I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 5 on page 4.

At present, a widow may in certain circumstances receive a pension if she is incapable of self-support. That part of subsection (6) which we propose to delete would eliminate this provision, which enables a widow to receive a pension if she is incapable of self-support. The justification for this proposal in the Bill is that in other parts of the Bill the widow will become eligible either for unemployment benefit or for sickness benefit. We understand from what the Government have told us in Committee that this improved eligibility for unemployment and sickness benefit, coupled with improved contribution conditions which are to be given to widows, would eliminate the need for the present provision entitling some widows to benefit if they are incapable of self-support.

There is a difference between being unable to work on account of sickness and being incapable of self-support on account of infirmity. It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a lady of middle age who is moving on towards old age finds herself unable to go out to work very frequently or, even if she does go out to work, unable to put in a long time at it and, therefore, unable to earn a sufficient income to support herself completely. That arises because of her infirmity or because of the difficulties of her past life which may render her psychologically unable to do a full and sufficient day's work to earn a living.

It must be admitted that there are instances in which that may occur to a widow. We are not entirely satisfied that a widow who is suffering in the way I have attempted to describe—a widow who is ailing or who is not quite able always to face the day's struggle of going to work and doing a job—may not nevertheless be regarded by a doctor to whom she goes for a certificate as in a condition in which he can honestly say that she is unfit for work on the grounds of sickness.

By the Amendment, which we put forward originally in Committee and subsequently withdraw after discussion, we wanted to try to ensure that after the Bill becomes law, such a widow would riot be denied benefit of one kind or another. Certainly, as the law stands, she gets a benefit, but we are not entirely satisfied that, if the Bill becomes law, widows in this condition of health will get a benefit.

We withdrew the Amendment in Committee on the understanding that between then and now further inquiries could be made. We have made some further inquiries. We are grateful to the Minister for saying that he had no objection to our talking to officials of his, and we have now had a conversation, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) and I, but such inquiries as we have made still leave us rather doubtful, though I do not put it any higher than that.

It is true that one example to which I referred in Committee has been looked at since then very carefully by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for writing to me about it as he did a day or two ago. I am bound to admit that in that case I, so to speak, fail. I must agree that that is not a case which proves my point. However, the mere fact that the only example which came immediately to my attention proves not to be entirely valid still leaves me with some measure of doubt.

What I hope is that the right hon. Gentleman himself has not been content merely to leave it to my hon. Friends and me to make what inquiries we could but that he also has looked at the matter a little further, and it is chiefly to give him or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to tell us the results of those further inquiries and, I hope, to reassure us that I move this Amendment.

This Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has just reminded us, is in identical terms with an Amendment which was withdrawn in Committee. I gather from the comments which the right hon. Gentleman has just made that he moved this Amendment to provide for further discussion today and, particularly, to know the results of inquiries we have been able to make at the Ministry.

During the Committee stage of the Bill my right hon. Friend invited hon. Members to send him any cases which, in the words he used then,

"… justify the view that we should be excluding any case that could be dealt with under the present law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th June, 1956; c. 86.]

That is, the fine distinction which the right hon. Gentleman just instanced, when he said that it is not always possible to differentiate between a widow incapable of work because of sickness and a widow incapable of self-support because of infirmity.

The offer of my right hon. Friend was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East. He referred in Committee to a constituent of his, about whom he has been in correspondence with us. That case is not relevant to this discussion, because it has been found that the widow concerned did not qualify for incapacity pension.

This is the fact now: Since we discussed the matter in Committee no other case has been sent forward to the Ministry for consideration on these special grounds. I conclude, therefore, that some of the doubts expressed by right hon. and hon. Members opposite are disappearing.

However, we have in the meantime taken a sample survey from five regions of the Ministry of what I would call the more difficult cases—cases in which the title to incapacity pension was not straight-forward, and cases that could not be decided by the local insurance officer but probably had to be referred for another opinion. I hope I make that quite clear—we have not taken the easy cases: we have tried to find cases of the type which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had particularly in mind.

We have had all these cases looked at by our headquarters medical staff. The result has confirmed our view, that, broadly speaking, there is little doubt that in those cases we have investigated, the doctors would under the new provisions have certified the widows as incapable of work for sickness benefit purposes.

11.15 a.m.

We are, of course, thinking only of women who may be widowed in the future. I want to make that quite clear. No existing rights are affected, because women already receiving incapacity pension will continue to do so. From this hon. Members will agree with me, I imagine, that only experience will show whether the fine distinction which has been emphasised today will be significant, but we believe that the provisions in the Bill will be more comprehensive and will avoid the difficulties of the present scheme.

Those difficulties I outlined in Committee. They are mainly the necessity under the present provisions to define a prolonged period of incapacity; the fact that incapacity pension can be paid only if the woman is shown to be incapable of self support immediately the widow's allowance ends; and, thirdly, that under the present conditions, widow's incapacity pension would be at a reduced rate if her husband had a deficient record of contributions. Those are some of the difficulties of the present scheme.

We feel that to retain the incapacity pension would make for unnecessary complications in an already complicated scheme. For the Ministry, it would mean complicated leaflets and instructions and having to give complicated explanations. For the widow—and this is more important—considerable doubt, when she is widowed as to the type of benefit for which she is eligible. I am sure that it is better for the widow to be brought within the ambit of the normal insurance provisions and thus qualify for either sickness or unemployment benefit, rather than that we should permanently isolate a small group of widows and label them as permanently incapacitated, because by this we imply that they are unable to play a normal part in the life of the community.

I think that the present provisions will be not only more generous to widows in general, but will avoid describing a certain section of widows as incapable of leading a normal life. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

I am glad that these fairly thorough inquiries which the hon. Lady has described have been made, and, with her, I hope that our fears will prove to be groundless and that no cases of this kind will occur in the future. In view of what the hon. Lady has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, after "order" to insert:

"but without prejudice to the powers of the authority in relation to that person by virtue of the order".

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House that on this Amendment there should be a general discussion of it and all the other remaining Amendments. Of course, I shall call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) if afterwards he wishes to have a Division on it, but if we could have a general discussion covering the matter which, I think, these Amendments do cover, it would help us all.

The course you suggest. Mr. Speaker, is one which I certainly should find helpful, and I hope that those concerned with the later Amendments will agree, because all these Amendments are designed to achieve the same purpose. At an earlier stage I indicated to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) that I would examine the wording of Clause 5 to make clear that when a child returns to its own home, or another home, for a trial period, the local authority retains the care and control of the child given by the court order; and that a form of words should be sought which would remove doubts which, I understood from the right hon. Gentleman, existed in the minds of some magistrates about what measure of ultimate control was retained by the local authority. I promised to try to remove ambiguity from the wording, and I hope that the Amendment may go some way towards doing that.

The six Amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), which follow this Amendment, provide additional screws for tightening up this part of the Clause. We see no objection to them, indeed we welcome them. But I am anxious to be frank about this, and I should add that, by a curious coincidence, this subject arose at a late hour last night during the Adjournment debate, which is not yet on the record. A specific case was raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). As the right hon. Member for Middlesborough, East and the hon. Member for Widnes are particularly interested, and will not yet have had an opportunity of reading what was said by the hon. Member for Nuneaton and my reply, I thought that I should mention it, because I should not like them to feel that I had deliberately made no reference to it.

The Adjournment debate related to a case which involved the power of the court, the revocation of an order and the sending home of a child for a trial period. I do not think that anything which was said has any bearing on these Amendments or this Clause. However, I stress that it is important that, wherever a court has refused to revoke an order in respect of a child, the child should not be returned, even for a trial period—which does not require the authority of the court—without the full authority of the children's committee of the local authority; that is to say, that it should not be possible for a children's officer to take a personal decision to return a child for a trial period, as is possible under the terms of Clause 5, without the full knowledge and consent of the children's committee. If the right hon. Gentleman reads what was said last night, he will see that that is on the record. I do not think that anyone is likely to quarrel with it, but I felt that I should make it clear before we parted with this Clause.

I wish to express my appreciation to the Joint Under-Secretary for going so carefully into these matters in an endeavour to meet the points raised during our discussions in Committee. I should also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) for having raised this problem in Committee and securing a discussion then which has made it easier for us to discuss the problem now.

I welcome what has been said by the Joint Under-Secretary. I almost hesitate to continue speaking, because I might appear not to be in harmony with the hon. Gentleman and he might have second thoughts about my Amendments. The point here is that it is not just a question of the power of the local authority, but of its duty to accept responsibility for a child. What may happen in a typical case is that a small boy, who may have chased his little sister round the room with a table knife, or refused to go to school, is brought before the court. He is examined by the psychiatric adviser available to help the court in these matters, and it appears that part of the trouble is due to home conditions. Everyone knows that truancy is a natural consequence of tension in the home.

As a result of careful examination, which is practically always accompanied by a probation officer's report, based on visits to the home, the court decides that the child should go away from home for a period and it makes a "fit person order" committing the child to the care—the word is "care"—of the children's authority. Under the law as it used to be the authority had the right to refuse to become a fit person. But under the 1948 Children Act that position no longer applies. Although the authority may make representations, it may not refuse.

In the best regulated families these matters are settled by discussion, and it is comparatively rare that the court feels it necessary to over-rule the judgment of the authority. In most cases the authority is anxious to co-operate with the court. But there is always the possibility of cases where, acting on the advice contained in the reports which it has received, the court may feel it necessary to over-rule the misgivings of the children's authority in the matter and it is entitled to do so.

The child may come home for a holiday in a remarkably improved condition, both in cleanliness and general demeanour. That very often happens and the parents immediately say, "Everything is perfect. We want to have little Alfie home permanently." Often the court has grave misgivings about this because, obviously, the home conditions were wrong before and if the child is allowed to go back home, nobody can be sure that the trouble will not break out again.

It may be that the removal of the child to a new environment was the reason for the improvement. There is no means of finding out except by experiment. But if the court revokes the order, the child will have to be brought again before the court if that is found to be necessary, which is a bad thing. Another complaint must be made to the court and all the evidence heard before a new order can be made. That is unpleasant and may have a bad effect on the child.

Under the procedure, which is widely adopted and legitimised by this Clause, it is possible for the children's authority, instead of coming to the court, to send the child home for a period to see how he gets on. Then, when an application for a revocation of the order is made, the court has the enormous advantage of knowing the result of this practical experiment. Therefore, beaming parents and a satisfied child may come to the court and say, "It is working very well", and then the court may revoke the order.

But some magistrates are frightened of that procedure. They are afraid of such cases as that alluded to in the Adjournment debate last night, where it may be possible for the court to make an order one day and for the children's authority to send the child back home the next. That. of course, is not good for law and order. For one thing, if everybody has seen Alfie disappear for an indefinite period and finds that he is back next day, the local children will not be impressed by the court. That has to be taken into account, because it does not improve the relations between the court and the authority either.

11.30 a.m.

My own view, which, I think, is the view of the majority of magistrates, is that it is worth taking that risk because it is an admirable arrangement, though there is a suspicion among certain magistrates that it will derogate against the authority of the court. That is emphasised by the drafting of this Clause, which uses the words "handing over the care of the child to the parents". If the court makes an order committing the child to the care of the authority as a fit person, it ought not to be in the power of the authority to hand the child over to the care of the parents, because that would seem to be derogating from the completeness of the original order.

This has worried a number of experienced clerks of courts and magistrates. Happily, these matters hardly ever get to the High Court but, when they do, a great deal of trouble is caused. As the Minister will remember, I have been the humble subject of appeals to the High Court in these matters and, as a result. the law has been considerably advanced. Fortunately, however these appeals do not occur often.

These words are not definite enough. What is the difference between "court", "control", "custody" and "charge", all of which are mentioned in the Children Act? Therefore, it is a pity, on the whole, that the Government, in drafting this Clause have used the expression handing over "the care". What would satisfy most people, and what I hope the Minister will advise is the effect, is that the care of the child, in the sense of general responsibility for its morals, remains with the authority to whom it has been entrusted by the court.

The word "charge" is defined in Section 17 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as being:

"Any person to whose charge a child or young person is committed by any person who has the custody of him shall be presumed to have charge of the child or young person;"

In other words "charge" is a delegation of authority, and that seems to be the right word, which is why I have suggested it in my Amendment to line 16, after "the", insert "charge and".

We want to be sure not only that the authority, if it knows that something has gone wrong, can step in and interfere, but is also responsible for what is going on in the home. If the fit person order were revoked by the court, the court could make a supervision order either to the children's officer or to the probation officer, which would give responsibilty to someone to watch what was going on in the home. Therefore, it would be an absurd position if an authority, by this rather extra-legal way of doing it, could contract out of the supervision which, in fact, the court could order if the authority had gone the whole hog and had applied for the revocation of the order.

It ought to be made clear by the Home Office to children's authorities that if what they want is a more or less permanent handing over of the child to the parents, with full responsibility, then the right procedure is to apply to the court for a revocation of the order That is a legitimate and legal way of doing it which satisfies honour and everything else.

If, however, it is a contingent experiment to see how things go for a short period before applying for revocation, or before advising the parents to apply for revocation, they ought to retain, and must maintain, adequate supervision over what is happening We do not want a situation arising and headlines appearing in the papers of fearful trouble having arisen in the home, either cruelty or neglect or violence having broken out. A case where the children's authority has handed the child to the parents and has never visited the home again would lead to a great deal of criticism of children's authorities. It would confirm the worst forebodings of the more timid magistrates—if I may use that phrase—who are reluctant to try this experiment. Therefore, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will use his influence with the children's authorities to make clear the difficulties.

It should also be pointed out that what they should do, if they are to try the experiment, is to hand the child over to the parents and then continue to keep an eye on what is happening, just as a probation officer under a supervision order does. When they reach the stage of deciding that everything is going well and there is no need for further supervision, they should apply to the court for a revocation of the order. The books are tidied up, Alfie is patted on the head, and everyone is congratulated and is satisfied that a good job has been done.

