House of Commons
Wednesday, February 6, 1946
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
Private Business
Banbury Corporation Bill
Read a Second time, and committed.
Birmingham Corporation Bill
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
Cardiff Corporation Bill
Read a Second time, and committed.
Cheshire County Council Bill
To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.
High Wycombe Corporation Bill
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
Lancashire County Council Bill
To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.
Long Eaton Urban District Council Bill
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
Northmet Power Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I lodged an objection to this Bill. I said "object."
I am afraid the Question has been put. However, I will allow the objection.
To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Nottinghamshire County Council Bill
To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.
Portsmouth Corporation Bill
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Bill,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made under section one of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, relating to the North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority," presented by Mr. William Foster, and read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Civil Aviation
External Services (Fares)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to decide what fares shall be charged for all the overseas services, or whether the rates are to be left to open competition.
As indicated in Command Paper 6712, it is hoped that all fares and rates on external services will be settled by international agreement, full account being taken of the recommendations of the International Air Transport Association.
Why should not would-be travellers by aeroplane be able to be benefited by the cheapest fares possible as sea travellers are?
We have made it known that we are willing to accept as a basis the running costs of the most efficient operator using the most economical modern machines, so the question hardly arises. What we must do is to prevent the subsidised rate-cutting we had before the war.
Will these fares be based on political or economic considerations?
The fares will be based on economic considerations.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why it is B.O.A.C. still charge £159 8s. for the flight across the North Atlantic, whereas American airlines charge around £85.
The hon. Gentleman is making a comparison between different types of service. The fare of 647 American dollars (£159 8s.) is charged by British Overseas Airways Corporation for their winter flying boat service on the long southern route from Baltimore to Poole via Bermuda and Foynes, and is identical with the fare which was charged by Pan-American Airways on their flying boat service from New York to Foynes via Bermuda until this service was withdrawn last autumn. A fare of 375 American dollars (£94) is charged by Pan-American Airways and American Overseas Airlines for the direct landplane service New York to Hum via Rineanna.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I travelled only this month from Canada to this country and paid £159 8s. to B.O.A.C. for the flight? Will he say if B.O.A.C. have protested to his Department at having to charge this amount of money, and if their protestations have been in vain?
I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman succeeded in paying £159 8s. if he travelled on the route he mentioned, but I will look into it. I think that we can clear it up. I readily concede that this fare is high, and it will shortly be reduced. It is not, perhaps, the most appropriate time to do that now, when the whole subject of the regulation of fares is being discussed.
May we have an assurance that there will be no repayment to the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
I am not suggesting repayment. I am suggesting that he travelled on a route other than that which he specified.
Can the hon. Gentleman say if it is not possible to give priority on any other route, and even to travel by the "Queen Elizabeth" from New York to this country, taking an equal time, for £50? How are you going to correct that?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a perfectly fair point. There is very little accommodation for passengers, other than Service and official passengers, on the Ferry Service across the North Atlantic, and that reinforces our decision to buy five Constellations.
rose —
It has taken 20 minutes for 12 questions, and there are many other Questions on the Order Paper in which, I think, hon. Members have some interest.
Aircraft (German Types)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if the decision to use German types of aircraft for British civil aviation will require the keeping in production in Germany of the necessary factories to provide spare parts.
No, Sir. The necessary spare parts will be provided partly from stocks in our possession, partly by "cannibalising" surplus aircraft of this type, and to a limited extent by manufacture in this country.
Are these all new aircraft that are being taken over?
No, Sir, they are not new aircraft. We have enough to enable us to utilise some of the existing machines to repair the others.
Heathrow (Extension)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what information his staff has recently given out as to the extension of Heath row aerodrome.
The only authentic official statement on this subject was contained in the announcement made to the Press on 1st January, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
Does the hon. Gentleman deny this article which appeared in the "Middlesex Chronicle" on 19th January declaring "Heathrow airport to double its size; Doomed villages may be safe for seven years"; and another article in "The Daily Sketch, "based on information supplied to those newspapers by his Department?
I am not a regular reader of the "Middlesex Chronicle" or "The Daily Sketch." When the hon. Gentleman last asked a question about this subject I was unaware that such a report had appeared. On inquiry, I found that owing to a misunderstanding an official of my Department did give an interview to those newspapers. I regret it, because my Noble Friend is anxious that all such statements should be made in the first instance to Parliament.
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he withheld information on this question in his first answer?
I explained that I did not know at that time that a statement had been made to the Press.
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the proposed extension of the airport includes land owned by the Greyhound Racing Association?
Empire Air Mail
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the Government's policy regarding the carriage of Empire air mail, and if that policy will include the re-introduction as soon as possible of the prewar practice of carrying all Empire mail by air without additional surcharge.
The future of the Empire Air Mail Scheme is under study by the Departments concerned, and the necessary data being collected. When this examination is complete discussion with the Governments participating in the Scheme will be initiated.
Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that airletter cards can be transmitted at the same rate as that prevailing for normal surface traffic?
I cannot give any detailed assurance now, because this involves consultation with Dominion and other Governments.
Rescue Equipment
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if his Department proposes to issue in the near future any regulations with regard to the provision of air-sea rescue equipment on civil air liners.
The present regulations provide for the carriage of a life belt for each person on board civil aircraft operating more than ten miles from land. Future requirements are at present under review, but as a number of interests are concerned, some weeks must elapse before the relevant Air Navigation Regulations can be issued.
Will the hon. Gentleman expedite this very urgent matter?
I promised that the Regulations will be issued within a few weeks. I think that is expedition.
State-owned Corporations
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will give an assurance that the annual accounts of the proposed State-owned civil aviation corporations will be prepared on a commercial basis and published annually.
I must ask the hon. Member to await the Air Transport Bill, in which provision will be made for this subject.
Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the important principle in this question?
Yes, Sir.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the date on which the British Overseas Airways Corporation's accounts were last prepared, and confirm or deny the recent statement of the Director-General that there was a surplus?
My hon. and gallant Friend is able to find out this information for himself, because under the British Overseas Airways Act a copy of the accounts has to be laid in the Library of this House. With regard to the statement of the Director-General, all the accounts in wartime have been rather notional, as no charge has been made for aircraft and there has been a waiver agreement about fares for a large number of persons.
Do I understand from that that my hon. Friend does deny there is a surplus?
No, Sir, I do not deny it. It all depends on the premises from which you start. If it is granted that every passenger who has been carried under the special conditions of wartime should pay the high charges now made, and on certain other assumptions, it is true that that surplus was made.
Can the hon. Gentleman define "notional" accounts?
They are accounts opposed to the commercial accounts the hon. Gentleman requested just now.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider issuing a report showing the operations of these airlines on the same basis as the railways, which have a monthly statement of traffic carried?
I will consider that suggestion, but I should think that that would be rather too frequent.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will now publish the terms of the agreement entered into between his Department and the shipping interests for the participation of the latter in the proposed State-owned civil aviation corporations.
No agreement has been entered into. As stated by my Noble Friend on 1st November last, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that public ownership shall be the overruling principle in air transport and that there shall be no financial participation by existing surface transport interests.
Will the hon. Gentleman publish what he rather naively referred to as the correspondence between his Department and the others?
The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with an entirely different subject, which is consultation with surface interests about the arrangements for the co-ordination of the various forms of transport. I will consider that point if he would like to discuss it with me afterwards.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether British subjects will be able to go to South America in British-owned and managed aeroplanes?
Yes. Sir, in a very short time. A number are travelling already by that means and in March, I hope, a larger number will be able to do so.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will make an early public statement concerning the terms and conditions of the transfer of staffs from B.O.A.C. to the proposed corporations which he will approve.
Provision for these matters is to be included in the Air Transport Bill, and my Noble Friend does not contemplate making a public statement on them in advance of the introduction of that Bill.
Can my hon. Friend say when this Bill will be introduced; and is he aware that attempts are being made to invite members of the staff of B.O.A.C. to join that of British South American Airways?
The first part of the question should be addressed to the Leader of the House. I will see that the latter part is brought to the notice of my Noble Friend, if my hon. Friend will give me the information on which it is based.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is very important? We do not know when this Bill will be introduced, and meanwhile the damage is being done.
Internal Services
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what internal air services are available for public use in Great Britain; how these compare with prewar facilities; and how soon a full service may be expected.
With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT tables showing the internal air services now in operation and those in operation at 31st August, 1939. A reasonably full service may be expected by the late Summer.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do everything that he can to speed up the provision of internal facilities, so that relief may be given to Service transport, possibly in time for the holidays?
I think that we have given an earnest of our intentions by our willingness to use J.U.52S for this purpose.
Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that civil passengers get equal priority with Government passengers?
Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will await my reply to a later Question on this subject.
Can the hon. Gentleman say how soon it will be before these services compare with prewar services?
The present schedule of regular services compares not unfavourably with the prewar regular all-the-year-round services. It is only in respect of seasonal services that there was an advantage in prewar days.
The tables are as follow:
TABLE 1 INTERNAL AIR SERVICES NOW IN OPERATION Route. Number of services a week. Allied Airways (Gandar Dower) Ltd. Aberdeen—Sumburgh 6 Aberdeen—Wick—Kirkwall—Sumburgh 6 Aberdeen—Kirkwall 6 Great Western and Southern Airlines Ltd. Lands End—SciLly Isles 24 Isle of Man Air Services Ltd. Liverpool—Isle of Man 18 Channel Island Airways Ltd. London—Guernsey 7 London—Jersey 7 Southampton—Guernsey—Jersey 16 Southampton—Guernsey 7 Southampton—Jersey 7 Guernsey—Jersey 35 Jersey—Guernsey—Alderney 2 Railway Air Services Ltd. Liverpool—Belfast 12 London—Belfast 6 London—Liverpool—Belfast 18 London—Liverpool—Glasgow 6 Scottish Airways Ltd. Inverness—Kirkwall 12 Inverness—Kirkwall—Sumburgh 6 Inverness—Stornoway 6 Glasgow—Belfast 16 Glasgow—Campbeltown 12 Glasgow—Islay 6 Glasgow—Tiree—Benbecula—Stornoway 6 Glasgow—Stornoway 6 West Coast Air Services Ltd. Liverpool—Dublin 12 London—Dublin 6
TABLE 2. INTERNAL AIR SERVICES IN OPERATION AT 31ST AUGUST, 1939. Route. Number of services a week. Allied Airways (Gandar Dower) Ltd. Aberdeen—Wick—Thurso—Kirkwall—Lerwick 6 Aberdeen—Lerwick 3 Thurso—Kirkwall 18 Thurso—Stromness 12 Great Western and Southern Air Lines Ltd. Brighton—Ryde—Bournemouth (Seasonal) 35 Brighton—Ryde (Seasonal) 7 Liverpool—Manchester—Birmingham—Bristol—Southampton—Ryde—Brighton (Seasonal) 7 Cardiff—Bristol—Bournemouth (Seasonal) 7 Cardiff—Bristol—Bournemouth—Ryde—Brighton (Seasonal) 7 Bristol—Exeter (on request)—Plymouth—Land's End—Scilly Isles (Seasonal) 7 Land's End—Scilly Isles (Seasonal) 41 Heston—Croydon—Ryde (Seasonal) 4 Isle of Man Air Services Ltd. Liverpool—Isle of Man 6 Liverpool—Blackpool—Isle of Man 7 Manchester—Liverpool—Isle of Man (Seasonal) 13 Manchester—Liverpool—Isle of Man—Belfast (Seasonal) 6 Isle of Man—Carlisle 3 Isle of Man—Glasgow (Seasonal) 7 Isle of Man—Belfast 7 Blackpool—Isle of Man 1 Jersey Airways Ltd. Heston—Jersey 2 Southampton—Jersey 26 Jersey—Guernsey—Brighton (Seasonal) 2 Jersey—Guernsey—Exeter (Seasonal) 2 Heston—Guernsey—Jersey (Seasonal) 12 Southampton—Guernsey—Jersey (Seasonal) 6 Guernsey Airways Ltd. Guernsey—Alderney (Seasonal) 8 Guernsey—Jersey (Seasonal) 14 Guernsey—Southampton (Seasonal) 14 Jersey—Guernsey—Brighton (Seasonal) 2 Jersey—Guernsey—Exeter (Seasonal) 2 Lundy and Atlantic Coasts Air Lines Ltd. Barnstaple—Lundy Island 14 North Eastern Airways Ltd. Croydon—Newcastle—Grangemouth—Perth—Aberdeen 6
Route. Number of services a week. Portsmouth, Southsea and Isle of Wight Aviation Ltd. Portsmouth—Ryde (Seasonal) 140 Portsmouth—Sandown (Seasonal) 14 Ryde—Bournemouth (Seasonal) 42 Southampton—Ryde (Seasonal) 14 Railway Air Services Ltd. Belfast—Glasgow 19 Croydon—Manchester—Liverpool—Glasgow 6 Croydon—Birmingham—Manchester—Liverpool—Isle of Man—Belfast—Glasgow 6 Croydon—Manchester—Liverpool 24 Scottish Airways Ltd. Kirkwall—Lerwick 4 Glasgow—Perth—Inverness—Wick—Kirkwall 6 Kirkwall—Longhope—Westray—Sanday—Stronsay—North Ronaldshay—Kirkwall 6 Glasgow—Tiree—Barra—Benbecula—North Uist 3 Glasgow—Campbeltown—Islay 12 Thurso—Kirkwall 6 Western Airways Ltd. Weston-super-Mare—Cardiff (Seasonal) 182 Bristol—Cardiff—Swansea (Seasonal) 35 Swansea—Barnstaple (Seasonal) 14 Swansea—Barnstaple—Newquay—Penzance (Seasonal) 7 Weston-super-Mare—Bristol—Birmingham—Manchester (Seasonal) 21 West Coast Air Services Ltd. Services operated in conjunction with the Irish company, Aer Lingus Teoranta:— Croydon—Bristol—Dublin 13 Dublin—Isle of Man 12
For all the services listed above, the frequency shown is that in operation at 31st August, 1939.
U.S. Aircraft (Purchase)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the price fixed for each of the five Constellations it is proposed to purchase from the U.S.A. for the use of B.O.A.C. on the North Atlantic service; the price paid for each of the 56 Dakotas already purchased under lend-lease terms; and the price to be paid for each of the further 16 Dakotas about to be purchased.
The basic price of the Constellation aircraft will be 700,000 dollars each subject to certain adjustments which are being examined. The acquisition of the 72 Dakotas formed part of the comprehensive settlement of Lease-Lend and Reciprocal Aid concluded on the 6th December last. For the purpose of calculation their purchase price was taken as the standard United States surplus disposal price of 20,000 dollars each.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these prices are the same as or more expensive than the prices being charged by the United States to China and South America for comparable aircraft?
I should require notice of that question. They are the catalogue prices of the aircraft.
Can the hon. Gentleman say, in view of the great importance of dollar exchange at the present time to this country for obtaining essential supplies such as foodstuffs, if he can justify this purchase of aircraft from America? What is the state of development of aircraft such as the Shetland and the Tudor I, and will they not be available at a very early date?
The question of dollars was very carefully considered before this decision was taken, and on balance it is thought that this transaction is likely to lead to our retention of more dollars than would otherwise be the case. There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing with the Tudor I and other aircraft.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether the order for five Constellation aircraft has yet been signed; and who is to sign it.
The order has already been placed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation by what date he expects to receive delivery of the five Constellation aircraft purchased from the U.S.A.; and by what date he expects them to be on service.
Delivery of the five Constellations is expected to be completed by the end of April, and it is planned to put them into service in July.
Have we sent any of our crews to the Lockheed Company for a course in the use of these aircraft?
No, Sir.
York Aerodrome (Clifton Housing Site)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he has yet completed his discussions with the Flaxton Rural District Council on their proposed housing site at Clifton, near York; whether he has yet come to a conclusion whether the proposed housing site will interfere with the flightways of the York aerodrome; and whether, in view of the fact that this housing scheme has already been delayed six months, he will expedite his decision in these matters.
The Flaxton Rural District Council has been informed by my Department that the proposed housing site at Clifton would create an obstruction in the main flightway of York aerodrome. My Department has also offered technical advice to the local planning authorities, in the hope that the housing plan can be modified so as to avoid conflict with safety requirements at the aerodrome.
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that on 13th November he sent a telegram to this local authority saying that he would give an early reply to their letter, and for three months he has failed to carry out that promise?
I am not aware of that. I shall be glad to look into the matter now that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. The only point that really arises is that Flaxton Rural District Council were informed many months ago that they should not proceed with this housing scheme because it would obstruct one of the runways.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while he has been holding up this local government housing scheme, private enterprise has built two houses on an adjacent site?
To build two houses is, I think, hardly a great tribute to the achievements of private enterprise.
May I give notice, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, that I shall beg leave to raise this 'matter on the Adjournment?
London-New York
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he expects to inaugurate a direct non-stop London to New York service using British aircraft.
The development of British aircraft suitable for a direct nonstop service between London and New York has been proceeding for some time, but I cannot at present say when such a service can be opened.
Technical Advice (Liaison)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Civil Aviation what arrangements exist in his Department to ensure that the best technical advice is made available to the Minister; and what liaison exists between his Department, the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry to expedite and co-ordinate development and avoid overlapping.
Technical experts on various subjects serve on the staff of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. As regards such matters as meteorology and aircraft requirements, research and development, for which the primary responsibility rests with other Departments, liaison arrangements exist. Co-ordination and the avoidance of overlapping is secured through direct consultation, or where appropriate, by inter-Departmental committees.
South Eastern Europe
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether his Department hopes to introduce frequent air services to Hungary and South Eastern Europe generally, in the near future.
These services are provided for in the schedule of European routes which my noble Friend has approved and will be introduced as soon as local circumstances permit.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is only one aircraft per week flying between Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania, and as a result of this and lack of train transport, British personnel and others find it extremely difficult to get to or from these countries?
I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend realises the difficulties in the matter of ground organisation, and in other ways, in these countries.
B.O.A.C. (Staff Conditions)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, on what conditions of pay, length of service, etc., pilots, navigators, wireless operators, aircrew and ground staff generally are engaged in B.O.A.C.; and how the conditions compare with similar appointments in the R.A.F.
Full details of the pay and conditions of service in the British Overseas Airways Corporation are contained in a broadsheet, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend. I am informed that the Air Ministry has distributed a large number of these broadsheets throughout the Royal Air Force. The circumstances governing employment in civil aviation necessarily differ so materally from those in the Royal Air Force that no comparison can usefully be made.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the conditions laid down in this broadsheet are applicable to the staff of British South American Airways?
I have undertaken to inquire into that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the information in his possession.
Will the hon. Gentleman give adequate publicity to this broadsheet?
It is very long, and I must leave that to the discretion of the Press.
Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the broadsheet is also distributed to the flying personnel of the Fleet Air Arm as well as to the R.A.F.?
If that is not already being done, I will ensure that it is done.
North Atlantic Service
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what British aircraft would have been available for North Atlantic service by September, 1946, had the U.S. Constellations not been purchased.
The British civil aircraft which has been designed for the North Atlantic Service is the Tudor I. Several of these are due for delivery by September, but various tests and trials will be necessary before these deliveries can be employed on a regular scheduled service across the North Atlantic.
Is it a fact that Lancastrians also are available and that the additional time which we should have to wait for British aircraft does not justify the purchase of the five Constellations, which will not be ready until July in any case?
Lancastrians have the necessary range and the question of requiring the Corporation to use these aircraft was very carefully considered before the decision was taken.
Is it a fact that the Canadian Air Lines are using Lancastrians on the North Atlantic route?
Yes, but they intend to use D.C.4s as soon as they can get them.
Priority Passages
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what changes have recently been made, or are contemplated, in the priority system for air passages.
The London Air Priorities Board has decided that on the British Overseas Airways Corporation services to Europe introduced last Monday only 50 per cent. of the seats shall be reserved for priority passengers, the remaining 50 per cent. being placed at the disposal of the Corporation. As circumstances permit, the system will be extended to other routes and the seats available for commercial traffic increased until the need for the priority system disappears.
Why should there he any priority system now?
Because the demand for seats exceeds the supply.
Is it a fact that among European services there will be large numbers of seats available for civilian passengers, and that Government Departments have overriding rights over all seats on internal lines?
In actual practice on many internal routes there are seats for ordinary commercial passengers, but I will look into the matter on the Air Priorities Board with the Under-Secretary for Air.
Malaya
Rubber Prices
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now reviewed the circumstances under which only 10d. per pound is being paid for Malayan rubber bought by the British Government; whether he is satisfied that this price will enable the Malayan rubber industry to pay adequate salaries to managerial staff and Asiatic labour as well as to restore and rehabilitate their industry in the most efficient manner possible; or whether he will arrange for an increase in the price forthwith.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the loss in dollar exchange by paying a lower price for Malayan rubber as compared with Ceylon rubber; and if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction in Malaya at this differentiation in price; and what action he proposes to take to mitigate this dissatisfaction.
The price paid for Ceylon rubber was fixed during the war having regard to conditions not now relevant. The amount of dollar exchange which can be obtained from the sale of rubber to America depends on the price which the American Government are willing to pay and the quantity they will buy at that price which are matters not under the control of His Majesty's Government. I am aware that some dissatisfaction has been expressed regarding the price now fixed in Malaya and the circumstances governing the price to be paid are kept under review with the adequacy of a return to those engaged in the industry very much in mind. I have not yet complete information regarding the proper costs of production, but an economic adviser recently appointed by His Majesty's Government is expected shortly in Malaya and we shall expect to receive his advice on this matter as early as possible.
Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give a reply or a detailed statement within a fortnight about the inquiries going on at the present time?
I doubt whether it can be given in a fortnight. I should like the House to remember that the price which is paid is very largely for rubber which was in stock. The estates are not yet in production, and are not likely to be for some little time.
Employees (Reinstatement)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements are being made in Malaya or any other colonies which were occupied by the enemy during the war, to provide similar protection to that given to employees in this country whereby if they were on war service or were prisoners of war during hostilities they will have the right to request reinstatement in their prewar employment by their prewar employers.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether employees of private firms in Malaya who left their employment on being mobilised for the defence forces are entitled to re-employment by those firms under the same conditions as if they had been called up in this country.
So far as I am aware, no arrangements of the kind to which my hon. Friends refer are being made in Malaya or Hong Kong, both of which are still under military administration, but the matter will be brought to the attention of the authorities in these territories upon the resumption of civil government, and they will be asked to consider it as a matter of urgency.
War Claims
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to make any financial assistance available to the Government of Malaya to pay compensation to those whose property was damaged or stolen during the Japanese occupation; and whether he will estimate how long it will be before some payment is made in respect of the large number of claims which have now been registered by Malayans who have been repatriated to this country following their internment by the Japanese.
The reply to the first part of this Question must depend on the result of an investigation into the full extent of the claims and the capacity of the Government of Malaya to meet them. I hope that it will be possible to make a further statement on this subject soon.
In reply to the second part of the Question, claims lodged in this country will have to be investigated with others and I cannot, therefore, yet say when any payment can be made on them, but I can assure the hon. Member that the need for dealing with all claims as rapidly as possible will be kept prominently in view.
MALTA (General Strike)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for what reason the one-day general strike was recently called in Malta.
This strike was organised by the General Workers' Union. It is understood that its principal object was to draw attention to complaints regarding the basis of the minimum wage, the present machinery for negotiation and the opportunities for promotion for employees of the Service Departments. As regards wages, an increase of 6/- a week in the minimum wage had been approved by both the Civil Government and the Service Departments a few weeks before. As regards arbitration, the Colonial Government had just agreed to set up an inquiry as to the possibility of establishing an industrial arbitration court. The question of better opportunities for promotion is at present under consideration by the Departments concerned in this country.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this general strike was legal under the laws of Malta?
I think so but I will look into it and let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know.
Unemployment
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the latest unemployment returns in Malta; and what steps are being taken to provide work for those unemployed.
At the end of January, the unemployment returns showed a total of 206 men and 126 women. These figures are not regarded as abnormal, or as calling for special measures. The Malta Government have, however, under consideration a training scheme to meet the heavy demands for skilled workers in connection with repair and reconstruction.
Palestine
Family Allowances (Administrative Services)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to adjust the family allowances of the administrative services in Palestine to meet present-day conditions.
Family allowances form part of the compensatory allowances payable on account of the high cost of living to all Palestine Government employees. They are adjusted from time to time in accordance with the rise or fall of the cost of living index figure in Palestine. A revised scheme took effect from 1st January, 1945. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular issued by the Palestine Government giving details of present rates.
Pound (Purchasing Value)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will give an approximate estimate of the purchasing power of the £ in Palestine in 1939 and 1945; and what steps are being taken to reduce the cost of living in Palestine.
I have asked the High Commissioner for Palestine by telegram for up to date information on this question and will communicate with the hon. Member again as soon as possible.
Northern Rhodesia
Railway Wages
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recommendations have been made by the Commissioners in Northern Rhodesia for increases in the basic wage of African employees on the Rhodesian railways; and is a properly constituted organisation of African railwaymen contemplated through which negotiations for wages and conditions of service can be conducted.
The Commission has recommended increases ranging from 33⅓ Per cent. in the starting rate for unskilled labourers to 80 per cent. in the highest rate for boss boys. These recommendations have, I understand, been accepted by the company and brought into effect. As regards the second part of the Question, the Commission made no recommendation on the organisation of the African employees, but recommended the appointment by the company of a special officer to deal with African affairs, to improve the contact between the management and the African employees, as well as two welfare officers for Africans.
Do the Government intend to give the African native a proper voice in matters of this sort?
Yes, Sir. We are now considering the question of endeavouring to get the African workers organised into a proper trade union.
Mineral Royalties (Copper Mines)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a recent Debate in the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia regarding the validity of the British South Africa Company's claim to mineral royalties from the copper belt; and whether he proposes to open negotiations with the company for the acquisition of these rights.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he proposes to take action to nationalise the mineral rights of the Northern Rhodesian copper mines, thus putting an end to the annual payment of large royalties to a private company.
My attention has been drawn to the recent Debate in the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council, to which I am giving active consideration, but I am not, however, in a position to make any statement on this matter at the present time.
Is it not the case that because the value of royalties at the pre- sent time is not the permanent value it would rest with the Crown and the companies concerned to enter into negotiations at a later date?
We are attending to this question of minerals, and we will keep in mind the Noble Lord's point.
Questions
East Africa (Indian Immigration)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to make a statement on the future of Indian immigration in East Africa.
Future policy with regard to immigration generally has recently been under discussion by the East African Governments, but I am not yet in a position to state when proposals on the subject will be published.
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to wait until the return of the Parliamentary delegation from India before making up his mind on this matter?
A Parliamentary delegation to India has nothing to do with Africa.
Colonial Empire (Premium Bonds)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what Colonies have loans been raised by means of premium bonds; what has been the public response to such loans; and whether an extension of the system to other Colonies is contemplated.
Premium bonds have been issued in Palestine and Cyprus. In each case the public response has been such that the bonds have risen to a premium. As regards the last part of the Question, I have no proposals before me for the issue of premium bonds in other Dependencies.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a suitable method of getting money in some of our Colonies, and that it might be extended?
That is why it is being used.
Cyprus (Citrus Plantations)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many citrus plantations in Cyprus have been abandoned as a result of high labour costs; and by what percentages the price of citrus products and the cost of labour have increased since the war.
In the principal citrus areas 49 out of approximately 1,500 plantations have been abandoned during the war. The area involved is about 300 acres out of 6,000, or 5 per cent. The principal reason for the abandonment has been loss of export markets. Labour costs have risen and may be one among a number of contributory factors. The price of citrus to producers has approximately doubled since the war.
Ceylon (Franchise)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in establishing the new Ceylon Constitution, he will consider the serious objections to making domicile, not residence, a qualification for the franchise in the case of Indians resident for five years or more in the country.
In accepting the recommendations of the Commission, presided over by Lord Soulbury, that universal suffrage on the present basis should be retained, and that it should be within the competence of the Ceylon Government to determine the conditions under which the inhabitants of Ceylon may obtain the franchise, His Majesty's Government had reached the conclusion that the future status of Indians in Ceylon was a matter for settlement by direct negotiations between the Governments of India and Ceylon, and are content to await the outcome of such negotiations.
Is not the proper way to win a seat in a Legislature by election at a poll? Why try to prevent a minority community, resident in Ceylon, British subjects, from getting the franchise?
