinquennial review?
Another argument he put forward was that he could not do anything, much as he wanted to, to help in relation to National Insurance until he had the quinquennial review. He has not got the quinquennial review on industrial injuries. When is it coming along? I am very grateful to the Minister of Health for the extremely flattering references which he made to me personally, but I wish that those flattering references had been accompanied by an even more flattering concession to the arguments that I put. If I have any experience in these matters, that must mean nothing if it does not mean that my submissions might perhaps be treated with respect; but to treat my experience with respect, and my arguments with no respect at all, is something which does not impress me.
On this particular point the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was rather peculiar. He said that there was to be a review. If there is to be a review, it is self-evident, and has been evident for a long time, that it is necessary to make substantial increases in benefits to those suffering from industrial injuries, but it is highly-conjectural whether it is necessary for any increase to be made in respect of contributions, so why the indecent haste, and the assumption that, despite any lack of evidence, further contributions have to be levied upon the worker?
I know that many of my colleagues would like to speak upon this subject, so let me tell the Minister this. When there are so many of us who want to speak, it is very important for him to have some idea of the intense indignation and contempt that has been aroused throughout industry, and particularly the mining industry, where I have had the opportunity of consultations with those concerned, since the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was made known.
Those in industry have never had any inducement to pay part of the amount they are to receive, and, as for paying this, they have nothing but contempt for those who have proposed it. I beg the Minister to take the strength of this feeling into account, because he is under no necessity whatsoever to impose extra contributions upon the workers, so far as the benefits are concerned.
I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the guarded way in which the Actuary expresses himself when he comes to deal with this question of contributions. First he refers to the fact that he is preparing a review, and he calls it a quinquennial review, but he says that it is concerned—and mark these words—only with a period up to 31st March, 1954, and the effect of the present proposals is, therefore, beyond its scope.
If the effect of the present proposals—and here the Actuary is talking about the contributions—is beyond his scope, the Minister has not the alibi of being able to say that the Government Actuary has forced him into this. If he refers to earlier parts of the Actuary's Report, to which my right hon. Friend referred, he will find not actuarial calculations but mathematical calculations. Nobody can say, when we have a certain scale of benefits, what we shall need in respect of contributions, with no other factors entering into consideration at all. But that is not the job which faces the Actuary in relation to this problem.
The Actuary himself says that these proposals are beyond his scope. If they are beyond his scope, that must mean that the Minister and his advisers, regardless of actuarial advice, knowing that the only matter that the Actuary is attending to is something that will be beyond the scope of these proposals, nevertheless makes these proposals and forces his unjustifiable, excessive increase down the throats of the workers, especially the injured workers.
What does the Government Actuary, looking at a Fund which has over £90 million in credit, say in relation to the emerging cost? The Government have no argument to put forward which applies to industrial injuries. Have they any argument to put in relation to the emerging cost as the Fund proceeds? They would have to say that the Government Actuary said that they must be careful because, although there is a big surplus in the Fund now, when the costs come on later as the years go by this surplus will be practically wiped out. But the Government Actuary does not speak in these terms. I ask the Minister to remember that when actuaries speak about the fund they are more likely to give weight to their arguments for the preservation of the Fund than for the annihilation of the Fund.
Bearing that in mind, the Government Actuary, using all the arguments he can in favour of the preservation of the Fund, says:
The results of the review indicate that although—on the basis of existing rates of benefits and contribution—the Fund would continue to increase for a number of years to come, contributions may"—
I stress that word—
sooner or later have to be slightly increased if it is ultimately to reach the stable condition necessary for continued solvency.
How many years has he looked forward to? What dates had he in mind?
On a basis of "may sooner or later" the Government rest their case. It is not a case at all. The proposition which is being put, that the worker who is already substantially over-paying for the benefits received in respect of industrial injuries should now make further contributions, shows that the Minister has no idea of the feelings of workers in industry.
I would sound this note of caution. There are many well-meaning people who engage in the subject of industrial injuries, thinking that it is a relatively simple one which they can pick up from books and accounts and can put forward in a debating spirit. There is nothing wrong with their hearts, as some of them, notably Lord Beveridge himself, want to do good. But it is known in the mining industry that but for the representations which were made, and, at last, almost successfully made, on the miners' behalf, Lord Beveridge's reputation would have been ruined by one of the greatest industrial crises which would have occurred in industry had his uncriticised proposals in relation to industrial injuries been put into effect.
We saved his reputation by the proposals which we made. It may well be that, although it is a result upon which we on this side of the Committee might have differing opinions, we would save the reputation of the present Minister if he had the gumption and the common sense to listen to our proposals and to say that, on reflection, he has enough in the "kitty" to provide extra benefits without providing for any increased contributions. I hope that he will accept our Amendment.