If that is done, this excellent experiment will work. Otherwise, it will lead to friction and criticism between the magistrates and the local authorities, which would be a tragedy and which, unhappily, happens more often with children. When two bodies of adults emotionally concerned with the welfare of children get together, nothing is more certain to lead to violence between them, because they get so excited about the problem and angry with each other. That has happened far too often over the care of juvenile delinquents in the past, although things are much happier now because there is close co-ordination between the interests of the two bodies. I am not worried that this would happen in London, but I am afraid that it might lead to trouble in other areas where there is not such a close link between the two authorities.

:I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill was given a Second Reading by the House as recently as 15th May, and the fact that it has had since then a consideration which has been both speedy and thorough is one for which I would like to express the gratitude of the Government to the House as a whole and, in particular, to the members of Standing Committee E.

This is an important Measure and one which, I would suggest to the House, is carefully and appropriately calculated to meet the needs of the situation today. There are some social measures which, by arranging a general increase in rates of benefit, but not altering very much the structure of the National Insurance scheme, are benevolent in their intention, and, in certain situations, very helpful. But these are not days which, in the judgment of the Government, make that kind of Measure appropriate.

The Bill, as I indicated on Second Reading, is put forward by the Government in the belief that it is rather in the nature of an instrument of precision, designed to bring relief at particular points of our welfare and social service system where, on a sober consideration of the facts as they are, it seems to us that the need is greatest. In other words, it is designed to apply what, in present circumstances, are the inevitably limited funds available to what, after a good deal of care, thought and consideration, we think to be the points of greatest need.

So far as the National Insurance side of the Bill is concerned—it has two sides, the family allowances side and the national insurance side—the provisions of the Bill carry out the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which gave that aspect of our social services very careful thought before producing its Report earlier this year. The family allowances part of the Bill carries out decisions taken after a great deal of thought also by the Government.

The total cost of the Bill, as I indicated earlier, will be about £12 million a year to the Exchequer and about £3½ million a year to the two Insurance Funds, the great bulk, of course, falling on the National Insurance Fund and a comparatively small amount on the Industrial Injuries Fund. The benefits of the Bill are largely concentrated on the widow with children, the larger family and the case of the older children who are still at school or are undergoing apprenticeship.

The most important item of the Bill in terms of cost is the increase of 2s. in the rate of family allowances to be paid in respect of the third and subsequent child. During the course of our discussions, some doubt was expressed from time to time whether this should not be extended and why, indeed, the increase was not given in respect of the second child.

I think there was some misunderstanding in that criticism, perhaps, of the very nature of family allowances which are payments which, though assessed in relation to the particular number of children, are intended to be payments made for the benefit of the family as a whole. With that fact borne in mind I think that the justification for concentrating this additional relief in aid of the larger families generally becomes somewhat clearer.

I do not think that there is very much need to waste the time of the House in dealing with any doubt that, in present circumstances, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, it is the larger family which encounters the most difficulty. That is borne out only too clearly if one studies the food surveys published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is apparent, I think, that when the size of the family reaches three children, then in certain vital items of diet the average diet of the family falls below the standards approved by the British Medical Association.

That does not necessarily mean that it is those children who go short. The figures are averaged out for the family and it is probably the experience of hon. Members that, in many cases, it is the mother who goes short in order that her children shall not. Therefore, the proposal to concentrate the major part of the financial relief which it is in present circumstances possible to give on the larger family is, I think, justified by the proved fact of the greater need of the larger family.

It is curious that while, in the course of our discussions in the House, the whole emphasis has been that perhaps even more funds might be made available in the direction of family allowances, outside the House there has sometimes been criticism of the improvement in family allowances being made at all. I have heard the criticism that as family allowances were not payable in respect of the children of an older generation, it is, perhaps, rather doubtful policy to pay them now. That, I think, is a wholly unsound and ill-considered criticism of the family allowance system, a system which I, personally, have believed in for many years.

It is, after all, the fact, of which all of us can be proud, that all sections of society who have difficulties of one kind or another—the old, the sick or the unemployed—have in recent years seen improvements made in benefits to them under the whole elaborate structure of our social security system, and I do not see why the families with children who, as I have indicated, also have their difficulties, should not share in that general' improvement through an improved social security system.

The family allowances are extended by the Bill to be paid in respect of children up to the age of 18 if they remain at school or if they are apprentices. During the course of our discussions, some fear was expressed that "apprentice" might be too strictly construed and that a legalistic approach depending upon a deed of apprenticeship would be adopted. I think that on an earlier stage I was able to reassure the House of the commonsense approach which has been adopted where there has been a de facto if not a de jure apprenticeship, and we propose to continue that approach.

This proposal, which was included in the Election manifesto of the Conservative Party at the last Election, will, I think, play a very useful though, may be, subordinate part in encouraging parents to encourage their children to undergo training either by way of school or apprenticeship for jobs requiring skill and education; and in this way is, perhaps, a pendant to the very interesting matters which the House was discussing as recently as yesterday.

Certainly, in some degree, it should help to resist the very natural temptation which the high wages for juvenile labour in blind alley jobs might offer to parents who are hard pressed to put their children into a job for immediate remuneration without training or experience for the future. I am sure, therefore, that this proposal fits in with our scheme of social services to meet family and national requirements as best we can.

Similarly, there is the provision under which the mother will continue to draw her quota of the widowed mother's allowance so long as she has a child, even though he is not at school or not serving an apprenticeship, living with her, until that child attains the age of 18. That is designed, as the House will remember I indicated at an earlier stage, to keep the family home together.

A provision particularly welcomed by the House was that to raise to 16 the age up to which family allowance is payable in respect of incapacitated children. The age of 16 was selected because after that age such children become eligible for National Assistance in their own right. Previously, there was a gap in respect of such children between the payment of family allowance and eligibility for National Assistance. This proposal will close that gap.

Then there is the other part of the Bill relating to the adjustment of National Insurance with particular reference to widows and their children, and for that may I once again express the gratitude of the Government and, I hope, of the House to Sir Will Spens and his colleagues on the Advisory Committee for the extremely careful thought they gave to this very complex subject. One matter which under their terms of reference they had to leave aside, so far as a detailed recommendation was concerned, was the amount of the increase to be made in respect of the widow's children. They recommended a substantial increase, but they took the view. with which I respectfully agree, that the precise amount was probably outside their terms of reference.

After a great deal of thought the Government decided that the right thing to do was to make an increase of 5s. in respect of each child of a widowed mother, thereby raising the amount payable for the first child to 16s. 6d., for the second child to 8s. 6d.—to which, of course, must be added 8s. family allowance—and for the third and subsequent children, similarly, 8s. 6d., to which under the Bill must be added 10s. That makes the amounts 16s. 6d. for the first child, 16s. 6d. for the second and 18s. 6d. for the third and subsequent children. That was a deliberate increase in the rates which is quite out of line with the general increases which have been made under the National Insurance Scheme since its inception and very far ahead of changes since then in the cost of living.

Perhaps it will help the House to envisage the magnitude of the change if I compare those figures with those originally provided under the Act of 1948, under which the provision was 7s. 6d. for the first child and 5s., the family allowance figure, for the second and subsequent children. If Parliament passes this Bill into law, these figures, therefore, will provide that for the first child the total payment will be more than double what was provided under the Act of 1948, for the second child it will be more than trebled and, for the third and subsequent children, it will be not far short of quadruple the original amount.

That, I think, indicates that we have tried to make decisions which will give from the funds available the maximum possible in the directions where the need seems clearly to be greatest. Hon. Members who have studied the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee will agree that after its consideration of the evidence it indicated very clearly that the widowed mother with children is emphatically one of those directions.

An interesting feature of the Bill is the new provision for giving what I have earlier colloquially called the flying start for sickness and unemployment benefits to widows at the end of their period of widow's allowance or widowed mother's allowance. The original idea, which has been germinating for some years, was that such a woman should be given an entitlement directly related to her husband's insurance position, but that has disadvantages, particularly in cases where the husband's contribution record is poor. The present proposal gives full sickness and unemployment cover to such widows in those circumstances, that is, sickness benefit of unlimited duration and unemployment benefit subject to the normal duration rules for that benefit.

In the case of the widowed mother who has brought up her children, the application of the normal rules of unemployment benefit will result in her being entitled to the maximum—at present 19 months'—period of unemployment benefit, because the period required to bring up her children which counts for entitlement, as does the period of marriage, must necessarily be more than the 10 years which will qualify for unemployment benefit for the maximum length of time.

The flying start will be put into effect, if the House passes this Bill, by regulations which would be authorised by Clause 2 (6). They will be made under the earlier Act and require the affirmative Resolution procedure. I do not think that it will be possible to present such regulations before the House rises for the Summer Recess, but I hope to be able to present them in the autumn when, if the House wishes, there will be a further opportunity to discuss this aspect of the matter.

In earlier debates there was some comment on the provision in the Bill to implement the recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee to raise the age from 40 to 50 at which, if it is reached while widowed mothers' allowance is still being drawn, it would entitle the widow to a permanent pension. The provision in the Bill which embodies that recommendation places the woman whose children have passed the age at which she is entitled to draw widowed mother's allowance in the same position as the childless widow. She will become entitled to a permanent pension if her husband dies after she has passed the age of 50.

As the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Mr. Marquand) will recall, we had considerable discussion on that in Committee. I think it became clear then that any difficulties which might be anticipated will be met, as the Advisory Committee thought, by the flying start provisions. It therefore is our intention not to appoint a day for this raising of the age until Parliament has passed the regulation enabling the flying start to be put into operation so that the change from 40 to 50 will not operate until those regulations come into force. I think that that will obviate any of the difficulties which might have been feared.

In any event, it will be some time before the effect of the change is likely to become apparent. Under the Bill as it stands it cannot apply to any woman widowed before the appointed day. After widowhood she will be entitled in the normal way to the widow's allowance for 13 weeks and under the flying start regulations she will be entitled to sickness benefit so long as she is sick, or to unemployment benefit for the appropriate period.

In the case of the former widowed mother, the appropriate period means the full period of 19 months, and when the three months' widow's allowance is added it will be nearly two years after this comes into operation before any change becomes apparent from a practical point of view. In Committee I undertook to watch this carefully to make sure that difficulties do not arise and, as I have indicated, there will be plenty of time to keep the matter under review.

At this stage, I should deal with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), that this provision ought to have added to it a provision enabling the change in age to be altered again by regulation. I undertook to consider that. I did not table an Amendment on Report stage, and perhaps I shall not incur displeasure if I say that that decision was taken after a great deal of thought and that, in view of the importance throughout the National Insurance Scheme of the appropriate ages for entitlement, I do not think that this is a question which should be dealt with by regulation; but, if it is to be dealt with, it should be by legislation.

In respect of widowhood. the Bill. I think, embodies the modern approach and ideas to the subject by which we concentrate the funds available to give relief to the widow with children, the older widow and the sick widow. Those are the directions in which the funds available ought to be concentrated; but the younger, fit, childless widow, after the payment of widow's allowance, which will help her to adjust herself to her new and perhaps difficult position, ought to be encouraged to return to ordinary life and work. The best way to enable her to do so while, at the same time, protecting her from difficulties is to equip her, as this Bill proposes to equip her, with a flying start for sickness and unemployment benefits.

I commend these proposals which. as the Houses will appreciate, are part of an integrated whole, as embodying and carrying a little further sensible modern ideas of the treatment of widowhood which first appeared in the Beveridge Report and which further thought and consideration has emphasised and developed.

I wish to say one thing more about dates of operation. As the House will see, the Bill is riddled with provisions under which days can be appointed and I have touched on one or two of the reasons why those days have to be appointed and why it is necessary to bring some of the provisions into effect on different dates. Anything I say on dates now is subject to the view of the House on Third Reading, to its willingness to pass the Bill on Third Read ing, and to the consideration given to it in another place.

Subject to that, I wish to add a word or two to what was said of our intentions on timing by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at an earlier stage. My hon. Friend indicated that it was our intention that the extension of the upper age limit to 18 for children at school and apprentices and 16 for handicapped children would be brought into effect on 1st August, a date which is extremely convenient in view of the fact that otherwise, under the existing law, many children will come out of family allowance on 31st July.

I hope that on the same date, 1st August, we may also be able to make provision for the payment of family allowance to children committed to the care of local authorities when on trial at home—children concerned in the Amendment to Clause 5 which we discussed earlier—and also to those who will benefit in connection with potentially polygamous marriages under Clause 3.

We hope to introduce later—the date in view is 21st August—the provision for widowed mother's allowance at the 40s. rate and the widow's pension at the higher rate for industrial injury widows where there is a young person under 18 residing at home, and also to bring into effect the relaxation in the duration of marriage rule from 10 to three years. This provision will enable 5,000 to 6,000 widows at present receiving a 10s. pension to go on to the full rate of widow's pension as from the appointed day. We hope to be able to bring that into effect on 21st August.

My hon. Friend has already indicated our intention with respect to the increased rate of family allowance for the younger children and the increase in the widowed mother's allowance. The date we have in mind is 2nd October. We hope, also on the same date, to make provision at the rate of 16s. 6d. instead of 8s. to qualify for widowed mother's allowance, and to increase the rate of child's industrial injury death benefit where the child is not living with the widow.

Although the House must first decide whether to give the Bill a Third Reading, I thought I might indicate that if Parliament gives authority we shall bring these beneficial provisions into effect as speedily as we can. I know, and I think the House will agree, that these provisions will bring some measure of much-needed relief in a number of useful directions. I know from correspondence which I receive that the date of their operation is a matter of personal feeling and personal need to considerable numbers of our fellow countrymen and women. My desire, and that of my Department, therefore, is that the administrative arrangements should operate as speedily as possible in order that these provisions now before the House shall be brought into effect.

In what I suppose will be my last speech on it to the House, I commend the Bill as a carefully considered Measure for using a comparatively limited, although I believe not inconsiderable, amount of funds in a useful direction. While not underrating other things which it may well be possible to consider later, none the less these directions seem to me to be the most clamant and the most imperious.