There has been no attempt at all to prevent a minority from getting the opportunity of utilising the franchise. There has been negotiation on this matter between the Ceylon and Indian Governments, and we hope that a satisfactory settlement will be reached.
Kenya (Taxes)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sums were derived in Kenya in 1939, on the one hand, from native hut tax and poll tax and, on the other hand, from Income Tax; and what were the sums derived from these sources in 1945.
In 1939 receipts from native hut and poll tax and from Income Tax were £523,589 and £137,963, respectively. Native hut tax was abolished in 1942. The estimates of native poll tax and of Income Tax for 1945 are £520,000 and £1,000,000, respectively.
Members' Letters (Departmental Replies)
asked the Prime Minister if he will now give a general directive to all chiefs of Departments to expedite their answers to letters from Members of Parliament, seeing that in some cases as long a delay as three months is taking place.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 15th October last to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Garry Allighan).
Arising out of that very unsatisfactory answer, may I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind that this is a matter which concerns Members in all parts of the House, who have to carry the sins of omission of many Government Departments? The Air Ministry, in particular, is very neglectful.
If the hon. Member can give me any particulars regarding a special Ministry I shall be glad to look at them.
The Air Ministry.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that replies to Members' letters are received with much greater speed from this Government than from the last?
Would the Prime Minister ask Ministers to send carbon copies of their letters to Members?
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is entirely wrong.
If I am wrong, may I be told where I am wrong?
Re-Employed Service Officers (Pay and Pensions)
asked the Prime Minister whether he will review the rates of retired pay and pensions of professional officers and other ranks of the three Services re-employed during the recent war, with the object of securing to these officers and men such increases in pay and pensions as are warranted by additional years of service and the attainment of higher rank.
This is one of a number of questions that will require consideration in connection with the comprehensive review of the remuneration of Service officers which is now being undertaken. My hon. and gallant Friend may be aware, however, that in consideration of further service not counting for increase of retired pay or pension, retired Service officers re-employed during the war received, in addition to full pay and allowances, a special bonus of 25 per cent. of pay, while pensioned other ranks drew full pension in addition to full pay.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the extra 25 per cent. is almost entirely taken away by taxation?
I am afraid that we all rather feel that way.
Emergency Powers (Duration)
asked the Prime Minister whether, as the date for the conclusion of the period of service to which the gratuity is reckoned has been fixed at 15th August, the first anniversary of VJ-Day, that date is being regarded by the Government as the official end of the emergency.
No, Sir.
Can my right hon. Friend say when he may be able to announce the official end of the emergency, as so many things depend upon it?
I would ask my hon. Friend to refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 18th December last to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler). It is very fully set out there.
Atomic Energy
Professor Otto Hahn
asked the Prime Minister on what conditions the Government have recently returned the German atomic scientist, Otto Hahn, to Germany; and whether he will make a statement as to Otto Hahn's movements and activities.
Professor Hahn is one of a number of German scientists who had worked on atomic energy research, and who were brought to this country for interrogation. They have since been sent back to Germany where they will be allowed to pursue fundamental research in accordance with any scheme of scientific research which may be approved by the Control Council.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether Professor Hahn is now engaged on fundamental research?
I have no information on that point.
Development
asked the Prime Minister whether a full exchange of scientific information is now proceeding between British and U.S. scientists on the peace-time development of atomic energy; and, in particular, whether British scientists have yet been permitted to visit the Harford engineering works in the U.S.A.
Little progress has as yet been made, so far as I am aware, in the development of atomic energy for peace-time purposes. I hope, however, that the co-operation which has existed between this country and the United States in this field during the war will be continued in the future. No British scientist has yet visited the plant referred to in the second part of the Question.
Questions
Questions to Ministers
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to ensure that a larger proportion of the starred Questions on the Order Paper receive an oral answer, he will examine the possibility of making an hour available for Questions on Friday mornings.
I have been asked to reply. It is contrary to our practice to have oral Questions on Friday, and I regret that it would not be convenient to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. I would add that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its Second Report recently presented to the House, on Questions and Divisions, makes no such recommendation.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday, for example, there were 192 starred Questions on the Order Paper, of which only 70 were answered orally, and that there were nearly 70 to the Secretary of State for War, not one of which was answered orally? Will he give consideration to an extension of the time by 25 per cent., as it would not seriously hamper Government business?
It is not unusual in the case of a new Parliament for there to be a rather abnormal number of Questions. Yesterday, I narrowly escaped some excitement to which I was looking forward. The only thing is for Members to try to put fewer Questions, if they can, and for us to be as economical as we can about supplementaries.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a real, live Parliament, which has practices contrary to those followed in past Parliaments?
It is a real, live Parliament, but its least lively time is the first thing on a Friday morning.
In view of the fact that we now have a more virile Parliament, why not consider returning to the prewar custom of having an hour and a quarter for Questions, instead of an hour?
I do not recall that we did have an hour and a quarter.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is wrong again.
Food Supplies
Meat Ration (Young Persons)
asked the Minister of Food if he will now increase the meat ration to young people between the ages of 14 and 18 years.
I regret that supplies are not available to meet such an increase.
Herrings
53 and 54.
asked the Minister of Food (1) if he will give an assurance that the price paid to British fishermen for herring will not fall below any price paid for Norwegian herring;
(2) if he will give an assurance that any import contract made for Norwegian herring will have no adverse effect on the marketing of British-caught herring.
In view of the price which my Department has contracted to pay for the Norwegian herrings and the arrangements made to regulate the amount and the flow of these imports, I am satisfied that the chance of the price of British herrings of good quality falling below the price paid for Norwegian herrings during the period of the contract is extremely remote. I have taken all possible steps to avoid unfair competition with British fishermen and I shall continue to do so in future.
Form G.C.3
asked the Minister of Food if he will consider abolishing form G.33 which retailers have to complete each eight weeks showing goods purchased and sold, since shopkepers regard it as a waste of time, seeing that control is exercised through other Measures.
No form G.33 is used in my Department, but perhaps the hon. Member intends to refer to Form G.C.3. I have considered the possibility of abolishing the use of that form, but am afraid that I cannot see my way to do so.
Will the right hon. Gentleman do so immediately he can, since the small shopkeepers in rural areas find it a great burden on their time?
As soon as I can, I will do so.
Dried Fruits
asked the Minister of Food whether he will increase the ration of dried fruits in view of their dietetic value.
The quantity of dried fruits distributed for civil consumption is being maintained at its prewar level and although I should like to see the general level of supplies increased I am afraid I can offer no prospect of this being attained in the near future. There is no individual ration of dried fruits, but they are made available for the domestic user under the points rationing scheme.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Question refers to dried fruits and not to dried eggs, and will he consider whether it is possible to improve the position and so avoid having all his eggs in one carton?
The hon. Gentleman has gone from dried eggs to eggs.
Oatmeal
asked the Minister of Food how much oatmeal there is in Denmark ready for export which is not required in this country; and whether he will consider buying this to feed the European people.
I am not aware that any oatmeal is available for export from Denmark. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a quantity of oatmeal not required by this country which Denmark was prepared to export, and could it be obtained either for this country or for Europe?
I understand that some 65,000 tons are being milled in Denmark. Should there be any appreciable quantity of oatmeal available for export, the liberated countries of Europe will be free to buy it without intervention.
Are any steps being taken, such as the immediate publication of the report of the Emergency Economic Committee, to help Denmark to realise that if the Danish people would be content with standards of food consumption similar to those obtaining in this country, they could make a very useful extra contribution?
I should like to have notice of that question.
Milk
asked the Minister of Food the total estimated number of priority milk consumers in the United Kingdom; the estimated quantity of liquid milk additional to the normal ration set aside for their consumption; and the estimated quantity of liquid milk available for ordinary consumption upon which the ration of two pints per person per week has been based.
The number of priority consumers, excluding estabishments such as schools, hospitals, etc., registered for liquid milk in Great Britain in September, 1945, was approximately 13 millions. The scheme under which priority allowances are granted does not apply to Northern Ireland. Priority consumers are entitled to various quantities a week according to varying circumstances. The average quantity during the winter period is 5.1 pints per week compared with the non-priority allowance of 2 pints per week. Thus, the extra amount of milk authorised for priority domestic consumption is about 5 million gallons weekly. In December last, 39.8 million gallons of milk were available for non-priority domestic consumption in December last after allowing for consumption by priority consumers and non-priority catering establishments.
Could some priority be given to old people?
I regret that I cannot extend the list of priorities.
asked the Minister of Food the estimated quantity of liquid milk to catering establishments in 1945 and in 1938, respectively.
It is estimated that in 1945 catering establishments were authorised to purchase some 120 million gallons of liquid milk; there are no comparable figures for 1938.
Fish Distribution
asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the shortage in the quantity and variety of fish in Dorchester and Bridport; from what port their allocation of fish comes; and the reason for choice of the port in question.
During November and December last, Dorchester and Bridport received a fair share per head of population of the country's total white fish supplies. They obtained their allocation from Milford Haven, Mevagissey and Newlyn, these ports being the most suitable for the purpose of economy in transport. From 2nd March next, when the white fish zoning scheme comes to an end, they will be able to get fish from any port in the country where there is a surplus.
Is the Minister aware that the railway journey from Milford Haven to Bridport is one of the most complicated in the British Isles?
Catering Licences (Community Centres)
asked the Minister of Food if he has considered a resolution from the Plymouth food committee asking for catering facilities to be given to community centres; and why, having regard to the fact that catering facilities are given to youth clubs, canteens and such like establishments, similar facilities are not being given to community centres.
I have seen this resolution. Facilities have been given to youth clubs because of the nutritional needs of adolescents, but I regret that owing to the shortage of supplies I can grant catering licences to community centres and to other types of clubs only if the absence of canteen facilities would cause real hardship
In view of the blitzed conditions in Plymouth, will my right hon. Friend make an exception in this case, where facilities of this sort are so urgently required at the present time?
No, Sir. Every effort is made by my Department, wherever there are blitzed conditions, to rehabilitate as quickly as possible the retailing and other means of supplying the community.
Biscuits (Export, Malta)
asked the Minister of Food why he has approved the export of chocolate biscuits from this country to Malta, when the shops in Valetta already have ample supplies of cakes and confectionery.
I have not given specific approval for the export of chocolate biscuits to Malta. The export programme for Malta specifies only the quantity of biscuits which are to be sent, not the varieties.
In view of the announcement which the Minister made yesterday about the real need of giving consumers here some little alleviation as soon as possible, will he reconsider this matter?
I should have thought Malta would have been the last country to be criticised for taking a total of 0.23 per cent. of the total output, which amounts to only two ounces per head per week.
Can the Minister say whether this sweetening which is being given to the people of Malta is to make up for the absence of a Constitution so long promised?
Bread Delivery
asked the Minister of Food if he has any information to give as to when the daily delivery of bread can be resumed.
I have recently discussed this matter with a committee of the baking industry and am hoping to be able to announce my decision before long.
Agricultural Workers (Call-up Suspension)
( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the grave food situation as revealed by the statements of His Majesty's Ministers yesterday he will now cancel the instructions to call up 8,000 agricultural workers for the Armed Forces.
Yes, Sir; I have given instructions to suspend the call-up of these young men at least until after the harvest.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the decision he has just announced will give great satisfaction to the farming community, not only for the assistance it will give, but also as an earnest of the Government's intentions?
May I ask the Prime Minister if, in addition, he will expedite the release of men who have been called up recently from agriculture?
That is another question.
Arising out of the original reply, can the Prime Minister say what is to happen to the men who have been called up during the past few weeks and taken from agriculture? Will they be returned?
I was replying to a Question about these 8,000 men. I am not aware of the other Question to which the hon. Gentleman refers; perhaps he will put it down.
Could I put it in another form? Some of these 8,000 men have been called up already. What is to happen?
My information is different from that of the hon. Member, and I say that they have not been called up.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these men have been called up and that that is the reason why this Question has been asked?
That is not my information.
Dried Egg
asked the Minister of Food if he realises the anxiety caused to housewives by the withdrawal of dried egg; and what alternatives he proposes for this stand-by of British housewives.
asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the concern which the withdrawal of dried eggs is causing housewives; and what his suggestions are to enable housewives to make puddings, cakes, etc.
asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the hardship which will be caused if dried eggs are no longer available; why imports are to cease; and if there is any early prospects of supplies being resumed, or dried eggs being replaced by adequate supplies of shell eggs.
asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to make supplies of dried eggs available again as soon as possible; and when these steps are likely to be effective.
asked the Minister of Food if he will now give an assurance that the supply of dried eggs will be maintained, so long as there is a shortage of shell eggs.
asked the Minister of Food if he has any statement to make regarding the future supplies of dried egg.
asked the Minister of Food if he will do his utmost to continue to provide dried eggs for those who desire them.
asked the Minister of Food what are the reasons for the termination of the issue of dried egg rations; and whether, in view of the importance of this foodstuff in the national life, he will give an assurance that the ration will not be terminated while dollars are being spent on importing less essential items such as tobacco and films.
asked the Minister of Food if he will give urgent reconsideration to the decision to withdraw the ration of dried eggs from the domestic consumer, in view of the consternation this decision has caused the housewife.
asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the widespread concern over the impending cessation of the supply of dried eggs, special measures to improve the supply and distribution of shell eggs are contemplated.
asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the termination of packed dried eggs to consumers, he will divert the bulk supply of dried egg formerly used by manufacturers to domestic use through retail distributors.
In view of the number of Questions on the Paper today about dried egg, I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a brief statement on the subject.
On a point of Order. Your attention, Mr. Speaker, has already been drawn to the large number of Questions on the Order Paper, and you yourself have commented on this. Do you not think, therefore, that such a statement should be made after Questions so that as many as possible can be answered?
That is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the Minister. I would point out that there is another statement coming at the end of Questions, and that if there were too many statements it would infringe upon ordinary business.
When Lend-Lease terminated we had to consider at once what arrangements we should make to continue supplies of dried egg, the great bulk of which had been coming to us from the United States under the Lend-Lease arrangements. It was evident that if the consumer's entitlement was to be maintained at its existing level we should have to spend in 1946 a very large sum in dollars on dried egg. In fact for domestic dried egg alone it would have involved an expenditure of over 100 million dollars or £25 million to provide the same quantity as in 1945. Obviously the allocation of foreign currencies as between the import of non-food commodities and the import of food is not a matter in which I alone am concerned.
As it is expected that during the Spring of 1946 there will be a very much larger supply of shell eggs than in 1945, we deliberately decided that we should not be justified in bringing in so much dried egg as in 1945. That is why there will be a gap in the allocation of dried egg. I thought it right that that gap should fall during the period when supplies of shell eggs would be at their maximum. Between now and the end of May I am expecting to be able to allocate not less than 40 shell eggs per ration book as compared with about 26 in the corresponding period last year. This will not, I know, fully make up for the loss of dried egg but it will go some considerable way in that direction.
When the supply of shell eggs begins to fall off as the season advances we shall start issuing dried eggs again This will now be all the more important, as the deterioration in the feeding stuffs position will reduce the number of fresh eggs to less than what we had previously expected. At the moment I am not able to say upon what scale I shall be able to resume the issue of dried eggs. To take supplies of dried egg away from catering establishments and manufacturers to whom it is issued in bulk would not add appreciably to the available supplies of the domestic pack. I understand that an early Debate is being arranged through the usual channels when I will deal with this matter more fully.
I should like to thank the Minister for his reply in so far as he has promised an additional ration of shell eggs. Is he aware, however, that that distribution cannot replace what he has taken away. Further, does he know that dried egg has many other uses in the household than that of replacing shell eggs? Is it not possible to have even a small allocation of bulk dried egg?
The reply to the first two questions is, Yes, Sir, I am fully aware of these facts The reply to the last question is that I have no containers for the bulk dried egg I have here, and it is impossible to get them.
In view of the fact that the main reason for the cessation of these imports seems to be the shortage of dollar exchange, will the Minister say whether he has made any recommendation to the Cabinet that if we have to economise on anything it should be on films rather than on eggs?
The question of films is not a matter for my Department.
Is the Minister fully satisfied that there is any real food value left in these dried eggs?
I am given to understand that there is food value in them.
May I ask the Leader of the House a question? Since a reference has been made to a Debate, and my hon. Friend has raised the question of dollar exchange, perhaps the Debate will cover this problem so that it can be properly discussed by the House?
I cannot say about speakers in the Debate, but the form of the Debate will certainly enable that subject to be raised.
May I ask the Minister of Food to consider continuing the supply of dried egg until the American Congress has come to a decision with regard to the loan, and that then the position be reviewed in the light of that decision?
The hon. Gentleman assumes that I have the dried egg in the country. I have not. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should have the means of getting it."] Of course I should have.
Is the Minister aware that the housewives object not only to the content of the Minister's decision but to the way in which it was announced? Will he bear in mind that the housewives of this country will loyally try to do their best under grave national difficulties if they are taken into his confidence?
I might call the attention of the House to the fact that I did say that very moderate quantities of home produced—I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I find I have the wrong paper.
In view of the fact that the Minister, in his original statement, said that he knew at the time Lend-Lease ended, why did he not have consultation with his colleagues in the Government and make an announcement last year?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that with the end of Lend-Lease the whole problem was where to find money for food purposes. Obviously that matter was discussed and obviously we have to cut our coat according to our cloth.
But why await events?
May I ask the Minister whether he will reconsider this question of distributing the allocation which he now has in bulk for supply to catering establishments and hotels, and send them instead to retailers from whom the women would be very pleased to fetch them in containers, bags and tins, as they have done other things during the war?
If I were to distribute what bulk supplies I have left, this would lead to a shortage of pastry and other things which the people are very glad to have.
May I ask the Leader of the House whether in the Debate which has been promised on this subject some responsible Minister will be available to deal with the question of dollar exchange, and whether the burden might not be cast on an embargo on films rather than cutting off dried egg?
The arrangements are not yet made, but we will take that suggestion into account. I cannot give any precise indication at the moment.
The Minister of Food told us just now that it was not his responsibility to weigh the position of dried eggs against the position of films. Therefore, may I ask the Prime Minister whether those two matters have been put to the Cabinet and whether what the Minister of Food has announced is a collective Government decision?
The Government take full responsibility for all actions. These matters are weighed up in the general conditions of our import programme. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties we have at the present time.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the reason why films and tobacco have been put upon a higher priority than food?
Certainly not without notice.
Is it not a fact that both the predecessors of the present Minister of Food withdrew foodstuffs from the consuming public with unfailing regularity by announcement on the wireless, and that nobody thought of making a political stunt about it?
May I ask the Minister of Food, in view of the constant miscalculations which he and his Department have made about the food situation, whether he will say from where he proposes to get his shell eggs?
I am not aware of any miscalculation.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said he was not able to answer without notice a question why priority was given to films over dried eggs, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is present and must have knowledge of this matter without notice, to say whether this matter has been considered by the Treasury?
I decline to answer a question not put on the Paper.
Will the Minister of Food enter into consultation with the President of the Board of Trade with a view to restricting the importation of American tobacco, on which we spend more than 100,000,000 dollars a year?
The attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be called to the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker, should I be in Order in asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House? [An HON. MEMBER: "Give notice."]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that at the end of Questions I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss this vital matter.
At the end of Questions:
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is, the decision of His Majesty's Government at this time drastically to curtail the supply of packed dried egg to the already over-harassed housewives of this country, without making any adequate provision for the replacement of such dried egg by other suitable food.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked permission to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance which he has just read out. While it might have been in Order, I am bound to point out Standing Order 9, Which says:
As regards the other point which was made as to who would reply, that is not for me to consider; I have only to consider whether the matter is likely to be raised within a reasonable time. Therefore, I am bound to refuse.
Sarawak (Proposed Cession)
98. "To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make the promised statement on Sarawak."
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I would like to answer Question 98, which deals with the future of Sarawak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]
By an agreement concluded with the Rajah of Sarawak in 1888, His Majesty's Government have exercised control over Sarawak's foreign relations. The Agreement further provided that any question respecting the right of succession to the rulers of Sarawak should be referred to His Majesty's Government for decision. Another clause required the consent of His Majesty's Government to the cession or alienation of any part of the territory of the State of Sarawak.
A supplementary agreement concluded in 1941 gave His Majesty's Government the right to appoint a resident British representative to advise on certain matters. With the Rajah's concurrence, the whole question of His Majesty's Government's position in regard to Sarawak was further considered during the Japanese occupation of the territory, with a view to ensuring their ability to discharge the responsibilities which they have towards and for Sarawak under the above Treaties and in the eyes of the world. The conclusion reached was that it was desirable that there should be an extension of the authority of the resident British representative so as to give him an effective voice in all substantial matters of policy and administration, and that His Majesty should be accorded such jurisdiction as would enable him to legislate for Sarawak under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act.
Negotiations on this basis were accordingly opened with representatives nominated by the Rajah, and, as this House is aware from my reply to a Question on 5th December, the Rajah subsequently decided himself to conduct those negotiations. While the discussions were in progress the Rajah, for reasons which he will no doubt wish to explain himself, represented to His Majesty's Government that these proposals did not, in his opinion, go far enough, and that the time had arrived when the territory itself should be ceded to His Majesty the King. It was intimated to the Rajah that such a proposal would be acceptable to His Majesty's Government.
The Rajah then sent to Sarawak his private secretary as his personal emissary to consult leading representatives of the people on the question of ceding the territory to His Majesty. His emissary has now returned, and the Rajah has informed His Majesty's Government that, in consequence of the very favourable reaction of those representatives, which is, I understand, recorded in letters addressed to him by the leaders of the Malay and Chinese communities in Sarawak, he now feels able to proceed with the cession of the territory. Accordingly the necessary document is being drawn up and will be presented to the representatives of the people for their agreement upon the Rajah's return to the territory, which will probably take place towards the end of March.
The accumulated reserve funds of Sarawak at present amount to approximately £2,750,000 including the currency reserve of £1,100,000 and a sum of £77,000 held on account of the Post Office Savings Bank. With the concurrence of the representatives of the people who were consulted, the Rajah has intimated that he would propose to hand over with the territory these moneys, on the understanding that £1,000,000 would be set aside for a trust fund. This fund would provide, in the first place, for the Rajah and his dependents and certain local functionaries on a scale similar to that on which provision was made for them from the revenue of the territory prior to the Japanese occupation. The beneficiaries under the trust would be named and the benefits would be limited to their lifetimes. Thereafter, the income deriving from the trust would be devoted to social and other measures designed for the progress and benefit of the people of the territory, thus providing a permanent memorial to the rule of the Brooke family in Sarawak.
I have been informed that the Rajah is today issuing in this country, the text of a message which he has sent to the people of Sarawak and which explains the reasons for his conclusion that the territory should be ceded to His Majesty.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a real desire in Sarawak for this complete cession, in view of the facts first that the Rajah has been absent from the country for some time, and for several years had abandoned any connection even with the Provisional Government in this country; and secondly, that the representative of the Rajah who went to Sarawak is, I believe, one in whom, certainly in the old days, the Colonial Office had no confidence whatever? Will the Minister take steps to ascertain and inform the House whether the people of Sarawak in fact desire this action on the part of the Rajah which goes far beyond what was required by His Majesty's Government for the purpose of being able to conduct their communications with that Colony?
The information which is at the disposal of the Colonial Office has been obtained not solely as a result of the visit of the Rajah's private secretary, of whom there has been some doubt. At the same time, it was not for me or for anyone else to dictate to the Rajah, on who should be appointed by him as his private secretary. His private secretary was accompanied by a very high official from the Colonial Office. The representatives of the Supreme Council of State were met by these two representatives. They have, as I have already stated, sent declarations to the Rajah, that it is their desire that this territory should be ceded to His Majesty. I do wish to assure the House that there has been no pressure whatever exercised upon the Rajah. The cession of this territory is at the request of the Rajah, and of the Supreme Council through the Rajah.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to reassure the House upon one point? As I understand the Constitution of Sarawak, a decision of this kind must be taken by the State Council. I wish to know if the State Council in session formally agreed to the cession of this country.
I should make it clear that an approach was made >to a majority of the members of the Council meeting. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By the Rajah's private secretary. It would appear strange to suggest that the Rajah is not the best judge of his emissary, and of who should be his private secretary. In addition to that, a responsible official of the Colonial Office accompanied the private secretary of the Rajah. But the fact that they signed this declaration did not, in itself, cede the territory to His Majesty. It is the intention, as I endeavoured to point out in my statement, that the Rajah himself shall visit Sarawak, and convene a meeting of the Supreme State Council to submit to them his views, and he will, of course, we hope, get their consent.
Might I ask the Minister two questions? Would he first confirm the report that some senior British official accompanied this private secretary to Sarawak, so that we may be perfectly sure—[HON. MEMBERS: "He said so."] Second, what is to be the status of Sarawak relative to ourselves? Is it to be a Crown Colony or a Protectorate, and is the Brooke family now abdicating?
I have attempted to assure the House on two occasions that a senior Colonial Office official accompanied the private secretary to Sarawak. The status of Sarawak, if ceded, will be that of a Crown Colony.
And the Brooke family?
The Brooke family has, through the Rajah, the right of giving cession, and relinquishing any further right to be Rajah.
And abdicating?
And abdicating.
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether, when this proposal of cession was made, His Majesty's Government advised the Rajah about the best method of consulting local opinion; and, in view of the immense importance now of avoiding any charge of a bogus invitation into territory not hitherto belonging to a Great Power, can we be assured that the House will have a full opportunity of discussing this proposal before it is made effective?
I would like to read two paragraphs of a statement which is to be issued today by the Rajah himself:
"The members of my Supreme Council of State, and myself, rejoice, that His Majesty's Government have intimated that my proposal to cede the State of Sarawak to His Majesty the King, is acceptable. We delight to know that the exercise of any authority in the State, except that of His Majesty, will, hereafter, be determined. We believe that there lies in the future hope for my people in the prospect of an era of awakening, enlightenment, stability, and social progress, such as they have never had before. We regard the acceptance of the cession as the consummation of the hopes of the first Rajah of Sarawak."
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not see that that quotation answers neither of my questions? Does it not appear to make plain that His Majesty's Government were making an accomplished fact of this before the Rajah consulted anyone? May I repeat my second question? Would it be decent that this matter should become unalterable, without a full discussion in this House?
I assure the hon. Member that the Rajah himself came to the Colonial Office and volunteered the cession. He regarded the negotiations in connection with a change in the status, which after all were initiated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as not going far enough, and he offered the cession provided the Supreme State Council agreed. With regard to the question of Debate, that is not a matter for me; that should be put to the Leader of the House.
May I put this question to the Leader of the House? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to me and the negotiations that I undertook. May I say, first, that those negotiations were for an agreement as to some legislative power on our part. Secondly, those negotiations were undertaken, not with the Rajah but with the Provisional Government, on the ground that the Rajah was never going to return to Sarawak, and, therefore, left such negotiation to this Provisional Government. I think it will be agreed that, if the people of Sarawak really wished cession to take place, all of us would be prepared to accept it, but I feel it quite wrong that, in the face of the world, something which might appear as annexation should be allowed to depend upon the expressions of opinion of the Rajah—who had already expressed his determination never to go back to Sarawak, and, therefore, has no personal interest in its future—and the visit of a representative of whom I do not hesitate to say that he is a man with whom the right hon. Gentleman should not be associated.
I do not quite understand the heat with which my right, hon. Friend has entered into this matter, because he must know that the negotiation for the application of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act to this territory was initiated by himself as Secretary of State. Indeed when one understands the application of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, it is impossible to understand why the right hon. Gentleman is getting hot and bothered about it. The 1941 Constitution has laid down the basis, but it did not take from the Rajah very much of his powers, notwithstanding the fact that it did appear to be a little more liberal. But the so-called liberal Constitution was made up by a majority of members nominated by the Rajah himself, and indeed the Rajah could interfere with any legislation or any financial matter. I wish to assure the House that, so far as we are concerned, if cession takes place, it must take place after full consultation with a properly constituted Supreme State Council in Sarawak.
Assuming that the Rajah wants to cede Sarawak to this country, it seems to be clear; assuming that the people of Sarawak want to be ceded, which appears to be less clear, may I ask if this House is to have the opportunity of saying whether this country is willing to accept this increase in the burden of Empire?
If it is a question of a Debate, then that question must be put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Is it a fact that, in the bad old days, large parts of the British Empire were acquired by means much less respectable?
May I ask the Leader of the House a question? I think the point is one on which the House would like to be reassured because it is important, not only from the position of the House but from our position vis-à-vis other countries, that there should be no doubt as to what is going on. I would ask the Leader of the House whether he would consider trying to afford an opportunity—I know the difficulties—so that Parliament can fully discuss and approve this step after adequate discussion.