I thought it would be a good thing if I intervened at this moment not with a view to closing the discussion but in an attempt to explain to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), and hon. Members who perhaps have forgotten, what is the basis of the financing of the Industrial Injuries Insurance Fund. I had a great deal to do with the building up of this Scheme, and so did the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I built perhaps the main outline of the structure and he added the finer points of the decoration at a later stage when he came into office in 1945.
It is important to understand that the financial basis of the Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme is wholly different from that of the National Insurance Scheme. The right hon. Member for Llanelly adopted, in the case of industrial injuries, what I thought was a very provident and wise scheme in the matter of finance. We all knew that as the Fund was not going to take over old cases of industrial injury it was faced with the position that the burden which it would have to bear by way of outgo for benefits and pensions would grow steadily year by year, perhaps for 30 years or more, until the full weight of existing cases fell upon the Fund.
There were two possibilities confronting the right hon. Gentleman. One was to fix the contribution to provide exactly enough money to meet the outgoing at the outset and then to go on increasing contributions, perhaps for three, four, or five years, without any increase in benefit, to meet the increasing outgoing from the Fund. The other way, and the one which the right hon. Gentleman I think wisely adopted, was to set the contributions at the outset much higher than was required to pay the annual outgoing at the outset, so as to build up a reserve fund, the idea being that ultimately the interest on that fund, combined with current contributions, would suffice to meet the whole burden upon the Fund. By this method the right hon. Gentleman provided that at the outset the contribution would be too high but that we should get the benefit later on when, by virtue of the interest coming into the Fund, the contributions would not have to be fixed at such a height that they would have to meet annual outgoings in a number of years' time.
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. That is the method which I adopted, with the proviso in Section 59 (1) that having had the Scheme in operation for five years we should have a quinquennial review of the whole of this operation, which would enable us to have before us the working of the Scheme not for a year but for five years, so that we could find out how the financial structure was working out. There is no pretence about it. We were waiting for the quinquennial review. Since the date of a report on this Scheme is exactly the same as the date of the Report on the National Insurance Scheme, why have we not had a report? Until we have had the report, why not leave the Scheme as it is?
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite right in confirming what I said about the methods of financing the Scheme, which was to build up a reserve in the way which I have described.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that Section 59 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, provided for a quinquennial review by the Government Actuary, but here there is a distinction to be drawn between the two Schemes. The National Insurance Scheme provided that there should be a review by the Government Actuary, and Section 40 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, provided that the Minister should himself then proceed to review the rates of benefit and contribution. No Section corresponding to that Section providing for a Ministerial review at the end of five years was included in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. There was a provision for review by the Government Actuary of the effects and the results after five years' working of the Scheme.
Yes, it was to be laid before Parliament in the normal way, exactly like the Government Actuary's Report under the National Insurance Scheme.
I should like the Committee to note what has happened and to have it on the record. In the part year 1948–49, with the contributions which were fixed under the original Act, the income of the Fund was £24½million, expenditure only £8 million and a sum of £16 million was put to reserve. In the second year, 1949–50, the income was £37 million, the expenditure was £14 million and £23 million were passed into reserve. In 1950–51, the income was just under £37 million, the outgoings were £17 million and £20 million passed into the reserve fund. That course of events has persisted, but with the increased charge on the Fund from the increased number of cases the amounts put to reserve are steadily coming down.
In the latest year, 1953–54, the income of the Fund is £44 million, the expenditure £29 million, and the transfer to reserve for investment £15 million. That is the way in which this Fund is progressing. There is now in the reserve fund £109 million, earning interest which will help us as the years go on towards the payment of the benefit. The actuarial view is that so that income and outgoings of the Fund may eventually balance, it is desirable for the reserve fund to be built up a great deal further, to a figure in excess of about £300 million.
This was not the Scheme which I devised. It was introduced and passed through the House at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly. I myself think that that is a wise way to do it. It is very difficult to explain an increase in the contribution rate if it is not accompanied by any increase in the benefit rate at the same time.
Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Actuary has submitted any figures to show what would he the effect on the actual transfer to the reserve fund of increasing the contributions and also increasing the benefits, as this Bill proposes?
Yes. The facts are set out reasonably clearly in the Report of the Government Actuary upon the Bill. If hon. Members will look, first, at paragraphs 2 and 3 they will see, in paragraph 3, that the income of the Fund will be increased altogether by £7·8 million, £6½ million coming in a full year from the employers and employees, and the Exchequer paying in its supplement of £1,300,000. That gives an additional income, under the Bill, of £7·8 million.