I want to begin my comments on the Bill with what I think is an appropriate quotation:

"Too many wealthy people are out openly to enjoy themselves on sold-out capital: too many of the poor look ahead only to the next week. The conscience of society insists on limiting the misery of the poor and the power of the economically strong."

This passage is taken from a brilliant essay by a young Oxford undergraduate of 1933 which appeared in a collection called "Red Rags"; and the author was the Minister.

By this Bill, society is assuaging its conscience by distributing some £14 million—£15½ million less the £1½million which the Minister expects to save on National Assistance—to some two or three million of the poorest and most needy people in the country at a time when society permits twice that sum to be raised in a few hours by gamblers in Trinidad on the Stock Exchange. I commend both halves of the quotation to the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that he may carry out a little of the second part of the work which he envisaged so long ago.

We have nothing of which to complain in the right hon. Gentleman's handling of the Bill. Again I quote from this delightful document;

"The good minister must be ever alert, energetic, conciliatory, never tired and never rude."

I think the right hon. Gentleman lives up to the standard which he set himself twenty years ago. Any faults which we have to discuss this morning lie not in the Minister but in the Bill. They were there on Second Reading and, in spite of the efforts of my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee, they remain in the Bill today.

It would be churlish not to thank the Minister on behalf of the widows and the fatherless children, and indeed the large poor families of this country, for that in the Bill which is good—for instance, for the increased family allowance of 2s. a week for the third child, which the Minister tells us is in fact not for the third child but for the family and which, if there are three children, represents a contribution of 8d. a week per child towards meeting the increase in the cost of living.

There is also the shortening of the qualifying period of marriage for widow's benefit—a very important provision; and there is the bringing at once into full employment and sickness benefit of the widow after she has exhausted her widow's or widowed mother's benefit. That will be welcome to many in their first period of anxiously seeking work when nobody wants to employ them. While the prospect of employment for widows might be quite certain in parts of the country, it is by no means so in all parts of the country, even in these days of full employment.

Moreover, this concession lasts only about six months, although I understand that it can be extended up to six months more. I was delighted that the Minister told us this morning that in the case of widowed mothers it may extend to 19 months. But after this respite the widow goes out on the very difficult task of competing on terms of complete equality with the rest of the community.

There is the increase of 5s. a week for every widow's child, so that a widow with three children gets an extra 17s. for the children and gets 91s. 6d. a week instead of 74s. 6d. a week on which to live. I will return to that point in a moment.

There is the excellent reform that the incapacitated child, whose family allowance automatically stopped at the age of 15 and who did not get anything from National Assistance until he was 16, now gets a family allowance. Some of us have advocated that reform in the House for some time. I hope that the Minister will convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that feature of the Bill is a good feature, and will make him sympathetic to a similar Amendment which I hope we shall discuss in Committee on the Finance Bill next week. Some of the finest parents in the country are those who devote their lives to looking after incapacitated children—spastic children, epileptic children and mentally backward children—and this Amendment means that instead of their having to carry the entire load of maintaining those children between the ages of 15 and 16, the State intends to help them.

An excellent improvement in the Bill carries on the widowed mother's allowance as long as one of her children is under the age of 18 and at any rate minimises the harm which the Bill does in another way which I will explain in a moment. There is also a Clause which assists children's committees in what must be the goal of everyone who works on them—attempting to get -the deprived child where it ought to be, back in the family. That is an excellent Clause.

Why, then, should some of us be grudging about such a Bill? First, because I believe it makes a retrograde alteration concerning widows. Nobody wants to give a young and able-bodied widow an automatic and permanent pension. By all means, let us concentrate the aid where it is most needed. I have nothing to cavil at in the principle which the Minister has advocated here—that his aim is to concentrate on the widowed mother, the sick widow and the aging widow. Where I quarrel with him is at what moment we should draw the line for helping the aging widow.

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was right in fixing the age of widowhood, at which a woman comes into benefit of the widowed mother's permanent pension, at 40. This Bill makes the minimum age 50. It will not affect many at once, and the best news which I have heard this morning has been that this particular provision in the Bill will come into operation as late as it possibly can. Fortunately, none of the widows who is getting benefit under the scheme at present is to come under the axe which this Bill imposes for some widowed mothers in future, but, in the years ahead, this provision will be hard on some women who, between the ages of 40 and 50, lose their husbands.

I am not one of those who think that it is as easy as some imagine to turn from child-bearing and child-rearing and go out and earn a living. I am old-fashioned enough to think that children need a mother at home, and that motherhood is a hard and highly skilled job. It is not good enough to say, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did on Second Reading:

"I think that any woman who has the ability and the will to go out to workȔand who can make proper arrangements for her children—should be encouraged to live in the wider world outside. … She has lost much by losing her husband, but there are compensations if she can take a job outside—again, provided that her children are cared far."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1907.]

I do not think that one can make proper arrangements for children by buying nannies, a place in a day nursery or a home help or neighbour to look after children if they get a little troublesome. What worries me deeply about the whole of the scale of National Assistance for widows and widowed mothers is that it still fails to cope with the belief, which I have at any rate, that the widowed mother should be regarded as one engaged in a full-time job. I believe that there would be less juvenile delinquency if every child had the preciousness of the security of a home, and I should like to see the widowed mother treated as a wage-earner and fully qualified for proper maintenance from the State, even when her children are 19 or 20 years old.

The Bill does little or nothing for the 10s. widow and the no-shilling widow. It is true—and I always try to be fair—that some thousands of these widows wilt come at once into benefit because of the new three-year qualification for widow's benefit. It is true that a few more will benefit by what the Minister has called the "flying start" in the application of unemployment and sickness benefits, but for the great mass there is nothing.

I want to give the House a fragment from one of many letters which I have received, as I am sure all hon. Members have. This letter is from Mrs. Elsie Harrison, who is the Chairman of the Northern Area of the 10s. Widows' Association, and she writes:

"After being brought up on the starvation rations of the first World War, rearing families in the lean 20's and 30's; coping with factory work, housework, rationing, fire-watching and the strain of loved ones in danger; the ordeal of food scarcity and rising prices, and the illness and loss of loved ones since, at a time when their own physique undergoes change, has provided a tremendous strain, mentally and physically, for widows of this age. They just cannot be expected to go on doing two jobs. So many tell me they are worn-out, not ill enough to go on sick, but just exhausted. They dare not retire on National Assistance, they dare not take days off because they may lose their jobs, and the new proposals offer no hope."

My hon. Friends tried in vain to improve this Bill in Committee, and the opportunity for improving the Bill for the 10s. widow has now been lost, certainly in this piece of legislation. My hon. and right hon. Friends also fought hard in Committee to raise the general rates of assistance and to remedy what I believe still to be the main defect of the Bill; that is, that it fails to match up with the grave economic position of widows and widows with children.

Let me give two examples. The right hon. Gentleman, on one occasion, either in Committee or in Second Reading, conceded that 75 per cent. of the widows with four children have to go to National Assistance for supplementary help. This Bill will not lift all these widows out of the necessity of seeking National Assistance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), in Committee, quoted the fact that one in three out of the widowed mothers in the country has to go to National Assistance for help, and this Bill will not lift all the widowed mothers of the country away from the necessity of going on National Assistance. Even if it were true that it did, looking at the amounts of money which the Bill provides, National Assistance would stand condemned.

This is my second example. A widow with three children will get 91s. 6d. a week. If her husband had lived, the money going into the family, assuming that he was that mythical person—the average worker, would have been £10 a week, the average wage in the country being over £10 a week today, and his children would still have got family allowances. Therefore, we really ought to offset, against that 91s. 6d. some 12s. of it, which is the family allowance which would have been paid to the mother if her husband had been working. The real comparison which we have to make is between the average wage of £10 a week going into that home and the sum of 79s. 6d. which we pay to that widow for her widowhood and her fatherless children. To put it another way, we pay 16s. 6d. for a widowed mother's child—in the case of the third one it becomes 18s. 6d.—and, translating what the Minister has said, we pay 16s. 6d. plus 8d., which makes 17s. 2d. per child to the widow.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has devoted much of her life to the work of children's committees. I would ask her to tell the House how much a foster parent is paid for looking after a child in this country on behalf of a children's committee. It is twice or even three times that amount, and the foster parent is given not only an amount which is more than we give to the widow, but is also provided by the children's committee with clothing and all kinds of other things for the child.

What is the cost of keeping a child in a children's home? The answer is from £5 to as much as £10 per week. How much in Borstal or at a public school? I am one of those simple people who believe that the right of the widow's child to a full life will be conceded some day by this country to be identical with the right of the child of any other persons in the country, including the right of those who spend some £400 a year in keeping their children at Harrow and Eton. If a widow, crushed by bereavement and the burden of bringing up three fatherless children, sinks under that burden and goes to the devil, leaving her children to the State, then, instead of giving her 57s. 6d. to feed and clothe three children, the State will spend about £20 a week on them, through a children's committee.

I welcome the Bill as a tremendous step forward, but it is because Britain does not do enough for its heroic widowed mothers and fatherless children, does not do enough for the widow herself in her struggle to find work—and let me emphasise that the Advisory Committee whose advice the Minister has followed in moving back the qualifying age of the widowed mother from 40 to 50 also says that if the employment position becomes difficult the Minister may find himself compelled to bring the age back towards 40, as it was before—it is because Britain is failing really to deal adequately with those who are, I think, the unhappiest victims, those who have so far been neglected under the Welfare State, that I would say that although the Bill is a good one, it does not go far enough. It is for those reasons that I would say that what we need, and what I would commend to the Minister, is a full and thorough investigation into the whole economic question of widowhood.

The goal of our legislation in this respect is to be found in the admirable sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) during the Committee stage. He then said:

"What we want to avoid is a noticeable difference between what the widow's child can do and enjoy and what can be given to the child of the family whose father is in work. We do not want the widow's child to be noticeably different. We want the widow's child to be able to join in the fun and games and have those things which other children are having."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 31st May, 1956; c, 38-39.]

In so far as this Bill moves towards that goal I welcome it, but I do not believe that we have yet achieved the goal.

It was not until the hon. Member for lichen (Dr. King) had nearly concluded his speech that I was certain whether he was welcoming the Bill or was speaking against it, but I was very glad that, in the end, he did say that he welcomed it. I believe that the whole House and that the whole country welcome it. It is difficult to pick out for commendation any particular points in a Bill which benefits so many people, but one of the provisions which brings happiness to me is that which will help the widow with small children to bring up. She has a very difficult time indeed and very often is a very courageous person, trying to keep a home together and at the same time, possibly, having to earn 4the money she needs to provide that home.

There is one point, however, which I believe to be an anomaly, and which I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up. I refer to the extension of the family allowance for children who remain at school up to the age of 18. This was referred to in Committee, but the position was not then made clear. I think it was the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) who spoke of there being a gap. In reply, my hon. Friend said:

"I cannot say that there will be no gaps. If we achieve what we want and the appointed day becomes 1st August for the extension of the age limit of family allowance, it means that children whose sixteenth birthday occurs before 31st July will continue in benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 7th June, 1956, c. 101.]

I am concerned about the position of the child who is still at school today but whose sixteenth birthday occurred before 31st July, 1955. To take an extreme example of the position as I see it—and I stand open to correction, which is why I raise the matter—the child whose sixteenth birthday was on 30th July, 1955, and who has remained at school will have been in benefit for the subsequent 12 months. The child whose birthday was only three days later, say, 2nd August, will have been out of benefit—

It is the other way round.

I am sorry. The child whose birthday was on 2nd August, 1955, will have been in benefit for the 12 months from that date until the appointed day.

There is an anomaly of some sort there. My hon. Friend may say that we cannot put the clock back and have the allowance payable from before the appointed day, which is at some time in the future, but this Bill was definitely foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech over a year ago. The parents of children whose birthdays fell on or around that time knew, when they were deciding whether or not to keep their children at school for an additional two years that this legislation was foreshadowed and, I should have thought, I could reasonably assume that the children would have the benefit for the whole period. As it has happened, it has taken some time for this Measure to pass through all its stages.

The other difficulty which might be put in the way of making the appointed day so as to include these children is the administrative one of making back payments. I would submit on that point that these children who are still at school on the appointed day, and under 18, have to be brought back to benefit in any case. The administrative difficulty, therefore, is possibly not so great as it might at first sight appear to be.

If the facts as I have given them are correct, I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider them and to see whether nothing can be done, even at this late stage, to correct what might be an anomaly. I do not wish further to delay the passage of this Bill on its way to the Statute Book. In part, it fulfils a Conservative Election pledge and I wish it well.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having got the Bill as far as it has now gone, and, in anticipation, I congratulate him upon it reaching the Statute Book very shortly. He was good enough to thank the Members of Standing Committee E for the cooperation that we gave him during the consideration of the Bill and in expediting its progress to this point. I am glad to think that I may have played some part—I am not trying immodestly to take too much credit—in accelerating the process.

I pressed him. when he first made his announcement, to deal with the Measure this Session and not postpone it until the next. I am fully aware that the Chancellor's subsequent decision to increase the family allowance must have had something to do with the acceleration. None the less, my hon. Friends and I have certainly done our best to ensure that the Bill has received proper consideration, that its defects, as we think them to be, have been given full examination, and that the Bill, though we do not like it entirely, reaches the Statute Book quickly so that its benefits become available to all concerned as rapidly as possible.

I thought that the dates which the right hon. Gentleman announced this morning, were, in all the circumstances, very reasonable. We are very glad indeed to know them. We do not want to do anything at all today to delay the Bill. We wish it to have its Third Reading this morning. We also wish another Bill coming before the House later to get a Third Reading today. That is why we are keeping this debate brief.

Though we are glad that the Bill is reaching the Statute Book quickly, it does not mean that we are entirely satisfied with it. The right hon. Gentleman, as I gather from works of reference, has a very distinguished ecclesiastical ancestry, but I regret to say that on this occasion what he has laid before the House of Commons is no more than a curate's egg. It is good in parts, but it is not good all the way through.