That point seems to me to be quite premature. These discussions are going on and we will see how they turn out. If great trouble emerges that point may arise, but I am bound to say there is something curious about this indignation of the Conservative Party over a little bit being added to the British Empire.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that no final decision will be come to until the Rajah has returned to his country, and that any decision taken has the approval of the Provisional Government?
I thought that I had made it quite clear that the Rajah intends going back to his territory and meeting his Supreme State Council and consulting with them concerning this matter.
May I ask the Leader of the House whether he would give the House an assurance that before an irrevocable step is taken over this very important matter, the House may have an opportunity of expressing an opinion?
I cannot give the House such an undertaking. We must see how things go on. Let me add that this Government has as much right as any previous Governments in these matters.
Could we have an assurance from the Colonial Secretary that no decision on this matter will be taken until after a referendum has been taken of the people of Sarawak?
Message from the Lords
That they have agreed to—
Bank of England Bill, with Amendments.
Bank of England Bill
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 73.]
Bill Presented
Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill,
"to extend the powers of the Treasury to raise money under Section one of the National Loans Act, 1939, to make provision as to certain obligations arising out of or in connection with the war, to charge certain payments under the War Damage Act, 1943, on the Consolidated Fund, to provide for a temporary increase in the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund, to amend the Defence Loans Act, 1937, and to increase the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
Business of the House
Proceedings on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after a quarter past Nine o'clock.—[ The Prime Minister. ]
Orders of the Day
National Insurance Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.48 p.m.
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A little over a year ago, in November, 1944, an Act was passed by Parliament setting up the Ministry of National Insurance. Somewhat less than a year ago—in March of 1945—the various powers until then vested in other Ministries were transferred to the Ministry of National Insurance and we got under way. Less than three months after that, the first of the series of co-ordinated Acts designed to improve the standard of life of our people was placed upon the Statute Book—the Family Allowances Act, 1945, which we shall bring into operation in August of this year. The second of the series, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, is now be- fore the House. This Bill is the third of the series and, later on, we shall bring the fourth before this House—a Bill designed to deal with assistance and allied questions on a national scale. I think that I can claim that that is not a bad year's work for a young Ministry and, if I may express a hope, it is that when we come to be classified under our own Bill, we shall have been found to have been "gainfully occupied."
This Bill is the culmination of half a century's development of our British Social Services. Fifty-one years ago, the House of Commons was startled by the presence in its midst of Keir Hardie. It was even more startled a few months afterwards when he stood up in his place and demanded the acceptance by the State of the principle of work or maintenance. He was a lone figure in that Parliament and found little support, but 10 years later—when the General Election took place—the Party opposite was swept out of power, and a Liberal Government was returned. As we now appreciate, even more important and significant was the emergence, for the first time in our history, of an Independent Labour Party, with 30 Members of Parliament. Two years after that Election, the first of the Measures which I think can be regarded as the beginning of our Social Service system, came before the House. On 10th May, 1908, Mr. Asquith introduced the Old Age Pensions Bill. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Asquith became Prime Minister and the task of piloting that Bill through the House fell upon Mr. Lloyd George. Even to this day, the "over 70" pensions in my country are familiarly referred to as "Lloyd George pensions." Sir, I hope the House will permit me to say how privileged I feel to be associated in a task with which the name of my famous compatriot will be for ever linked.
The Act of 1908 was a modest beginning. The pension was not payable before the age of 70, and it varied in amount between 5s. and is a week. Its cost was estimated at £2½ million in the first year, rising to an annual cost of £6 millions later. But even that first, modest, step was bitterly opposed in this House, and bitterly opposed in another place. I read the other day the Debates on the 1908 Act and the language sounds strange. One Noble Lord thought that: Another Noble Lord feared that pensions of 5s. at 70:
The 30 years that followed 1908, witnessed a gradual extension of these schemes. It has all been done in what we are pleased at times, to call the British fashion. Parliament after Parliament passed a series of Measures, and so the system has grown up in a haphazard, piecemeal, way much like a patchwork quilt. How patchy the quilt is, can be gleaned from the fact that the mere enumeration of the Acts of Parliament which are superseded by this Bill, takes three pages of print in the Schedules, and the Acts which we amend take another nine pages. For a long time past it has been apparent that what was needed was a co-ordinated plan for weaving all these together in a unified, comprehensive, scheme covering the whole Nation, and the first step to that end, and to this Bill, was taken in 1941 by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. It has been my good fortune to have had his guidance and help in the preparation of this Bill, and I am grateful to him. The Committee which he then set up was presided over by Sir William Beveridge. The Beveridge Report has taken its place as one of the great documents of British history. I am sorry that Sir William is not with us in the House to take part in the translation of his Report into legislation. I hope I have not wearied the House with this recital from past history. I thought that it would be interesting to place the new Bill in the setting of the background of the last 50 years.
Now let me come to the Bill itself. First, a word about its form, about which there have been some comment and some criticism. Hon. Members will realise that to a large extent this is a Bill consolidating existing Measures and in so far as it is doing this, we shall be dealing with matters which have already been before Parliament, fully debated, and which have stood the practical test of many years of administrative application. Many of the regulation-making powers taken in this Bill will enable us to continue, as we intend to do, much that is well tried by long experience in existing machinery and procedure. Let me give an instance. In Clause 43 of this Bill we provide that the machinery and procedure for settlement of claims and questions in dispute shall be established under regulations. What we intend to do here is very simple. We have come to the conclusion that the machinery at present used for settling claims and disputes under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Court of Referees method, is the best that has been designed in the last 30 years. We propose therefore to use that type of machinery over the wider field of insurance covered by this Bill. In addition to that, many of the other powers to act by regulations relate to the transition from the old to the new schemes. It is desirable, in order that that transition may be made as quickly and smoothly as possible, that we should have the power we need to have flexibility and speed of action to bring the Bill into operation as speedily as possible. For these reasons we have taken wide and elastic powers in order that the transition can be carried through smoothly.
While it has been thought desirable and necessary to take very wide powers for a number of very special matters, the regulations will only come into force after they have received express approval in both Houses by affirmative Resolutions. The power to vary contributions for the purpose of maintaining a stable level of employment, the terms of compensation of displaced employees of approved societies, and supplementary schemes of benefit are instances of matters which will require this special approval. All these, and others, will only come into operation after both Houses have expressed their approval by affirmative Resolutions.
Finally, on this question of the form of the Bill and regulation-making power, I would refer to the proposal under Clause 41 to set up a National Insurance Advisory Committee, somewhat after the pattern of the Statutory Committee under the present Unemployment Insurance Scheme. I gave a good deal of thought and time to this problem I could have set up—some urged me to set up—a very large committee, which would seek to be representative of the new varied field of insured contributors which the Bill covers. I tried to calculate this, and found that, to be representative, it could not be done by less than a committee 50 strong. Having had some experience of committees, I believe that when a committee reaches 50, it becomes a mass meeting, and not a committee. I thought I should set up a small committee of men and women carefully selected because of their knowledge, and a committee with a good deal of power though obviously, in this scheme, shorn of the mandatory financial powers which they had under the existing Unemployment Insurance Act.
The Committee will give all interested parties an opportunity of making representations about any regulations affecting them. They will report to me upon the regulations and I must take their views into account. Their reports will be published and presented to Parliament. I think this piece of machinery, which has worked very satisfactorily in the narrower field of Unemployment insurance, should provide all those likely to be affected by regulations to be made under this Bill with adequate opportunity of expressing their views and should provide Parliament, and, in particular, the Minister, with most useful and necessary help in the administration of what is a vast scheme. I appreciate that in the main the whole mass of the people of the country are included, and they will have their opportunity under this procedure. So much for the form of the Bill.
Now I come to its contents. The Bill consolidates into one scheme, the existing schemes of insurance against sickness, unemployment, and old age. It has long been apparent, and desirable, that this consolidation should take place. It will involve not merely consolidation of existing provisions but also a considerable economy in working and, I think, considerable convenience to all concerned. Until recently, to take one or two examples, sickness benefit was a matter for the Ministry of Health, unemployment insurance for the Ministry of Labour, and workmen's compensation for the Home Office. I think it is much more sensible that these closely linked schemes should be under the control of a single Minister responsible to Parliament working through a single Department, and that all the schemes should be based upon the use of a single stamp upon a single card—
I do not often intervene in speeches, but for the sake of clarity, I would like to ask one question. The right hon. Gentleman stated that these schemes were coming under one scheme. Surely, administration of health will remain under the Ministry of Health?
I refer to sickness benefit. The next point of general importance to which I would refer is the scope of the scheme. I believe that Clause 1 of the Bill is an epoch-making document. I hope all Members will read it:
I believe this bringing of everybody into the scheme is one of the greatest things we are doing in this great Bill. This is laying it down, in one Clause or another, that everyone shall continue to be insured throughout their life. The step is, I think, a long overdue logical development of the existing scheme. In the White Paper of the Coalition Government three reasons were given for this universality, this bringing of everybody inside, and I think they are reasons I should repeat. It was said first:
Further, all special arrangements such as those in unemployment insurance for agriculture, banking and insurance will go. I am sure that, on reflection, not only the Members of this House, but the whole nation will welcome this principle by which sectional privileges are abolished in order to serve the general interests. During the last week or two, particularly since the publication of the Bill, many hon. Members have told me that they get anxious, indeed worried, letters from constituents about one consequence of bringing everybody into this scheme. There are in the country, and there have been for quite a long time, a fairly large number of special schemes, particularly schemes providing for superannuation. Questions have been put to me on what is to happen to these schemes and what adjustments, if any, are to be made. Let me begin by saying there will be no adjustments in our Bill; it is one Bill for everybody in the country. It may be that some adjustment of existing schemes will be required, but this, I would say, can only be made after the most careful consideration and after the fullest opportunity has been given to the persons affected by the schemes and those parties who will be responsible for them. I understand there has been concern in some quarters that as a result of this scheme there would be automatic one-sided adjustment. I cannot conceive that.
I now come to the benefits provided in the Bill, and I begin, if I may, by asking for the indulgence of the House, for I shall have to deal with a lot of details, and the details are important to Members of this House and important to the people outside. In the first six days after the publication of the Bill our Ministry was overwhelmed with letters. I received 325 letters in the first six days from Members of Parliament alone, each of them raising a point of detail. The details are, therefore, of very great importance, and I would like to ask the indulgence of the House in explaining them. I hope hon. Members will bear with me if I have to refer to my notes more often than my Celtic temperament normally allows me to do.
Before I deal with the individual benefits, however, I would touch upon the general question of the leading rates provided in the Bill. I would answer the question put to me why the figure of 26s. was chosen and where we got it from. In the discussion on the Beveridge Report, in which I was privileged to take part, and in the discussion on the White Paper in November 1944, there was a good deal of argument and controversy about the practicability of adopting what is called the subsistence basis for benefits. The controversy ranged round three questions. First, is it practicable, and, if so, is it desirable, to peg the benefits to a definite cost of living, with automatic adjustments up and down; secondly, is it possible to fix a general level of benefit that will adequately cover the variations in personal needs; and, thirdly, is it possible to cover the variations in rent in a scheme based upon flat rate contributions and benefits?
We have given the most careful consideration to this question, which is vital and fundamental to the scheme. We are definitely of the view that it is undesirable, as well as impracticable, to have automatic adjustment. This method of pegging benefits to a specific cost of living and adjusting them automatically was tried at the end of the last war in war pensions, and broke down the first time it came to be applied. We are convinced, after examination, that it will break down again. It is equally clear that no general level of benefit can possibly cover all the varied individual needs of every person who would come within the scheme. If I may say a word on the problem of rent, we have now a good deal of information, since the basic old age pension has been supplemented, and we have discovered that, in the case of pensioners who get supplementation, rents vary from 2s. 6d. to 20s. a week. We therefore came to the conclusion that it is, in our view, impossible to have a general level that excludes some kind of supplementation to meet those three points.
Having said that, let me add, the Government feel very strongly indeed that, in order that the benefit and pension rates may be soundly based, they must satisfy two essential requirements. In the first place, the leading rates must be fixed initially at figures which can be justified broadly in relation to the present cost of living. Secondly, we believe that definite arrangements should be made for a review of the rates from this point of view at periodic intervals. It will be remembered that Sir William Beveridge, in order to arrive at the rates of benefit which he proposed, first estimated the cost of the requirements of various classes of persons in terms of 1938 prices. To these basic figures he added amounts sufficient to allow for a rise of rather more than 25 per cent. in the cost of necessaries, including rent, and it was in this way that he arrived at the provisional rates of benefit and pension of 24s. single and 40s. joint. These were, I think, generally accepted in all quarters of the House, and, indeed, outside the House, at the time of the presentation of the Beveridge Report.
The House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the Government's intention to hold the cost of living at about 31 per cent. over the September, 1939, level. We decided, therefore, to review the leading rates proposed in the White Paper and in the Beveridge Report on the basis of an overall addition of 31 per cent. instead of 25 per cent. The result was to establish a basic rate of 42s. for a couple living together, with 26s. for a single adult, for unemployment, sickness, widows' pension and retirement pension, 16s. for an adult dependant and 7s. 6d. as the child's allowance for the first child in any family, the others to be covered by family allowances. I believe that we have in this way, endeavoured to give a broad subsistence basis to the leading rates, within the framework of a contributory insurance scheme. Further, the Bill, in Clause 40, places a statutory duty upon the Minister to review every five years the rates of benefit payable under the scheme—I think these words are important—having regard to the expenditure which is necessary for the preservation of health and working capacity and to any changes of circumstances which may have taken place. At the end of five years, the Minister is required to report to Parliament on the result of each such review, and bring any proposal that he has before the House. This provision imparts a new and valuable criterion into our scheme of national insurance. It is the beginning of the establishment of the principle of a National Minimum Standard.
I come now to specific benefits, and I will take them in the order in which they are provided in the Bill, and deal first with sickness benefit. Here, we have made a number of very important changes, quite apart from machinery. We have raised the leading rate to 26s., as compared with the 24s. suggested in the White Paper and compared with the present rate of 18s. for six months and 10s. 6d. afterwards We have effected a reform long overdue in sickness benefits in the shape of grants in respect of dependants. Unemployment insurance has had this ever since 1921, but it has hitherto been absent from sickness benefit. We are giving in sickness benefit 16s. for a wife or adult dependant, and 7s. 6d., as against 5s. in the White Paper, for a child. It will be remembered that the White Paper suggested that, after the lapse of a certain period:—three years—the sickness benefit should drop from 24s. to 20s. We have decided that, subject to three years' qualification, there shall be no drop in benefit and that benefit shall continue at the same rate as long as incapacity continues. These provisions will lift the sick and their dependants out of the pauperism in which they have been left too long. We intend, in addition to giving cash benefits, to set up a comprehensive National Health Service, and to ensure, by proper administrative machinery, that there shall be the closest possible link between the payment of cash benefits and the provision of appropriate and suitable treatment.
In addition to the pain and suffering caused to those who are sick, and in addition to the poverty of those who depend upon them, the loss to the nation caused by preventable sickness is appalling. It has been estimated by P.E.P. that the loss to the nation from preventable illness is £300 millions a year, equal to three-fifths of the total cost of this scheme in the initial year. I would advise the few in this House, and the few outside, who are afraid of the cost of this scheme to ask themselves whether we can afford to go on without it, when we look at the cost of preventable illness.
Next I come to unemployment benefit. The rates of benefit here are the same as the rates for sickness—26s., 16s. and 7s. 6d. per child. We have tried, as far as we can, to assimilate the rates of benefit for both. I would call attention to one important point common to both. We have changed the age at which we begin to call a boy or a girl an adult for the purposes of insurance. We have taken the age of 18, as we have for industrial injury, and, at 18 years of age, boys and girls become adults for this purpose, and I am quite sure it is the right thing to do for the country.
I pass to the important provisions for the duration of unemployment. There are, first, permanent provisions in Clauses 11 to 13 of the Bill, and in Clause 61 there will be found the temporary provisions which are to operate for the first five years of the scheme. Before I come to describe these two provisions in detail, I would like, first, to state the reasons that have impelled us to make these separate provisions. Sir William Beveridge, in his Report, said that his plan was based upon three assumptions—three essential pre-requisites for the success of his scheme. One of these was the maintenance of full employment. If we were—God forbid that we should—to allow ourselves to drift back to the mass unemployment of the inter-war years, this scheme would be sunk—indeed, the nation would be sunk. The Government are resolutely determined to secure full employment. And we are confident that with the full implementation of our economic policy we shall succeed. Let me quote the Beveridge Report again on this problem, because it is important and significant:
May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—
This is a very long Bill and difficult to explain. I do not want to be discourteous, but there are a thousand and one details which we shall discuss. I will give way if the hon. Gentleman insists.
I want to describe these detailed provisions very briefly. The duration of benefit payable from the Fund is limited to 30 weeks, with added days of benefit for contributors with good records of employment over the preceding five years. We have decided to adopt a rule on the pattern of that now existing for the purpose of calculating the added days. I will not repeat this formula to the House because hon. Members are familiar with it. It is very complicated, but it has the merit that, on the whole, it has worked reasonably satisfactorily. I thought, therefore, we could not do better than adopt that same rule for calculating the added days. During the last five years, of course, most people in this country have had a reasonably good record, and it will be appreciated that all men and women who have served in the Forces, have had their cards stamped by the State for every week they have served. That period counts for benefit now when they come out. When a person is about to exhaust, or has exhausted his standard benefit, he can apply for the extended benefit in; accordance with the provisions of Clause 61. The application will go before the Local Tribunal—Courts of Referees—who will recommend to the Minister what further period of benefit shall be paid. The Tribunal will have regard to the circumstances of the applicant's claim and to the conditions of the locality. Let me make it abundantly clear that by circumstances we do not mean means test. The criterion upon which decisions will be made will be entirely industrial.
One further point upon this—It will be noted that there is no provision for an appeal either by the Insurance Officer or by the claimant, against the decision of the Local Tribunal. I thought that was the right thing to do, and I will tell the House why. If an appeal is made, it goes before the Umpire and he makes a decision. That decision becomes case law. The result, therefore, of allowing appeals in these cases would be, in a short time, to crystallise them into a definite case formula to be applied all over the country. I thought it better to have a flexible rule in these cases. Of course, that may be an arguable point.
The next category of benefits in the Bill is that described as maternity benefits. The proposed benefits fall under three heads—maternity grant, attendance allowance and maternity allowance. The first, maternity grant, continues the existing allowance paid on confinement, but it has been increased from £2 to £4. This will be paid to all mothers who are wives of insured persons, or are insured in their own right. The second is an attendance allowance of £1 a week for four weeks, which is payable to the mother not engaged in gainful occupation—the mother who stays at home. It is intended to pay for domestic help immediately after childbirth. This is a new and, I am sure, a welcome provision for the mothers of the nation. Finally, there is another new benefit payable to the mothers who are engaged in gainful occupation. It will be an allowance of 36s. a week for 13 weeks, six weeks before and seven weeks after the birth. It is to enable the mother to stay away from work during the period of confinement, and will only be paid if she stays away from work. This provision fills a long-felt want. It will also enable us to do something else which should have been done a long time ago, namely, to ratify one of the I.L.O. Conventions. These benefits will help the mothers of the nation—and what helps the mothers helps the nation, too.
Next we come to the benefit provided for widows. The House will remember that the principles adopted in the White Paper—more generous in some ways than those proposed by Sir William Beveridge—were, first, to provide payments at a relatively high rate for a limited period of adjustment; secondly, to make special provision if there were dependent children and, thirdly, to give a pension, equal to the retirement pension, to the widow who at the time of her husband's death, or when the youngest child ceases to be dependent, has reached an age when she finds it difficult to take up employment. We have followed these principles with two important improvements. Three kinds of benefit will be provided for widows in the permanent scheme. First, an allowance of 36s. for 13 weeks to tide them over the first days of widowhood. Secondly, if there is a child, the widow will receive a widowed mothers' allowance of 33s. 6d. weekly, an increase from 29s. as suggested in the White Paper. If she is over 40 years of age when the allowance for the child ceases, she will then become entitled to a widow's allowance. In the White Paper the age fixed was 50. I reduced it to 40, because I believe it is important—and I believe the experience of the war has proved its importance—that mothers should be enabled, without undue anxiety, to stay at home and look after the family during the period of adolescence. The second improvement that we make is the provision for widows who are incapable of self-support at the husband's death or when the last child ceases to be dependent. Finally, there will be a widow's pension of 26s. instead of 20s. as proposed in the White Paper. I should point out, because this principle runs through the scheme, that the widowed mother's allowance and the widow's pension will be reduced if the widow earns more than 20s. weekly. These benefits will ultimately replace the existing provision of 10s. pensions for widows.
Now I come to the transitional provisions. When I speak about transitional provisions—we shall discuss them again—let me say that they have been one of our most difficult problems. Let hon. Members appreciate what we do, in a vast scheme of this kind. By these transitional provisions we bring into benefit under the scheme persons who hitherto have not contributed towards the scheme. That is right. I shall refer to that later, in relation to retirement pensions. All the time, however, we have had to use very great care, for when we bring these transitional classes—if I may call them that—into full benefit under the new scheme, it will have a very considerable impact upon the scheme as a whole. However, we have done our best.
I come next to the pension for widows. When the new scheme starts, the widow who is drawing a pension under the existing scheme will receive a widowed mother's allowance of 33s. 6d. under the new scheme if she has a child covered by her present pension; or a retirement pension at the new rate of 26s. if she is over 60 and has retired; or she will keep her present pension if she is under 60 and has no child, or if she has not retired. The under 60 widow without children, while retaining the 10s. pension, will become insurable in the appropriate class under the Bill, and will be eligible for retirement pension at the age of 60. It is provided, too, that under special transitional powers, we shall provide that any woman married before the new scheme starts to a man insured under the existing scheme, shall either receive the benefits of the new scheme if qualified or, failing that, retain her rights to a 10s. pension. That is the provision for widowhood in the Bill. I do not think I need say more than very little about the next provision, the guardian's allowance, beyond explaining that it covers orphans. The payment of 12s. is as proposed in the White Paper and compares with the present payment of 7s. 6d. for an orphaned child. We have increased it by 4s. 6d. a week.
Let me now refer to retirement pensions. As I have already indicated, the basic rate for a single pensioner is to be 26s. and for a couple 42s. These rates compare with 20s. and 35s. as proposed in the White Paper, and compare with 10s. each at present. They will replace the existing contributory pensions at ages 65 for men and 60 for women, but will be paid in future only on retirement from regular work. The Government in this respect have followed the recommendation of the Beveridge Report and the White Paper. We shall have discussions in this Second Reading Debate and, I have no doubt, too, in the course of the Committee stage, on the retirement age. Proposals have been submitted to me and I have been urged to reduce the retiring age. I have been very loath to do that; I have preferred to fix a general retiring age for the whole of the country. Here I want to make two points which I have always had in mind from experience of industrial life about retirement pensions. As a matter of fact, it was my own party which proposed the age of 60. From the point of view of the old people, retirement is not always an unmixed blessing. I should hesitate to compel them to go into retirement. I have seen colleagues with whom I have worked, retire under a superannuation scheme, full of life and vigour, and within two years of retirement they have died because the transition from a busy life to a life with nothing to do, has killed them. It is to be remembered that at this time, there are 750,000 old-age pensioners at work. I think we ought to pay them a tribute, and the best tribute is this new Bill. During the war, nearly 300,000 old people came again into the labour market after they had left it. From the standpoint of the old people, therefore, we have thought it desirable not, at the moment, to lower the age from 65 for men and 60 for women.
Now, I come to the standpoint of the nation. From the present and prospective age structure of our population, it is indeed imperative, in the national interest, to encourage the aged to stay at work where that is possible and desirable. We have accordingly thought it right to encourage people to remain at work as long as possible, by making their pensions increasingly valuable according to the period for which they defer retirement from work. With this end in view, we have doubled the increment for postponement which was suggested in the White Paper and the Beveridge Report, making 1s. a week for every 25 contributions he pays in the five years beyond pension age; that is, 2s. for a year's deferment, so that the maximum increment for a single person will be 10s.
Another new provision enables the pensioner with a wife under 60 living with him to get a dependant's allowance of 16s. for her if she is not gainfully employed. After all, old men, if they do remarry, do not always remarry old women. We thought that if a man has a wife under 60 who is dependent and not gainfully employed, he should get 16s. for her; the wife's pension will be 16s. at the age of 60 and it will be increased in the same way. It will be appreciated, therefore, that the maximum increment that can be gained by a couple by postponing retirement for five years, will be 20s. a week. We have thought it right and desirable that, at the age of 70 for men and 65 for women, the retirement conditions for pensions should be waived. That was urged upon me particularly from the point of view of the small independent traders—the little men. Therefore, once they have reached the age of 70 there will be no question about retirement. If a man has worked until he is 70, and a woman until she is 65, they have earned their pension, and they will receive it for the remainder of their lives. I will come later to the adjustments that will be made in the non-contributory pensions scheme—the old Lloyd George pensions. Appropriately enough, the last benefit to which I have to refer is the death grant. This is an entirely new provision, but no one who knows anything at all about this matter doubts the wisdom of the State in making this provision. For a long time it has been a need, and I am glad that it is provided for in the Bill.
So much for the benefits. I now come to the contributions. I think the House will agree the benefits which I have described present a very considerable advance on existing schemes, and indeed on the proposals of the White Paper, and, in some important respects, an improvement on the proposals of the Beveridge Report. They are, of course, subject to a variety of contribution conditions which are set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill. I will not now weary the House with reading those contribution conditions. Hon. Members will, I am sure, have read them, or will read them. The contributions are substantial: 4s. 7d. for an employed man, with 3s. 10d. from his employer; 5s. 9d. for a self-employed man, and 4s. 8d. for a non-employed man—in addition to very substantial contributions from the Exchequer.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Members of Parliament are self-employed?
In the last two weeks I have had a thousand and one conundrums to answer. The one conundrum that I have not been able to answer is: What is the precise position of Members of Parliament? I have sat in Parliament for 10 years now, and there have been Parliaments which we would have hesitated to describe as being "gainfully employed." However, I have not the slightest hesitation in describing this Parliament, not only as being gainfully employed, but as fully carrying out its duties.
I have said these contributions are substantial. They are substantial, but it is a substantial scheme with substantial benefits. I am not unaware of the burden that I am imposing, 4s. 11d. on the employed person—when we add the 4d. for industrial injuries benefits—and 5s. 9d. on the self-employed. These contribu- tions look high because they are expressed in one figure. Let me ask hon. MEMBERS: What do the workers pay now? What does the little man pay now? Have a look at the pay docket of a worker and count up the stoppages, not only the stoppages from the pay before he gets it but what he pays afterwards in "bobs" and "tanners." Count it all up in a week. It is far more than 4s. 7d. in millions of working class homes in this country. Let the little man jot down all he pays and add it all up. Then, having put it all down and counted it all up, contrast the benefits he gets for what he pays now with the benefits he will get under this scheme.
I believe this has not been brought out as clearly as it ought to have been. The 4s. 7d. for the employed contributor and 5s. 9d. for the self-employed contributor covers not only all the benefits under this Bill—and they are substantial. Remember what other benefits it covers. Of the 5s. 9d. and of the 4s. 7d., 10d. is the contribution, and the only contribution, that he will make towards the complete National Health Service: a doctor, a consultant, hospital treatment for himself, for his wife, and for his children—all for 10d. a week. Why, he pays more than 4s. 7d. for that alone now in thousands of homes in this country. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying—I have said it before outside and I will say it now in the House—this scheme is the best and cheapest insurance policy ever offered to the British people, or to any people anywhere.
Now I come to the financial provisions of the Bill. They are dealt with in detail in the Memorandum by the Government Actuary, which has been published with the Bill. I think hon. Members would probably prefer to examine the figures in black and white rather than be wearied by listening to me trying to recapitulate them. I would, however, like to mention one or two of the main features in the financial structure. As under the existing schemes, the funds required come from the contributions of insured persons—now described as employed, self-employed and non-employed persons—from employers, and from the Exchequer. The Exchequer contributes to the Fund out of taxation in two ways. First, it pays a supplementary weekly contribution in each class. Secondly, it pays annually a sum, cal- culated on a rising scale, to meet the estimated cost of accepting at the outset entrants of all ages on the same terms as entrants at the age of 16. Excluding payments towards the cost of the National Health Service, it is estimated that the cost of the scheme will be £452 million in 1948, rising to £545 million in 1958, to £678 million in 1968, and £749 million in 1978. The share of the Exchequer, excluding contributions towards family allowances, industrial injuries insurance, the new National Health Service, and national assistance, is estimated at £118 million—26 per cent.—in 1948, £190 million—35 per cent.—in 1958, £322 million—47 per cent.—in 1968, and £416 million—56 per cent.—in 1978.