The increased benefits are set out in paragraphs 4 and 5. There the Government Actuary estimates that the additional outgoings of the Fund in a full year compared with £7·8 million will be £7 million in the year 1956–57; that is to say, there will be a margin of £800,000 which will be the extra money to be added to the reserve fund as a result of the operation of this Bill.
I do not think there is anything unreasonable in our following what has been the accepted process of the finances of the Fund. After all, what is happening is this. The main benefit rate—I will not deal with all the subsidiary ones—is going up from 55s. a week to 67s. 6d. I make that to be an increase of 23 per cent. The contribution is going up from 4d. to 5d., which is 25 per cent. One is going up 23 per cent. and the other is going up 25 per cent. Everyone who is acquainted with this Scheme knows that we cannot deal with halfpennies and farthings. It leads to most appalling complications in stamps and it adds greatly to the labours of accountants and of all sorts of people who have to deal with these things when they are making up wage sheets and wage packets.
I therefore say that this is a fair and just increase in contributions. It is almost balanced by the increase in the benefits to be paid, and I think the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) was going a little far when he spoke of it as being spiteful. I cannot accept that, and I do not think it will be so accepted by the people who pay the extra 1d. contribution. We are following on what has been done before, and I think that is reasonable and sensible. It will be clearly understood by those who have to pay the extra 1d., and I conclude by saying that I cannot accept the Amendment.
I should like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Minister for two things. One is the clear explanation of the financial effects of the reserve fund and the balance between the extra money to be collected and the extra money to be paid out. I had not appreciated what the figures actually were. Perhaps I ought to have done, and if I do now it is because of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has prevented me from doing a considerable injustice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). All these years I have gone on thinking that my right hon. Friend was really the villain of the piece in regard to the Industrial Injuries Act. I am grateful to know now that he is not the prime offender, but that the right hon. Gentleman is and that my right hon. Friend was only an accessory after the fact. I am sorry that he should have even the share of guilt, but I am sure he will recognise that it is a lower degree than that of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) used some harsh terms. He certainly did. They come with even more striking force from him because he is not in the habit of using stronger terms than are necessary, and if I have any criticism of his language it is that it was not strong enough.
The right hon. Gentleman has made absolutely no case for his proposal and even after his attention has been directed to the actuarial and financial criticisms of it, he really pays a very poor compliment to the intelligence of the working classes if he thinks they will either ignore or not resent the calculation which he has made for them this afternoon, which makes it clear beyond any further argument that the Government propose to take more money from the worker in extra contributions than they intend to give back in extra benefits.
That is clearly established, and the right hon. Gentleman can go to the industrial workers and defend it if he can, but I would suggest that if he wants to do that he would be very well advised to defend himself here first. That he has lamentably failed to do. Why is it so wrong a thing to do? Alone of all the citizens of our country who are subjected to the changes and chances of misfortune in their everyday lives, the injured workman and his dependants are the only ones who are worse off under post-war legislation than they were under pre-war legislation.
A great many hard things have been said of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts and some of them deservedly. They were badly constructed, they were the subject of complicated and often not very sincere litigation from their earliest years, so that it was only over many years, and by the expenditure of large sums of money, that it became known what was an accident or how it arose, whether in the course of employment or outside, or what a factory was, or what a workshop was. All these matters were litigated with much ferocity for many years.
There was the absurd limitation on the benefit in the early Act—half the wages, with a maximum of 30s. People are too often inclined to compare the benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act with those of the early Workmen's Compensation Acts. That is quite wrong, however, because almost all those difficult questions, many of which ought never to have arisen, and which only arose because of the fact that insurance companies were able to spend large sums of money in cutting down their legitimate obligations, had been settled by 1946. There was a body of case law, however stupid and however ridiculously arrived at, which had become a codified system of workmen's compensation law, and there was no more difficulty.
When we come to the benefits, the old 30s. limit has long since passed. There were war-time increases, there were children's allowances and, by the end of the war, a married man with a family, who was injured at work, was able to draw, while unable to work because of the results of those injuries, as much as seven-eighths of his wages. There was no nonsense about a flat rate benefit. And what a silly thing a flat rate benefit is when applied to an injured workman. When a man is injured at work, his expenses are not reduced, his landlord wants just as much, and his children want as much to eat. All his obligations to his family remain exactly as they were before. A man cannot readjust all his family responsibilities to the changed circumstances resulting from an accident over which neither he nor anybody else had any control, or for which they were in any way to blame.