We are bound to welcome, so far as it goes, the increase in family allowances which is proposed, the raising of the age of children in respect of whom family allowances will in future be paid, and the elimination of what has been referred to as the gap in the case of the handicapped child who at present can draw National Assistance at 16 but whose family allowance finishes at 15. We are glad of improvements of that kind, which have been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King), but none the less we still regret that the family allowance provisions are not sufficient.

The right hon. Gentleman said, rightly —I agree with him—that the family allowance should be regarded as a payment for the benefit of the whole of the family, that the fact that one calculates how much allowance to pay a family according to the number of children in it does not necessarily mean that each family allowance is appropriated to a particular child. He rightly drew our attention to the fact that it is the families with the largest numbers of children which are nearer the poverty line in this country and that many of them fall below it and some are unable to give their children the food which the Food Survey would consider satisfactory.

We have expressed our disappointment at this by suggesting that the increase in family allowance ought to be made available for the second child. But it does not matter in what way it is done. I am not necessarily objecting to paying the family allowance at the moment in a way which will increase the income of the larger family. In whatever way it is done, the increase which is now proposed is still not sufficient compensation for the rise in prices which has taken place since the last improvement was made. In particular, it is not sufficient compensation to mothers of families, especially mothers of large families, for the increases in the price of bread and milk which will follow the other provisions which the Chancellor has just introduced.

We were always told in the Election promises of the Conservative Party that when it eliminated subsidies it would ensure that this would not result in any hardship for those who were in need. We do not think that the provision for family allowances contained in the Bill has gone far enough to implement the pledge.

we welcome many of the improvements in the Bill in respect of widows. We particularly welcome the proposals for giving the widow a flying start in insurance and providing her with greatly improved eligibility for unemployment and sickness benefit. These are definite improvements which, as we have already said, were the brilliant suggestions of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, for which we are very grateful. We are glad that the suggestions were made, are incorporated in the Bill, and will come into operation as soon as possible.

However, we still regret that the National Insurance Advisory Committee thought fit to suggest the raising for certain widows of the age of eligibility from 40 to 50. We are still doubtful about the proposal. What my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen said about it is very sound and very just indeed. Though that is a defect, undoubtedly the most serious defect in the Bill, as my hon. Friend said, is that the opportunity was not courageously taken really to remedy the position of the widowed mother with young children.

I recognise—of course I do—that a departure has been made here from the hitherto observed principle of uniformity of benefit. Here benefit is to be payable in respect of a widow's child at a higher rate than in respect of the child of the unemployed or sick man. We do not object at all to that apparent breach in what was once thought to be a sacrosanct principle. What we regret is that, once having decided to make such a breach, the right hon. Gentleman did not go far enough, and did not make satisfactory provision for these children.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) apparently finds these proposals satisfactory, but I and my hon. Friends certainly do not. Our feelings about them were so well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen that I almost hesitate to say it all again, and yet I feel that I must place on record once more what I have said at previous stages of the Bill, that we cannot be satisfied with a situation in which 30 per cent. of widows are obliged to resort to National Assistance and no fewer than 75 per cent. of widows with four or more children are obliged to resort to it.

The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend may say "We are not satisfied either, and that is why we are making the additional provisions". However, they are, admittedly, not making additional payments sufficient to relieve the families of the need to resort to National Assistance. The proposals in the Bill will, as soon as they come into operationȔthere is no doubt about it—improve the ability of widowed mothers to look after their young families, but they will not improve it sufficiently.

In the Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:

"It it clear that this proposal should have the effect of reducing in some degree, though I do not place undue emphasis on this or suggest the figures might be very large, the number of those widows who do resort to Assistance, and who, as the National Insurance Advisory Committee reported, resort to Assistance to a greater extent than other classes of National Insurance beneficiaries. I do not say that it will be anything dramatic, or that there will be vast numbers, though it clearly must affect them in some degree. We ought not to look at this matter narrowly or entirely from that point of view. We ought to look at it from the point of view of an actual increase of benefit, both to those in respect of assistance as well as to those not in receipt of assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 31st May, 1956; c. 36.]

Nobody asked the right hon. Gentleman to do anything dramatic; nobody suggested there were vast numbers. We know fairly well, from the reports of the Assistance Board, what are the numbers of those resorting to National Assistance, and they are far too great.

One cannot draw any crumb of comfort from those statements of the right hon. Gentleman. Some widows and large families will, no doubt, no longer be eligible for National Assistance for a short time; but prices are still rising, and the prices of necessities are going up. If the word "vast" is justified, it is justified by a consideration of the numbers who will remain on National Assistance, on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission that he cannot expect anything more than a slight degree of improvement. They will remain a depressed class in our community.

The very fact that the amount for war widows' children is to be 5s. a week per child greater than that for National Insurance widows' children seems to prove that the latter are not yet to receive enough payment for the mother to keep them adequately without resorting to Assistance, or without continual anxiety. Those children are not getting a fair chance in life, and there is no good reason why they should not be given it.

We all hoped, from the inauguration of the system of all-in National Insurance proposed thirteen or fourteen years ago by Lord Beveridge, that we should have the great mass of our citizens supported at least in tolerable comfort without the necessity for going to National Assistance, though we recognised that for years to come there must be large numbers, who had no benefit from the National Insurance Scheme, who would have to draw Assistance. But I am sure nobody thought, when the Beveridge Report was produced in the 1940s, that in 1956 we should have to say that the children of some 90.000 widows might still require National Assistance. Those children are not given a fair chance.

The most odd and anomalous thing about this situation is that the Exchequer will have to give them assistance, and will have to pay extra sums of money through the National Assistance Board, and yet we are told that the small additional sum which we suggested might be adequate, to make this increase not 5s. but 10s., could not be found. The State will have to pay a substantial amount for these children through National Assistance to keep them on bare subsistence but we are told that the Insurance Fund could not bear the extra burden of giving them a sum equal to what the war widow's child will receive.

That ought to be known; it ought to go out from the House of Commons so that the whole country may know. If that is really so, and if the National Insurance Fund is not in a position to accept a liability as large as that, then the working people of this country had better be told. This House should say to them, "You should realise that the Fund which you are providing through your contributions, and through the State's contributions, is not large enough to guarantee that your children, if you should die next week, will have a decent chance in life; you are going to condemn them to have to leave school too early, however intelligent they may be, so that they may go to work and try to help their widowed mothers. You are depriving them of the chances which other boys and girls in the community have".

The sooner we think about this matter the better. We all ought to get down to thinking closely about this aspect of the National Insurance Fund, as well as about the others to which it would not be in order for me to refer now; we must ensure that the system will in future become more adequate than it seems to be at the moment.

There are differences of opinion among Members of this House, and there were differences when we were in Committee, about what exactly the Bill might bring about. Some said the results would be pretty good; others said that the Bill did not go far enough. Let us hope that after the Bill has been in operation for a reasonably long period we may proceed to find out what its effects really are.

I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to pay very serious attention to the requests which we have made, that in, shall we say, twelve months, or whatever period he thinks is reasonably long enough to give us full experience of the working of this Measure, we should have a survey of widowhood in this country. It should not be merely a survey such as the National Assistance Board can provide, but a thorough economic and sociological survey of the position of the widow and her children, and of the opportunities which that widow's children have to be educated and to rise in the community according to their aptitudes and their abilities. All these matters should be the subject of close survey, and the results put before the nation. That survey might well be carried out by a university, or by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, as was suggested on Second Reading.

Do let us resolve to carry out that research so that, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, we shall not merely watch its working, as the Department will, through its machinery, but that we, as members of the House of Commons and representatives of our constituents, may try to ensure that a really thorough and rounded picture can be presented later to the House and to the country.

I am sorry that the Bill does not go as far as we would like. None the less, we hope that it will reach the Statute Book quickly, and that its provisions, such as they are, will rapidly be put into operation. We thank the right hon. Gentleman quite sincerely for the extremely clear way in which he has always explained its provisions, and for the courteous manner in which he has replied to our complaints and criticisms, some of which may at times have been put rather sharply.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) will forgive me if I do not follow him in some of the matters he raised, because there will be a far more adequate answer by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to take advantage of the quotation introduced by the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King), when he said that my right hon. Friend is alert and never rude, and take this opportunity of making one point which I believe to be rather important.

My right hon. Friend has, in the Bill, conceded something which may be very helpful to many social workers in the future, the principle that the widow's family and the large family are still within the scope of real need for social work. We have at present far too many children —over 60,000—coming into the care of the local authorities. I hope that through this Bill those numbers may be minimised.

I would ask my right hon. Gentleman whether he would be kind enough to make and maintain a further survey, in addition to that requested by the right hon. Gentleman for Middlesbrough, East, a survey of the number of children of large families and of widows who do come into care in future. He has, through this Bill, indicated that he realises there is a problem in this particular respect.

There is another matter about which I feel very strongly and, as hon. Members may recall, I did put down a Motion on the subject, but, unfortunately, I was not able to bring it before the House. I refer to the importance of keeping the family together. We are finding it is increasingly difficult for large families to do this. A great many of the larger families happen to have parents who are unskilled workers, not even receiving the average wage mentioned by the hon. Member for Itchen.

It was rather interesting to find that an investigation was made by the National Assistance Board in regard to 2,000 widows in receipt of supplementary pensions. In 36 cases where children could really be said to be neglected there were 35 widows who had four children or more, one who had nine, three who had eight, four who had seven, eight who had six, and four who had five. I think that it is this class of person that we should consider. I am very glad, therefore, that this Bill has come before the House, but I would ask my right hon. Friend to keep that point in mind in future years.

In the investigation at Luton, it was found, also, that the size of the family had a bearing on child neglect and, therefore, it is for that reason that I welcome the provision that the third child and subsequent children are to receive additional children's allowance. In the survey at Luton, it was shown that the mean size of the family in that town was about 3·2 persons and that the social problems came in families of 6·4 persons. I hope that the Bill will mitigate some of that hardship.

As we are fortunate enough to have the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department here, I hope that it may be possible for him, together with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, to see that, as a result of the Bill, fewer children are brought into the courts. I welcome, also, what the hon. Member for Itchen said on the question of disabled children. Very much more is being done by voluntary organisations for spastic children, and this Bill will enable the mothers to have the opportunity of helping their children and keeping them under better conditions, and of enabling them to send their children for these new types of education.

I live in a dockyard town where a great many of the young men and some young women go in for long apprenticeships on wages which are below the national average and their families have to keep them, and I am sure that the provisions of the Bill will be of great benefit to them.

1 have been rather dubious about the question of widows and the age at which they are to go to work. My right hon. Friend has very kindly agreed that he will keep an eye on this problem. I am not altogether in agreement on this with the hon. Member for Itchen, because I feel that in many cases it is very beneficial for women to go out to work. In fact, in our City of Plymouth we have a widows' club at which we arrange for them often to get evenings out, and I can assure hon. Members that they are, in tact, getting to be known as the merry widows. They get some time to themselves. I think that it is beneficial for these women to take some part in normal life and not have to be always looking after their children.

I agree that juvenile delinquency is not a great problem in widows' families. In cases where both parents go out to work —I have not the exact figure for widows —it is below 30 per cent. of the children who come into the care of the courts as juvenile delinquents.

I should like to say that probably my right hon. Friend may be the first Minister who has given his blessing to potential polygamy. Having worked overseas in a great many countries, I am sure that this will not cost him a great deal in the future, because, in my experience, the more educated women are very much against this system. Therefore, I do not think that it will involve a large provision by this Bill, but I should be interested to know what reciprocal arrangements he is making in these cases with other countries.

I hope that I may be able to reply to some of the points which have been raised. First, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) found parts of the Bill excellent, particularly those which referred to the provisions for handicapped children, and those for providing the widow's element of widowed mother's allowance until her children reach the age of 18. He renewed his quarrel with the proposed change from the age of 40 to 50 for the widowed mother when she is no longer entitled to widowed mother's allowance.

On that, I would remind the hon. Gentleman, as we did during the Second Reading and in Committee, that the extension to the age of 18, will mean that many more widows will go over to the age of 50 when, automatically, they will come into benefit for widows' pension and, secondly, that for widows below that age the provisions afforded by the flying start into National Insurance will make sure that if they are not able to work they will qualify for sickness or unemployment benefit.

The hon. Gentleman referred more than once to what I think he felt was the parsimonious nature of the 2s. increase for the third and subsequent children, and suggested that this would mean, in the case of the family where there are only three children, that only 8d. per head per week would be gained. That is true, but it only needs one more child in the family to double it. In fact, this is a modest measure of help to the larger families, and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman, even though he feels that it should be greater, would not wish to deny them what the Government now propose to give.

The hon. Gentleman also complained that there was little or nothing for the 10s. widow. Again, I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating the long arguments which we had on this subject in Standing Committee, but, as the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee pointed out, and, as has been said in our previous debates, the majority of 10s. widows are working. Far more of them are at work than other widows, and, for those who are not, those most in need will gain by the other proposals in the Bill. I cannot repeat too strongly, because I believe this to be the case, that the woman who enjoys the 10s. basic pension is more privileged than many of her sisters widowed since 1948 who get nothing at all.

I heartily agree. The difference between us is that I would give something to the no-shilling widow and the 10s. widow. What the hon. Lady is refusing to do is to give anything further to the 10s. widow.

It would not be in order to discuss that today. It would require counter-proposals on contribution rates.

The hon. Gentleman's final point was that although the Bill was a good one it did not go far enough. Perhaps this morning he is in slightly querulous mood, because usually he is so very anxious to encourage anything to improve the social services. Therefore, I should like to accept on behalf of my right hon. Friend his comment that the Bill is a good one and to leave for further discussion his aside that it does not go far enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) asked a specific question about the gap on the extension to the age of 18 for family allowances. His question was: while the child who became 16 before 31st July, 1955, and went out of family allowances might come back again after we have passed the Bill, what happens to the intervening 12 months when the allowance has not been paid? The answer is that it is not usual to pay National Insurance benefits or family allowances retrospectively. In any event, the proposed increases are to meet day-to-day current expenses. I do not think that there is a strong argument for suggesting that the increased allowance should be paid for a period which the family has already come through.