It will be noted that the Bill provides that the initial rates of contribution are to be increased after five years by 4d., 2d. each for the employer and worker. The addition is required to relieve the Exchequer of some part of the heavy increase in expenditure, which is due almost entirely to the growth in the cost of retirement pensions. The total expenditure on retirement pensions is expected to reach £501 million in 1978, as compared with £238 million in 1948. That means that at the latter year the retirement pensions alone will take 67 per cent. of the total insurance expenditure provided in this Bill. It will be noted, too, as one final word on finance, that provision is made for quinquennial reports by the Government Actuary on the financial condition of the National Insurance Fund.
So far, I have been dealing mainly with the permanent provisions of the scheme. People will naturally ask, "Where do I come in, and when are the new rates to begin?" I cannot answer all these questions at the moment. A scheme of this magnitude must, obviously, be brought into operation by stages, on a series of appointed days. While we hope to see most, if not all, parts of the scheme in full effect during 1948, the detailed operation of the various parts is dependent on so many factors that I cannot at the moment name precise dates. This much I can say now. We have undertaken to bring the new rates of retirement pension into operation before next winter, and this undertaking will be honoured in full. We intend, in pursuance of this undertaking, to convert existing contributory 10s. pensions, provided the pensioner has retired, into retirement pensions at the new rates. If they have earnings, these will not reduce their pensions below 10s. a week. This will apply to all existing 10s. pensioners, including widows over 60 insured under the standard conditions of the general scheme, provided they have retired.
It will also apply to non-contributory pensioners over 70 who are drawing these pensions. The means scale, under the Old Age Pensions Act, will be suitably adapted to the increased rates of pension. We do not propose, at this stage, otherwise to modify the non-contributory scheme. Therefore, what we can now say is this. Those who are now getting 10s. under the Lloyd George scheme will get the full rate before next winter. Others will get appropriately adjusted rates. Thereafter, persons who are insured under the existing scheme will qualify for retirement pensions subject to the new conditions as to retirement, but to modified contribution conditions on the lines of the existing scheme. The new rates of contribution will come into operation by stages as each instalment of the Bill is brought into operation. Let me make it perfectly clear now that when, in the Autumn, we bring the new pension rates into operation for the existing insured people, the rates of contribution will begin to go up. For the rest, we shall press on as hard as we can with measures to apply the new benefits to existing classes of insured persons, and we shall work as hard as we can to admit new classes of persons to this scheme at the earliest possible date.
Here let me correct a misapprehension which seems to have arisen in some quarters. I have received many letters about it from hon. Members during the last week. The impression has apparently been created that these scales mean the end of supplementation. Nothing in this Bill interferes in any way with the duties of the Assistance Board, or of the Public Assistance Authorities to supplement benefits in cases of individual need, at their discretion, according to the circumstances of the case. The benefits provided under this Bill may reduce the need for supplementation, but the power to make supplementary awards remains untouched. I would also remind the House that, particularly during the last few years, assistance does not stop at cash payments. A welfare service, particularly for the aged, has developed and has played a very important part.
I now come to one of the most controversial matters in this scheme, the question of administration. I appreciate the importance of administration. I have been in administration all my life, and I know that the way it is handled is as important as what is actually in the Bill. I realise that this scheme will be made or marred by the spirit in which it is administered. It is my intention that my Department shall do its work through a network of Regional and Local Offices to be set up throughout the country, working in the closest association with the Employment Exchanges of the Ministry of Labour, through which unemployment benefit will continue to be paid. It will be my aim to provide a flexible, personal service to insured persons where-ever they may be, and I have no doubt that we can do so. To illustrate what I have in mind by reference to sickness benefit, I would contemplate that the principal method of claiming and paying this benefit would be through the post, as many Approved Societies do today. At the same time we shall make it flexible enough to provide a home service for those who need it.
Do not believe that every working-class family likes to be called on at home in matters like this It is a matter of the greatest delicacy, and there is a lot of tosh talked about what is called "home service"; how it is done is a matter of supreme importance. I shall seek to make the system elastic enough to meet individual needs, including, as I have said, payment of benefit in the home where circumstances render this desirable and necessary. I want to see the offices which we shall open become centres where people will not be afraid to go, where they will be welcomed, and where they will not only get benefits but advice. I want to see them become not only security offices but citizens' advice bureaux where everyone can go as of right, to speak to someone who is there not to rob them but to help them. To help me in this I have made provision in the Bill for the establishment of local advisory committees to advise me on questions connected with local administration. There will also be, at the centre, the National Insurance Advisory Committee, to whose important functions in this respect I have already referred.
This brings me to the important and controversial question of the approved societies. When the approved societies system was established in 1911, sickness benefit was a separate service, provided by a separate Act, with a separate contribution and a separate Fund. Under this Bill it becomes not a separate benefit but one of a series of co-ordinated benefits with one contribution paid by one stamp on a single card. Under the old system, separate as it was, delegation of administration was easy, and in 1911 the State asked the approved societies to work the scheme and had nothing more to do with it. I would like hon. Members to realise that this Bill cannot be delegated to anybody. We have to do the job ourselves, for we cover the whole of the nation. In the Press the other day, I saw a suggestion that I had not thought about this at all, but that I had been overridden by the bureaucrats. I would remind the House that I took the same view when I was not in the Government. I do not think that this can be delegated. Sickness benefit under this scheme is linked up with industrial injury benefit, and we must think of this question of whether or not to have friendly societies, in terms of this Bill, and not of the old Act. Last November I made a statement to the House in answer to a Question. I should like to repeat what I then said. I was asked whether I had considered representations made to me in favour of the use of the approved societies in the proposed National Insurance Scheme, and whether I was in a position to make a statement on the matter. My answer was as follows: placed from their employment as a result of the new Measure. Since that time, I am happy to say that the Approved Societies have responded to the invitation which I sent to them to appoint committees which would consider with my Department, under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary, the arrangements to be made for the transition from the old to the new scheme. They will also discuss arrangements to be made for selecting staffs from the Approved Societies of persons who wish to join the Ministry, and will decide the terms of compensation for those who will be displaced as a result of the new scheme. Two Committees have been set up and one of them has already started its work. The House will observe that we have taken powers in the Bill to make regulations which will embody the terms of compensation worked out for displaced employees of Approved Societies, and such regulations will of course be subject to the affirmative Resolution of this House.
On the general question of the future of the approved societies, I have, since the matter was raised in this House, received further representations from the Friendly Societies urging that a place should be found for them in the administration of the scheme. We have given the most careful thought to this matter. I know it is a most important matter, and I have explored with the greatest good will every possibility and every scheme suggested for giving these societies a place in the new scheme. The Government's decision remains unchanged. I acknowledge the great services of the Societies to the community, but we must move with the times. The sickness insurance system is now a general part of the social provision. If all the parts of the scheme are to be, as I think they ought to be, properly knit together, the Department responsible for administration cannot divorce its work from day to day contacts with insured persons in an important part of the field by delegating responsibility to others. It is, I am convinced, the duty of the Government, once they have embarked on a comprehensive scheme of this character, to provide the necessary comprehensive and unified machinery. The scheme is unified at the centre—a single Minister, a single Fund, and a single contribution. All this calls for a unified administration in the localities. No scheme has been put before me, and indeed I do not know of any scheme that could be put before me or devised, for harnessing the Friendly Societies to the administration, which did not carry with it a great deal of overlapping machinery. I, therefore, came to the conclusion that the State, having put its hand to the plough, must complete the job. We want the help of large numbers of the experienced staff of Approved Societies to build up a service for the whole of this scheme which will be sensitive, humane and discriminating, and I feel confident that we shall secure this help. With it, I have no doubt as to our capacity to complete the job and administer this scheme.
I shall not occupy the time of the House much longer. There are many matters of importance I have not touched upon, such as the power to make supplementary schemes. I would also have liked to talk about reciprocal arrangements. A few weeks ago the National Insurance Minister of the Labour Government of Australia called upon me and asked if I could possibly find time to go out to Australia and complete reciprocal arrangements with that Dominion. I would have liked also to go to New Zealand to pay a tribute to that Labour Government and to say that the old country is trying to catch up with it.
I have kept the House much longer than I intended, but I am grateful for the forbearance that has been shown to me. One last word. I have devoted most of my time today to details, contributions, benefits and machinery. For the last six months now I have worked, and if I may say so have worked fairly hard, at these thousand and one details. I have had the loyal help of the staff. I have had the co-operation of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, and if I may be allowed to use colliers' language, the daily, constant help of my "butty," the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). All the time while I have been working out these details, I have tried to remember that behind the contributions, the benefits, the rates, behind them all are human beings, men and women with their hopes and dreams, their fears and their disappointments. As I have worked, I often recall, and I believe the recollection has helped me in working out this scheme, an experience in the grim days of 1940. I went down to speak at my native village after the Party Conference at Bournemouth. We had decided there to enter the Government and see the war through. I went down to explain why to my old collier "butties." After my speech an old collier came to me and said, "Yes, you are right. We have to see this thing through to the bitter end. But," he added, "let me ask you—after this, what?" And behind that "But" and that question were memories, bitter memories of the insecurity and poverty and the frustration of the inter-war years Behind that question was a grim resolve never to go back to the bad old days nor to return to the futile old ways. It is that "what" that won the General Election last July.
For a generation I have lived with the consequences of insecurity, but to those who profess to fear that security will weaken the moral fibre and destroy self-respect, let me say this. It is not security that destroys, it is insecurity. It is the fear of tomorrow that paralyses the will; it is the frustration of human hopes that corrodes the soul. Security in adversity will, I believe, release our people from the haunting fears of yesterday, and will make tomorrow not a day of dread but a day to welcome. I believe that security will release their gifts and energies for the services of the nation:
5.10 p.m.
I feel sure we should all like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that his Celtic eloquence has been able to rise well above the details of this plan. That in itself is an achievement. I do not think he need have apologised for detaining the House for a considerable period, because of the intricacy of the plan. If I am not so long, I shall be, I am afraid, very much duller than he was. My right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House have contributed our share to the making of this plan, and we wish to see it through; but in the course of debate, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends must remember that it is the duty of the Opposition to criticise, and we shall do our best in the course of the Second Reading Debate and in the course of the long and protracted Committee stage to put forward constructive suggestions for helping, not only the contributors, but also the best interests of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman started his speech at a distant date by mentioning that romantic and, indeed, heroic name, Keir Hardie. We on this side of the House wish all luck to Keir Hardie, because from his lips has fallen one of the wisest sayings we on this side of the House have ever heard. I will read what he said:
What was the date of that?
The end of the last century. I trust that that reputation, which I quoted because the right hon. Gentleman quoted from Keir Hardie, will indicate the spirit in which we approach together the examination of this plan.
We regard this plan as part of the mosaic or the pattern of the new society. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman reading out his Clause 1 I could not but think of the similar satisfaction I had a short time ago in reading out Clause I of the Education Bill. Both Bills have a certain similarity. They both introduce a national scheme, for the first time, of a national scope to fulfil and satisfy national aspirations. I warmly share in the satisfaction that the right hon. Gen- tleman obviously felt in drawing the attention of the House to the drafting of that Clause. This Bill forms part of a series of Bills, starting with the Education Bill, which, I may say, foresaw the pattern of the new society long before this Parliament was ever thought of—the Industrial Injuries Bill, the Family Allowances Bill, and the Health Bill, to name only a few; and I was interested to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce a Bill dealing with assistance and similar matters, at a later date. The whole philosophy lying behind these Measures, in which, I must make it quite plain, we have played our part and shall play our part, is that the good things of life shall be more widely shared; we look forward to a society of which the more unfortunate members are free from the direst dread of penury and want.
Having said that, I want to remind the Government that it would really have been much more satisfactory if, in considering these Bills together, we had been able to look at the Health Bill before we looked at this Bill. It is really impossible this afternoon for the right hon. Gentleman to explain what health services are available under it, and to know the contribution figure and so forth, until we know what are the health services to be available for those who need them. I, therefore, trust that the Health Bill will be brought forward with the maximum amount of speed so that we may understand how these different measures cog in with one another. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman could give us an assurance that full and satisfactory work has yet been done by the Government in cogging these different Measures together. I do not believe that the benefits in the Industrial Injuries Bill considered upstairs have been absolutely fitted in with the benefits under this Bill; and I do not believe that the health provisions to which we are looking forward are certain to fit in with the provisions of this Bill. I, therefore, hope he will not be misled by the mad and anxious rush for legislation which is evident in the attitude of the Leader of the House. In the interests of good work, I hope he will do his own work thoroughly, and not be dragged along behind this impetuous and fiery chariot; because I assure him it is not the way to do good work to rush legislation as it is being rushed now.
Our intention on this side of the House in playing our part is: that the country should have what it knows it wants. I emphasise that. It is essential to give the country time to examine this scheme; to give it time to realise the effect of the contributions on the working-class household; and it is most important that it should know what, as a result of the work we shall do on the floor of the House and upstairs, the effects of this Measure are to be. I am not on Second Reading yet in a position to give an indication of the Amendments which we may move upstairs. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we on this side of the House shall treat with contempt any ignorant attempts made, either in this House or by hostile propaganda outside, to make out in any way that we on this side of the House desire to deprive the British public of what they earnestly desire to have. Any scheme we put forward could be looked at in that light by hostile propaganda. We want to be absolutely free to put forward alternative suggestions in case they prove in the end to be more suitable to the contributors and to the country generally.
In general this scheme is along the lines one would have expected. That is to say, it presents an unified scheme, one of the most constructive aspects of which is the remedying of the small extent of sickness benefit under the old scheme. It is not a scheme of 9d. for 4d. It is much more a scheme of 1s. for 1s. 6d., and the more the country studies this scheme the more it will realise that. If I may criticise one phrase out of the right hon. Gentleman's long and comprehensive speech, I would refer to something he said on, at least, one occasion—the expression "we are giving." The expression "we are giving" is absolutely wrong in connection with an insurance scheme of this sort. There is no question of the party opposite giving things to the public. That is the sort of phrase which brings this scheme into disrepute and does it the greatest possible harm. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving things at all. People are going to pay for them. He may have come down here this afternoon to allocate public moneys in a certain way, but public moneys remain public, and not the property of one party or one Minister; and I hope that in considering this matter in the future he will not use a phrase of that sort.
If we glance at the contributions we immediately realise there is no question of "giving" these benefits. The contributions are higher than those in the White Paper for the employed person, and a good deal higher for the self-employed person. The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that the 4s. 7d. and the 5s. 9d. will have 4d. added to them in the Industrial Injuries Scheme and that a further 4d. will be added in the course of the next few years, according to the announcement that has been made in the Papers accompanying the Bill. That means that a very considerable extra contribution has to be given than was suggested in the Coalition plan. If you calculate this in respect of the self-employed man, to whose case we shall draw particular attention in the course of the Debate, you will see that the contribution of 5s. 9d. comes to almost one-fifth of the income of the man with £75 a year, which is the lowest exemption limit. We shall certainly take steps to discuss this question of the exemption limit and to consider the particular case of the self-employed man. The right hon. Gentleman quoted, from his own profound knowledge of these subjects, his own impressions of the ordinary working class budget.
I have here some particulars about a case of a self-employed man. This man is 26 years of age, has come out of the Forces and, like many others in that position, is not in a very good state of health owing to his war service. I am told by him that he pays a premium on life insurance of 9½d. a week under the present dispensation, hospital fees of is. 6d. a week against the possibility of his going into hospital, a voluntary contribution under the Pensions scheme of 1s. 3d. a week, and a voluntary contribution under Health Insurance of 3d. a week. Under that budget he is spending 4s. 5½d a week. The first error into which the right hon. Gentleman fell when explaining this matter to the House was to imagine that this self-employed person, and others who now pay contributions, are going to abandon all their private methods of insurance. There is no reason why this man or any man should give up his endowment policy, life policy or private insurance. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman hardly mentioned, if at all, the need for encouraging private voluntary insurance in addition to this scheme. I do not believe that in the whole of his address there was any word deliberately encouraging the need for personal thrift.
If we again examine the budget of this self-employed person, we find that, if we remove the 9½d. from the 4s. 5½d., that leaves 3s. 8d. a week, which, I am assured, having discussed the matter and knowing something of the small amount that this man's shop brings him, is about as much as he can manage. For that he is already able to receive an old age pension but not as large a pension as suggested under this Bill, and he is entitled, leaving aside his own life insurance, to receive immediate joint sickness benefit of 27s. a week. He is also able to get disablement, maternity, and treatment benefits, and the services of a panel doctor. This man, when discussing the matter with me, has drawn attention to the fact that under this Bill he receives no unemployment benefit, and no sickness benefit until after 24 days of incapacity, sickness or disability. Under the old scheme he had the sort of reward which he wanted from his contributions of 3s. 8d., with the exception of the big difference in pension. Under this Bill, he is not at all satisfied that he is going to get benefits commensurate with an increased contribution of not less than 2s. 1d. a week. I deliberately bring this matter down to detail because it is quite easy to discuss this question in an academic atmosphere; but that particular budget of a self-employed person indicates that in the course of this Debate, and in the course of other Debates, it will be essential for us to draw attention to the very hard manner with which this scheme deals with the self-employed person, and how very doubtful we are, in many cases, that the scheme is going to be worth while for him. We shall have a great deal more to say on this at a later stage.
It is interesting to note, too, in answer to a request to the Government who have done their very best to help us with information on this matter, that the contribution rates for all three classes under this scheme are on the same actuarial basis. I was endeavouring to find out from the Government, before the Debate, how the contribution rates were actuarially calculated for different classes under the scheme. I understand that they are on the same basis, with due allowance for differing conditions as to the scale of contributions. That is fair. I have no complaint about that, because very often the self-employed man has not paid contributions in the past—my friend paid voluntary contributions—but that is not generally so, and, therefore, so far, I have no complaint. It is also the case that the self-employed man, with the Exchequer supplement, has to contribute towards unemployment benefit to the extent of 50 per cent., whereas in the case of other benefits it is to the extent of 20 per cent. of the contributions. The self-employed man gets no unemployment benefit, and to that extent he does not share in the Exchequer supplement provided for other sections of the population. I, therefore, think that on these two grounds alone, and I could, if I wished, take many others, the self-employed man's case needs extremely careful examination in the course of the later stages of this Bill.
I turn now from these personal issues to an examination of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Bill itself. In my view, this Bill bears evident marks of sketchy treatment. I hoped that it would be a Measure worthily embodying the classical content of the many previous Bills to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the Acts dealing with unemployment, health, widows' pensions, assistance and so forth. But what do we find? In so much as the right hon. Gentleman is being dragged along behind the Leader of the House, the Bill has been deliberately drafted to be as short as possible and to take up as little Parliamentary time as possible. The right hon. Gentleman talks about consolidation. If I did not consider it an un-Parliamentary phrase, I would say "Consolidation my foot." If he examines the Eleventh Schedule he will see an attempt at consolidation of Sections of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, but only of Sections. This part of the Bill is, at least, intelligible, but we have to wait for consolidation until we get to page 94 of the Bill. It needs the patience of Job to examine these Schedules, old Acts and the many Clauses of this Bill to attempt to understand what is now the law. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House told me, in answer to a Supplementary question, that these little questions were simply matters for lawyers, in my opinion he grossly misunderstood the duty of hon. Members of this House. I consider it to be the duty of every hon. Member—and one has tried to practise it in one's own service to this House—to know thoroughly and examine in every detail, every Bill put before us, and to know the interrelation of the Clauses to the Schedules. I maintain that a more difficult Bill to understand in a short time could not have been put before this House.
Perhaps the gravest defect in the drafting of the Bill, on which the right hon. Gentleman made rather sad and gloomy comment, was the power to make regulations. I have calculated that this Bill of 79 Clauses requires 99 sets of regulations and orders to bring it finally into force and to make it intelligible. There is one example in which, I think, it is reasonable to use regulations. That is in regard to Clause 58. To deal with the problem of the married woman, I think you have to employ the power of regulations. It was certainly the attempt made by Mr. Lloyd George to include the married women in the Act of 1911 which caused the provisions about married women to break down. These are incredibly complicated. I do not want to take the line of complete and absolute criticism of this question of regulations. There must be regulations under a Bill of this type. But in particular, in considering the Clause dealing with fishermen, mariners and airmen, we shall want to know whether the interests of the inshore fishermen and others are properly met, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet their case in a particular way, as in the Industrial Injuries Bill. We shall want to know the details and what these regulations are going to contain, and we shall want to have some idea of the Government's policy on this question of regulations. The Government are not making their work any easier by asking their draughtsmen to draft a Bill in which the number of sets of regulations greatly exceeds the numbers of Clauses in the Bill. We are not going to be rushed so that we cannot consider these regulations when the time comes. The Scrutiny Committee is already grossly over-loaded. We shall have a great deal to say later about questions of procedure and about the library of regulations which this Bill contains. We shall also have a good deal to say on Clause 75 which deals with the question of which Section shall be dealt with under the regulations by affirmative and which by negative resolutions. There are some matters to be dealt with by affirmative and we have suggestions to put forward about others, which we think should be dealt with by affirmative resolutions.
When I come to the White Paper, words really fail me. I consider the White Paper to be a miserable document and hastily prepared. It compares most unfavourably with the Actuary's Report. The presentation of the Measure and the White Paper bear the evident signs of rush. Perhaps the greatest criticism we have of the White Paper is that at the end, in the appendix, there is described the benefits, that is the advantages, to be gained from the scheme compared with the Coalition Government's White Paper and other proposals, and yet when we come to the contributory rates there is no indication of the difference in rates asked for from these two schemes. A good Government will tell the people what is expected from them. They do not attempt to curry favour with the people by telling them in their White Paper what advantages are to be gained when compared with the old plan and then not comparing their increased contribution rates. What is my concern is that there is a standard in Whitehall to be maintained in this matter of White Papers, and I am, frankly, astonished at this White Paper having come out of Whitehall. Had it come from Transport House, I could have fully understood it. I can only say that I hope that the White Papers which the Government will bring forward in future will bear evidence of the stamp of Whitehall and not of preparation at Transport House.
I want to consider for a few minutes a very grim and rather serious aspect of the scheme, and that is the finances looked at from the national angle. The Opposition should be intensely jealous of the nation's finances. The eyes of the Opposition should, in fact, be green when they see the red light on the other side. I must honestly confess we do see the red light in regard to the nation's finances, when we consider the Measures which the Government are bringing forward in such a hurry at the present time. My remarks on finance have relation to these schemes, and I wish to make a request to the Government from the Opposition to give us, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Privy Seal or some other prominent Minister, a general picture of the cost of the services which are being brought forward now and which are concerned with social services, as well as a general picture of the cost of general services such as Defence. We want the Government to bring all this information before the House, not in the form of meaningless symbols, but of concrete figures, indicating where we stand as a nation, and the relationship of what we are taking on in all these different Measures to the national income as a whole. I have attempted with the aid of a newspaper, which has been most helpful this morning, to prepare or rather to revise estimates I have made myself, and these estimates, which have been brought forward with such helpful intention this morning, happen to correspond with the estimates we on this side of the House have prepared. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, I would say that as far as we can see, the total Exchequer burden for services of national importance to public authorities of this kind in 1948 will amount to something like £1,768 million. If that be correct, and if this be divided between social security, which in 1948 may come to £243 million, war pensions, a sum of £100 million, National Debt interests, a sum of £500 million, medical services, of which we have not properly heard yet, a sum of £105 million, other State services, a sum of £140 million, local services, a sum of £180 million, and Defence, a sum of £500 million, we shall know where we are.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite showed very good humour when I acknowledged the source of these figures, but I do not think there is anything particularly funny about it, because we are totally in the dark as to what the Government are leading the country into, and, frankly, the country want to know where they are being led. There are a great many people in the country at the present time who want to know the total amount of the new schemes which the Government are bringing forward. I can talk with equal humour on these matters. I am one of the minor sinners, because under the Education Act I imposed extra charges. These charges will accumulate and the effect of them is being felt in the localities, not least in mine, at the present time, and they are very odious to bear. I do say this that the last Administration did at least attempt to bring forward in a comprehensive way the total cost of the services of this sort. I, therefore, trust I may appeal—and I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is here—to the Government on behalf of the Opposition to give us some conception of what the total cost will be. Further, I want to ask, when I am on this basis of finance, what is the actuarial basis of the scheme in regard to the level of employment?
The Minister based his scheme on full employment, yet full employment according to the Beveridge figure was something below the 8½ per cent. that is being taken as the actuarial figure. These figures make a great deal of difference and the same newspaper, which so carefully produced documentation today, draws attention to the fact that, assuming unemployment is at 8½per cent., the cost is a certain amount, but assuming unemployment is 5 per cent., it may well mean that there will be £98 millions less imposed on the security budget. Therefore, it is important to know the exact figure.
I would make an appeal to the Government to tell us their policy about savings. I have had many requests made to me in the course of the few days I have had to prepare my speech from those interested in the movement up and down the country on this question of the future of the savings movements. We have received a great many letters. Is it expected that the savings movement will be carried on with equal vigour after the introduction of schemes of this sort? Is account being taken of the need for the savings movement in the national Budget? I hope the Government will make it clear that they desire the savings movement to go on and encourage small savings from even the smallest families. I am sure it would be a great help if the Government were to make a statement to that effect in the course of this Debate.
There are further points on finance I want to raise. We approve in general the Minister's arrangements for National Insurance and the Reserve Fund. We think those balances ought to be kept at the right figure. We note that in the early days a unified social insurance plan will be cheaper than the present system, and it is important to remember that fact, but the cavalier treatment of the plan is realised when we read the Actuary's Report, in paragraph 4, the following: better than any other class of the population, particularly the existing pensioners.
Let me take an example. I will give the Government's Actuary's words of his 1935 Report on the operation of the Old Age Pensions Acts from 1925 to 1932. He said:
The conclusions I come to from this examination are these: (1) The cost of the retirement pension is curiously unrelated to the rest of the scheme; (2) The Government are making these pensions available to very many who have no contribution record to justify these pensions on an insurance basis; (3) Very many thousands of pensioners who have not, in the past, applied for supplement would have been very gratified at the figure which was given in the Coalition proposals; (4) The pensions proposed by the Government for those in need are fixed at a reasonable level.
Those are the four conclusions which we shall have to bear in mind on the Committee stage. There is, clearly, a subsistence basis for all pensioners, whether they are in dire need or not. That means that the Government have deliberately decided to come out for pensioners at a level which, I claim, is much more generous than the level for other sections of the population, as I shall show in a few moments If the Government are altering the plan from an insurance to a subsistence basis, why not have a subsistence basis for the young, as well as the old? Can the Minister explain that? I am not here tonight to cause rivalry between the claims of crabbed age and eager youth. There is a case for helping the old on a subsistence basis, but some of the old have had their lives in which to pile up their little bit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Similarly, with some young persons there is a case for saying that they have more needs than the old in facing the necessities, troubles and travails of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I intend to examine these matters without fear of whatever clamour may be raised from the opposite side of the House, for such is the duty of the Opposition. I do not doubt that Members opposite will try to make out that I am trying to deprive old people of pensions, whereas what I am trying to do is to draw attention to the fact that retirement pensions will cost £501 million in 1978. This is a question we must examine in a calm atmosphere, if we wish to reach a proper solution.
If the subsistence basis is to be applied to the old why not apply it to the young? Why does the first child of an unemployed man get 7s. 6d. and subsequent children 5s., and why are family allowances left at 5s. if we are now on a subsistence basis all round? I would like an answer from the Government. Why does the widow—the widow who gets 33s. 6d. with a first child, and 5s. each for the second two children, under the Family Allowances scheme—get only 43s. 6d. for herself and her three growing children at school, while an old couple get 42s., which is almost the same? I claim that this scheme is compensated absolutely on the side of the old, and that the Government, so far, have not put forward the claims of the young. The Prime Minister will remember that, when I worked on the scheme with him in the Coalition, I was always keen to see that the needs of children were properly met. The Government have not done so much to deal with the needs of the rising generation as they have for retirement pensioners. The situation in regard to children's allowances is absolutely chaotic. Why, under the Assistance Board, is 6s. given for a child under eight, 7s. 6d. for a child between eight and 11, and 9s. for a child between 11 and 16? If the subsistence rates for pensioners are just, why cannot they be equally just for children whose parents do not go to the Assistance Board? The Government have been yielding to political clamour on behalf of old age. If they depart from the insurance basis of this scheme by putting it on a subsistence basis for the old, and not for the young, they will find that they will have to yield to political clamour on behalf of the young. The real truth is that the Government have a morbid but understandable preference for the end of life and the end of things.