What the 1946 Act did was to impose a flat rate that was certainly a better flat rate than the original 30s. in the Workmen's Compensation Acts. It was not very much better but perhaps, having regard to the changes in the index, it was a little better than the original maximum under the original Workmen's Compensation Acts. However, it was a low flat rate, which made it impossible for an injured workman who was earning comparatively good wages to insure himself against all the consequences to his domestic budget of an accident.
Not merely that; for these vastly reduced benefits he was for the first time called upon to pay himself or at least to pay in part himself. Certainly, the old system had been grumbled about by employers for many years, but they had got used to it. What the law implied was a duty of the employer to insure his workmen against the ordinary and natural risks of his employment, and to regard that as just as much a proper charge to be borne by the owner of an industrial plant as accidents to his machine would be. To expect the workman to pay a contribution to that out of his wages is as absurd as to expect the machine to pay a contribution to its own want of repair.
So what happened in the Industrial Injuries Act—for which I am much relieved to know the right hon. Gentleman accepts the chief responsibility—was to reduce the benefits to a flat rate which, in the majority of cases of married men with children, meant a substantial reduction in the actual benefit to be received, and to introduce for the first time, while reducing the benefit, the principle of a contribution from the workman out of his wages.
Now what do the Government propose to do? They say, "We are not making enough profit out of this Fund. In the latest year for which we have had figures, we collected £15 million more than we paid out, and that was the lowest we have ever collected. In other years it was £20 million or £30 million.
If the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he will know exactly what I am saying. There is no need to interrupt me to tell me what I am saying. I know what I am saying. I am saying that this Fund has been collecting a profit out of these contributions ever since 1946.
The hon. Member will know which Governments were in power in which years. That has nothing to do with the arithmetic. The arithmetic is what I said, that all these years the Fund has been making a large profit.
It is true that in later years the profits were reduced a little, but they had not gone below a profit of £15 million. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman comes along now and says, "We want another £800,000 a year out of you. We will give you a little more money. We will take some more money from you. On balance, we will win to the extent of another £800,000."
What justification does he offer? The justification he offers is that, if things go on as they are, there may come a time when perhaps the expenditure and the income will balance and perhaps there will come a later time still when there will be a deficit. But he can give us no idea when that is likely to happen. The Report of his Actuary does not help him on the point. It is a problematical, speculative future event, and for that he is to take an extra £800,000 this year.
Will it help him? Will his Fund look very much healthier when he gets this £800,000? Perhaps next year it might be £1 million. He has £109 million in his Fund now. At this rate it will take 100 years to double it. What is the necessity, then, for going to the workmen now and saying, "Give us this extra 1d."?
My hon. Friend used the word "spiteful." If the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues know a more appropriate word, perhaps they will tell us what it is during the course of the debate. There is no justification for this proposal at all. It represents the determination of the Government, having been compelled by the pressure of public opinion slowly and reluctantly to give some measure of relief—small enough, heaven knows—to people who can no longer bear the inflictions which the Government have put upon them since 1951, to pick the pennies out of the pockets of the insured workman to make a contribution.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed; at least, he ought to be ashamed if shame in these matters were possible to the Members of his party. Hon. Members opposite have resisted bitterly at every step every advance in social services in this country for half a century, and the proposal which they are making with regard to the Industrial Injuries Scheme is the clearest possible symptom that their minds have not changed and that they are incapable of change in this matter.
This is a most unfortunate form of debate. If hon. Gentlemen opposite bring in a social reform, then they say that it is because they desire it and because they are nobly minded. If my hon. Friends do it. then they are said to do it reluctantly—
If the hon. Gentleman has any respect whatever for the English language, he must not describe as "a social reform" to take more money from people than one gives back.
I was coming to that point.
If hon. Members opposite bring in a form of legislation which takes more away from the beneficiary to provide for the future than the benefits which they paid for in 1946, then it is foresight; but if we apply the Act according to the advice of the Government Actuary in 1954, then it is "mean" and "spiteful." That is the implication of what has been said by hon. Members opposite. It is a form of propaganda which the Labour Party has waged for a long time, but it is a form of propaganda which the people of this country are accepting no longer.
Many of us on this side of the Committee concede that there may be a strong case for a further actuarial review in the future, but what hon. Gentlemen opposite want us to do now is to say, "Pay out the benefits and take no account of the cost." The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, in effect, that if we put up the cost by Id. for each side of industry, we should acquire a sum £1 million in excess of what we really need.
On that assumption, if we do not collect the money we shall be about £6 million short of what we really need in order to apply the principles laid down by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who, supported by hon. Members opposite presumably, when they supported the Bill, in his wisdom thought it right to provide for the day in the future when the requirements to pay the injured workmen would exceed the amount of money which might normally be expected to be received. That was "wisdom and foresight" in those days. Surely it is equally wise today to maintain the principles which were then laid down.