My hon. Friend also mentioned that the gap was made more pronounced by the fact that the fixing of 31st July as the date when a child came out of the benefit of family allowance could lead to anomalies, since the child whose birthday occurred on 30th July, 1955, came off the allowance the following day, whereas the child who was lucky enough to have its sixteenth birthday on 1st or 2nd August that same year, remained entitled for approximately another 12 months. That has been the case, and it serves to emphasise the provisions in the Bill which will carry family allowances up to the eighteenth birthday rather than ending them on 31st July following the sixteenth birthday.

The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) referred to the Bill being like the curate's egg, good in parts.

The bishop's egg.

An archdeacon's omelette.

The discussion seems to be straying. I do not propose to pursue that except to say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are glad of his help and his support of those parts of the Bill which he finds good.

The right hon. Gentleman deprecated the change from 40 to 50 as the age for ending the widowed mother's allowance. I have said as much as I can about that this morning. The right hon. Gentleman said categorically that the children of widows were not getting a fair chance in life. I do not want to spoil the morning's harmony by making a political point, but it is proper to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the widow's child is getting a much fairer chance now than in the days when his own party was in power. I cannot do better than repeat the figures which I gave on Second Reading. and which my right hon. Friend has given already this morning, to show the difference in benefit for the widow's child between now and 1948.

The 5s. increased benefit for the first child is more than double the amount paid for the first child in 1948. For the second child, the total payment in benefit and family allowances is over three times as much as in 1948. For other children, with the increased family allowances, the benefit is now nearly four times what it was in 1948. Therefore, even though hon. Members may feel that this provision does not go far enough, I hope that they will be sufficiently generous to admit that it is a great improvement on 1948.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that 90,000 widows with children were forced to seek National Assistance. I do not know where he got his figure from, but I am sure that it is grossly exaggerated and that the true figure is considerably below that number.

If the hon. Lady would give us the figure, we would be very glad. I based my statement on the 1954 Report of the National Assistance Board.

There are about 100,000 widowed mothers and the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee showed that about 30 per cent. of them resorted to National Assistance. I would expect the figure, therefore, to be about only one-third of what the right hon. Gentleman has indicated this morning.

Perhaps we had better clear this up. I certainly do not want to give false figures. I evidently made a slip of the tongue between the total number of widows receiving National Assistance and the number of widowed mothers receiving National Assistance. I accept the hon. Lady's figure. It must be more like 33,000 than 90,000.

I am glad that we now have that clear.

The right hon. Gentleman's final point was to ask my right hon. Friend whether we could not have a review of the position of widows and widowed mothers. The Ministry constantly keep these matters under review. We should be failing in our duty if we did not check on the position of widows, and particularly of the widowed mothers, and if any special circumstances arose in which we felt that a closer review was needed, we would be prepared to consider that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) came back to the question of the constant survey of families, although I think she had in mind particularly the number of children of widows who come into the care of local authorities, the number of families which are broken up in this way and the number of problem families where, even if children do not come into care, considerable public money is spent in their rehabilitation. I promise my hon. Friend that we will bear this point in mind and that it will be included in the reviews which we constantly undertake.

We have come to the final stages, in this House at least, of a Bill which has been generally welcomed and has received support on both sides. That is not unnatural, for the Bill seeks to add to the help that we give to two groups of people who command our sympathy and our support—that is, the widows, especially those with young children, and families, especially those with several children.

I do not want to prolong the debate, but I should like to emphasise the two main points of these provisions. We all accept that our attitude to widowhood has changed since the war. We accept that the widow should, where possible, be independent and should take her place in the community. I believe that the whole trend of modern thought has been to encourage the widow to lead her own life, sharing the interests and the work of those around her, despite the misfortune of losing her partner.

In that connection, I should like to take up another point made by the hon. Member for Itchen, who quoted my words on Second Reading, when I made the somewhat similar statement that I believed the widow should be encouraged to lead her own life provided she made proper arrangements for the children. The hon. Member questioned "proper arrangements," saying that he did not necessarily mean the arrangements provided by the day nursery or the nanny. I do not think I would disagree—there are very good day nurseries and sometimes they are table to help the children tremendously—but I wonder whether the hon. Member has never heard of the good granny?

I can think of many instances in which widows' children are cared for by their grannies and have all the love, affection and expert attention that we would wish them to have. In such a case, I see no reason why the widow, if she is able, should not go out, not simply to earn extra money, but to feel that she really is taking part in the community life and is not being put on one side because she no longer has a husband. I think, too, that the proposal to establish the widow in insurance will help to enable her to lead her own independent life.

We are agreed that it is the widowed mother who is most in need of our practical help. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for his comment that this was the provision in the Bill which gave him the greatest happiness. We all share that view. There is no need for me to stress the difficulties which the widowed mother has of maintaining the home and giving her children the best chance she can in life, and of acting as both parents—for that is what she has to do; she has to be man and woman in the house, and we know that that is not easy.

These widowed mothers are not even organised and we do not hear a great deal about them, as we do of other sections of the community. There is all the more reason, therefore, why we should be concerning ourselves with them today. This is, no doubt, the reason why the National Insurance Advisory Committee recommended in its Report that there should be a substantial increase for the children of widowed mothers. I believe that the provision we are now making is a substantial increase.

The improvement in family allowances, as my right hon. Friend said this morning, is the most expensive and most farreaching provision of the Bill. I should like to go into the history of family allowances, because I feel very strongly about it, but I shall not take the time, except to say that the allowances are a help to the larger families at the time when they most need it and when the calls on the family exchequer are heaviest. Nobody pretends that a family allowance maintains a child, but it does make a contribution to the amount of money available to the family at a time when the family is having the greatest calls upon its purse.

Nor are family allowances intended to relieve only the poorest families, although, obviously, they will be of the greatest help to them. Whatever the level of income, the demands are heaviest upon growing families, and I am surprised that there is still criticism of the merit of family allowances. It has continued even since I made this same point on Second Reading. I myself have received criticism.

I read in a newspaper only this week a letter from a mother who is obviously enjoying the benefit of family allowances. By the way, we have had no complaint from any mother enjoying the benefits. The complaint comes from other people in the community. That mother who wrote that letter felt as I do, for she was surprised that those who had fought the battle for improved social conditions in the past should now criticise family allowances, which are part of the improved social conditions.

I think we ought to retain a sense of proportion in this matter. It is sometimes suggested that those parents who give themselves the pleasure of a large family—and, after all, it is a pleasure to the parents, despite the hardship and the struggle, and a pleasure to the family as a whole, as I know from my own per- sonal experience—should not enjoy any of the other pleasures of life. Why not? I think dad is just as much entitled to a pint of beer as a chap who has not a family, and I think that mother and dad together should be able to go to the cinema, and that mother, if she likes, should have her hair "permed" occasionally.

Since family allowances are contributions to the budget of the home, I do not think that we should criticise when we see parents enjoying these other pleasures, knowing that the money coming to them by way of family allowances is helping them also to maintain a higher standard for their children.

I believe that this Bill will help the two sections of the community we all of us want to help.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, to leave out from "evidence" to "and" in line 38.

We had a long discussion on this matter in the Standing Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary undertook that the important points that were then raised would be examined. I do not want now to deploy any of the arguments that we have used before. The main purpose of my moving the Amendment now is to provide an opportunity for the Minister to tell us what is the outcome, which, I hope, is very favourable, of the consideration which he has given to this matter since we met in Committee.

1.15 p.m.

I would repeat only this, that I still feel, as I said in Committee, that the words which we seek to delete from the Bill are unnecessary. I trust the Minister has found a way of doing away with what I shall call a duplication of medical examination in this type of case.

I beg to second the Amendment.

If left in the Bill these words will mean that the industrially injured man, when applying for the 17s. 6d. supplementary benefit the Bill provides, may be subject to a further medical examination. The Minister thinks that because the supplement is to be paid out of the Industrial Injuries Fund he should reserve the right to demand another medical examination. I appreciate that point of view, but does the Minister really know what apprehension this will create in the minds of the industrially injured workmen, and also of the trade union official?

Frankly, apart from the provision for this extra medical examination, this is a just and a very much needed Bill. Many injured workmen, that is, totally incapacitated workmen, having received their injuries between 1924 and 1948 are eagerly awaiting their legal recognition.

I want to express my specific objections to these words in subsection (1, c):

"… and to undergo medical or other examination.…"

Confusion, dismay and apprehension will follow if those words are left in the Bill. Will not the second medical examination really mean a cross-examination of the competence of the first medical board? At present, these injured workmen have been medically examined and assessed at a certain percentage of disability and informed when they shall appear next before the medical examiners. It is not always that they are granted 100 per cent. disability for all time. Following the Minister's examination, different results may be obtained. Has the Minister any idea how the men's faith in the Bill and in the preceding legislation may be shattered by this? The Minister may easily jeopardise the whole Bill by introducing this kind of unnecessary, cumbersome cross-questioning legislation.

I would repeat a warning I gave the Minister when, on 17th February, I was moving the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill, and dealing with special hardship allowance and unemployability supplement. I was referring to the injured man and I said:

"… he becomes a disgruntled man and complains bitterly of the injustice meted out to him. He becomes antagonistic towards the Industrial Injuries Acts and tends to bring them into disrepute. These men, in the main, are the skilled producers of the nation's wealth—the miners, steelworkers, engineers and railway men. They all figure in this unfair deal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2680.]

That warning should be borne in mind.

Secondly, what system of examination is to prevail? And at what expense to the workmen or to the trade union acting on his behalf or to the Ministry? In any case, it seems as though there is to be a quite appreciable sum of unnecessary expense incurred by the Ministry and by the workmen.

Thirdly—and I think that this is very important—what recognition is the medical certificate issued by the workman's employer to receive? What exactly will be its strength? Will not the whole of the present procedure be seriously undermined by the introduction of this extra examination? Is it not sufficient for the workman to have in his possession one certificate from the employer's examiners, which will, in any case, have been tested to the full, ready to show at any time that he is 100 per cent. disabled?

What really is the aim of the Minister in instituting this new procedure with all its difficulties, and the problems which will follow its train? What exactly is he hoping to achieve? Is not the system tight enough at the present? Does he think that the employers are eager to pay 100 per cent. disability if it cannot he proved? Is he not aware of the rigorous examinations these workmen have had to undergo?

Let it not be said that the Minister intends paying 17s. 6d. to the totally disabled under this Bill, and then is hopeful of retrieving part of the outlay by reducing the number of totally disabled cases by denying them benefits through a second examination. I do not think the Minister really has that in mind at all. Nevertheless, therein lies a danger. There is another major point, and here I refer specifically to the cases of injured workmen who have received their 100 per cent. disability grant under Section 9 (4) of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. This category includes a large percentage of industrially diseased workmen—particularly silicotic and pneumoconiotics—the two most dreaded dust diseases in mining and quarrying.

Here are workmen who are not, strictly speaking, 100 per cent. disabled. But under the Acts I have mentioned, and after hearing the case put by both sides and surveying the available medical evidence, a county court judge could make an award of 100 per cent. disability. The judge invariably took into consideration the fact that the workman, in his diseased state, could not find suitable employment, and also that the employers would not engage what they term "liabilities."

I refer once more to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th February. When I was pleading for unemployability supplement for those people, I said:

"There are not many cases which would benefit, but they are hard cases—men suffering from industrial diseases, and pneumoconiosis in particular, who, because they are not classed as unemployables, yet in effect really are, no employer will entertain because of their condition. There are also a few accident cases of people in the same position."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 17th February, 1956: Vol. 548, c. 2694.]

There are men so affected in every mining area and what of their feelings now, if the Minister is to challenge their position and disability? I hope that the Minister has given this aspect of the matter sympathetic consideration, and that it is not his intention to penalise these men. As I see it, the danger is that the Minister's doctors can reduce a judged totally incapacitated man to one capable of light work. The consequence of such an examination would be to provide the employers with fresh medical evidence which, in turn, would be used to recall the workmen for a fresh medical examination by the employer's doctors. The tendency would be to reduce the full rate of compensation to a partial rate.

Replying to this point during the Committee stage discussions, the Parliamentary Secretary did not help to settle our disturbed minds. She said:

" Not every case rested on medical evidence. There was a loophole in the case of a man who was partially incapacitated, but who received maximum compensation. That was one of the difficulties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E: 14th June, 1956, c. 37.]

We are, therefore, particularly worried about the future of the classified 100 per cent. disability case. May I also ask whether the right of appeal is to be granted? There does not seem to be any provision in this Bill to cover that point. To sum up, the funds are protected, if that is one of the Minister's worries, as the full-rate men have their compensation granted on medical evidence or on a judge's award. Clause 9 (4) cases can be seriously jeopardised by the Minister's doctors saying that they are fit for light work, and so stopping their supplement. It is possible that the Minister's doctors can be the instrument used to reduce full-rate men to "partials" by providing fresh medical evidence to the employers. The cost here is a diminishing one as the years go by. Many of these men are aged workmen, and in the light of the history of these cases sufficient medical evidence is at hand to grant the supplementation.

In view of these many and varied reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept our arguments and delete the words to which the Amendment refers.

The effect of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), in a speech of most commendable brevity, would be to delete from the regulation-making powers provided in Clause 3 of the Bill the power to make regulations requiring persons claiming to undergo medical or other examinations. As I explained to the hon. Member for Mansfield, I am sorry that owing to other duties it was not possible for me to be present during the Committee stage discussions when this Amendment was dealt with. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, that I have carefully studied the quite lengthy debate on it, as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

On reading that, and considering the matter carefully, it seemed to me that the fears then expressed, and again expressed most eloquently this afternoon by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), are founded on a misapprehension, both as to the position of the old workmen's compensation cases which this Bill seeks to relieve, and the provisions of this Bill. It seemed to me in the first place that the apprehensions expressed were based on an assumption about the old workmen's compensation cases which is not completely consistent with the facts. None the Jess, the underlying assumption on both subjects this afternoon was that there was a complete and perfectly defined category of workmen's compensation cases of total incapacity, and therefore, all that was needed was to recogise that, and to pay the supplement.