I do not intend now to deal with the death grant, because that will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), nor shall I deal with the approved societies, which will be dealt with tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr Law). I want before I close to refer to one or two of the other matters mentioned by the Minister. Will the Government tell us a bit more of their policy about children? Will they tell us how the milk and meals policy, in which the late Government were so interested, is working out? At the beginning of the time I spent at the Ministry of Education, the figure for children getting meals and milk at school was 300,000; it had increased enormously by the end of the last Parliament, with the aid of the local authorities. I mention this because it was regarded as an integral part of the scheme of family allowances and the general scheme of social security. Is a sum of approximately £60 million to be spent on this? If so, the Government will be able in some way to balance the scheme in respect of children as against the old people. I ask the Government to tell us whether they are ready to clear up the general chaos with regard to the variety of children's allowances being granted under different regulations of many sorts at the present time?
On the subject of pensioners, I want to indicate one or two possible variant schemes. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we want the country to know what it wants, and unless the Opposition can indicate to the country the effect of this great expenditure on old age pensions, people will not have an idea of what they finally want, and we shall not be able to conduct ourselves with proper decorum during the later stages in the passage of the Bill. I will take two test cases of the effect of an alteration in the scheme on the finances of the scheme as a whole, and I put them forward in perfect good faith, although I cannot say at the moment whether or not we shall espouse them in Committee. I take an example of a, reduction in the contribution and another example of a reduction to the Exchequer. Suppose that the scheme were revised in the sense that 21s. were given to each old age pensioner and 42s. were given as a double pension, retaining the Government's scale for the double pension. I am informed that the effect would be a reduction of 7d in the contribution, and as the contribution has been complained of all over the country, it would be well worth knowing whether the Government consider there is any soundness in that scheme or not.
I mention an alternative idea to show a reduction in the Exchequer contribution and in the general expense. If it were possible to work out a scheme by which existing pensioners started at the rates in the late White Paper—the rates we had in mind in the last Government—and new entrants received the rates proposed by the Government, could we calculate such a scheme, with variants, such as giving the possibility to work up to the Government rates by degrees, and what would be its effect? I am informed that such a scheme, bearing in mind the general haziness which must exist before one has examined it actuarily, might well result in a saving of some £178 million in the total figure of £500 million. Alternatively, have the Government given up the idea of supplementing pensions through the Assistance Board, as has been done in the past? I throw out those suggestions, not because I believe they will commend themselves to a wide section of opinion, but because it is our duty to examine the scheme in a variety of ways to see, first, how the contributions could be reduced, and secondly, how the total could be reduced.
Is the right hon. Gentleman advocating those suggestions?
No, I am not advocating them, but putting them forward for discussion and asking what is the Government's opinion on their effects. There will be other Members of the Government speaking in the Debate, and many hon. Members opposite will take part in it. It would be interesting to obtain the views of those who have an intimate knowledge of these questions as to whether any variant of the scheme, in the way of altering the amounts which go to the old versus the young, is possible. If the House decides it is not possible, we can do no more. I have referred to the Assistance Board, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance paid a compliment to the work of the Assistance Board. Therefore, I am surprised at the terms of Clause 61 of the Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman himself paid some attention. I think he passed very lightly over this proposal, and devoted very little time to it. He used one expression which I find it very difficult to understand; he spoke of the referees. Does he mean that the local tribunal which is to adjudicate upon unemployment benefit to be paid after the exhaustion of benefit is the same as that under Clause 43? Does he mean that the court of referees is the same as under Clause 43?
In my speech I referred to the tribunal. I spoke of the court of referees because that is the term by which it is generally known. The tribunal will be constituted in the same way, with an independent chairman, a representative from the employers' panel and a representative from the workers' panel.
I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, although there was an obscurity in this matter. I thought I would wait and allow him to interrupt me. Does he mean that this tribunal is the same as under Clause 43, or different?
It is the same.
Is it right to have the same tribunal to consider judicial questions arising under Clause 43 and adjudicate upon the payment of unemployment benefit? In my view, the right hon. Gentleman's answer makes the proposal even less suitable than it was before. Let us examine the result of the Government's decision. They say that the words, "the particular circumstances of the applicant" mean that there is to be no means test, and that only the industrial circumstances of the district are to be considered. If that is the case, why are there the words "the particular circumstances of the applicant" and also the words "including the industrial conditions in the district"? This is tutology of a type which we do not usually associate with the Government draftsmen, and it makes the Clause even more obscure than before. Many of us associated with this subject have always envisaged that we should, in the words of Sir William Beveridge, have "assistance as part of security." Sir William Beveridge writes about that in paragraph 369 of his Report. This is a departure from the whole basis of that scheme, and we want to know what the effect will be. We are not in future to have assistance as part of security. If that is the case, why, in the Government actuary's report, is the administration cost for assistance maintained at the same level throughout the next 30 years? Why is there an entry, under 1978, for unemployment assistance amounting to a figure only a very little less than the figure in 1948?
Do the Government intend to use the Assistance Board, or do they not? If they are not going to do so, what objection have they to the manner in which the Assistance Board has been running these matters in the past? It seems to me that this part of the Bill is extremely badly thought out. How are the Government going to be sure they can get equity as between different parts of the country by setting up local tribunals, and does not the Government's scheme mean that there will be a variety of agencies so perplexing as to make a very forest of Government offices through which the people in need of benefit will have to pass? There will be, first of all, social security offices, central and local; there will be post offices; there will be the employment exchanges for dealing with unemployment assistance; and then, perhaps in the same town, together with those offices, there will be an Assistance Board office. The Government are frightened of using the Assistance Board, the record of which is probably as good as that of any other administration in the country.
Then there are to be local tribunals set up to deal with extension of benefit—because that is what we are going back to. We are to have, superimposed on this, a National Insurance Advisory Committee and local insurance advisory committees as well. We have heard nothing from the Minister as to what is to be done about public assistance and whether that is to be taken over by the Assistance Board or not. It seems to me that the Minister is not only unsound on administration but is unduly hard in his attitude to the excellent agents of the approved societies. At one moment he says that he cannot use their services because of complication, and at another he adds one office after another to the Government office and tries to make the ordinary recipient of relief believe that the scheme is to be a very simple one. May I ask the Government whether they are going to revise this scheme before the Committee stage or whether we shall have to examine it, as I expect, in the steam rollering fashion in which business is now taken in Standing Committee? If so, we shall examine it with the greatest care, because we honestly believe that the previous system was better, fairer, and, indeed, gave greater equity all round than the present system.
I come now to a few other small issues on which I will not detain the House unduly. There is, first of all, the effect of regulations upon the teachers' superannuation. This is a subject in which I am personally interested in view of the Act passed in the last Parliament. I have made as many inquiries and examinations about this matter as anyone, but I understand that we can get nowhere until the regulations are published. Therefore, I should like to ask the Government when the regulations are to be published about this and other superannuation schemes? Secondly, I would ask the nature of the judicial machinery in Clause 43. Is it, in fact, to be very similar to the present courts of referees? I believe it is, Thirdly, are the transitional provisions, especially for voluntary contributors, to be just to those voluntary contributors who exist now?
I conclude with the view, which we feel very strongly on this side of the House, that in the magic of averages, to use a word of the Leader of the Opposition, we should not forget the individual. Therefore, I close on the same note as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. These matters we are discussing today have roots going very far back into the past, not just to the end of the last century but right back to the first efforts, introduced about the year 1600, to deal with poverty. Ever since then we have been building on that foundation. The original law was introduced to deal with the economic distress and the economic revolution resulting from historical causes such as the Reformation.
I was not on a contributory basis.
No. At that time it was necessary to find some method of charity in order to deal with the troubles that arose from the economic causes of the day. We have gone far beyond the word "charity" and that is why I do not want the Minister to talk of "giving." These benefits have to be earned, not only by the payments of the contributors, but by the hard work of the country as a whole. Without hard work this country cannot possibly afford these benefits and it cannot afford this scheme. The Government are facing, as we all know, very severe troubles of all sorts at the present time. The eyes of the world are upon us, and the world will be satisfied that this is a good insurance scheme only if it is equally satisfied that the Government are determined to give a lead to the country in "working our passage" and making us worthy of this great scheme. This is, therefore, a great moment in the history of the Social Services of this country. We on this side of the House are proud to have been active participants in this change, and we shall stand as "guardians," in the new sense, not in the old, of individual thrift and effort, nurtured by the kindliness of the modern State.
6.4 p.m.
I crave the ear of the House for a few moments. It is the first time I have been on my feet in this House. As I listened this afternoon I have been impressed with thoughts of the way in which, during the last century, the masses of the people who were steadily creating great surplus of wealth were even compelled to struggle for a little emancipation. As was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), we have moved away from an atmosphere of that kind. We have now, from the Opposition, an offer of co-operation and help. We are all seized with the importance of the duty that is entrusted to us, and I suggest that it is a matter for sad reflection that had there been a greater and wider social insurance many years ago, we should not have been talking about this problem in the way we are this afternoon. We should have been upon a much sounder foundation.
As I listened to the Minister I was impressed with the human note that he inspired throughout his speech. Again and again one felt that there was a catch in his heart. He was remembering the people. But I say plainly, that I was profoundly disappointed as I listened to the long speech from the Opposition offering co-operation. The human note there came as a sort of after-thought. The fundamental problem was not so much, "Are we really going to move a very long way to the final laying of the soundest possible foundation for our people?" but, "What is it going to cost?" What is it going to amount to?" I should be the last man in the world to deny the importance of this aspect. I know from my own experience, indeed many others in this House know from their experience, the extraordinary value of what things cost now, but at the same time, it is the human consideration that is vital and fundamental as we consider this problem.
It is that matter only which I wish to bring to the attention of the House. By no design—a matter, if you will, of the fortuitous concurrence of circumstances—I have been led, again and again, over past years, to spend time with men who were engaged upon the task of seeing the people in their homes about various aspects of the problem that we are discussing here. I remember very well indeed the year 1911 and the great social insurance scheme of which the Minister reminded us, and I repeat that I think that there is great hope in the facts that we have heard this afternoon. Those are not the things I heard as a young man in 1911. I remember too well that duchesses then went to the Royal Albert Hall, to tell high Heaven and the nation that they would never lick stamps. We remember all this, and I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the iron is not only in our hearts but in the souls of millions of people in the country. They do not forget; but it is good that there is a spirit of unity now. I am glad that it is so. I remember during that year spending time with men who were engaged in this work of going to the homes of the people and men who contemplated taking on that work. Indeed, as I stand on this Floor I think of an old man of 82 years of age who will, tomorrow, hope to get, at the earliest moment, a copy of HANSARD, that he may read what the people entrusted by the nation with the responsibility for thinking about this problem have had to say. He was engaged all his life calling at the homes of the people. On many occasions I tramped round the streets with him.
Therefore, I welcome what the Minister said in his speech to the effect that he had not overlooked the fact that when this great Insurance Bill becomes law practically every home in the country will be touched by it, and that it is his sincere intention to humanise its administration and the passing over of what the people are to contribute. He will humanise it. That is a right understanding of the problem. Many of these agents were more than merely people who collected contributions. They were friends and advisers. They knew the people at home and the people away. They knew about mother and about grandfather. They knew the difficulties that had happened last week. The man who has been happy to do this work, has been more than somebody merely earning his living at a job. When anxiety comes into a home and when sorrow afflicts a family—a document—a form—is no substitute for a person. The personal touch is fundamental.
I am not trying to be critical, but I have seen much as I have travelled this country during the last 30 years. I know what people feel and think. We have been asked to remember that it is important that we should achieve what people want. We know what the people want. I say to this House very sincerely that we all know the great tasks that confront us as a nation. Ministers have proclaimed already very clearly that they must have real energy and persistence from the people of this country. One of the things that we want is to take away, as far as we can, any shadow that rests upon the home. Those of us who have had correspondence from men abroad are aware what home means to them. If you can give this sense of security to the people of this country they will begin to regain what they never ought to have lost, the sense that this country is really their country and that the work that they are doing is work for their country. One of our objects is to achieve, in the next few years, not merely something for someone else, but what is vital to ourselves. People must have this sense of security. This is a problem of life indeed. I thought, when I was sitting here, of some words uttered in the 17th century and attributed to Colonel Rainborowe:
6.16 p.m.
The House has listened entranced to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member. I most sincerely and genuinely congratulate him. It has been my privilege to sit with the hon. Member upon a very important committee. I know his great value on that committee and I am proud to think that I have the privilege again tonight of following him after his maiden speech, and of congratulating him in the name of this House.
It is also my proud privilege to congratulate my fellow-countryman upon the speech he made in opening the Debate. I do so with a considerable amount of emotion because the first great National Insurance Bill was introduced also by a fellow-countryman of mine. To him falls the credit of having borne the burden and heat of the day in steering that Measure through this House and getting for it the support of the country. I only wish he had survived to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) add shall I say the coping stone to the great work that he began. As the right hon. Gentleman finished his speech today, I could almost hear the ringing words of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, as Mr. Lloyd George then was, finishing his speech when introducing the Second Reading of the Bill in 1911. The mantle of Elijah has indeed fallen upon Elisha. I do not think it would be out of place if I read here the words which I myself heard from another Gallery in 1911. I well remember that occasion. These are the words: that as the first of all considerations. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the estimated cost of preventable diseases, which has been put at over £300 million. I believe that the figure actually spent on the cure of diseases comes roughly to about £300 million a year. That is merely cost in money. What has the country lost in productive capacity?
The high purpose of this Bill is, as I say, to have care for the wellbeing and health of all, whatever may be their circumstances, to abolish want from the land, and all the misery and suffering and anxiety which go with want. Abolishing want also means the redistribution of wealth, about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) seemed to be most unhappy. The hon. Member for Cleveland remarked what a difference there was between the approach of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister to the problem and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden. I wonder at his audacity in daring to quote Keir Hardie. We have a rather wonderful record from Wales, because, after all, Scotsman though he was, it was Wales which really provided Keir Hardie with his opportunities, and it was Merthyr Tydfil, which has suffered so much, which returned him and Mr. D. A. Thomas, the Radical, to this House for so many years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden quoted Keir Hardie in that complaining way of his, which always reminds me of a hedgehog rolled the wrong way, tormenting himself with his own prickles. How dare hon. Members suggest that we can forget the past? The right hon. Gentleman began with a reference to old age pensions, originally introduced by Mr. Asquith and steered through this House by Mr. Lloyd George. Although the Party opposite did not dare finally to oppose it, they criticised it every line and at every stage, and when it came to the finding of the money in the Budget of the following year, in order to provide the wherewithal for old age pensions, what a row they raised upon many matters They even flaunted this House, and had the Budget thrown out, and caused two General Elections rather than provide the wherewithal to help the needy.
I warn the House and the Minister that the speech to which we have listened from the Opposition Front Bench reminds me of the history of 1911. The Measure which was then introduced from the Liberal benches, was received throughout the country with such acclamation, that during the period of the Second Reading they talked rather pianissimo, and certainly did not divide the House except on the Question "That the Question be now put." Gradually strength was acquired, and as the hon. Member for Cleveland reminded us, noble ladies began to object. The fight went on in the Committee stage, line by line and almost word by word, and then when it came to the Third Reading they put down what they called "a reasoned Amendment" which was nothing but a wrecking one. Then came the meeting at the Albert Hall. From my hon. and right hon. Friends above the Gangway, I have heard protests against strikes, but they initiated their great strike against that new Act of Parliament on that occasion. They summoned that meeting which many of us recall, presided over by a duchess, with all the top galleries filled with the housemaids and parlourmaids of the land. Now they say, "But we have been anxious all along about this social reform."
Let us have an end of hypocrisy, and come to more recent times, and this Bill. I will tell the hon. Members who did not happen to be in this House, the history of it. It was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, and even now not enough credit has yet been paid to him. It was his idea that all our social schemes could be co-ordinated; it was he who got the Committee appointed, and got Sir William Beveridge to act as Chairman. Then came the Beveridge Report. Might I remind the House that that Report was issued in November, 1942, and we could not get a Debate on it until February, 1943? What was the real argument used against implementing the Beveridge Report there and then? It was supplied by the then Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Kingsley Wood, whose main argument was, "Let us look at this, and see if we can possibly afford it." The answer made from these benches and from those benches, was led by the Lord Privy Seal, who said, "We cannot afford to do without it."
Too long has the country lost because of failure to take care of the health of the people. The production of the country depends upon the vigour of its individuals and their health and their strength; it does not depend upon the income tax. That was our answer, but the then Government held too many members of the Labour Party as hostages. To my deep regret, and I am sure to the deep regret of many members of that Party, the final words in the matter had to be uttered by the present Leader of the House. However, we divided. To a man the Conservatives went into one Lobby; it was left for the Labour Members and Liberals to go into the other. That was the history of the beginning of this Measure.
As to this Bill, it is based upon the Beveridge Report, which was adopted by the Liberal Party straight away as being a complete report. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is practically an adoption; I wish it had been a complete adoption. I wish there had been no distinctions between certain classes of people. As I said when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Industrial Insurance Bill "Why now draw a distinction between those who are employed and those who are not employed?" We are all part of the same community. We all have equal rights, or should have; we certainly have equal duties towards the community, and the community should throw the same protection over us all. Unfortunately, that distinction was drawn in that Bill, and it is drawn again in this Bill.
I do not want to go into details which will be raised in Committee. I want to deal only with the broad general principles. But that distinction is drawn again here, between the employed person working for somebody else and the man who is also working for his living but not employed by anybody. There is the villarge blacksmith or the village carpenter, vitally important members of their community. Thank heavens, we have not reached the stage of mass production for everything, and we can still rely upon the skilled artisan, the village carpenter or the village blacksmith, or the smallholder or the market gardener who may employ a youth or a girl from the age of eighteen upwards. At once, if anything happens to them, sickness benefit is paid from the day they fall ill, and unemployment benefit from the day they fall ill until they are back at work. With regard to the carpenter or the blacksmith himself, however, although the community has now lost because the man is unable to do his work, for twenty-four days he goes without any sickness benefit at all, and there is no unemployment benefit upon which he can draw. Yet he is as important a member of the community as his employee who is earning a weekly wage. I want to put that to the Minister and to the House. I do not deprecate this Bill; I only wish that it had been one large umbrella, taking us all in, without any distinction of any kind, and treating us, not sectionally, but as one great community.
Now I come to the administration. The Minister was quite right when he said, speaking from this Box last year, that he could not see how the friendly societies could be used. Yet Sir William Beveridge in his report, having studied the whole matter—and the House should remember that although Sir William Beveridge had to take full responsibility for the report, it was not only his report, for he was joined in it by civil servants elected by the Lord Privy Seal. The House will remember the letters that had to pass at the end when the report was ready between the Lord Privy Seal and Sir William Beveridge because the civil servants could not be drawn into a political battle, and therefore Sir William had to take full responsibility, although they were helping and guiding in the preparation of that report. May I remind the House of the words he used: that of the Good Samaritan have they done! What reason is there that they cannot be brought into this?
The Minister has said that under the old Act, sickness benefit was separate from the other, with a separate contribution and a separate working, and therefore it must be brought in. Although there will now be one contribution to cover everything, sickness will have to be attended to separately. Unemployment will not need the doctor, sickness will; and the person who will be calling and attending to the sick individual or the sick family ought to be someone who really knows them, understands them, and has a real interest in them. With all respect to the civil servants and their approach to these matters, it is not the same as that of their fellow-workers. The right hon. Gentleman himself very rightly referred to his Parliamentary Private Secretary as what? Not as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but by the familiar word "butty." If perchance, one of them were ill, the other would at once ask, "What has happened to So-and-so? Let us go round to see him. We will call in tonight. We know what they have gone through. We know their family history. We know the agonies of the loss of some dear one. No wonder they have broken down now. They want a little help."
Cannot this be reconsidered? The Minister himself before the Election took up the attitude he has mentioned today, but what about the past? Might I remind the Minister of the pledge given by his Party to all candidates and agents?—
National Insurance and Approved Societies
The Labour Party is of the view that in our future social insurance scheme, the system of approved societies shall be abolished with the exception of bona fide friendly societies and trade unions, which have a long and honourable record of work in both public and voluntary health insurance, and should be free to come in if they so wish."
That was issued oh behalf of the Party. A questionnaire was sent to everyone of us. Something like 700 candidates out of 900 said "Yes" to the question put by the friendly societies. There is more in this than difficulties of working in the friendly societies. Do not play fast and loose with pledges given to the country. Deceit anywhere is obnoxious, but deceit of the public is a horrible crime, because it may lead to the destruction of the very democracy upon which we depend. However difficult it may be, let the Minister think again. There is the solemn pledge given before the electors of this country went to the polls. Undoubtedly this was a major question put to everyone of us and each of us answered as best he could. My colleagues and I stand by the pledge we gave to the friendly societies then.
May I remind the Minister of another thing? Why is it that this country has escaped all the worries, troubles and horrors of revolutions which have taken place across the water? It is not merely that we are an island; it is because, gradually, there has worked into the minds of the people of this country a sense of discipline. For that sense of discipline the friendly societies and the trade unions are largely responsible. Early on they answered the question which I hope when this Bill becomes law we shall all answer. Not only do I owe a duty to my brother, but I am my brother's keeper. People who have voluntarily done so much for their fellowmen and who are trusted by their fellowmen—8,000,000 and more people are today on their books—are not lightly to be put on one side but ask to come in and assist. Those are the only two main criticisms of this Bill I have to offer. Smaller matters must be left to the Committee stage. On behalf of myself and my colleagues, on behalf of all Liberals wherever they may be, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having had the privilege of introducing this Bill. It is a great moment in the history of this country and it may mean a new era for the rest of the world.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to catch your eye and I crave the indulgence of this House for this, my maiden effort. The subject of social security today is one which has been near to my heart for a very long time. I have worked in connection with it many years, and have had many dreams about it, and today I see some of those dreams coming true. Social security to me has meant not merely a system of preventing people from dying from starvation, but a system which will assure people a full life; a system that will embrace health, education, leisure and culture—all these things as well as what we have always fought for, food, shelter, and a medical service. This national Bill plans to give us considerably better conditions than have prevailed in the past, but I would not yet agree that they have gone far enough to meet the needs of the people.
The Minister today spoke of co-ordinating Bills, the Industrial Injuries Bill and he mentioned the National Health Service and family allowances, and I should like to add the Education Act. All these are part of a complete social security plan, and I hope that some day we are going to see all these things linked together in one big social insurance scheme. I do not intend to dwell on health, education and family allowances. Possibly, later on, I may have an opportunity of speaking on those subjects, but I do ask myself, Does this National Insurance Bill get rid of poverty? Does it give us the essentials of adequate shelter, adequate diet and an adequate health service? Will it allow suitable clothing, and will it provide some pleasure in people's lives? I do not want to see livens without pleasure.
Does this Bill give the housewife a square deal? During the six years of war praise has been unstinted for the women of this country. British women have been held up as a shining example to the world for their courage, their devotion, and their unending energy in coping with the exigencies of a terrible war. Is the housewife's full value to be fully recognised now, by relieving her of the worry and strain she suffers in times of distress, because it is the housewife who takes the biggest burden in times of domestic distress? The breadwinner of course does suffer mentally, but to the housewife is added the greater strain of making ends meet, or making the most of things, and if anyone goes short, it is the woman. The man must be looked after because he has to be kept fit, or he must be made well so that he may return to work and earn the necessary income. The health and comfort of the children must be looked after. The wife and mother is the last person who is considered when income is low.
I want the Minister to consider the just claims of the housewife to a measure of relief from the mean and soul-destroying struggle to which she is often condemned when the income is low owing to adversity. The Minister said that what helps the mothers also helps the nation. I hope he is going to reconsider the plight of women in the future. I am glad to recognise that the rate of benefit in times of need is to be raised to a subsistence level. I am also glad that it is to be a uniform benefit. I welcome the fact that we have a Government which realises that the needs of the child are the same, whether the father is unemployed, whether he is sick, or whether he is injured, and realises that an orphan's needs are the same whether the father died on the battle field, or was killed in the mine, or died of sickness, and that the family's needs are much about the same whatever the cause of the inability of the breadwinner to bring in an income.
I think it is agreed that it has been a sheer farce in the past that a man who was unemployed could have allowances for his family, but when he was sick, with, incidentally, greater expense, there was no allowance for the family. Many families have built up some sense of security in their lives, making comfortable homes, buying their own houses, and giving their children a good education. Those circumstances more or less cover the majority of the people in my constituency of North Ilford. It is a constituency where people did have comfortable homes and where, before the war, 90 per cent. of the houses were owner-occupied. The war has altered that a little, but there are still many such cases. How many such families, not only in Ilford but all over the country, have found that all the things they have built up have crashed down, not because they have done anything bad, but because the breadwinner has struck a particularly bad patch? Probably they have been too proud to seek charity.
Let me give an example of a typical present-day hardship case of a worker, whose health has broken down and who has had months of illness due to the strain and responsibility of a war job with long hours, and whose circumstances are such as I have outlined. He has a son studying at college, possibly, a grown-up son. This calamity, this ex- pensive illness, comes along. How far does that 18s. go that is at present allowed? How far will the 31s. go, because the man is a trade unionist? I am asking the Minister, How far will 42s. go with expenses like that? I feel that in a case like that, there must be some other means of assisting, even if one of the items is merely keeping clear the expenses and fees of the son at school. Some means of security should be given to people who have endeavoured to build a really healthy, happy home.
What about the men in the Forces? What about the men who have not had much chance to save a great deal, and who are hoping now to set up homes? Most of us know that, prior to the war, the ordinary working-class home could be bought for about £100. That home today, that modest home, would cost about £300. It means that our men who have returned, and are returning, to set up homes, will have to spend their all in setting up a home. They will have no bank balance for a rainy day. What are we to do for them if they strike a bad patch? After all their sacrifice, and that of their wives, they should be considered. I think a grateful country should pay more than 42s. a week. I would like to ask whether anyone in this House could run a home on 42s. a week—49s. 6d. if there is a child. I know I would not like to try.
Social security means, and must mean, free medical treatment of the right kind in all circumstances, and sufficient income to meet those ordinary everyday expenses. I think that is the purpose of this Bill, and I do welcome it, but I urge the Minister in laying down his subsistence levels not merely to meet bare needs. We want something more. We want a reasonable standard of living. Unless security gives happy, healthy lives then it is not going to be a satisfactory system. The very least I expected in this Bill, considering the very heavy financial burdens we have in front of us, was 45s. plus 10s. for the child. I could not conceive—because we have a Socialist Government with people in it who actually know the needs of the workers—a figure of less than 50s. plus 10s. for the child. Therefore, I beg the Minister favourably to consider these remarks. I welcome the increase in the pensions for our old people, although again, I admit that I had hoped for more; I am a regular Oliver Twist. I do realise that this will be a growing burden, a very heavy burden, and therefore, at the moment I gratefully accept the amount which is being offered to our old people. I also accept widows' pensions, although I do want to see much better children's allowances for those widows. As was stated from the other side, it is ridiculous that four people should have to live on what two ought to receive.
There is one section of the community about whom I was greatly disappointed, and that is the spinster section. There is no special mention in the Bill of spinsters. Their long-standing claim for pensions at 55 has been ignored, and to me it is quite a just claim. The spinsters' lot is the hardest one to be found in the life of any section of our community. They fight alone. Very few men fail to get a woman to look after them whether married or single, but the spinster, because she is a woman, is expected to look after herself, even in times of sickness, and even to look after others, too. She goes to work, and, when she comes home, still has to work to look after her own comfort, and, very often, to look after that of her parents or brothers and sisters, with the result that her health gives out at an earlier age than in the case of a male worker or even of the housewife. As she gets older, she sees her chances on the labour market getting less and less, and she is likely to be driven into becoming cheap labour, thus pulling down wages. I consider that a spinster of 55 is no better off than a widow of 50. In fact, I would say she is worse off, because she has no children to care for her.