I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that it would be reasonable in view of what is now in the "kitty" to pay the benefits out until the review has to be made, when the whole matter can be dealt with.
I wanted particularly to say that the statements by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), for whom many of us have the highest respect, were most unfortunate and quite out of keeping with the kind of legislation which this is, because this Bill is really meant to bring benefits to those who are injured in excess of the benefits which they have hitherto been receiving and is also designed to have some regard to the financial obligations of the country as a whole.
Many thinking people have one very big doubt about the party opposite, and that is about the soundness of their financial judgment and their provisions to meet obligations in the future. That is why the Labour Party were defeated in 1951, and that is why I believe the country will reject the Labour Party again.
The hon. Gentleman has done me the honour of referring to me and has taken objection to what he said were statements which I had made. If he was merely expressing himself in the form of abuse, however vigorous, I have no objection to it, because that is all part of the cut and thrust of debate, but if he had any particular statements in mind, is it not rather unfortunate that he did not even refer to them?
The whole Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) for his speech. It shows how the Conservative Party secure their votes at a General Election. Here is a perfectly honest hon. Member who comes forward and says something which is quite untrue without having the least idea that he is talking nonsense. He has told the Committee—with complete sincerity, I am sure—that the figures are based on the Report of the Government Actuary. The Minister knows otherwise; he knows perfectly well that he did not use the powers which the Act gives him to have a Report by the Government Actuary before him.
The Minister put forward a very specious argument which avoided any
mention of Section 59 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, which says:
Provided that the Treasury may at any time direct that the period to be covered by any review and report under paragraph (a) …
that is, the quinquennial report.
… of this subsection shall be reduced and that the making of that and subsequent reviews and reports under that paragraph shall be accelerated accordingly …
The Minister was very careful to decelerate the Report. He told us that he could not do justice to the old-age pensioners because he had to wait for the quinquennial review. Does he not remember what he said in his Second Reading speech? He said:
… when … I … became Minister in 1951, … it took the Government Actuary between 11 and 14 or 15 months after the close of the financial year to prepare his interim report. All I did in this matter was to ask the Government Actuary to give top priority to his work on the quinquennial review so that his Report could be available much sooner after the close of the financial year ending March, 1954, than would otherwise have been the case.
Of course, I had to wait for the Report of the Government Actuary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 961–2.]
Hon. Members who have studied Reports from the Government Actuary on the Industrial Injuries Scheme will know that he is generally able to produce a Report for a year ending in March by the following November. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Second Interim Report he will see that it goes to March, 1952, and that it was produced in the November. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman ask for acceleration of the Report?
I am trying to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting that top priority should be given to two Reports at the same time? If not, what is he suggesting?
I am suggesting not only that top priority should be given to two Reports at the same time, but that justice should be done to the poorest sections of the community and that for that purpose the Government Actuary and his staff might be asked to work a little harder than they have done. If the hon. Gentleman has any quarrel with that, perhaps he will make it in his own speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) described Clause 1 of the Bill as spiteful. I should like to endorse that and add that it is not only spiteful, but is exactly typical of the approach which hon. Gentlemen opposite make to all these problems.
What is the problem of industrial injuries? There are all sorts of people—and the mining community is typical—who make great sacrifices of life and limb in the service of the country. So, of course, do people who fought in the war. But we do not say, when war pensions are to be raised, that everybody will pay for a war pensions stamp to be put on his card. Why make a difference with a miner who suffered an industrial disease, because, owing to the war, there was not in the pit that type of machinery that might have saved him?
Why say that because a miner who worked overtime in difficult circumstances, when nerves were strained and judgment false, had an accident, he must be paid for by ordinary people buying stamps, but that men who got lumbago, because the camp at Catterick was damp, should have a pension paid out of taxation? It is ridiculous and illogical.
The Minister is trying to have it both ways, saying that we must pay for this extra charge and that he is not in a position to show the accounts. He does not dare to produce the Government Actuary's report. From the terms of the Government Actuary's own report on the Bill, I suggest that the document is now in the Minister's hands. Let him come to the Box and say that the Treasury has not got the Government Actuary's report. Is he prepared to do that, or to say why it has not been published?
Exactly. I was about to make exactly the same suggestion. But first I want to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary admission that he does not know when he will get it.
We are dealing with only ld., but it is the principle that matters. The Minister is so keen about the principle with old-age pensioners that they have to wait a year for their pensions so that he can have the quinquennial review. But with regard to people suffering from industrial injuries he is so unconcerned when he has got the ld. that he does not bother to ask the Government Actuary when he will get the report. It may be next year, or in two years' time.