The hon. Member for Barnsley indicated some awareness of the fact that that was not quite the whole truth, that there are a considerable number of cases the position of which under the Workmen's Compensation Acts is not wholly clear. First, there are the cases of partial incapacity on maximum. During the Second Reading debate I referred to the difficulty of applying the new industrial injury system of assessment on loss of faculty to the old workmen's compensation system of assessment on loss of wages. Of course, the House will appreciate that there are many cases of partial incapacity where the loss of wages was such that maximum compensation was payable, and therefore, under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts there was no incentive for the injured workman, or his trade union, or the employer, to seek to disturb the earlier finding of partial incapacity.

There are a number of other cases, as my investigations indicated, where, if the maximum rate is being paid now, it is not clear whether it is being paid on the basis of total or partial incapacity —it simply is not clear. And as in those cases the loss of wages has been substantial, it has, frankly, been to no one's interest to seek to disturb that state of affairs. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Barnsley's shrewd observation that no employer—or as is generally the case, no insurance company—would be likely, through sheer benevolence, to pay more than he was obliged to. That does not apply in this matter, because the amount paid, once a man is on the maximum, is the same, whether the incapacity is partial or total.

That is the difficulty which we have to face. There will be a number of such cases where either the finding is one of partial or total incapacity, and where it is not clear whether the payment is on partial or total incapacity on the maximum. We shall have to deal with those cases under the Bill. If in those cases it is impossible to arrange for a medical examination, it seems to me that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for those men to establish their case.

1.30 p.m.

I think that part of the misunderstanding which has arisen has done so because a number of hon. Members particularly concerned with this matter are concerned with the mining industry. So far as I can see, this is not a problem which arises in the mining industry, because there is there the scheme of the National Coal Board for supplementation of old workmen's compensation cases, in connection with which the National Coal Board has itself undertaken most careful classification of total or partial disability.

Therefore the problem is not one affecting the industry with which most of the hon. Members who have spoken are particularly concerned. Though I readily acknowledge that this Bill will be of special benefit to casualties from the mining industry—indeed, I recall that about half the cases whom we shall benefit were associated with that industry —it covers the whole of industry, and it is mainly outside the mining industry that there will arise these problems of seeing whether a man at present classified for workmen's compensation as a "partial," or whose classification is not yet clear, may be entitled, if he can make out his case, to benefit under this Bill. I must tell the House that if we were not able to have a medical examination in those cases it would be difficult, if not impossible, to see that those men receive the benefit of this Bill.

Let me, then, indicate how it is proposed to handle this matter. The hon. Member for Barnsley asked what was proposed. He may recall that on Second Reading I indicated that we intended to use the existing machinery of the Industrial Injuries Acts with respect to medical examination. I think that is satisfactory, because I think that the men, and certainly the union leadership, are fully familiar with that procedure, which has been operating for eight years, so it will not occasion any difficulty. Cases will be decided by the statutory authorities under the Industrial Injuries Acts, who are qualified and experienced in handling this kind of case.

As I have said, it is unlikely to be necessary to arrange for medical examination, in any case in the mining industry, and even outside the mining industry there is no intention, in the majority of cases, to arrange for a medical examination, because we do not think there will be any need to do so. For instance, there is no intention to undertake a medical examination where there is a clear and obviously effective decision of the medical referee under the workmen's compensation procedure. In many of the other cases the statutory authorities will be able to settle the claim without medical examination in the normal way. As the hon. Member for Barnsley said, there will be the evidence of the employer and of the insurance company or my own Department's records of sickness benefit.

However there will be other cases where medical examination will be necessary if benefit is to be paid. I will give one or two examples which I think will immediately strike the House as being relevant. There is the case where there has been an old injury and partial incapacity for some time but where, with age and physical deterioration, the incapacity has more recently become total. In such a case a medical examination may be necessary if a claim to the supplement under this Measure is to be established. Then there will be the case, probably outside the mining industry but conceivably within it, of a man with a certificate for partial disablement for pneumoconiosis. It may be necessary for such a case to go back to the medical board to be certified as total.

Then there is the case for which we are seeking to provide under Clause 1 (1, e) of the Bill. This is the case of the man with two or more injuries, in respect of each of which he is receiving partial compensation, and is therefore, in respect of each of them, classified as a "partial." The Bill contemplates that such a man may be entitled to the supplement because the cumulative effect of his injuries may be total. If such a man puts in a claim, it may be necessary to arrange for a medical examination if the claim cannot be established without one.

Would the Minister look again at the words, because it seems to me that he can get all the information he wants, in the very few cases which he admits are likely to arise, under the following words, in Clause 3 (1, c):

"for requiring persons claiming or receiving such allowances to furnish information and evidence …"

He could get that from the man himself. In other words, in the case which he has in mind he could place the obligation on the man to get a certificate from his own doctor, thus obviating the necessity for a further examination.

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from his trade union experience, in the first place that would involve placing the cost of obtaining evidence on the man—

Not necessarily.

whereas if the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 3 (2), he will see that we are proposing to take powers, where medical examinations are required, both to provide the medical examination free, and to pay for subsistence and loss of time in the normal way when medical examinations are required.

Secondly, that suggestion does not get over the difficulty that under the Bill, as under industrial injuries legislation, it is for the statutory authorities to decide a specific case. One might get the unfortunate position in which a medical certificate was submitted which did not satisfy the statutory authorities and where, therefore, for the claim to succeed, a medical examination under the provisions of the Measure would still be necessary.

Though there is nothing in the Bill, as I understand it, to prevent any applicant bringing forward such evidence as he wishes, including medical evidence, I am certain that the freedom to do so does not in a small minority of cases exclude the necessity for the proposed medical examination. However, what I am about to say will, I think, reassure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Barnsley in respect of the apprehensions which they feel, and will show that they are unfounded.

There is no intention to go to great expense and great trouble in oversetting or upsetting clear cases and clear decisions. This power is required for the minority of cases only.

I think it will help to reassure hon. Gentlemen opposite if I go on to indicate, the class of cases where a medical examination may be necessary if the statutory authority cannot come to a decision without its help. I have referred to a certain number of classes of cases which may arise when the Measure comes into force. But, after all, this is a continuing provision, designed to deal with people who, as a result of their injuries are only partially incapacitated. at the time when the Bill comes into force, may subsequently become totally disabled. There is the case of the comparatively short breakdown about which hon. Gentlemen opposite were much concerned, and which led to our discussion on Clause 1, and to my subsequent introduction of an Amendment shortening the period involved. That is the case of a man who is normally no more than partially incapacitated but who claims to have become totally incapacitated for a comparatively limited period for anything over 13 weeks.

There is another type of case. There is the man who, after the passing and coming into force of this Measure. commutes his compensation. When that happens his employers or insurance company are no longer in the picture. There is no workmen's compensation to help him if his condition deteriorates, and the statutory authority will be unable to come to a decision in his favour without a medical examination. I cannot see, therefore, how that type of case can possibly succeed without the medical examination provision.

Is the right hon. Gentleman implying that if the person who has commuted his compensation makes an application for the supplement, he will be submitted to medical examination? The two tests laid down in Clause 1 are, first, total disability, and. secondly, receipt of weekly payments. Yet if the man has commuted his compensation he is not in receipt of weekly payments.

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. The provision in Clause 1 is in respect of men in receipt of weekly payments on the coming into force of the Act. The case which I am putting to the House is that of the man who is in that position subsequent to the coming into force of the Act, and who is therefore within the benefit of the Act, and commutes his compensation subsequently. I do not think that there is any misunderstanding between us there.

Those are the types of cases. I hope that they will be few because naturally I and the Department have no wish to overstrain the Departmental machinery, which has a good deal to do in the ordinary way, and which, as hon. Members know, has worked to the satisfaction of the House generally in the administration of the Industrial Injuries Acts. We have no wish that the Department should take on work for the sake of it. I can assure the House and hon. Members opposite who are concerned that there is no intention of going to the expense of ordering unnecessary examinations where the case is clear. What I propose to do, however, when we come to the regulations stage is this.

The House will appreciate that at the moment we are considering the Clause under which regulations will be made. Under the Act those regulations will have to be laid before Parliament and will be subject to the Prayer procedure with which some of us have from time to time not been wholly unfamiliar. Therefore, if anything I say by way of forecast of the regulations does not seem to be carried out, it will be open to hon. Members to put down a Prayer, and to discuss the matter further.

It is my intention that the effect of the regulations, when laid, shall be that, except with the consent of the workman, a medical examination shall not be required, unless in the opinion of the determining authority the evidence otherwise available is insufficient. If the evidence otherwise available is insufficient then, of course, the result would be that without such an examination the award could not be made. I think that if the regulations can be drafted to make that clear there need be no reason for the apprehensions which hon. Members have expressed.

I cannot, and I am frank with the House, recommend the House to accept the deletion of the power to order medical examinations, because I am satisfied that if I did I should, as a result, deprive of benefit a few of the people whom this Bill is designed to help. I hope that what I have said and what will subsequently appear when the regulations are laid before Parliament will make perfectly clear the fact that we intend, in administering this matter, to restrict our administration, by the terms of the regulations themselves, to dealing with those cases in which it is not possible to make an award because the evidence without such medical examination would be insufficient.

I hope that I have made clear the point that it seems to be in the highest degree improbable that there will be any need to order many such examinations in connection with the mining community because of the fortunate arrangements made by the National Coal Board with respect to mining cases, and that, with respect to the rest of industry, in the clear cases, which will be the majority, there should not be any need for medical examination. I hope that I have also made it clear that even in many of the doubtful cases the highly experienced statutory authorities will not require the medical examination, but that there may be some cases in which we cannot do what we want to do and what Parliament wants us to do to benefit all those total incapacity cases unless we have the power to clear up the doubts which otherwise may arise as to whether they come within the provisions of Clause 1.

I believe that the Minister has moved some way to meet the objections which we not only raised in Committee but which were raised again this morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). When the Minister says that there will be no medical examination unless there is insufficient evidence on which to pay the benefit, it seems to me that that is going a long way to meet our objections and we shall look forward to scrutinising the regulations very carefully. I appreciate the generous way in which the Minister has met the points which we made, and, in view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill represents the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House to do something for those men on workmen's compensation who are most in need, and who may be suffering hardship. It helps to meet the disparity which has grown up with the passing of the years between the present rates of benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, and the rates of benefit payable under the old workmen's compensation schemes which preceded the Industrial Injuries Scheme.

The Bill does not go so far as some hon. Members wish, and points of detail which concern them have been raised during the various stages. But I think that the Bill has been unanimously accepted as a useful contribution to dealing with a difficult problem. It is a modest Bill and a useful one. It is also, as my right hon. Friend said when he began his Second Reading speech, a very complicated Bill, despite the fact that its purpose is modest. It has had a speedy passage, and I should like to thank all those hon. Members who have contributed to bringing about that speedy passage, and who have helped to secure the fact that we are today engaged on its Third Reading.

I hope that the Bill will receive an equally speedy passage through the other place, and that it will be brought into effect as soon as possible after the Royal Assent is given. Preparations at the Ministry are well advanced, and I think that hon. Members would like to know that. They include the drafting of regulations, the writing and printing of explanatory leaflets, claim forms and order forms, and the instructions to local offices. If the Bill receives the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, we hope to begin making the payments in the first fortnight in September, as I have indicated.

With this supplement for old cases, there is the problem of making the new benefits known to the men concerned, and in that respect the Ministry will do all it can. Leaflets will be available in the Ministry's local offices, including, I am sure hon. Members will be glad to learn, a Welsh version for Wales.

I will read the proofs.

I should be very grateful to have an interpretation.

Copies of leaflets will be available to the trade unions, and Press notices will be issued to the national and local Press and to trade union journals.

I think that the claims in some cases are already known because the men in question are already beneficiaries under the 1951 supplementation scheme and under the benefit schemes for pneumoconiosis and other diseases. Those men will be invited to claim. Since the identification of the totally incapacitated man is so much easier in the coal mining industry, because there is a concentration of men in that industry who qualify for the supplement, we hope that with the co-operation of the National Coal Board, the Ministry will be able to get in touch with the totally disabled ex-miners and invite them to claim.

Finally, I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister hopes to be able to make a broadcast on the matter. We shall do all we can to make sure that the men entitled to a supplementation under the Bill will be in a position to claim it. We shall rely on the co-operation of the trade unions, which has always been forthcoming and which I am sure will be on this occasion. We also believe that hon. Members themselves can help, when the appropriate time arrives, by speeches and publicity in their constituencies. Once again, I wish to thank those hon. Members who have contributed to the quick passage of the Bill.

I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady when she said that the Bill is a very useful one. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is to follow the usual procedure in regard to advertisement. May I make a suggestion about the implementation of that practice in this case? In addition to disseminating the information to the National Coal Board, I suggest that the Minister should also send it not only to the London office of the National Union of Mineworkers, but to the area offices in various parts of the country. We know that at least 50 per cent. of the cases which will receive benefit from the Bill are in the mining industry. I am certain that the unions will be prepared to cooperate to the maximum in implementation of the provisions of the Bill.

I have no doubt at all that the provision for a supplement embodied in the Bill will bring a measure of relief to some— I underline the word "some"—of the old cases. I repeat what I said in that connection during the Second Reading debate. It is a matter of regret and disappointment that the provisions are to be restricted to the extent that partially disabled cases will be excluded. The right hon. Gentleman has been very helpful and co-operative and we on this side of the House appreciate that helpfulness and co-operation very much. I hope that negotiations will go on with the Trades Union Congress on the partially disabled cases and that in the not too distant future a solution to that problem will be found and something done for those suffering only partial disability. I frankly admit that a solution is not easy to find.