As a woman who knows the happiness of a husband, home and family, I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of the spinsters, that they should be included in the Bill and given a pension at 55 under the same conditions as those which apply to the older people. I would like this pension to be a retiring pension, because I do not want to see any employers who are inclined to be unscrupulous, using this pension for the purpose of lowering wages. I strongly urge that further sympathetic consideration shall be given to the three categories which I have mentioned—the housewives, the sick and the spinsters. I hope that we are going to make as great an effort in building up life as we made in destroying life during the war.
7.3 p.m.
It is always an honour to be able to congratulate an hon. Member on his or her first speech in this House, and especially is it so when the hon. Member happens to be a lady. I think the hon. Lady has done very well to remind us that there is a real danger that this Bill might be drawn up by men for men, and that, as she has told us, it is very largely to be carried out by the women of this country. I, therefore, hope that we may have the pleasure of listening to the hon. Lady during the discussions in Committee, because I am quite sure she can bring very great knowledge and experience to our deliberations. The hon. Lady has reminded us, too, of the case of the spinsters. I remember that, with over 300 hon. Members of this House, I gave an unqualified pledge at the Election to support pensions for spinsters at 65, and, naturally, the spinsters want to know whether the pledge is to be kept or broken.
I want to talk about only one point very briefly, and that concerns the welfare of the self-employed person, to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) referred. As the House knows, we have this somewhat extraordinary situation—that, whereas the employed man is to get sickness benefit after three days, the self-employed man has to wait 24 days. Here, we have a great Measure which is to cover us all, from the cradle to the grave, but we get one curious and, as I think, quite anomalous, exception. This is what will happen.
The managing director of a great firm, drawing many thousands a year, can sign on the panel after three days, whereas the village shopkeeper cannot. I suppose that Lord Catto, Governor of the Bank of England, the Prime Minister himself, the Archbishop of Canterbury—we are not quite sure about hon. Members of this House—and everybody who is employed, can sign on after three days, where the small trader has to wait 24 days. I suggest to the Minister that, in order to explain and excuse that anomaly, he has to put up some pretty good reasons. It is no good for him to say "We have considered it and it is impossible," because I think I am right in saying that, in one respect, the self-employed person who today is a voluntary contributor is going to be worse off. I should like to know what the reasons are.
I can think of only four possible reasons that may have led the Minister to take this view. First, is it because, under the present scale, the self-employed man is paying less, because, if that is the reason, I can tell the Minister that he is prepared to pay the other 6½d., or whatever it may be, if he can get the same benefits, and I hope, therefore, that the question of cost and contribution will not, of itself, come in. Another possibility is that the Minister might think that this particular section of the community might be dishonest. If the shopkeeper does not seem to be more honest than the rest of us, he is certainly not going to be more dishonest. I think it is easier to check evasion in the case of a shopkeeper, who can be seen by everybody in his shop, than in the case of an employed person and I hope that argument will not be put forward.
The third argument that might be put forward is that the scheme would be administratively difficult, if not impossible. I cannot see why. After all, the self-employed man, before he gets sickness benefit, will have to get a certificate from the doctor, like everybody else. I do not know whether the Minister has foreseen this difficulty. If the self-employed man only gets that benefit after 24 days, how is the Department going to know when the 24 days start? It will surely mean that, directly the man sniffs, he will register, in case the sniff leads to pneumonia. If he has some small ailment, he will obviously be tempted to call in the doctor, in case it develops into something more serious. I suggest that there are no administrative difficulties in the way of this scheme, or none which appeal to me or should appeal to the Treasury. The only other explanation I can think of is that there is a bias against this particular type of individual. I hope this will not be regarded as a party question, and I trust that some hon. Members on the other side, who are, I know, interested in small traders, will support me. I hope the hon. Members for West Salford (Mr. Royle) and Staly-bridge (Mr. Lang), who are interested in butchers, and two other hon. Members, who are interested in newsagents, will support me. I hope I may be assured that there is not, in fact, a political bias against this section of the community. I hope that I do not detect here the hidden hand of the co-operative societies—
Will the hon. Member allow me to clear up this matter right away? This provision was included in the Beveridge Report and the Coalition White Paper.
I did not agree with it then, and I do not now. Perhaps, when the Under-Secretary comes to reply, he can give us an explanation why the Minister is taking this course of action. I make no apology for standing up for the individual trader, the man who has set himself up in life by hard work, thrift, initiative and self-sacrifice, and I am sufficiently conservative to regard those as virtues. I also think that if we lose our small man, we shall lose one of the most valuable citizens this country has ever known. Therefore, I am determined, so far as lies within my power, to see that his case does not go by default in this great scheme of national insurance to which we, in every part of the House, are pledged.
7.10 p.m.
I welcome the opportunity of addressing this House for the first time, and I take the same opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister upon the speech he made this afternoon. I listened very carefully to him and followed the speech all through. But I regret very much the non-inclusion of the friendly societies and the fact that the Minister said so little on why he had decided to exclude them. I expected him to make reference to the points in the White Paper and to introduce the question of duplication and, possibly, multiplication. I am bound to confess I was sorry he did neither of these things.
Also, he might have told the House what the friendly societies are. I am sure he did not wish to keep from the House the very important work they have been performing for so many years. He knows, as well as anyone, the excellent work they performed before the advent of National Health Insurance, and particularly since then. He well remembers, and could have said this afternoon when referring to 1911 and 1912, that the friendly societies very willingly came to the aid of the then Minister on the introduction of the original scheme. The Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, was particularly grateful for the assistance they offered at that time. It should be remembered that at that moment the view was expressed that the National Health Insurance might do an injury to the voluntary friendly societies and insured workers. Accordingly, in order that the friendly societies should live, the two schemes were worked together. As a result, not only did the friendly societies continue to live, but they increased in membership, and, what is more important, they encouraged thrift to a greater extent than would otherwise have been the case. No one in this House, I am sure, will deplore an activity of that kind—of encouraging thrift—particularly among our working folk.
It was only right that in 1911–12 the friendly societies should have been called in aid. It is regrettable today that that should not be the case, and I wonder whether the powers that be, have actually given full consideration to this matter. Have they considered the possibility of doing a very serious injury to the old-established friendly societies? It is possible that such would be the case, and it requires no stretch of imagination to realise the probable repercussions if the Minister continues to exclude from his scheme the friendly societies as a whole. Sir William Beveridge's Report says that, as the result of increased benefits under the National Health Insurance, there would be an incidence of increased benefit payable, and length of sickness together with a greater number of sickness claims. The figure the Government Actuary put in his Report was 12½ per cent. The friendly societies became very alarmed at that figure and, very naturally, in order that they should see the extent to which their funds would be affected, they called in their actuaries. At that time the actuaries informed the friendly societies that, by reason of that incidence alone, there was the possibility, even the probability, of an increase in the benefit charges to the societies of no less a sum than £12,500,000. In 1937 the amount paid by the friendly societies to their members was a little over £13,000,000. So it will be seen that with the incidence of extra and longer periods of sickness, it would have that effect on the funds of the friendly societies.
I am not complaining, and I know the friendly societies are not complaining—indeed, we welcome the fact—that the Minister has increased the sickness benefit rates. We all welcome that, I am sure, but it has another effect on the friendly societies. Regarding the seriousness of this matter, I would like to read a letter dated 29th January, 1946, from an actuary acting for the friendly societies: difficult to act if there was no co-operation from the Government side. Consequently, as the actuary pointed out, any delay must cause the funds of the friendly societies to be called in aid much more than is customary, and much more than they can really afford. I do not think it is the wish of this House or of my right hon. Friend to do anything that is likely to crush the friendly societies of this country, but I warn my right hon. Friend that if he separates the two, as he wants to, there will be that possibility.
The difference between the present and the past systems is that, whereas in the past the friendly societies were able to gain as a result of the inclusion of the National Health Insurance scheme, the position is now reversed. The dual system is going to be in the house, not in the office; the wife will have to provide two medical certificates, she will have to be seen by two visitors, and will be paid by two different persons. If anything is going to suffer as a result of that, it cannot be the Government scheme, because that is compulsory. It must of necessity be the voluntary side which would be prejudiced, and I am sure the Minister does not want that. The friendly societies have shown a willingness to co-operate with the Government in every shape and form. From time to time they have submitted to my right hon. Friend's predecessor three or four schemes, and those schemes have been turned down.
The attention of the House has been drawn to a scheme known as the block scheme. The Minister said in his report—and, in fact, it is the only statement he has made so far—that it is impracticable to utilise the friendly societies in the administration of this scheme. That, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) would say if he were here, is a terminological inexactitude. In other words, that is not the fact. The friendly societies are in a position to work from the same sort of office as the Minister; they would see the same people as the Minister and would administer all the benefits that he has to administer, with the exception of unemployment. So far as the Minister and his Department are concerned, as I understand it, it will necessitate just one contact between the Minister and the whole of the friendly societies, leaving the friendly societies in turn to disseminate through their local branches local officers in precisely the same way as the Minister will have to do in the case of his own scheme.
I cannot understand why the Minister is so persistent in this matter. I would call his attention to an article by Sir William Beveridge that appeared in "The Times" of yesterday. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's attention has already been drawn to it, and he must have read it. There it is suggested that the friendly societies should be given at least an experimental period of say five years. I think that is a good suggestion. Hon. Members will remember that, last week, in reply to a Question which I put to the Minister with regard to the utilisation of friendly societies during the transitional period, the Minister said it was his intention to utilise the friendly societies and the approved societies in the transitional period, for the purpose of getting this scheme working, and until such time as he is able to take over from them. In effect, it means that he is going to say to those friendly societies, "Whereas you are running the national health insurance now, as from a given date, not yet determined, you will take over a section of my scheme and administer that section until such time as I say I no longer wish you to do it." If it is true—and the Minister says it is true—that he intends to use the friendly societies during such a period—and that period may well be, I am informed on very good authority, extended to 1950—I think the suggestion of Sir William Beveridge in "The Times" is reasonable. There cannot be any reason why the Minister cannot usefully employ them in the same manner.
The Minister has said today that he appreciated all the help that had been given. It is my desire to tell the House that the friendly society movement of this country is most anxious to co-operate with my right hon. Friend. It is anxious because it has in its care 8,000,000 voluntarily insured persons—8,000,000 people who, despite what the Minister said this afternoon, are anxious that their benefits shall be paid and handled in exactly the same way that they have been handled, without complaint, for the past 33 years. The Minister has not yet said—I do not know whether he will later on—whether he has any complaint, so far as the administration of the National Health In- surance scheme is concerned for the past 33 years.
At this stage I want to plead with him—and I say this with all sincerity—to give this matter his further consideration. I want him to feel in respect of those 8,000,000 members of the friendly societies the same sort of feeling that he expressed at the Treasury Box when he was talking of the nation as a whole. I want him to remember that, in that big nation to which he referred—and he spoke glowingly and in the spirit which I understand, and in which I am in the habit of talking—of the insured persons he has to cater for, one-third are members of friendly societies. It is just and right that that one-third should be allowed to continue as they have been doing and should not be deprived of benefits which they now enjoy. I plead with the Minister to give further consideration to the fact that whereas he is anxious to help these people, and to give comfort to the remaining two-thirds, he should not let the one-third suffer as a result of the great ideals which he and I share. I leave the matter with him on that score. I feel this is the gravamen of the question which is so important, and which affects the homes of so many people, and it is worthy of further consideration. I conclude by saying that if the Minister cannot see his way to including the friendly societies in his scheme, I am afraid I have no alternative but to do a thing I would regret having to do, and that is to put down an Amendment to the Bill.
7.33 p.m.
It is at any time a pleasure to congratulate an hon. Member who has addressed the House for the first time. On this particular occasion it is for me an unusual pleasure, because in the matter of the friendly societies he and I speak with one voice. I am rising on this occasion, mostly to support the very case which he has made on behalf of the friendly societies. It is evident that the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. Goodrich) has spoken with a considerable knowledge of his subject, and I hope we shall have many opportunities of hearing him again. It is also evident that he is a lover of freedom. For that reason, I think it more than likely that he and I will on future occasions share and express the same views.
Before coming to the matter of the friendly societies, there are one or two general observations which I want to make about the Bill. The Bill is in common form with all Government Bills today, in that it is not really a Bill at all. It is an enabling Bill, under which the Minister simply takes power to make regulations for a manifold number of subjects. That has become common form nowadays. Instead of putting what they want to put into the Bill, they put in that the Minister may make regulations to do this, that and the other. I want to deal—and this can be done very shortly because reference has already been made to it by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), and, no doubt, will be made by others—with the case of the self-employed man, the man who, for no good reason at all, is to be deprived of seeking benefit for 24 days, while the employed man is to receive it after three days. The Government have made out no case on that at all. I am not going to elaborate the arguments which have already been put forward by the hon. Member for Hornsey on that subject. I will leave it at this. I hope the Minister—and the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I understand, is to reply—will realise that there is serious opposition on this matter. It is one which will cause him grave concern unless he meets it with some co-operation with this side of the House.
The other matter to which I wish to refer, before I support the hon. Member for North Hackney in the matter of the friendly societies, is the position of spinsters, who are placed in the most anomalous position with regard to pensions. The position here is this. If a woman is married she will qualify for a pension at a considerably earlier age than if she is not. There is really no logic in that at all. The Government will, I think, have a very difficult time in justifying that situation before a very powerful jury in the country. It is only fair to warn the Government that these spinsters are very vocal in their demands, and they will not let the Government rest on this subject. I hope that with regard to that also we shall be able to get some assurance.
rose —
I promised to be short, but not as short as all that. I am in the same camp as the hon. Member for North Hackney with regard to the friendly societies. I want to remind hon. Members opposite of some of their obligations in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government?"] Yes, hon. Members opposite. I am very glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite distinguish between the party apposite and the Government That is exactly the point I was going to make. The hon. Member for North Hackney put his case eloquently in pleading with the Government to reconsider this matter. I am not pleading with the Government because I regard them as beyond redemption. I am reminding hon. Gentlemen opposite of the obligations which they have themselves personally undertaken in this matter. There are 199 hon. Members opposite who at the General Election, signed an undertaking to support the friendly societies, and we shall watch with a very keen eye to see whether they honour that obligation or not.
We shall watch, and it will be a considerable test for many hon. Members opposite to see whether they honour that obligation or not. Hon. Members opposite, of course, may well endeavour to exculpate themselves, as many of us do. At times of election we sign things and do not like it when they are brought up to us afterwards. There is one particular instance to which I should like to draw attention. It is the case of an hon. Member of this House who, when asked the usual question by post on a questionnaire whether he was going to support the friendly societies or not, not only answered the question favourably to the friendly societies but, quite voluntarily, wrote an accompanying letter promising his support. That letter was signed by the hon. Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance.
Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman the letter?
I shall produce it to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes me to do so. I am glad the hon. Gentleman asked me that question. I felt almost sure he would. This is not a matter which can be taken lightly. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have given this undertaking and they are expected to honour it. I would like to put two further very short points on behalf of the friendly societies. It is commonly understood among those interested in this matter that the Minister of National Insurance wants the assistance of the friendly societies during the first three years' working of his scheme. That is commonly accepted, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would deny it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why only three years?"] That is what I want to know. The supposition is that the Government realise they cannot work this scheme without the assistance of the friendly societies, and what they wish to do, therefore, is to learn all they can, to make use of the great organisation of the friendly societies, and when they have taken everything from them, they will throw them overboard and say, "We have finished with you now." That is apparently the present intention of the Government.
It really is not quite good enough. Here is a great organisation which has rightly acquired a very considerable reputation. Let us, for the sake of argument, imagine a town in which the Ministry of National Insurance has to have three insurance offices. He might just as well have two insurance offices and one friendly society office, all of which could co-operate together. No difficulties are thrown on to the Ministry by an arrangement of that kind. But, of course, what will happen in practice will be that the friendly society's officer will not be used by the Ministry at all, so that when a workman is sick he will, assuming that he has also friendly society cover, have to deal with two people—with the insurance officer representing the right hon. Gentleman opposite and with the friendly society officer. The only difference between them is that he will get considerably more satisfaction from the friendly society officer, who will come to his house and deal with him there. Having perhaps been visited by the friendly society officer on Monday, the sick man may have to get out of bed on Tuesday to go and see the right hon. Gentleman's representative at a Government office some distance away. It is considerably more convenient for the insured person to deal with the friendly society's representative, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite has little concern for the convenience of the public.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary and to his right hon. Friend that this matter should be put to the test by public inquiry. The friendly societies are prepared for this matter to be the subject of an inquiry, and to abide by the results of any such inquiry. I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, would deal with this specific point, and say whether he is prepared to hold an inquiry as to the inclusion of friendly societies in this scheme and to abide by the results as willingly as the societies. That is an offer which the friendly societies are prepared to make and I should be glad to hear what his reaction is.
In conclusion, may I say that the Government have put forward a great scheme, with which none of us on this side quarrel, but which it will not be easy for the Government to work? The Government will need all the assistance they can get. Apart from the inherent difficulties in launching a scheme of this kind at any time, this is being put forward at one of the most difficult times in our history. I warn the hon. Gentleman that he cannot afford to make enemies. He will need all the help he can get, and if he will accept the willing help and co-operation of the friendly societies, he will find that his task is made a great deal easier.
May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in view of the statement that he has made, he will be good enough to read the letters I wrote, one in March, 1945, and the other during the General Election, in order that both his statement and the letters may be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
I have told my hon. Friend that I will produce the letters to him. Unfortunately, I have not got them in my possession at the moment, as I did not anticipate being called this evening. I would have had the letters with me had I been called tomorrow.
I think it is most unfair, and I shall ask permission tomorrow to read the letters to the House when I am winding up.
7.45 p.m.
I am very pleased indeed, Mr. Speaker, that I have caught your eye this evening, and am thereby enabled to take part in this very important Debate on the National Insurance Bill. In making this, my maiden speech, I crave the indulgence of hon. Members, as is customary on such an occasion. I think it is true to say that this Bill will receive a very warm welcome from the whole of the people of this country. Particularly will this be so in regard to the people of Upton, West Ham, whom I have the honour to represent in the House. During the war the people of West Ham suffered greatly, in casualties and loss of their homes, through air raids. West Ham was in the unfortunate position of being attacked from the very start of the active air raids on London, and was attacked continuously until the sounding of the final "all clear."
Unfortunately, the ordinary working-class people of my constituency had suffered during the inter-war period, both in casualties through sickness and in damage to their homes because of the inadequacy, in years gone by, of unemployment and health insurance benefits. There are in West Ham a number of dock workers who, through no fault of their own, have had long periods of unemployment and, by the nature of their work, long periods of sickness. Never have they had an adequate insurance payment. Because of these facts I know that this Bill will be warmly welcomed by all my constituents. It is particularly pleasing to me, and to the people of West Ham, that this Bill should be introduced by the first Labour Government which has taken office with power. We know that it was through the efforts of the pioneers of the Labour, trade union and co-operative movements that the present Labour Government was made possible. Many of those pioneers were bred and born, and worked, in West Ham. A few of the old stalwarts of the Labour Movement who immediately come to my memory include the late Jack Jones, who was for a long time the Member for Silvertown; Will Thorne, the late Member for Plaistow, Keir Hardie, Tom Mann, John Burns and Ben Tillett, all of whom have had active associations with West Ham. I only wish it were possible for them all to be here this evening to see their life work brought to fruition.
While giving general approval to the Bill, I feel that there are one or two criticisms that I must of necessity make. These are mainly with regard to the benefits that are proposed in the Bill. I know that in some instances these are far below those at present being paid by the New Zealand Government under their social insurance scheme. We are of course aware that the people in New Zealand have, fortunately, had a Labour Government for just over 10 years, whereas we in this country have suffered for a great number of years under Tory mal-administration. They have had the chance, and the right kind of Government, to build up their social security and improve the standard of the workers of their country. My only regret is that past Conservative Governments here did not introduce a social insurance scheme, when they had the opportunity, in a manner similar to that adopted by our friends in New Zealand. In comparing some of the benefits, it is interesting to note that under the scheme proposed by this Bill a worker will receive for sickness, unemployment and retirement, if he is married and with one child, 49s. 6d., whereas in New Zealand a man with a wife and one child receives for sickness and unemployment 45s. 6d. This, we know, is a little less than our proposed benefits, but in New Zealand they have a system whereby for every additional child 10s. 6d. is added.
What I am particularly interested in is the great disparity between the New Zealand scheme and the proposals contained in this Bill so far as retirement pensions are concerned. In New Zealand, every person gets 32s. 6d. a week at 60 years of age on retirement, and therefore the income for a man and wife would be £3 5s. per week with an additional 10s. 6d. for each child under 16. It should be noted that the retirement pension in New Zealand is paid at the age of 60, and the New Zealand Government are now actively considering the payment of retirement pensions to women at 55 instead of 60. So far as our own proposals are concerned, the retirement pension does not commence until the man has reached the age of 65, and a woman the age of 60. I therefore ask the Minister favourable to consider adjusting the rates payable on retirement with a view at least to making them equal to those in the New Zealand scheme. I also wish to point out to the Minister that the rates I have quoted for New Zealand were in operation as far back as 1944.
My reason for making this suggestion with regard to improvement for old age pensioners is that with regard to sickness or unemployment. This we hope and trust will be only of a temporary character and therefore the benefits will be of a temporary character. But we know that so far as retired persons are concerned, that retirement is permanent and the pension is permanent. We also hope that they will, as retired persons, live a long number of years to enjoy life and to enjoy their retirement. I say with all due respect to the Minister that it would be impossible for a retired person to maintain a decent standard of life on the proposed rates of 26s. and 16s. for a dependent wife. I also add my plea to the Minister to consider the possibility of introducing a spinsters' pension. The hon. Member for North Ilford (Mrs. Ridealgh) has put the facts far more ably than I could, and therefore I am not going to deal with that particular subject, further than to say I believe the spinsters are the only body of people that have been left out of this comprehensive Bill.
I now ask the Minister to consider the system of contributions. Under the system as now laid down in the Bill, I think it is rather unfair to ask a man who is earning perhaps £3 to £4 a week to pay 4s. 7d. out of his wages by way of contributions. I think that is rather excessive. It is true, of course, that if there are any workers—I have yet to meet them—earning £10, £12, £14 and £16 a week, these deductions may be quite reasonable. I suggest to the Minister that a far better system would be to introduce contributions on the basis of a percentage of the total income which might be earned. By this means those who are earning most, or perhaps I ought to say those who are getting the most, because many get it without earning it, would in fact pay the most. This system of percentage deduction from total incomes could, in fact, also be adopted so far as company incomes are concerned. My suggestion therefore is to make a four or five per cent. deduction from the total income of all people. This could be deducted by the Chancellor from the Income Tax returns. It would obviate a lot of detailed work for the Ministry of National Insurance, and would do away with the suggested system of one stamp, and a national insurance card. I am convinced that this would mean a lot less work for the Department, and also a more co-ordinated scheme than that envisaged under the Bill.
May I add my plea to those of hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Minister should reconsider the question of allowing the friendly societies and approved societies to take part in the administration of this scheme? They have done wonderful work in the past, and they can and will, I am sure, do wonderful work in the future. I hope that this Bill will he only a foundation stone for building up a brighter, happier, and better future for the masses of the people of this country. In view of the fact that the monetary benefits are to be revised in five years, I am convinced that when our next Government is elected, which of course will be a Labour Government with a far bigger majority than the present one, then even better improvements will be made.
8.0 p.m.
It falls to my lot, and I regard it as a privilege, to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on his maiden speech in this House. He spoke with great earnestness and sincerity and confidence, and spoke up for his constituents. Those of us who have sat for the last few years in this House know what his constituency has gone through in the six years of the recent great conflict. I hope we shall hear the hon. Member again at no distant date, making other contributions to the Debates in this assembly. I should like also, although he is not present, to felicitate the Minister on his speech. He and I have different political views, but I have been associated with him in connection with many movements in Wales and as long as this legacy of power from the Conservative Party to Socialism continues, we would not wish a better man to have the honour of introducing social security Bills than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) whose personal popularity is quite above Party affiliations.
I must complain that the House has had very little time to consider this immensely complicated Measure. It is true that in the last Parliament Members were considering these proposals, or proposals which are now adumbrated in this Bill; but we have to consider that there are something like 340 new Members in this House, who did not participate in those discussions. The implications, and especially the financial provisions, of the Bill in regard to our whole commitments on national security are so important that they want full consideration. I see "The Times" in a leader today—our national newspaper is highly favourable to the present Administration, as far as I can see—was a little critical in regard to the fact that the Government have not allowed this House longer time for discussion in view of our whole financial commitments in relation to social security. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), in a most able and constructive speech, pointed out to the House the responsibility of the Government to present to the House the cost of the whole range of social security and legislation, so that we may see exactly where we stand. I hope that at no distant date the Government will be able to do that.
This Bill, of course, we all admit makes a very fine contribution to our social security. There are many snags in it all the same. It reminds me very much of my insurance policy. I think I am well covered till I start looking at the implications on the back of it, and the terms and regulations that are tying me down before I can participate in benefits. It is much the same way with this Bill—after all, it is an insurance scheme—and the public will be mistaken if they think they are getting very much for nothing through this Bill as I hope to point out in a moment. We find that in the Measure there are 79 Clauses; but there are 99 regulations by which the Minister can control the contributions and the benefits. I will admit this—that, comparing this Measure with many other Measures we have had in the House recently, the Minister is giving an opportunity to the House to review his decisions rather more frequently under this Bill than I have seen in others presented to this House.
But there are two classes of contributors in particular who seem to me to get very little out of the Bill, the self-employed contributors and the non-employed contributors. As far as those two particular types are concerned, their benefit is only one-sixth benefit of their contributions, as they pay five-sixths in their contributions. This class of self-employed persons, I see the actuary states, is 14 per cent. of all the men contributors and 9 per cent. of all the women. That is a fairly substantial class of the population. The decision to defer or to refuse sickness benefit by 24 days, in my judgment, is a hardship under this Bill that no Government can justify. It means that 90 per cent. of the cases of sickness of those persons are not covered at all.
That is the whole point.
I speak as a medical man who has spent twenty years in practice.
The majority of those cases will not be covered.
So far as the self employed persons are concerned, in only about 10 per cent. of the cases of illness I estimate will they be able to claim benefit. Why do I say that? Because the overwhelming proportion of illnesses are those which last only a few days—
That is right.
Many illnesses—influenza, rheumatism, or a small injury—last only a few days. The only illnesses which last for 24 days are either the seriously acute illnesses like pneumonia or the chronic incurable illnesses like cancer. I am sure the Government will not be able to justify before the country withholding benefits for 24 days from self-employed contributors under the Bill. I do hope the Minister will look at this matter again. I appeal to him to do so. This is a very particular hardship for these people to be deprived of this benefit. Hundreds of thousands of them are in a small way of business, and have to find somebody to do their work and look after their businesses while they are ill. Self-contributors under this scheme may be ill for 23 days without any means of support by the Government. I make a very strong appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to his right hon. Friend the feelings of the House on this matter. The whole thing is unfair and unjust, and, in my opinion, does not fulfil the functions of a Bill for the social security of the people as a whole.
There is another large category which is still worse off, and that is the non-employed contributor. There are many thousands of people in this country who are non-employed through no fault of their own. It may be that they are slightly incapacitated and have to retire at a fairly early age, say, between 60 and 65. They have under this Bill to pay 4s. 8d. a week contribution. I do not know whether I come under that category. We have not yet been told whether Members of Parliament are non-employed or employed contributors. These people get very little under this Bill, apart from a pension, after many years of payments. It does not cheer a man of that age very much to know that at the age of 61 he may be able to get a maternity allowance, which is about the only thing which he can get by way of benefits.
There is another hardship I should like to mention. It is only a small point, but I am rather surprised that the Government have not given consideration to it. The other day I was speaking to a man who has been engaged as an insurance officer for many years, and he referred to the hardship to the small employer of labour who has been employing four or five men and who, through adversity, bankruptcy or the vicissitudes of trade finds himself without a business. He has paid the employers contribution for his men for years and, in addition, he will have paid 5s. 9d. a week as his own contribution under the Bill. And yet any small employer in that position, or who may be sick, is deprived of unemployment benefit and, in the case of sickness, he has to wait 24 days before he gets benefit. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will also ask his right hon. Friend to look into that matter.