He has not seen fit to ask when the report will be ready. What a disgusting state of affairs. It is fantastic that this Committee should be invited to debate a matter about which, for all the Minister knows, a report might be ready tomorrow. How does he know that the report will not be ready tomorrow? He has not asked the Government Actuary when it will be ready.
This is a serious matter. It may be only ld. a week, but we are taking a sum of money from the poorest section of the community in a purely irresponsible way and, on the face of it, the Minister has not even bothered to ask for a report which the Act provides he could require at any time, if he had seen fit to ask for it. He has not even bothered to decide on what date that report should be obtained.
There is every reason why the Committee should reject this Clause, if for no other, as a Motion of censure on the Minister who is not even bothered to ask when the report on which this Measure is based will be ready.
I want briefly to say why I agree with the Minister and disagree with the speeches from the other side. I remember the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) putting forward the principles which he has this afternoon when he sat on this side of the Committee. I cannot remember whether the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) did the same. I do not think he did.
But did the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) support his right hon. Friend in those days, or not? My recollection is that he supported the idea of a contributory scheme. How could he make the speech which he made this afternoon, attacking my right hon. Friend on the very principle which he himself supported at that time?
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is quite consistent. I understand his argument, but I do not agree. I believe he is wrong, because he is not looking into the future. If one accepts the principle of a contributory amount, then the Fund must be sound and, as was said earlier, we must look to the future for people who, unfortunately, may be injured in 10 or 15 years' time.
Would the hon. Member answer a question which is troubling me? It is about the contributory principle. Does he say that I should be made to pay an extra ld. for the benefit of the hon. Member's grandchildren because we happen to be in the same trade?
It is rather difficult to follow that argument. The problem which we are now discussing is that people may be injured in the future and money must be found to pay them while they are injured.
We know that a fund was set up under the auspices of the right hen. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the principle has been agreed. It has been consistently opposed by some hon. Members, but accepted by the vast majority of hon. Members on that side of the Committee.
I rise only to say that I do not think that the right hon. Member for Belper was doing himself justice in his attack. I hope that we shall hear from him, or, possibly, the right hon. Member for Llanelly, whether the Labour Party believes in the principle of the contributory pension brought in by their Government.
I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for rising now, but there are other vitally important parts of the Bill to be discussed. We did not want some other matters to be pushed back and taken late at night, when there will be no opportunity for the public to know what we are discussing. We are, therefore, in a sense submitting ourselves to almost a voluntary limitation of our rights of debate. That does not mean that we regard this Amendment as any less important.
The hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) said that I did not do myself justice. That is all right by me. The more often hon. Gentlemen opposite say that about me, the more comfortable I am in other respects. Whether or not he felt that I was not doing myself justice, I must say that I thought that the Minister fell incredibly short of doing himself any kind of justice at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. If an hon. Member has the right to say that I did not do myself justice, I have an equal right to say that about the Minister.
The Minister spent all his time reminding us of what he was good enough to say that we had perhaps forgotten, and giving us details of how the Scheme began, and its financing. With great respect, some of us remember all that. But he did not at all justify the imposition of this charge.
If the hon. Member for Heeley had really listened, he could not have failed to have realised that what I was talking about was not the contributory basis of the Scheme. On that I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in 1946, and still disagree with him. That is not to say which of us is right. But I did not attack the contributory basis. What I attacked was simply the putting up of contributions when there has been amassed a very considerable kitty, a very sizeable balance indeed, and the putting up of contributions by more than is required to cover the benefits.
That was what I attacked, and, with respect, I think that one can take that line without attacking the contributory basis of the Scheme. The extraordinary thing is that there have been three speeches from hon. Members opposite, and not one of the speakers has defended the principle of taking more in contributions than is required to meet the cost of the benefit—of taking so much more that we go on building up a balance which already exceeds £100 million. The hon. Member for Heeley did not do so, and neither did the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). Goodness alone knows—
I did indeed. The Fund has been increasing year by year, and the principle which the right hon. Gentleman defended earlier was that it should go on. He cannot have it both ways.
Hon. Gentlemen are talking little bits of the original Scheme which happen to suit their arguments.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne may have disagreed with it, but he will remember that we all accepted the principle in the beginning; subject to a proviso that after five years there would be a review. We are now saying, why exaggerate the effect of what we undertook, when we are at the point where a quinquennial review is almost due?
I repeat my question to the Minister, when are we to have the quinquennial review? He has dodged that matter. He has got it, or he has nearly got it, or he knows what is to be in it, but in any case the right hon. Gentleman is up against the fact that now is almost the time when it should be available. When are we to have the review, and why cannot we hold up this miserable business unitl we know where we are?