We on this side of the House give a very hearty welcome to the Measure. Not only will it increase our pleasure, but the proposals will increase the pleasure of 13,000 cases which will benefit from the supplement provided by the Bill. If the Bill can go through its next stages with the expedition by which it has gone through stages in this House, the hopes and qualified promise which the hon. Lady has given about the appointed day—the middle of September—should be fulfilled and the target should be easily reached.

As I said on Second Reading, the people for whom we are legislating today have waited a very long time for this much needed held. In spite of what the hon. Lady said, it is the case that their last increase in workmen's compensation payments was made in 1943. It will be see that this is a long overdue improvement for the old compensation cases. This supplement will bridge the gap for the married man and the married man with a child, while for the single man the gap between pre-1948 and post-1948 cases will be covered by the Industrial Injuries Acts.

In welcoming the Bill, I take the opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the effort the Minister has made to get it through this Session of Parliament. We are very grateful. I know we are expressing the gratitude and appreciation of those who will benefit by these provisions and the early prospect of the appointed day gives no less pleasure. Although I readily admit that we did not like two points in the Bill, and have had discussions about the questions of the prolonged period and medical certification, I also admit that the Minister has gone a long way to meet the objections we made.

I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage so that the people in need of this additional help, those who have been off work and have suffered for so many years, will soon be in possession of this supplement.

I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) in offering congratulations to the Minister on this Bill for two reasons. I am rather glad that it has fallen to my lot to agree with the Minister on this occasion as it is well known that in the two previous positions he held in the Government we rarely saw eye to eye.

I also wish to congratulate the Minister on taking up the Bill after some of my hon. Friend's had not succeeded in getting through a Private Member's Measure with a similar object. I do, however, utter a word of regret. I regret, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) regrets, that the very strenuous efforts he made in 1946 and 1947 to secure some measure of agreement with the insurance companies to bring this class of case within the industrial injury provisions did not succeed. I am sure that no one regrets more than my right hon. Friend that he failed to achieve that and that it has become necessary to deal with those cases in this way.

I was particularly delighted to hear the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary say that there is to be a Welsh version of the leaflet to be issued. After all, that is merely poetic justice. As I look around the House I find that 25 per cent. of the occupants of the benches are Welsh-speaking Welshmen. Therefore, it seems only reasonable and fair that my native language—shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, and by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—should be used for this leaflet.

Originally, the right hon. Gentleman had included in the Bill the word "prolonged". He has succeeded in amending that to the word "considerable". In Clause 1 (2, e) the Bill now defines what "considerable" means. The paragraph says:

"a period shall be treated as considerable if it lasts or can be expected to last for not less than thirteen weeks;"

In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:

"I think that the Committee is in agreement that what we are seeking to do is to provide for the totally incapacitated person, by which we mean those who are totally incapacitated not for an odd day or so, but for a reasonable length of time."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th June, 1956; c. 4.]

What concerns me is what is a fair interpretation of "considerable", because there is a wide gap between an odd day or two and 13 weeks. After all, 13 weeks is 25 per cent. of the year. It follows from the Bill that a man must be totally incapacitated for 13 weeks before he is entitled to receive this supplement.

May I detain the House for a moment or two in order to give two examples from the industry which I know best? I have in mind the case of a railway shunter who, unfortunately, lost a limb. He was unable to continue his work as a shunter, but was accommodated by the railway company with a job as a crossing keeper; and, fortuitously, the rates of pay of the two jobs were similar. When he was able to resume work he did so as a crossing keeper. There are periods in the year, however, when the stump of his leg gives him such trouble that he is totally incapacitated from following his employment.

If I understand the position correctly, he will not receive the supplement unless he is incapacitated for 13 weeks continuously. In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) in Committee, the Minister explained that if such a man were idle for eight weeks, resumed work, and then were idle for a further six weeks, that would not count for supplement. This person, therefore—and there are hundreds of similar cases in the railway service—will not be entitled to claim the supplement.

May I offer another example? It is of another shunter—a Class I shunter—who lost a limb. Obviously, he could not follow his employment as a shunter and he was offered a job as a pointsman, not carrying the same rate of pay. Consequently, he receives partial compensation while he is at work. The stump from time to time gives him trouble and he is unable to work at all. To all intents and purposes, he is totally disabled. As I understand, he must be incapacitated for 13 weeks continuously before he can receive this supplement.

I sought earlier to have that period reduced, because it seems to me that there should be a reduced period for these cases. Obviously, they are all pre-1948 cases or they would not be in this category. I should have thought that had the interpretation subsection not been inserted in the Bill, and had it been left merely at the word "considerable," the statutory authorities could have interpreted it in a reasonable manner.

I fail to see how, in the present circumstances, it will be possible for any statutory authority to interpret it with any other meaning except 13 weeks or an anticipated 13 weeks, when it is written into the Bill that the interpretation of "considerable" is 13 weeks.

It therefore seems to me that if my apprehensions are correct, and if the examples which I have given are apt, this interpretation will hamper both the statutory authorities and the Minister in trying to administer the Bill, when it becomes law, in a reasonable manner. May I add to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield? I hope that the Minister will circulate this information not merely to the National Union of Mineworkers, but to every trade union, because all the trade unions have members in this category.

If my apprehensions about the Bill are well-founded, I hope that between now and its final stages the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to do something to remove them.

I want to add my personal thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has met us in the Bill and for the favourable reception which the Bill has received. It is not often that we find several people claiming paternity; in certain circumstances it is something one tries to avoid.

In this case, however, I would point out that there was a Bill standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends which went a little further than this Bill, although we gladly accept this Bill as an instalment towards what we tried to achieve. We hope that the circumstances which caused this Bill to be brought forward will also apply in respect of the Clauses which were in the Bill which I had the pleasure to introduce—although I was not fortunate enough to get time to have it thoroughly discussed—but which are not in this Bill.

The Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill have been harmonious and reasonable, and I want to thank the Minister for the way in which he has met a number of our apprehensions. I hope that in the future administration, particularly of regulations, the Minister will bear in mind these people who have had a very raw deal for a long time. Because their accidents occurred before a certain date they have not received such good treatment as others whose accidents occurred later. That has created a psychological outlook which we must face.

At our branch meetings and public meetings, these men have described themselves as being forgotten. I am glad that they are not forgotten now, but if we spoil the Bill by harsh regulations we may have a good deal of bother in the future, and I am glad that the Minister has taken the line that he will see that regulations are framed in such a way that these cases will be safeguarded.

Those who suffered under the Workmen's Compensation Act had a number of difficulties. Their compensation was based not on their incapacity, but on their loss of earnings, and in assessing their loss of earnings they were affected by such matters as illness, short-time, unemployment, or even low wages. All these things militated against whatever they received as compensation for injury due to loss of wages.

When the new Act was introduced, some of my hon. Friends said—and I know that some hon. Members opposite still think—that there were better chances under the old Workmen's Compensation Act than under the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Schemes. I have heard that argued. It is true that under the new Act the lawyers do not have the pickings which they got out of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that the Act which we are now administering is much better for the workman, the recipient, than was the old Workmen's Compensation Act, which occasionally provided all sorts of legal battles for our friends who had to deal with it.

Apart from the very constructive suggestions put forward by my hon. Friends in Committee, the only criticism I heard of the Bill in Committee was that we were hampered and hamstrung because it was limited to a certain type of person, cutting out others we had wanted to include. It was suggested that it was bad for the representative Members not to be in a position to develop schemes or ideas or to enlarge the scope of the Bill because, it was said, certain people or associations had met the Minister beforehand and had reached a gentleman's agreement on what would be an agreed Measure.

I hope that that will continue. I sincerely hope that the Minister's door will be open to receive the same people, who may want to talk about provisions which are not in this Bill, but which were contained in the earlier one, and which, I believe, will sooner or later have to be faced. For that reason, I am glad that the Minister is receptive. The right hon. Gentleman has been most favourable in his approach to this matter, and we wish him all success in trying to settle finally the problem of all the people who are suffering from the limitations of workmen's compensation, with which we have been trying to deal in this Bill.

There is no question of using the taxpayers' money. The money is to come out of the fund which is provided for industrial injuries. Nobody is grumbling, and I have not heard a single complaint from either employers' associations or trade unions. Everybody welcomes the Bill. In view of the fact that some of my hon. Friends before me had tried to secure approval of Bills similar to the one for which I was responsible, we cheerfully accept this Bill as an instalment, and wish to thank the Minister for the kindly way in which he has approached the matter.

In view of what the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) said, I hope you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I address the House in English, in view of my frailty in doing so in any other language.

I wish to thank most sincerely hon. Members who have spoken for the courteous and kindly way in which they have received the Bill, and to say that the Government intend to administer it in a human, humane and, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, expeditious manner.

I think that the only point of substance which remains outstanding arises from the speech of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools and I am particularly anxious to deal with it, because, as he indicated, there have been occasions when certain things, such as an airport, have come between us.

It concerns the period of incapacity. It is essential to identify those whom the supplement is designed to help—the man who is totally incapacitated, not for very short periods, because there are provisions for sickness benefit which I think will take care of those cases—but where it is a case of reasonably long-standing incapacity. As I said during the Committee stage, I think that perhaps we overstressed that in providing six months, and I am inclined to think that the present period of 13 weeks will, in practice, deal with all the cases that we have in mind and which I think the House has in mind.

I think I can relieve the hon. Member's mind a little about how this will work. The 13 weeks—and here I may perhaps appear to be speaking Irish rather than Welsh—will work backwards as well as forwards; that is to say, if a man is examined, having already been totally incapacitated, the time that has passed, as well as the time that might reasonably be expected in the future, will both come together to make up the 13 weeks.

The other question which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned periods of total incapacity of limited duration. There is strictly no linking provision in the Bill, nor do I think we could work it if there was. If one takes the extreme case of a man who, after being incapacitated for a number of weeks, makes a plucky and gallant effort to resume work and then finds himself incapacitated again, I do not think that any statutory authority would have much difficulty in finding in those circumstances that he had never been fit for work during the whole period, and, therefore, the period would be treated as one.

It only remains for me to thank the House, and, once again, the long-suffering Standing Committee E, for the kindness and the closeness of their scrutiny of the Bill, and to suggest that we now send it on to another place.

I rise to draw attention to an issue which is of very great importance in my constituency, or at any rate that part of my constituency which falls under the authority of the Gloucestershire County Council. I venture to suggest that, though this is a question of one old people's home for which a loan sanction has been refused by the Ministry, it raises a rather wider matter than would simply emerge from the district that I jointly represent. I should like to tell the House very briefly the background of this story. It is a very simple story and I do not intend unduly to detain the House.

Some years ago the Gloucestershire county council was struck by the need to provide more accommodation for old people, who would otherwise have to go into hospital because they could not find suitable accommodation. This is a question of a general problem, which everybody recognises. It is that, as life's span increases—the problem is a real one—old people tend to go to hospital when they ought to be somewhere where they could be looked after without needing skilled medical treatment all the time.

The Gloucestershire County Council prepared a plan as long ago as 1953 in order to meet this need, and, as one would expect from a council anxious to do these things with the greatest possible regard to economy, it tried to find an existing building which could be adapted for the purpose, but was unsuccessful. That is why this issue arises at all, in a sense, because it is the loan sanction for the provision of an entirely new building.

In 1954, the authority acquired the necessary land from one of the urban district councils in the county—the Kingswood Urban District Council—and received a permission at that time from the then Minister to do this. It then proceeded further with the plans, but there were a number of delays, which the authority greatly regrets now, because it feels that the economy axe has only fallen on it as a result of these delays. At any rate, delays in planning took place, and it was not until November of last year that the authority finally submitted the plans to the Ministry of Health. I have here a letter from the Ministry, dated 21st November, 1955, in which the appropriate department expresses the Minister's approval of the plans. It states:

"I am directed by the Minister of Health to refer to your letter of 4th November and to say that he agrees to the Council's revised proposals for the erection of the abovementioned premises at an estimated cost of £39,970."

The letter went on, as is no doubt customary in these cases, to tell the authority that it could now invite tenders and must accept the lowest, unless there were circumstances of an abnormal kind, and so on, and the council then proceeded to go ahead.

Finally, in February of this year, the authority wrote to the Ministry and said that it had complied with the regulations that had been laid down, and now sought support for the loan sanction. It was at this moment when the authority received a letter which is the cause of this debate. On 12th March, without any great explanation, the Minister replied:

"As the council will be aware from Circular 3/56 the Minister is, in the present economic situation, unable to recommend authorisation of loan sanctions except to meet the most essential needs, even where approval of the scheme has been given. I am. accordingly, to inform the council that the Minister regrets he is unable on the information before him to sponsor the loan application in connection with this scheme at the present time."

I need hardly say that the news that the Ministry has taken this line has caused very great distress in Gloucestershire. This question surely arises, and this is really the only reason why I raise this: is the old people's home in Kingswood to be regarded as a priority which should be completed even in the present period of national economy, or is it one of those little frills and luxuries which we have been told should be cut out? I want to direct the rest of my remarks, quite simply, to that question.

I want to say, first, that the three-year lag since the plans were first prepared is itself a factor which the Minister should take into consideration. This is not a new thing. It is not something which has come up recently and which we feel may now be postponed, but an issue which has concerned the people in authority in Gloucestershire for some time. Indeed, with the passage of time, the need for accommodation for these old people has become greater rather than less.

I have been sent some figures by the clerk to the county council, who has been very helpful in this matter—and, indeed, he gives me the names of those concerned, because personal experience is much better than statistics. He gives the name of 14 old people at present in hospital who could certainly be accommodated in an old people's home. Therefore, if the problem of overcrowding of hospitals is to be considered as a factor I can almost undertake to produce out of my hat, as it were, 14 hospital beds which could be vacated by these old people.

In addition, in this part of the county there are ten people who are on the waiting list for old people's homes. Without in any way wishing to stir a deep political controversy—the difficulties of old people are very well understood on both sides—if we get people who have been accepted for admission to an old people's hostel we can be fairly sure they are in rather more need of care and attention than is the ordinary old-age pensioner. There is, therefore, as a result of the delay, additional hardship to these ten people.