The sickness ratio under this Bill is likely to be very much increased. I see that the Government actuary with the conservativeness of Government actuaries, uses serious and carefully chosen words concerning the possibility of enhanced claims of sickness. I have been talking to many medical men, and they all tell me that the ratio of small illnesses of short duration has increased during the war. The position of the medical man in dealing with sickness certificates is extremely difficult. It may be that in the medical profession, as in other professions, there are black sheep, but I am quite sure that the proportion of medical men who would knowingly give a false certificate is very small. They are, however, in great difficulty when required to give certificates in the case of people suffering from functional disorders and in dealing with malingerers. I am afraid, in view of the increased benefits, that the proportion who will claim sickness benefits under this Bill, human nature being what it is, will be very much increased.
It may be that the Minister hopes under this Bill and the health scheme to have better control over the doctors in this matter, but I warn him that if he wants to get the co-operation of the whole medical profession he must not try to put them into a strait jacket, take away their freedom, and deprive them of that tradition, initiative, resource and scientific advancement which they have inherited for generations, because I am satisfied that if the Government do not get a friendly medical profession to co-operate with them, this Bill will be damned.
I am now going to make an appeal in connection with approved societies and in connection with approved societies and friendly societies. I have watched their work for many years before I came to this House. Wonderful work has been done by the friendly society visitors, and I wonder how the Minister is going to carry out the administrative functions of this Bill, especially in the rural areas, without the help of the local or regional friendly society officer. It will be a serious matter for sick people to have to walk miles to see a Government official, however benevolent and however fair he may be. I am afraid that in this matter the Government are taking a serious risk. Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, who had very strong radical views even in 1911, said this:
I am sure the hon. Gentleman desires to be correct. Friendly societies are not interfered with under this Bill. It is approved societies, and the difference between approved and friendly societies is very considerable.
I quite appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman will not admit that he is making use of friendly societies under this Bill.
Friendly societies are not mentioned in the Bill and they are not concerned.
That is a most interesting and important statement, but with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman it does seem strange when we are bombarded from day to day with letters from friendly societies of this country as to their position under this Bill, and yet the hon. Gentleman says they are not concerned with it. I cannot at this late stage develop the argument further, but it is quite impossible to reconcile the two positions. All I know is that they are not mentioned in this Bill. I want to make an appeal in regard to the approved societies. There is a credit fund of £700 to £800 million with which to start this Bill coming from the National Insurance Fund, the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Pensions Fund. I hope the Government will deal generously with the approved societies when it comes to a matter of compensation under this Bill. In conclusion, I wish the Bill well. All sides of the House will do everything they can to try to improve it, and they will make every constructive suggestion possible, but the test of it will lie absolutely in its administration. If there is not cooperation between the Government who administer the Bill and the contributors and the medical profession who will be one of the pivots of the Measure, it will not be the Measure which we in this House hope and expect it will be.
8.23 p.m.
I join with right hon. and hon. Members in extending my congratulations to the Minister of National Insurance on the very excellent speech he made this afternoon at the beginning of this Debate. Perhaps that is due to the fact that he has an economic background something like myself, and was filled with profound humanitarianism and the feeling that he was doing the right thing, at the right time, for the right type of people. In the concluding part of his speech the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) said—if I got his words correctly—"In the magic of averages let us not forget the individual." Whatever the merits or demerits of the Bill now under discussion, one can truthfully say it does, for the first time in the history of this country, seek to place on the Statute Book legislation which will sweep away once and for all the spectre of want and poverty from the lives of the British people. I know that this Bill has its shortcomings and I know it has some imperfections but, as George Bernard Shaw said in his cynical mood a few weeks ago, when you get the perfect Measure you will get the perfect nuisance. The Bill lays the foundation upon which to build in the future. This was a promise given, and we on this side of the House have got to honour that promise. The people of this island home of ours have lived through six momentous and eventful years, and are entitled to the best that the legislative assembly can give them for the future. They have lived through years that have called forth the best in the British character. They have been called upon to make sacrifices, endure hardships and experience all sorts of discomforts, and now this House must face its obligations and keep the promise made that we are going to build a better Britain.
After the 1914–1918 war the people in this country and particularly the old age pensioners—on whose behalf I will address the House in a few moments—were victims of blatant deception and trickery, and I say that with all respect to preceding Governments. This must not happen again. The slogan which was coined after the 1914–1918 war and which was bandied about in the inter-war years "A land fit for heroes to live in," must be changed into "A land where heroes can live the best possible life."
And they cannot get enough to eat.
I will deal with that in a moment. This land must be made one where the people can live the best possible life, the best life for the mind, the best life for the body, and the best life for the spiritual desires of the people. During the past six years we have read and heard of vast armadas of ships sailing the seven seas of the world; we have heard and seen the vast fleets of aircraft flying the skies; and in every city and town and village of this country we have seen great armies of brave young men and women marching to the strains of martial music and surging forward in the fight for freedom and liberty against the Nazi regime. Let us remember—can we ever forget? I cannot—that the captains and crews of those ships, the pilots, navigators and operators of the aircraft and the vast armies of young men and young women are the grandsons and the granddaughters of some of the bravest men and women that ever stepped in shoe leather, as we say in Lancashire. I welcome this Bill because it does propose to lift the standard of life for a section of the community that has been shamefully treated in the past. I welcome this Bill because it lifts the standard of life for the old age pensioners which is long overdue. Whilst it does not go as far as one would like, for the first time it does bring within its scope a section of the community which has been sadly neglected since 1919 when the basic pension of 10s. per week was fixed. Despite the increase in the cost of living which has brought down the spending value of that 10s. to 4s. 2d., it has never been increased.
I sometimes wonder what would be the position of the industrial workers of this country if there had not been strong trade unions, to back them in their fight to get increased wages to meet the increased cost of living. Here is a section of the community which have no trade union, and no right to strike, and yet they have to content themselves with accepting 10s. per week, despite the increased cost of living. I suggest that there would have been a terrible row in this country, had the wages of the workers not advanced with the increased cost of living. I wish I could transfer by some magic wand some Members of this House to our mining villages and towns, where they would see poverty conditions that beggar description for all around them; they would see sorrow and toil and tragedy instead of praise and victory. Why should it be? Why should there be so much poverty in the homes of our old age pensioners? It is because somebody, somewhere, sometime, has failed to meet obligations to those who, by their craft, skill and devotion, have made their country one of the greatest in the world. My philosophy is this: I believe it is the duty of men and women to do their best for the State in which they live, and that it is the duty of the State, when they have done their best, to protect them from poverty or starvation. I have always maintained, since the days when I worked in the pit, that the whole nation is responsible for poverty if it exists, and that it is the business of the nation, and especially of this House, to put that matter right, by moving poverty from our midst.
This Bill is an attempt to do that. I am delighted with it, because I have fought for many years, long before I came into this House, for some improvement in the lot of old age pensioners. I have tried on every possible occasion to plead for some alleviation of their sufferings. This Bill is a great stride forward, and although it falls short, in many aspects, of what I would desire it does bring within its scope a great many people who have been suffering hardship since 1919. On 31st March, 1945, there were 3,529,600 people of 65 and over in receipt of the old age pension. Of that number—and this is the testing point—there were 1,590,000 in receipt of a supplementary pension. When an old age pensioner has to make application for supplementation that indicates at once that he is on the poverty line. The average amount of supplementary pension paid by the Assistance Board during 1944 was 16s. a week, again an indication that the 10s. a week basic rate was inadequate to meet the needs of the old age pensioner. In addition, there were, in industry, over 700,000 people over 65, including 80,000 women, and these will ultimately find their way on to the pensions list when industry, which has been prosperous during the war, is no longer so prosperous.
I welcome the Bill, because it will give over 4,000,000 pensioners the assistance which has been denied them for so many years. Let me, humbly and very sincerely, tell the House what I see in my own constituency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden asked us, "What do the old people want? What do they desire?" Yesterday we had the grim disclosure about the food situation in this country and in the world. That grimness has been the experience of old age pensioners for many years. They have been short of the things they needed, because they had not the wherewithal to purchase them. Here is case No. 1: It concerns an old age pensioner who lost a leg in industry, and who is now 77. He has 10s. a week. He had to make application for a supplementary allowance, and received an extra 12s. His rent is 8s. 8½d. a week; his coal is 4s. 7½d. a week; and his light is 6d. a week, making a total of 13s. 10d. That leaves him 8s. 2d. with which to provide food and clothing, or is. 2d. per day. If he has four meals a day it means that they cost 3½d. each. Is there anyone inside or outside this House who can justify the continuation of a system that compels a man to live in such dire poverty as that? Here is case No. 2: It concerns a man aged 80 in May, who started work in a pit when he was nine. He has done 71 years underground. Are we to say to him, when he retires, "Here is your 10s. a week; that is all we can give you"? Can anyone justify the payment of a pension of that kind to a man who has worked 71 years underground? Here is case No. 3: It concerns an old lady, aged 91 on 4th April this year. She has brought into the world a family of eight, and has nursed, trained and fitted them for the world. Yet she is in receipt of a pension of 10s. a week at the moment. If we are true to the characteristics of the British, we cannot allow our old age pensioners to be treated in that manner.
Will the hon. Gentleman make some observations about the promises given at the last Election that old age pensioners would be given 30s. a week at 60, with no means test? What is to be done about that?
Who made that promise? I am sorry that the hon. Member has interjected. I am stressing the advantages of this Bill compared with any previous legislation submitted to the House. I know that this Bill falls short of the 30s. a week, but it is a considerable advance upon anything that hon. Members opposite put forward in days gone by. The Bill has its imperfections—
I was asked to give the names of hon. Members who made those promises. I have no wish to do so on the Floor of the House, but if I am challenged, I will do so.
I hope the hon. Member will have an opportunity of elucidating the point about promises that were made to old age pensioners and then broken, and I hope that in doing so he will put the responsibility on those to whom it belongs. I wish to join with those who have criticised the Clause in the Bill which deals with self-employed persons. I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance can justify that provision. The Clause states:
"A self-employed person shall not be entitled to sickness benefit for the first twenty-four days of any period of interruption of employment."
The effect of this Clause is automatically to preclude the payment of any form of benefit to a self-employed person for the first four weeks of incapacity, whether it be occasioned by sickness or by accident. I have taken the trouble to find out the position with regard to the incidence of sickness and periods of incapacity. A great number of cases do not run into four weeks, but end at three weeks, and consequently 75 per cent. of self-employed persons would not receive any benefits. I have looked into the regulations of one or two of the old friendly societies, and I have not discovered in any of their rules and regulations, right back to the days before 1912, any provision of that description. I ask the Minister to re-examine this matter, and if he does so, I think he will come to the same conclusion as I have.
Would not my hon. Friend agree that the contributions payable by self-employed persons are less than the total contributions paid in respect of employed persons to the extent of 6d. a week?
Even if the contribution is less, it does not justify the withholding of benefits until the twenty-fifth day. The next point of criticism has reference to paragraph 38 of the White Paper. Many contributors to the present scheme who are nearing pension age have contributed with a view to receiving benefits at the rate of 10s. a week at 60 for women and 65 for men unconditionally. I feel that persons who qualify for old age pensions after this Bill becomes an Act should be allowed, if they so wish, for a period of five years, to have the same option as those who qualify before this Measure comes into force. I ask the Minister to examine that provision. With regard to paragraph 39 of the White Paper, which deals with non-contributory pensions, what is to be the position of people between 55 and 70 years of age who have been, and are, unable to qualify under the new proposals? On paragraph 43, dealing with death grants, I entirely disagree with the provision which denies the payment of a death grant to anyone who is over pension age. I contend that the pensioners, many of whom have been contributors for much over 10 years and have helped to accumulate this vast fund, should not be discriminated against, and that the same payment should be made to all of them.
With regard to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which is dealt with in the Fifth Schedule to the Bill, it is provided that the Committee shall consist of not more than seven members. One of them is to be appointed after consultation with organisations representing the employers and one after consultation with organisations representing the workers. Here, again, I wish to make a plea on behalf of the old age pensioners. Having regard to the fact that there are almost 5,000,000 people who are old age pensioners, I think they are entitled to have a representative on the National Insurance Advisory Committee and also on the local committees. The Minister would be doing a good service, and the House would be making a great gesture, to the old people's organisations if they were permitted to have a representative on the Advisory Committee.
I would like, finally, to support those hon. Members who have made a plea for the spinsters to be brought within the scheme. I think it will be a serious mistake if they are left out. I do not know whether it would be possible at this late stage to obtain an actuarial calculation as to what it would cost to include them, but I think it would be worth while for the Minister to make an attempt in that direction. If we are going forward into a brave new world, let us carry them with us. If we do that, I think this Measure will receive support from one end of the country to the other.
8.48 p.m.
When I entered the House, I made lip my mind to concentrate on two phases of Parliamentary work, social insurance and agriculture. This evening I have the opportunity of addressing the House for the first time, and I trust I shall have the indulgence of all hon. Members. First, I wish to say a word about the Beveridge Report. The reception which the country gave to that Report was rather indifferent in some respects and welcoming in other respects. I found that there were four different types of critics. There were the ignorant who thought they were to get £2 or more out of the Post Office the following day; there were the sceptical who asked where the money was to come from; there were those who thought that every reform is a palliative; and lastly, there were the suspicious or faint-hearted persons whose comment was: "It sounds nice, but it will never happen."
This evening we have had the Bill itself, and I welcome very much its introduction by my compatriot the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). The answer to those critics lies in the Bill itself. It states, "what one is to receive, what one will get, and what one will be paid." As one who has had some experience in dealing with most of the benefits provided in this Bill, and particularly as the general secretary to an association of friendly societies dealing with National Health Insurance, I would, as a Welshman and not as a preacher, submit three points to the House. One deals with contributions, one with benefits, and the other with administration.
First of all, contributions. An hon. Member on this side said it was impossible to pay those contributions, but in the Library this week I have spent a considerable time in making a research into this very question. I came across the "Board of Trade Journal," which dealt with a report on working-class households of 1937 to 1938. Bringing the cost of insurance up to date, I found that the ordinary working man pays, on an average, throughout this country 6s. 10½d. a week in the industrial areas and 4s. 10½d. a week in the agricultural areas. That latter low figure is because they have not all the services included in this particular Bill. I then examined my own constituency, which is a very wide continent, two administrative counties. In the urban districts they are actually paying 7s. 1½d. a week at the present time, and in the rural districts 5s. 1½d.
The reason for this is that, being a Welsh community, they make extraordinary provisions for insecurity and so on. They even pay towards a hearse club in order to get a decent burial. They pay into a burial club and when a member of the club dies there is a knock at the door and in comes a man who says, "So and so has passed away, I would like the money to which the family are entitled." The money is paid even when the accounts have not been audited. Not only are there these special benefits, but a man may, if he is religious enough, get a sacred concert. All that means considerable contributions.
One good thing about the Bill is that there is no disparity in the benefits as between rural and industrial areas, and that is a step in the right direction. The same stamp and the same benefits will apply to all concerned. Nevertheless, I am going to join the chorus of criticism which has been made with regard to the self-employed contributor. I do that because there are a large number of voluntary contributors who have been paying for many years and who would be penalised under the Bill as it now stands. I ask two questions. First, what would be the cost of extending to the self-employed contributor the provision of sickness benefit as made for the ordinary employed worker. The second question is, What would it cost to make this provision applicable to existing voluntary contributors, and what extra contribution would be required? Again, what is the position of a voluntary or self-employed contributor as to incapacity? Are his contributions to be excused during the first four weeks or will he have to pay them? This point has not been made. It is true that under the Beveridge proposals there was a margin of 13 weeks during which no benefit was paid at all.
I now come to the question of disqualification from benefit. I am surprised to find that, as I see it—and I hope I am wrong—contributors are going to inherit some of the petty rules of the friendly societies with regard to disqualification. Might I say this: In the White Paper, on page 4, paragraph 14, it is said:
My last point is that of administration. It must be remembered that according to the Beveridge Report there were 800 approved societies and 6,600 separate valuation units. All these are going to be done away with. One important point has not been mentioned. It is that friendly societies administer only 44.8 per cent. of the insured contributors in this particular country, and they have had the most to say about it. This I cannot understand. I would ask a few questions to which I hope someone will reply. Why is there the present disparity in the payment of additional benefits? Why not pool these benefits and give the same amount to each individual? Further, may I remind the hon. Gentleman on this side of the House why his society excluded miners from becoming members of his friendly society? It was because their work was arduous and they were likely to be sick all the time. Because of that they were excluded altogether up to ten years ago. On St. David's Day in 1942—yes, St. David's Day—I found figures which showed that 180,000 cases were referred to relief because approved societies and friendly societies were not paying sufficient benefit. That is the record. Even if contributors are brought in to the scheme, are they prepared that their voluntary payments should be increased the longer they stay on the funds? They are not. Their rules at this moment definitely state that the longer a person is on the funds the less benefit he will get.
I come now to my own town in Brecon. There we have 168 separate approved societies which should administer sickness benefit. Take the five large societies. Would the friendly society so selected be prepared to bring to the notice of insured persons the advantages of the voluntary side of all the other friendly societies? Would that great, noble Order of Rechabites be prepared to take in a man who was not very faithful to their main principles?
I have ventured to make some suggestions to the Minister and I am certain that if he will look at them he will find them practical in character. I am glad he made reference to the advisory department in the new offices, and this should be regarded as a right and not a privilege. I hope that, whatever administration is finally decided upon, there will be no part-time officers but only full-time officers. The Minister has made a statement about the provincial administration to be carried out in Wales. I hope that there will be as many officers as possible able to speak both in English and Welsh, particularly the inquiry officers. The same observation applies to the chairmen of the advisory committees and its members. Wales has a right to keep its culture and traditions; let her do so under a good Measure introduced by a good Welshman. This scheme will be judged by how it is administered. The Minister has given us assurances that he will get the best men for the best jobs, believing in his own principle nid cardod i ddyn, that is to say "not charity for man," When they get an ideal behind them the Minister will find the right men for the jobs.
Reference has been made by other Welshmen to that great statesman Mr. David Lloyd George and to the protests and criticisms which were made when he introduced his National Insurance Bill. Despite all the criticism, the common people accepted the Bill and the administration in quite good part. Nat only did they speak about "going on Lloyd George" when they were going to draw benefits, but they refer to it in those terms even at the present day. I do not know what they will call the present Measure. That will be a matter for Wales to decide.
This evening is the proudest moment of my life, having been able to speak in this Debate and to follow the Minister himself. Not very long ago he first came into my country as a miner's agent and, as a mere lad, I carried his bag. Well, I am with him tonight, wishing him every success. If at any time during the Debate he feels discouraged, let him think on these things: "When you see a cloud arise in the West, straightway you say there only commeth a little shower."
9.4 p.m.
This is a great day in the history of Wales. This Bill has been introduced by Wales, attacked by an hon. Member from Wales and defended by Wales. I am sure that hon. Members from Wales will be the first to agree that the traditions of that great country have been worthily upheld by the hon. Member who has just delighted us with such an extremely attractive and brilliant maiden speech. As an Englishman I am almost embarrassed to interpose in these deliberations. I cannot help my mind going back to the word that Shakespeare used about that great Welshman, Owen Glendower, who said: torical distinction between the serf and the free man was that the serf received his payment in kind, and the free man received payment in cash. Therefore, so far as we revert from what is a system of payment in cash to a system of payment in kind, we are doing something which may be necessary but which has this dangerous element in it.
We must as things are have a system of insurance, and we must co-ordinate the system of insurance; I do not challenge that. But I am saying that in doing so we should at the same time be conscious of the problems which we have to solve. Particularly let us understand the problem in unemployment benefit; the great problem in all extensions of unemployment benefit is surely that, if the State is to take responsibility for keeping people when they are unemployed, obviously people are at least inclined to ask the question; Has not the State got the right and duty to take very stern measures of one sort or another to make sure that they are employed? Under the laissez-faire system a man had a job, he left that job, and it was no business of anyone whether he left for good or for bad reasons; he was punished by not getting wages, and that was the end of the business. That system was abandoned as intolerable.
Now we have a new system, and under this system there is a great problem. Sir William Beveridge, when faced with that problem, answered it in a very unequivocal, perhaps logical but very ominous manner. He said: to be the introduction of a principle of compulsory labour in the docking world. I was therefore very surprised to hear him defend Sir William Beveridge and chide the Government, because their scheme was not the full Beveridge scheme. On this point, so far as the Government scheme varies from the Beveridge scheme, it varies, in my humble opinion, greatly to the advantage of the Government. If we look at Clause 13 we see that the Bill lays down certain conditions under which people are not to receive benefit—when, for instance, they leave their employment without just cause, or fail to avail themselves of a reasonable opportunity for suitable employment, and so on, but it obviously stops far short of the word "enforcement" which Sir William Beveridge was content to use. Between the two I prefer this Bill. Obviously, if you are to have a system of unemployment insurance, you must have conditions attached to it; you cannot simply pay out money to everyone who says he is unemployed without any test at all. I am raising no criticism of that, but I am saying there is a danger, and there being a danger, what is the remedy?
The remedy is surely this, and it is an important point which I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind, both in general and in particular, when we come to consider the details of the contributions to be made under this scheme. It is this, that these schemes are in themselves perhaps admirable but on one condition, that there exist, side by side with the schemes, personal, voluntary savings as widespread throughout the country as possible. Therefore, I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) was very much justified in expressing his regret that the Minister said no word in his speech about the importance of personal thrift, and I was very glad when the Prime Minister agreed with my right hon. Friend that the Government valued the importance of personal savings. For the real condition of a free country is widespread and personal savings, and one of the most encouraging and valuable things of the last few years in this country has been the growth in savings. However conscientiously administered, all these points about just cause, reasonable employment, and so on, are bound to result in conditions of hardship on occasions when someone is offered a job he does not consider reasonable and someone else does. The important thing, therefore, is that as widespread as possible throughout the country there should be personal savings because, when a man has those, he has not to explain to anybody why he did not take a job and he remains a free man. Therefore, I would beg all hon. Members, when they come to inquire into the finance of the contributions and what we can afford, not to allow it to be said that we can afford a plan unless it means that we can afford it and still leave at the end of it sufficient money for personal savings to be made. We know very well that in the past there has been a great evil in that wages have been so bad that personal savings have not been possible except in certain classes of the community.
May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question? Does he think that the agricultural labourers were in a position to save against their old age on the miserable wages they have received?
I have just been explaining that it has been a great evil of the past that it has not been possible. Let us have wages as high as possible and save out of those wages. One of the great advantages of recent times has been the great growth in savings that has taken place, and I was begging hon. Members to bear that in mind and to ensure in their financial policy that they still make possible, and encourage, the system of savings.
9.15 p.m.
I feel tonight, like the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Squadron-Leader Hollis), rather diffident to enter this Debate. I am even more diffident than he is because I am a Scotsman, and apparently mine is the only voice that has been raised for Scotsmen tonight. I am diffident also in view of the eloquence of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), who made such a good contribution to the Debate.
I feel that too much has been said about friendly societies and not enough about the difficulties which they have in paying benefit. Before dealing with that point, I would like to say something which is perhaps not important, but rather significant. The proposals of the Government were published on 25th January, which is Burns' birthday. I felt very happy, in reading my newspaper on 25th January, to see, side by side, the Government's proposals and the usual tributes to that famous Scotsman, Robert Burns. We have had Shakespeare quoted, we have had something from Wales, and we ought to have something from Burns. Burns spoke of man when in his youthful prime:
It is in agricultural areas that the friendly societies really fall down on the job. Quite a number of friendly societies are in the towns, but in the countryside where large areas are sparsely populated, friendly societies work with part-time agents, working mostly during the day. They do not find it so easy to call on and look after the people. My experience of the agents of industrial companies is that, when they go into the countryside, they attempt to get contributions paid fortnightly, or monthly, and to go into the scattered villages as few times as possible. If the Post Office is to be used for administration of benefit, payment by cheque or postal order is not really very satisfactory.
All ordinary people in the country do not possess cheque books. They do not all possess a bank account, and it is even difficult for some to get a postal order for payment to be made, but in the countryside there is a very good machine in the local Post Office and the local postman, who goes into all these places nearly every day. Throughout the countryside these men go up the glens and through the villages. They have that local knowledge and local contact which is supposed to belong only to the agents of the friendly societies. I have some knowledge of the friendly societies. At one time I was a part-time agent and I know how difficult it is sometimes to make speedy payment of benefits, which is essential. I say to the Minister that no matter what organisation he has, he should make sure that the benefit is paid speedily and efficiently.
There is one other thing I want to say to hon. Members opposite. They approach the question of friendly societies because of a certain implication in the Bill. The implication in the Bill is contained in the new conception as far as death benefit payments are concerned. I think they are not so much concerned with the question of maintaining the friendly societies as they are with trying their best to make it difficult so far as the administration is concerned, because they see in the introduction of this Measure deep inroads into the industrial insurance. I welcome this Measure. I do not want to waste any time in referring to the many things with which it deals, but I feel that it is not comprehensive enough. We are, as I say, attacking industrial insurance by the introduction of death benefits.
The Government and the State have always been interested in insurance in which there was no profit. For instance, we have to maintain the Armed Services, which has been an insurance in the past as far as the peace is concerned. I hope that that function will be transferred to the United Nations Organisation. Then the local authorities have to make provision for sewage schemes. That is an insurance against epidemics. There is no profit in that sort of concern. We never see private enterprise interested in the development of sewage schemes. Local authorities now have to undertake the question of housing, and good housing in this country is an assurance against all the ills to which the flesh is heir. Then again, we have this new insurance Measure which is to be an insurance against poverty and ill-health and which makes provision for old age. Why not enter the business of fire, accidents, theft, and all those other things in which some benefit and profit can be made? That is what I say. During the war the Government had to undertake the War Damage Act, something which no private enterprise could hope to enter with profit.
If we as a Government undertake all these measures in which there is no profit, why not take into account all the other kinds of insurance and make sure that any profit that is got from insurance will be returned to the people as a whole? The reason why I make this statement is because I had the opportunity given to me from the other side of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate stressed the fact that this was an insurance scheme. At one time, we hoped it would be a social security scheme, but it was turned from social security into social insurance and has now been turned from social insurance to national insurance. I want to see it a really national insurance measure, a comprehensive insurance measure. Sometimes we are taunted with the fact that we do not give enough credit to private enterprise. I will say to the Minister that we should have a little private enterprise so far as this is concerned. We are engaging in the matter of death benefits, and I am happy that there is no question of compensation to the insurance companies on that score. Quite a number of them have been annoyed about this question of compensation, which, to me, simply concerns a lot of worn-out, backward, bankrupt industries. National Insurance is not that. We are now going into the provision of death benefits, without any question of compensation. Let us make this Bill a little more comprehensive, and let us have provisions for the Minister to go into the whole field of insurance.
A point that may be put in reply to that is that the Minister has enough on his plate already. Perhaps that is true, but I am not asking him to do it now. I am asking him to make definite provision in the Bill to enable him if it is at all possible, to undertake all questions of insurance. It may be that some other hon. Member may like to quote something else from Burns, but I would like to quote Burns again: to the Minister of Health not to build temporary houses on good agricultural land. I ask the Minister to let us have a really comprehensive scheme and go into the whole question of insurance.
9.28 p.m.
I rise, also to congratulate the Minister on the presentation of this Bill to the House. There can be no question whatever in anybody's mind, after hearing the right hon. Gentleman, that he had the subject fully at heart and completely within his grasp. I wish to draw his attention to only one point. In the White Paper it is stated:
I observed this first when the original White Paper was issued. I spoke to Sir William Beveridge about it. He appeared amazed when I told him that so many people would be affected. He could hardly realise that what I said was true, but I have checked it with those who told me what the facts were. Sir William Beveridge, I was sorry to note, did not come back to this House, and I have not been able to see him since. I have not corresponded with him about this, but as soon as I saw the new White Paper I once again investigated the matter and satisfied myself by asking people—in addition to my own knowledge on the subject—and I was again assured that there was a great number of people who would be affected. The method of affecting them does not end, apparently, in cutting off such people from what I might call the "newer benefits." Curiously enough, it also applies to the old age pension, Under the Bill as it stands, nobody who is not now under 55 years of age will, when he reaches the age of 70, be entitled to an old age pension. The Clause in question is Clause 73. It says: fully heavy sum to pay out of their earnings. I beg the Minister to consider whether he can improve the Bill before it reaches the Committee stage, so that he can bring those people within it.