I understood the Minister to say that it is the view of the Government Actuary that the balance in this Fund should reach £300 million. I should have thought that to be one of the matters which we need to review—
I am about to deal with that. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne made an excellent speech without any help from me. I hope that he will return the compliment, and I will do the best I can.
I understood the Minister to say that, in the view of the Government Actuary, the balance in the Fund should be £300 million. Where was that said? That is one of the important issues which should be sorted out in the quinquennial review. I am not prepared to vote that the industrial workers, either in my constituency or in my trade union, shall pay an extra ld. a week which is not justified on the facts before us, simply because the Minister says that he 'happens to believe that the Government Actuary thinks that the balance should be £300 million.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite can charge me with not standing up for something, just because it is unpopular, if I am convinced that it is right. Were I convinced on the evidence about the need for this payment, I should be prepared to vote for it. But I am not convinced, and the Minister has not devoted any argument to convincing me.
I repeat that here we have a large sum in the kitty. It is increasing, if anything, at a rate of from £15 million to £27 million a year. The Minister gave us the progression from £15 million to £27 million a year—
If the Minister will listen, he will help me to get it right—he interrupted too quickly.
I said that the Minister gave us figures which went up from £15 million to £27 million. Then he stopped. He did not give us the progression figures after that. He said that in the last year the figure was £15 million. The Minister did not say that it is a steady progression down. He convinced me that it was varying from £15 million to £27 million, and back to £15 million again. It may well move up and down like that. These things do not necessarily move in arcs in that way, but evidence that that is so in this case has not been produced. That is the sort of thing which the quinquennial review would reveal to us.
We come back every time to the fact that the Minister is dealing with the contribution side on the assumption that, in order to build up a bigger and bigger balance, he needs more money in the Fund than will be paid out in increased benefits. But he gives us no evidence at all. Were I once more a trade union official, I should have great difficulty in defending this attitude, and in answering arguments deduced from it by trade unions members.
After all, the benefits are going up by 23 per cent. The contributions are going up by 25 per cent. The argument of the Minister is that the contributions are going up by 23 per cent., but we cannot have odd halfpennies, so that we have to increase the contributions by 25 per cent.: if the benefits are to go up by 23 per cent., we must pay a contribution to the nearest penny.
Again we come to the question, is it necessary? We have had no evidence that it is. Simply because the benefits are increasing the Government have assumed that the contributor ought to bear an increase in his contribution. They have got it to the nearest round figure in order, as was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, to make a profit out of it.
Some things were said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) with which I disagree. I am not a lawyer. I am a trade unionist and a trade union official. My experience of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, both before and during the war, was as a trade union official, and I prefer the present Scheme.
I am bound to tell the hon. Member for Nelson and Come and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch that I could not recognise the old workmen's compensation scheme from their descriptions of its working. I spent a great deal of my time trying to make it work, trying
Having said that, I am all the more angry when the Minister helps to bring the scheme into disrepute, and helps to unload on to our members a charge, when there is not a tittle of evidence of a need for it. It is a charge that will merely build up the balance in the Fund and remove from the pockets of the trade unionists money which need not be taken.
Because the Minister has failed to answer us on that point and has failed to produce any justification for this charge; because, quite obviously, he is doing something which could have been left to be considered in the quinquennial review—for all those reasons, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on this matter.