I would make one suggestion to him. A great number of people—self-employed and non-employed—will have to pay their contributions, but, as every hon. Member will know, a very large percentage of that class will never call upon the benefits. I have asked Member after Member in this House whether a large number of those people would draw any benefits; many have said "No, they will not draw them," and others said "I doubt it." It is extremely likely that a great number of people who pay will not take the benefits. Where is the money which they will pay going to? It will go into the Fund. It will be used in the funds to help those who draw out of the funds for unemployment and so on. Is it right that that money, drawn from these people, should be used for people who, presumably, can afford to pay their weekly rate. Or should it not be used to help the most needy class of the community? I think there is a suggestion to find money to meet the demands of these people.
I have said that on the West coast of Scotland, which is my concern, there are married people who have families, and their sons and daughters—nobody can say they are not first-class people, everybody knows they are—leave the north and put a stream of new blood into the towns in the South, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and so on. Their parents are the people who are living in a kind of civilisation not yet abandoned. If the Minister was going to arrange with the Minister of Agriculture so to alter the condition of these people that they can handle sufficient money to be able to pay this impost, that would be a different matter, but there is no immediate likelihood of that. Therefore, I say this is a problem, and there should be some solution of the kind that I have suggested, namely, that the contributions of those who do not draw on the funds should go towards those who are unable to find the necessary money. If that is done, it will add something to the Bill which will make it, in the words of the Ministar, all-embracing. The Minister used that phrase three or four times tonight. At the moment it is not all- embracing. He has cut out those earning under £75 a year. There are a great number of people, if I am correctly informed, in that class, and he will bring them in if he does something of this kind, and will make it, as I say, a really all-embracing Measure.
9.43 p.m.
I desire to claim the indulgence of hon. Members in this, my first attempt to address them in this House. As a new Member, coming straight from the workshop, I desire to welcome this Bill as a good Bill. I am satisfied that when it is passed, the people of Britain will be marching steadily on towards a planned social security. This Bill is a great step in that march. It has significance for every man, woman and child in these islands. Summed up simply, it means that in times of sickness, sorrow, hardship, distress, childbirth, and in death, our people will be protected from the worst aspects of poverty. In looking at the Bill as a whole, we cannot pretend we have reached a stage of finality. We in the Labour movement have worked for, and believed in, social security in all its fulness. Consequently, we could not accept that this was final or that we had reached our goal.
To my mind the Bill is a little strange for a Labour Government: it contains too much Beveridge and too little Socialism. In looking at it, my first impression was that the contributions to be paid by the workers were rather too high. When I think of the agricultural labourers' demands at the present moment for better wages, when I think of our building labourers, casually employed, from whom wages are deducted every time a holiday comes round—when I think of all these people, I am of the opinion that the contributions demanded are rather high. We have made one retrograde step in fixing the contributions. It has almost become an established fact with Members on both sides of the House, that employers and operatives generally should pay equal contributions. In placing a greater burden on the worker and reducing the burden of the employer, I am satisfied that this is a retrograde step. When the contribution is deducted from the man's wage packet, so far as his wife and family are concerned, that money is gone, gone with the wind, but when the employer pays his portion he re-christens it "overhead charges," passes it on to the consumer, and even makes a profit on it. I hope it is not too late for the Minister to look at the rates of contribution, with a view to coming back to the old system and allowing employers and operatives to pay equal contributions.
In addition, although it may be some time before the position can be revised, I am impressed by the number of letters I have received from all classes of trade-people in my constituency. Looking at all these letters I am pretty well satisfied that they have reasonable grounds for complaint. The small shopkeeper pays more than any other individual in this scheme. He does not draw unemployment benefit, and when he is sick he has to wait 24 days before he receives any benefit. His friend next door, who works for the multiple store and does exactly the same job, pays less in contribution and draws immediate benefit if he is sick. After all, even on this side of the House, it is recognised that there is room in this world for the small trader because he is so essential in distribution. This inequality ought to be looked at once again. It means that either we regard the small trader as having sufficient profits to live on for that period or that he can pay for help during the time that he is sick, or we have to impute that he may be malingering because it might be easy to pretend this in a case of bad trade. If we have that at the back of our minds, it casts a reflection on his medical attendant. I believe that when the new medical scheme comes in, the Medical Association will give a very high standard of service and they will not be entitled to have that reflection cast upon them. I hope, in common justice, that the Minister will look at the suggested schemes for the small trader, because he will either get better in his 24 days and so not trouble him, or he might even oblige the country by dying, and then we should have the funeral benefit to pay, which I think is not desired either by the Minister or by the Members of this House, or by the country generally. Nevertheless, many illnesses last only a week, and in respect of those, the man who pays the highest contribution will get no benefit at all, and that ought to be looked into again.
I also hope that the Minister will review with sympathy the case of single women. All spinsters—principally—are good spinsters, and because of that they do not require the benefit "so many weeks before" and "so many weeks after," but they keep on paying out the money. Many of them are spinsters because they have been devoted to their parents, and in addition to their lonely battle through life, in addition to fighting for their existence, they have the worries of the household. In these days of queueing and eternal struggle they age more quickly than the ordinary individual, and the fear of age and of losing their employment has a more depressing effect upon them. Although they pay the same as every other woman, they do not, by a long way, receive the same benefits as married women or widows, and the Minister ought to look into it again and give sympathetic consideration to the spinsters' claims. He may say that he cannot do it without raising the price of insurance, which, I have already indicated, is too high, but if he cannot reduce the contributions of the operatives, will he consider raising the employers' portion to an equal figure, and he will then have sufficient money to give the spinsters an earlier retiring age and to pay a proper, decent benefit to the small trader. He might also, I suggest, have enough to give another 2s. a week to the old age pensioners, so as to bring them near to what they, with their long experience, have decided is the minimum on which they can live—30s. per week. I would ask the Minister to look at this again, and I am sure that, if he will let himself be led by the dictates of his own heart, and not pay too much attention to the niggardly Civil Service document of Beveridge—if he will let himself go in that Socialist spirit that I know he has within him, I think he can remedy these little things and so earn the eternal gratitude of the people of this country.
9.54 p.m.
It is my pleasant task, at the beginning of my remarks, to congratulate the hon. Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Mr. Moody) upon his maiden speech. We all of us remember the ordeal through which we have passed on similar occasions, and I am sure we all congratulate him, not only on having passed through his ordeal, but on the distinction with which he has done so. I am sure that the Minister will heed what has been said to him, and keep Socialist enthusiasm alive in this House in a spirit of broad generosity, not being too much concerned from where the money is to come.
I myself have been very much interested in this matter, as has the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fairfield. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) once asked me to see Sir William Beveridge, before he had published his Report, in order that he could hear the views of a Conservative Member of Parliament. From that time onwards I have been interested in this great project of unifying the whole system of social insurance in this country, and I have been a consistent supporter of these principles. I congratulate the Minister on having introduced this Bill, although I would say that where it differs from the Beveridge Report, in most respects, I am still inclined to prefer the Beveridge Report.
At the outset I should like to criticise two of the provisions of this Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. First, I want to ask the Government for an explanation of Clause 61. The Minister did say something about it in his introductory speech, but I think we shall want to hear a fuller explanation of it. It seems to us on this side to be a most remarkable and anomalous Clause, and full of a defeatist spirit. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have often criticised those Governments that were in office between the two wars, when there were depressed areas, with pools of unemployment, where men were out of work for more than half a year. We had hoped and expected that in the changed conditions of the present time it would not be necessary for any Government to contemplate the setting up of special local tribunals, as is done in Clause 61, in order to continue the payment of benefit to men who had exhausted their right to draw benefit by being unemployed for more than half a year. Why is it proposed that these tribunals should be set up? Soon after the last war the same kind of thing began, and was known as "uncovenanted benefit"; and it dragged on and became known, I think, as "extended benefit"; and then in the thirties it became known as the "transitional payments." Under the provisions of this Clause a local tribunal is to be set up to advise the Minister upon the payment of this—may I call it?—uncovenanted benefit.
What is the objection to the Assistance Board? The Assistance Board now applies the means test. It is very much more generous than it used to be, and Members of the present Government were party to the actual conditions of that means test in the last Parliament and Government. The Assistance Board has extended its work during the war, and it has been of immense value to many classes in the community, not unemployed, who have been required to have their income assisted, as in the case of the wives of men serving in the Forces. I thought that the Government must have some strong prejudice against it, but the Minister told us today that he is to introduce a Bill in the near future which is to deal with this question of national assistance. He has told us that in the case of a man who is entitled to benefit but whose family needs are greater than can be covered by benefit, that that benefit will be supplemented by the Assistance Board. If that is the case, then what is the reason for not using the Assistance Board for the giving of allowances in the case of men who have exhausted their benefit? Surely, this idea of encouraging men to continue to remain unemployed in these depressed areas of the future is in direct conflict with an earlier Clause, Clause 13 of the Bill, which provides for mobility of labour and requires men to be willing to undertake training and to go to new jobs.
Therefore, I would ask the Government to explain fully the reason for this completely anomalous Clause, which appears to be a departure from the general actuarial principles of unemployment insurance contained in the Bill. Why is a change being made with regard to waiting days? The justification for waiting days in the past was to protect the fund against very large payments, because it was felt that where a man was unemployed for only one or two days no great hardship would result. If unemployment is only for isolated days it is particularly difficult to apply the various tests set out in Clause 13 of the Bill. I would ask the Minister later in the Debate to justify the alteration which is being made in regard to waiting days. To repeat a criticism which has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I think that everyone will want to have a very full justification of the provisions by which self-employed men are required to be ill for 24 days before they receive benefit.
Having made these destructive criticisms of Clauses in the Bill, I turn to the question of the death grant itself, its amount, the danger that it may all be absorbed in a further inflation of funeral expenses, the general effect that the provision of a death grant by the State will have upon industrial insurance, and the possibility that by carrying out certain reforms of industrial life offices, it may be possible for the State to use them in the administration of the new insurance scheme. The fear of a pauper's funeral has loomed very large in the life of the working classes of this country ever since the industrial revolution, and Charles Dickens has described it in a memorable way in "Oliver Twist." It was in order to meet this ever-present fear in the back of the minds of the workers that industrial insurance originally came into existence. It was inevitable that where it was undertaken by private enterprise, and there had to be a canvasser going around and visiting the houses every week in order to collect a few coppers—it was inevitable, in the first place, that the costs of collection should be extremely high and that there should be also a very large proportion of lapses, especially when sickness or unemployment, or some other misfortune, overtook the industrial household. That is why it appears to us that there is an immensely strong case for assurance against this certainty of the future being made compulsory so that there can be no lapses, and the contributions can be collected cheaply by the State at the same time as the premiums against unemployment and sickness are collected.
I would say therefore, that this is one of those cases where it is possible to justify nationalisation. We on this side of the House have always said that we do not oppose nationalisation on any ideological grounds, and if a case can be made out upon its merits we are perfectly pre- pared to accept it. In this case from the beginning hon. Members on this side of the House have welcomed the death grant and I hope the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Steele), who attributed certain motives to hon. Members on this side of the House, will accept the fact that we have supported from the beginning the desirability of the death grant.
Before the amount of the death grant was decided upon I think it would have been desirable to have had a certain amount of information as to what are the actual prices of funerals and what the cost of them ought to be. There is extremely little information upon that side. What we do know is that the average price of funerals in London is £15, whereas the L.C.C., no doubt under the skilful administration of the Lord President of the Council, was able to negotiate a number of contracts, thus providing funerals without any stigma of pauperism for about £7 10s. before the war, which does indicate that £15 did show a very high proportion of profit in every case. If this is so, then I think that it would be proper for the State to exercise some supervision in order to ensure that there is no undue exploitation. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was at the Board of Trade did instruct the Central Prices Regulations Committee to go into this matter, but he was unable to take any action on it because, owing to a legal technicality, it was impossible to make an order and it was necessary to introduce a Bill into this House. When this Government and Parliament are passing legislation which will provide for the payment of a death grant, when contributions are necessary from everybody and when the Exchequer is making a large contribution, I would urge that it is absolutely essential to sound administration, to make quite certain that public money, or money raised by public action, shall not go in the form of further inflation of funeral expenses. I hope, therefore, that we may have an assurance from the Government that this great reform which is now being carried through will be taken one step further in order that we may be assured that it is going to have the effect which was intended.
I should like now to come to the effect which the death grant must have upon industrial assurance. I said a few minutes ago the origin of industrial assurance was in order to provide the poor with the means of paying for a funeral, and if there is to be a compulsory death grant then actually the cause and origin of death assurance comes to an end. It would then seem as if this is the proper moment to say whether there are not certain reforms long overdue in the case of industrial assurance which ought to be carried out at the same time as this Bill is passed. Some hon. Members will remember that the late Sir Arnold Wilson, M.P., before he was killed in action, devoted many months of study to this matter and published a book upon industrial assurance. Some hon. Friends of mine in the Tory Reform Committee in the last Parliament also made a study of this matter and advanced certain proposals for the reform of industrial assurance with the object of reducing the expenses of collection, preventing high pressure salesmen, trying to reduce the very high proportion of lapses and also to end the purely gambling policies which are in direct conflict with national policy and with the Statutes that have been passed by Parliament. The late Industrial Commission gave evidence before the Cohen Committee, whose recommendations, by the way, have never been put into operation by any Government. In that evidence the witness stated: efficient means of having sick benefit carried to the bedside of the insured person. I believe that in that way it would be possible to cheapen the administration, to simplify it, to make it more human, and to get over the great difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman will have to overcome at the very beginning, to improvise the great network of the administrative machine all over the country, which he spoke about earlier today. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to these necessary reforms in industrial insurance. It was recognised in the White Paper issued by the late Coalition Government, that the introduction of the death grant would make an inquiry into the whole of this branch of assurance necessary, and I hope we may have from the Government a statement as to how far that inquiry has gone. I believe that in that way it would be possible for the new and more ambitious administrative machine to be brought into line with the work which has gone before.
In my closing two minutes I want to say that the State is now moving into a realm of social activity which, previously, has been left entirely to private enterprise. I have not glossed over the abuses which require to be reformed, but at the same time I would say to the Government that in this, as in many other branches of administration, the best prospects for the future are to be found if there is close and cordial co-operation between the State and private enterprise. I believe that there is room for both and that if they work together the results will be more satisfactory than if there is any hostility between them. I believe that the Bill, as it is now before the House, does not go far enough and that it will be necessary for these further measures I have suggested to be taken to ensure that it has the results we all hope it will have. In conclusion, I will only repeat what has been the general line of hon. Members on this side of the House, that we feel that the Bill, as it is at present, is unduly weighted in the direction of tenderness to old age and insufficient concern for the young; and I close with Sir William Beveridge's words:
Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[ Mr. Mathers. ]
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.
Export Trade
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Mathers. ]
10.15 p.m.
His Majesty's Government have stated that, in order to pay our way, we have to increase our export trade by 75 per cent. above prewar. It is a task of fantastic magnitude, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who is to reply, that if I happen to be critical, it is not because I do not appreciate the very formidable difficulties with which he is faced and the strength of purpose with which he is applying himself to them. I suggest that this problem is more important than any other that is facing us at the present time. Today the House has been discussing a Measure which will cost us over £700,000,000 a year, but we shall not be able to afford this or any other big measure of social betterment if we fail in the export drive. It is vital to capture the export markets now, because anybody who secures a particular market is almost bound to keep it.
The export situation today is very disquieting. Instead of sprinting ahead we are lagging behind in the international race to secure the postwar export world markets. Six months after the end of the war, our export trade is still less than half what it was before the war, and as each month goes by foreign competition becomes increasingly keen. Today the world is faced with such a shortage of consumer goods that never before has British trade had such an opportunity. Our exporters are being implored to ship anything at almost any price, but such are their difficulties that they are in some cases three or four years behind with the orders that are on their books. This delay in executing orders is causing resentment overseas and prejudicing our goodwill of the future. There are already cases of orders placed in England being cancelled and given to foreign countries which are in a position to supply the goods I can quote the example of an export firm in the Midlands which has had cancellations of orders for cutlery and edge tools amounting to over £10,000 during the last fortnight.
The difficulties which are stultifying British exporters fall roughly into two categories. The first is controls, and the second is labour. Every sensible person agrees that certain controls are necessary today, but it is essential that they should be as few as possible, and that they should be administered with far greater discrimination, imagination, and, above all, speed. The tempo of the Civil Service, designed for the more leisured days of the past, is quite unsuitable for competitive business. At the present moment it takes two or three weeks to get a reply from any Government Department. I have here a copy of a letter to the President of the Board of Trade from the chairman of an important industrialists' association in the Midlands. It was written on 25th October and it was answered on 10th December, 42 days later. I regard this as a gross reflection, not upon the President of the Board of Trade personally, but upon the Government machinery which is behind him, and a typical example of the inertia which is so frustrating business men today, inertia due not to ill will on the part of individuals but to the fact that the machinery is understaffed, overworked, and unable to compete. At the present moment business men have to obtain permits and licences for almost every activity. They spend most of their time clambering over obstacles towards a promised land which never quite appears. I would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that less time be spent upon long term planning and more upon removing the immediate difficulties which are holding up production. Above all I would suggest that he should draw the attention of his Army Corps of controllers to the fact that the present times are wholly exceptional, and that speed of decision is far more important than impeccable logic and toe close an adherence to the regulations. The flood of energy which this would release would be worth a few mistakes.
It is, of course, shortage of labour which is holding up production all over the country. It makes no difference what product is considered—textiles, motor cars, books, hardware, stationery, or anything else—the answer is always the same: lack of labour. The orders are there, the machinery and raw materials in most cases are there, but the labour is in the Forces, on leave from the Forces, or in the Civil Service, and that is the situation all over the country.
rose —
I am sorry I cannot give way, as I have not time. A factory near my constituency wanting 500 workers is getting them at the rate of two a week.
I say without any hesitation that the Government have made a terrible mistake in holding up the demobilisation of men and women at home because of the difficulty of getting back those in the more distant theatres, instead of speeding up demobilisation and generously compensating those who were too far away to be got back in time for their release group. The lack of imagination over Class B releases is bad. Let me quote the example of a machine tool firm in Birmingham. In order to increase their exports by £30,000 a year they needed one corporal, two privates, one A.B., and one L.A.C. They applied for Class B releases for them and, needless to say, the application was refused. Not only is industry faced today with the time that it takes to get back its former employees, but also with the call-up of their highly skilled operatives who have hitherto been deferred, and I do beg of the Government to use the utmost caution over this. Of course, these young men have to go—no one disputes that—but in many cases it is essential that their call-up be deferred until the demobbed men are back and ready to take their places.
Now I come to the matter of production which, except in the smaller works and factories, is no more than 60 per cent. per manhour of what it was before the war. And absenteeism is high. This is the experience of one of the most enlightened firms in the country. Before the war their absenteeism was 3 per cent.: today it is 6 per cent. for men and 14 per cent. for women. That is the situation in wide ranges of industry all over the country, and it is due to two causes. The first is the present austerity policy. Whether it is necessary or not is a matter for argument, but that this policy is a cause of the present malaise is inescapable. What inducement is there for a worker to work for a higher pay-packet when there is so little for him on which to spend his money? There is a great lack of imagination in this matter on the part of the Administration. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to tell us, when he replies, why it is not possible to release more consumer goods in the industrial areas, even if it is to the comparative disadvantage of, say, stockholders in Sussex. I suggest that the Minister of Fuel and Power would get the coal without any difficulty if he only had the imagination to open a dog-racing track in every mining district in the country.
The second reason for the low rate of production is that the worker today does not realise the necessity for hard work. When he looks around him, what does he see? Everybody is getting more money, the dockworker, the building operative, the man in the Forces, and so forth. He reads in the paper about an immense loan from America. The conclusion that there is plenty of money about is inescapable, and he is convinced that some of it is bound to come his way in the ordinary course of events. On top of this he has been promised full employment and other great benefits from Socialism that the present Government are pledged to introduce. There has been very little emphasis on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that a high general standard of living can only come by much hard work, since national wealth is production-per-man, and nothing else. The President of the Board of Trade, and the Minister of Labour, appreciate this fact, but very much more is needed than a few speeches by a couple of Ministers. The Prime Minister will have to give the same sort of a lead as was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), in his "blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech, in another crisis in the history of the nation. We shall not win the battle of production unless we get back the spirit of Dunkirk. The fact that we depend for our standard of living upon our productive capacity must be emphasised by all the resources of national propaganda. Every week that goes by with less than full production means loss of markets overseas, a deficiency which will be felt many years from now.
In conclusion, I would quote from a document that should be tolerably familiar to the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite—"Let us face the Future," their Election Manifesto. On the subject of export trade, it said:
10.30 p.m.
I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Martin Lindsay) for raising this matter, because it gives me an opportunity of disposing, to some extent, of his depressing outlook. I shall try to cheer him up, if I can. I would advise him to read an article which I think will be in the next "Reader's Digest," written by a very acute American observer, who came over here with a view to seeing how quickly our industries are being reconverted. I am sure when he reads that article and the comparison implied with America, he will be immensely cheered.
I have not the time to cover all the many interesting points raised by the hon. Member, and I want to deal particularly with the export position. I have no time to deal with demobilisation and matters of that kind tonight. First, the hon. Member complained that the administration was somewhat laggard in its encouragement of export trade. It is perfectly true that the administration today is terribly overworked. It is not, I can assure him, a question of observing peace time hours in the Department. When I leave my office between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock every night, there are still large numbers of people there working hard, many of them dealing with answers to Questions raised by Members of Parliament, and with 60,000 letters a day to be dealt with, it does require a very large staff indeed and very hard workers to meet the situation. We have done our utmost to try to free licences and permits for the export trade. We removed in a very large range of materials, all export licences, and we have done so at some risk, in the sense that our people at home might have to go short of those commodities. But there are certain commodities in regard to which we must still retain licences, where the shortage is such that we should run the risk of people here being even more seriously inconvenienced than they are today by a shortage of consumer goods. It is only in that class of goods, in which materials are difficult to get, that we are maintaining export licences at all. So far as export licences are concerned, all the main block has been removed. We are, I know, still in arrear in replies to letters. That, unfortunately, is due to the fact that there is an acute shortage of typists in this country to-day. I have received complaints from some manufacturers who say that they cannot themselves get typists to carry on their business. In that shortage the Government unfortunately shares, and it is undoubtedly delaying matters to some extent.
The second point made was with regard to the lack of labour. There, again it is perfectly true that we are acutely short of labour in this country today, though no one can imagine that we could manufacture all those goods that have been ordered from abroad. If we could, in fact, manufacture these goods rapidly, I suppose that our results this year would be something like a 1,000 per cent. above pre-war. Order books are full, because of the great losses and the shortages that have accumulated over six years, and we cannot possibly expect to overcome these, in a period of a few short months. When one looks at the fact that we are only six months from the end of the war, and that we have during that period, for the six months ending December, increased our labour force on exports from 400,000 to 900,000, I think it is a very creditable performance. We have more than doubled the force on exports between the end of the war and December, and it must be borne in mind that in order to do that, a great deal of preparatory work was necessary. I was, for instance, last weekend in a factory in Birmingham, which in September last was manufacturing aero engines, and is now completely laid out for the manufacture of motor cars, with the latest track devices, and so on for mass production. That has been done since September and up to December, and is a very remarkable performance, but, naturally during that period there has been nothing to show in the form of exports.
We are at this moment reaching the stage that all this preparatory work that has been done during the last six months is starting to show itself. Though I cannot give any final figures for the month of January, I do happen to have the provisional figures for the end of that month. These should cheer the hon. Member for Solihull no end. He will remember that there was published a short time ago two-monthly figures, that being we thought the best period to take, because of monthly fluctuations. These figures, starting from January last, gave a result of 24.1, 26.3, 28.8, 30.8, 32.2, and 33.3, as the two-monthly average ending with December. Now, as far as I can see from the provisional figures, the two-monthly average from January will be 50; that is, an increase of 40 per cent. over the two-monthly average for December, which does show, I think—though one has always to make reservations with regard to these figures and there is still the result of the dock strike, and so on—that we have really started now to reap the benefit of all the preparatory work that we have been doing over the last six months. I am not at all depressed as regards the likelihood of the rapid expansion of exports during the next few months, and if our plans go well, we should, by the middle of this year, have considerably more people on exports than we had in 1938. If we accomplish that, I do not think that we can say that we have been very laggard in developing our industry. Moreover, there is considerable advantage in having a smooth development as against the sort of development that has been seen in other countries, and we have succeeded in this to the great credit of both the managements and workers in industry. We got a very smooth change-over in fact, so smooth that many people have not noticed it and think that nothing has happened. An immense amount has happened, but it has happened without any fuss or show, without any strikes or trouble, and we are now, I think, beginning to reap the benefit from these results.
The hon. Member cited the case of a cutlery firm which had been forced to cancel an order. I have no doubt that in the course of the next few months a great many orders of one sort or another will be cancelled, for the simple reason that the order books in this country are too full and the orders cannot possibly be performed. The arrears are such, and the orders are flooding in so fast that it is impossible for all these orders to be executed within anything like a reasonable time. Therefore there are bound to be occasional cases of cancellation. The cutlery business is a very profitable form of export. It has a very high conversion value, and we are doing our utmost to step up the labour in the cutlery industry, though, in some of the small firms I am bound to say the conditions are not such as to tempt labour from other occupations. That is, in fact, what they have got to do, because there is an overall shortage of labour in the country. On the actual figures, the value of production in the cutlery industry, based on the sales of the three months July to September, 1945, is estimated at about £2,968,000, and exports on the same basis are estimated at slightly over £1,000,000. That compares with a production in 1935, which was a good prewar year, of £2,876,000, of which £698,000 was exported. The exports in 1938 were £682,000 and the present rate for the quarter July to September was over £1,000,000, so that we have not done so badly even in the cutlery trade where there has, unfortunately, been this necessity for a cancellation.
I may cite one or two other industries which will also interest and encourage the hon. Member—rayon, 1938, £5,100,000 exports; 1945, £16,800,000 exports; chemicals and drugs, 1938, £22,100,000 exports; 1945, £37,400,000 exports; pottery, 1938, £4,000,000; 1945 £5,200,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about cotton and wool?"] Cotton and wool were limited by the Combined Board allocations in Washington of textile goods. We had to clothe our own people, and the goods which can be exported after clothing our own people, are very largely directed by the allocations of the Combined Board. So that does not really come into the area of free exports.
May I ask a question? I notice that the right hon. Gentleman gives cash values and not volume; but of course it is difficult to equate these to the alteration in the value of money.
I thoroughly appreciate that. But the Hon. Member will also appreciate that it is very difficult, in respect of each of these different articles, to arrive at an equation between cash values and volume. Sometimes it could be taken at 100 per cent. and sometimes at 75 per cent. What I am attempting to point out is that there have been very large volumes of exports. Take rayon; it is over three times what it was before the war. Therefore it is not in all industries that there is a depressing outlook. There are some industries already which have got well on the way and even beyond, the 1938 figure. Others are lagging behind. It is those we are trying to stimulate. It is those more hopeful industries which are tending to give us this large cumulative result which is now beginning to show. There are industries which are giving us quite remarkable results and show a growth in the general volume of exports and those are encouraging factors which should help to remove the gloom of the hon. Member.
One word about the question of encouragement of the workers. I think the hon. Member has done rather less than justice to the efforts Ministers, myself among them, have made, going about the country encouraging workers to do their best in the present circumstances and explaining to them why it is necessary so to do. I managed to make nine speeches while I was away during last weekend, and most weekends I manage to do the same sort of thing. I can assure the hon. Member that we are doing our utmost to encourage the workers to appreciate the gravity of the situation; and I think that our efforts are meeting with some success. If I may say so, I think they would meet with more success if the managements, through joint production committees, were to take their workers into full confidence, and explain the situation to them. Nothing could be more helpful today than the full co-operation and mutual understanding in the problems of the particular factory which of course we cannot deal with—as between the workers and the management. I am sure that where this is taking place today—and it is taking place in many places, fortunately—you do not find this discouraging and defeatist attitude which you find, I agree, in some other factories where there is not that type of full consultation. I am sure that if all of us, on whatever side of the House we sit, take all opportunities, in our constituencies, of encouraging an understanding of the fundamental problems with which we are faced, and the need there is for the best work by all people, of whatever class—whether they are in administration or management, or on the floor of the factory—we can do a great deal stimulate this export drive, which is so vital to the whole future of our country. I hope that this Debate will play its part in helping to make people realise how urgent this problem is, and at the same time realise that we are tackling it with determination, and with not unsuccessful results.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.