|Division No. 4.]||AYES||[5.8 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston||Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Gammans, L. D.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Cole, Norman||Garner-Evans, E. H.|
|Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Colegate, W. A.||Glover, D.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Godber, J. B.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Cooper, Son. Ldr. Albert||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Gough, C. F. H.|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Gower, H. R.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Banks, Cel. C.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Gridley, Sir Arnold|
|Barber, Anthony||Crouch, R. F.||Grimond, J.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)|
|Beach, Maj, Hicks||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Davidson, Viscountess||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Deedes, W. F.||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Digby, S. Wingfield||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E)|
|Birch, Nigel||Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George|
|Bishop, F. P.||Donner, Sir P. W.||Hay, John|
|Black, C. W.||Doughty, C. J. A.||Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Drayson, G. B.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Heath, Edward|
|Braine, B. R.||Dulhie, W. S.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)||Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.||Higgs, J. M. C.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Gurney||Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Wrwk. & Lmgtn.)||Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Errington, Sir Eric||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Erroll, F. J.||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Fell, A.||Hollis, M. C.|
|Bullard, D. G.||Finlay, Graeme||Holt, A. F.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Fisher, Nigel||Hope, Lord John|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Ford, Mrs. Patricia||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)|
|Campbell, Sir David||Fort, R.||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)|
|Carr, Robert||Foster, John||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Maudling, R.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.||Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)|
|Hurd, A. R.||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Mellor, Sir John||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)||Molson, A. H. E.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)|
|Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.||Moore, Sir Thomas||Stanley, Capt Hon. Richard|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Jennings, Sir Roland||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Johnson, Erio (Blackley)||Neave, Airey||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Nicholls, Harmar||Stoddard-Scott, Col. M.|
|Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)||Storey, S.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)|
|Kaberry, D.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||Summers, G. S.|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Oakshott, H. D.||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold|
|Kerr, H. W.||Odey, G. W.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Teeling, W.|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Langford-Holt, J. A.||Osborne, C.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Leather, E. H. C.||Page, R. G.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Partridge, E.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R (Croydon, W.)|
|Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.||Perkins, Sir Robert||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)|
|Lindsay, Martin||Peto, Brig C. H. M.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Llewellyn, D. T.||Peyton, J. W. W.||Tilney, John|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Lloyd-George, Maj Rt. Hon. G.||Powell, J. Enoch||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col-J. C.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Turton, R. H.|
|Longden, Gilbert||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.||Profumo, J. D.||Vane, W M. F.|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)||Raikes, Sir Victor||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Ramsden, J. E.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Redmayne, M.||Wade, D. W.|
|McAdden, S. J.||Remnant, Hon. P.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)|
|McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Renton, D. L. M.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)|
|Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Ridsdale, J. E.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|McKibbin, A. J.||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Robertson, Sir David||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Robson-Brown, W.||Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.|
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Macleod, Rt. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Roper, Sir Harold||Webbe, Sir H.(London & Westminster)|
|MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Wellwood, W.|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Russell, R. S.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W (Horncastle)||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Scott, R. Donald||Wood, Hon R.|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Marples, A. E.||Sharples, Maj. R. C.|
|Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Shepherd, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Maude, Angus||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)||Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Wills.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Callaghan, L. J.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)|
|Albu, A. H.||Carmichael, J.||Fernyhough, E.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Finch, H. J.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Champion, A. J.||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Chetwynd, G. R.||Follick, M.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Clunie, J.||Foot, M. M.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Collick, P. H.||Forman, J. C.|
|Bartley, P.||Collins, V. J.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Freeman, John (Watford)|
|Bence, C. R.||Cove, W. G.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.|
|Benn, Hon. Wedgwood||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Gibson, C. W.|
|Benson, G.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Gooch,E. G.|
|Beswick, F.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Daines, P.|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Greenwood, Anthony|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.|
|Blyton, W. R.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Grey, C. F.|
|Boardman, H.||Deer, G.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Delargy, H. J.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llainelly)|
|Bowden, H. W.||Dodds, N. N.||Griffiths, William (Exchange)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Donnelly, D. L.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coins Valley)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Hamilton, W. W.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hannan, W.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Edelman, M.||Hardy, E. A.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Hargreaves, A.|
|Burke, W. A.||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||Hastings, S.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Hayman, F. H.|
|Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)||Mikardo, Ian||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Mitchison, G. R.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Monslow, W.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Moody, A. S.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Hobson, C. R.||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Slater, J. (Durham, Sodgefield)|
|Holman, P.||Morley, R.||Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.)|
|Holmes, Horace||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Smith Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Houghton, Douglas||Mart, D. L.||Snow, J. W.|
|Hoy, J. H.||Moyle, A.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Hubbard, T. F.||Mulley, F. W.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Murray, J. D.||Steele, T.|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Nally, W.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Oldfield, W. H.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Oliver, G. H.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Oswald, T.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D, P. T.||Owen, W. J.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Padley, W. E.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Paget, R. T.||Thomas Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Thornton, E.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech||Pannell, Charles||Timmons, J.|
|Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Pargiter, G. A.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Parker, J.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Parkin, B. T.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Keenan, W.||Paton, J.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Kenyon, C.||Pearson, A.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Peart, T. F.||Weitzman, D.|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Kinley, J.||Popplewell, E.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Lawson, G. M.||Price J. T. (Westhoughton)||West, D. G.|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Probert, A. R.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Lewis, Arthur||Proctor, W. T.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Lindgren G. S.||Pryde, D. J.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Rankin, John||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Logan, D. G.||Reeves, J.||Wigg, George|
|MacColl, J. E.||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Mclnnes, J.||Rhodes, H.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|McKay, Jonn (Wallsend)||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|McLeavy, F.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'H'Y)|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Ross, William||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Royle, C.||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Yates, V. F.|
|Mason, Roy||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Mayhew, C. P.||Short, E. W.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Shurmer, P. L. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.|