I only quote one more figure, but it is an important one from the point of view of the planning of the Gloucestershire County Council itself. There are 15 people from this part of the county who should be in an old people's home in Kingswood but who, because there is not such a home in Kingswood, are spread among the old people's homes in other parts of the county. Indeed, any local authority, any county council, which is trying conscientiously to plan the distribution of old people's hostels must try to see that each part of the county bears its own share of the responsibility for its own old people.

I am assured, however, that if the old people's hostels were available in Kingswood, some of those who are now accommodated in other old people's hostels would be sent there and so free accommodation in other parts of the county. The hostel nearest to Kingswood at the moment is at Chipping Sodbury, which is some distance away, and even there there is considerable overcrowding to meet present needs.

I now come simply, and almost finally, to the question of whether this project is to be regarded as a priority or not. In this connection, I feel that I must, if it is not unfair, draw attention to the fact that the Minister of Health, in going round the country and making the sort of weekend speeches which are a necessary part of a Minister's duties, so I am told, has been stressing and I think absolutely rightly—that as far as he is concerned the three greatest priorities are the need for capital investment to modernise hospitals, the improvement of conditions in mental hospitals, and the provision of better care for the old—which, in fact, was the first priority that he mentioned.

Perhaps I may quote his exact words, because I echo the sentiments and admire the language. He said, when speaking at Jarrow, on 6th April:

"The problems of the aged should be a challenge to the public conscience."

He went on to say that improvements in medicine had

"added years to life and that his task was to add life to years."

A happy phrase, and one that sums up the problem very well indeed.

I submit that this question of the old people's home at Kingswood, though probably only one of many such that have to be considered, is one that must be regarded as a matter of priority. I confess that I quite fail to understand why the Minister should put at the top of his own list of priorities something in general when, in particular, he tells the authority concerned that to meet the needs of national economy, he must exclude it. Therefore, I very strongly hope that this matter will be looked at again.

I just say one other word about the way in which the Gloucester County Council itself has tried to meet the Government's plea for greater economy. It is a county council which is not controlled by people who share the same political views as myself. It is a Conservative council, and I feel that one may be very confident in saying that the best co-operation between Government and local authority on this type of issue arises where the two are in political harmony. There is, therefore, no question of the Gloucestershire County Council trying to resist the Minister's plea for economy—far from it.

I am told—and although I have not all the details I am sure that they can be confirmed—that in response to the circular issued by the Minister the county council has already excluded a lot of work which it would like permission to have done. These were not luxury items. The county council regarded them as essential but has excluded certain of them because, in its own opinion, the old people's home project should be allowed to remain.

I refer, again, to what the Minister said in his speech, that the provision of old people's homes was the sole responsibility of the local housing authority. That being so, if we find, as in this case, that the Gloucestershire Council Council regarded this matter as being so important that it was willing to cut out other things in order to leave this scheme in being and that the Minister, who previously approved, then turns it down, it must, I think, cause very great public concern.

I must add just one other thing, if it is not too critical of the Minister himself. He gave approval to the project and said that loan sanction would be granted at the appropriate time. He gave that approval in November last, after the autumn Budget, at a time when there were already factors urging us to national economy. Those factors were there then almost to as great a degree as now, and I cannot understand why, in the circumstances of those times—which led the Chancellor to introduce his autumn Budget—the Minister should have found himself able to approve the project, and now cannot find himself able to carry on with it.

Before sitting down, I must broaden this debate to some extent. As I go about in Kingswood, which is the part of my constituency where the home would be built, I see other building work going on. I see a new petrol station, and all sorts of repairs and developments going on which are not under the control of the local authority and which, I know, are not the responsibility of the Minister of Health. I do know, however, that two public-houses in Kingswood are to be developed, one at an expense of £23,000 and the other at a cost of very nearly £25,000. I think it a very deplorable thing that the axe of economy should fall upon a really vital project like an old people's home when, as a result of the Government's other policies—and I do not, of course, propose now to go into their merits—this other inessential building is allowed to proceed.

I very much hope that in replying to this debate the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some hope in this matter. I do not expect that just because I have been lucky in getting the Adjournment she will be able this afternoon to give me all I ask, and all that the Gloucestershire County Council asks, though, if she is intending to do it, I hope that she will not be put off by my own cautious optimism. Nevertheless, I think that she should give an assurance that this will be looked at once again in the light of its very pressing urgency from the Gloucestershire point of view and also, perhaps, that she would be willing to discuss it further with the county council and, perhaps, fix a date in future when the project could be proceeded with. At any rate, I hope that she will be able to give some assurance that it will be considered, and it is with those hopes in my mind that I bring my remarks to a conclusion.

I am very grateful for the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to discuss this matter, which is of very great importance and has caused considerable disappointment in Gloucestershire.

In the middle of last month there was, throughout the whole of the County of Gloucestershire, only one vacancy for a male resident in the various homes for old people under the control of the county council. As the hon. Member has stated, there were no fewer than 14 old men occupying beds in hospitals, nearly all of them in the southern part of the county, waiting for the type of accommodation about which we are talking. As a result, hospital beds badly needed for other people could not be released.

The hon. Member referred to the nearest alternative accommodation being at Chipping Sodbury. As a result of my own visits to the Chipping Sodbury Old People's Home, I can confirm that it is grossly overcrowded. There is no possible prospect of squeezing any more into it.

The hon. Member referred to the Minister's speech at Jarrow. It is cheering to realise how close this type of project is to my right hon. Friend's heart, but the very fact that he made the speech and appeared to give such great priority to this type of development has increased the disappointment felt by the Gloucestershire County Council and other bodies and individuals in that part of the world at the intimation that he is not ready to sanction the financial resources required.

I find a certain amount of difficulty in supporting, on the one hand, as I do most strongly, the urgent necessity for economy in Government and local government expenditure, and in trying, on the other, to press for exceptions, which if pressed throughout the country, would, in the aggregate, completely defeat the Government's purpose. However, in a project of this type, where considerable sums have already been spent on purchasing the site, and where the money inevitably lies completely idle and unproductive until there is further expenditure, it seems to me that there is a case for exceptions, apart from the case on hardship grounds so ably made by the hon. Member.

Consequently, I join the hon. Member in pleading with the Parliamentary Secretary to impress upon the Minister the importance of reconsidering the decision and ascertaining whether the project can be moved very much higher in the scale of priorities in order to allow the county council to proceed with the plans which it has already prepared, which would probably have received sanction had there not been the delays to which the hon. Member referred.

I would add to his plea that, even if my hon. Friend can give us no assurances today, she will try to impress upon the Minister the desirability of further consultations with the county council with a view to finding a more economical method of carrying out the project, perhaps by having a building which could be added to in the future, so that it need not all be erected at once, in order that the very urgent need can be met without undue delay resulting from the present financial circumstances.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) for the manner in which they have dealt with this subject. I recognise the very real disappointment felt by the Gloucestershire County Council that we have not been able to give it sanction to go ahead at the moment with the scheme for building a new home at Tennis Court Road, Kingswood.

It is true, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said, that plans were approved by the Ministry in 1955, the cost being estimated at £40,000. The county council was told at that time that it had approval to go to tender. The normal preparatory work of a county council in completing the working drawings and bills of quantity generally takes between six and nine months. During that period the Government announcement was made imposing restrictions on local authority capital expenditure.

On 17th February all local authorities were advised that loan sanction issues in the succeeding six months at least would be limited where borrowing was for the construction of old people's homes—that is, so far as the Ministry was concerned under the wider direction of Government policy—and that such borrowing for old people's homes would be restricted to

"those required to meet the most essential needs."

It was pointed out in that circular that the fact that a scheme had already had Ministerial approval did not necessarily mean that it could proceed.

I sympathise very much with the case made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. The county council had had that permission. However, we also have to take into consideration that by the time bills of quantity, etc., have been prepared, the scheme has gone to tender and the building has been erected, two years may have elapsed. Therefore, if we were to say that every project which had had the initial approval of the Ministry could go forward, regardless of the Government's economy instructions, it would virtually mean that the Government could take no practical action on their decision to economise, for there would be such a bulk of work to be carried out in the next two years that we should have no practical economies to show.

The circular urged economy only in the construction of old people's homes.

No, expenditure on old people's homes is one capital expenditure under the general direction of the Government which affects my Department in its dealings with local authorities. The Government decision was not limited to that. I am referring to the interpretation of the circular as it affected the expenditure of local authorities upon old people's homes among any other capital expenditure which they carried out for the Ministry. It is fair to say that, if practical application was to be given to those economies, it was inevitable that some part of the work which would otherwise have proceeded during the next two years should be curtailed.

The demand for additional old people's homes is universal. They have a very valuable contribution to make to our social services in providing for the care of old people, especially those living alone, who can no longer maintain their own dwellings and look after themselves satisfactorily enough to lead independent lives and who cannot manage even with the domiciliary services which local authorities may provide. The homes also make a very valuable contribution, as the hon. Member rightly said, in relieving the pressure on hospital beds in that they give accommodation to old people who no longer require special hospital services but who are not able to go back into their own independent establishments.

My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the great importance of this service. Indeed, he does not depart in any way from the three priorities that he has laid down—the mental hospitals, the hospital building programme, and the care of old people. However, this is an enormous programme, the complete fulfilment of which will entail enormous financial burdens upon the State. Obviously, it cannot be fulfilled in a short while, nor, indeed, can we carry out, while playing our part in the economy scheme, all that we should like to do immediately. That does not mean to say that we have changed the priorities; there is nothing else detracting from them. So far as we have the capital available, that capital is still going towards those three priorities. Unfortunately, it cannot cover as wide a programme as was previously envisaged, particularly for old people's homes.

It is fair to say also that if anyone speaks in this House about Government economy, what he says is generally reasonably well received; but the moment somebody talks about a specific economy, there are always a dozen objections as to why that particular service should not be cut. Any economy imposed upon local authorities or, indeed, on any Department, is always likely to give rise to disappointment because this or that project, each with its particular claim— whether it be education, roads, hospitals or, as in this case, old people's homes—is affected.

No one likes having to curtail or temporarily retard a programme of this nature. But the Ministry, in common with all Departments, has to make its contribution to the general economy. Our share has entailed an exhaustive survey of the quite large number of schemes which had provisional sanction, and the difficult task of limiting the "go- ahead," to the number which we knew had best claim to be included in a limited capital programme.

For the time being, therefore, we cannot recommend immediate loan sanction for every project which we have before us for providing new old people's homes. My right hon. Friend has endeavoured, in the period since the need for restrictions became apparent, to concentrate loan sanction on schemes which seemed to him to be both urgent, and in the most advanced stage of preparation. I would say that many were further ahead in preparation than this one; tenders were in, or nearly so, quantities were completed, and they were some five or six months, perhaps, ahead of this scheme. There were other counts upon which they could be said to have greater call—a smaller proportion of old people's homes in their area, for instance, since there are areas with a greater demand than that of Gloucester.

Inevitably, this postponement has led to disappointment, which I fully appreciate; but the temporary—I emphasise the word "temporary"—withholding of sanction in respect of some new building schemes, such as this one at Kingswood, does not mean that they are forgotten; indeed, it only means that they are postponed in the dates at which they can be started.

In Gloucester, the existing Part III accommodation is a little over 750 beds, representing 1·7 beds per thousand of the population. Much of it, I readily concede, is in old institutions, some used jointly with the regional hospital board; and the only provision in the part of the county immediately outside Bristol city boundary is, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said, at Chipping Sodbury, where the accommodation is in an old institution retained by the county council and is not as up-to-date as we would like. Nevertheless, the facilities in the county are slightly above the average in the country, and certainly well above the inadequate level of some areas, which are below the national average of 1·6, and whose claims have, therefore, an additional priority in the current allocation.

The county council has been active in the establishment of new homes for the old; six old people's homes have been opened since 1948, and, in addition, two homes for the blind have been provided. The county has therefore already provided eight additional homes. Liaison with the hospital authorities is very close, and the proportion of admissions to the county homes of persons discharged from hospital is more than one in three, which, in comparison with the rest of the country, is quite a satisfactory average, as against some areas where the figure is lower, for various reasons of accommodation and the type of patient who may or may not require Part III accommodation.

I do assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend gave these various projects the fullest possible consideration. It was an unpleasant decision to have to make, but one which devolved upon us from our having to take our fair share in this economy programme. It is right to emphasise that had we not taken it on a variety of these schemes very similar to the Gloucester one, then we should have been able to effect no practical economy for two years hence, because all the programmes for the next two years are at a similar stage. The initial consent being given, the project going out for quantities, planning, and final building—these processes in all take, for an old people's home, up to two years.

Taking all these matters into account, therefore, it was felt that Gloucestershire's case for the granting of an immediate loan sanction was not stronger than the case of a number of other authorities who were similarly affected by the imposition of the restrictions, and that it was, indeed, less strong than some.

Very considerable progress has been made by all local authorities. We have had more than 700 new homes built since 1948. The hon. Member for Bristol. South-East suggested that this was not an item of frills or luxuries. I could not agree with him more; but I assure him that in the building programme which we have, whether it be in the sphere of mental hospitals, general hospitals, or old people's homes, no project which we have sanctioned comes under the heading of frills and luxuries. The decision was not as easy to make as that. The decision had to be to postpone projects which we fully support, projects which we should like to see, and which we hope to see, carried through, but which, because of this general limitation to which we had to make our own contribution, have to be delayed.

The situation is not static. I can assure the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East that a further review of outstanding loan sanction applications will be made this autumn, in the light of the situation as it then exists, in the light of progress which has been made in various areas, etc. This project, with six others in a very similar category which have been postponed in the same way, in Sheffield, Newcastle, Lancashire, and Shropshire, which have, like Gloucester's case, a high position in the list for consideration, will be reconsidered in the situation as it then exists. If the essential preparatory work on the Kingswood scheme has been completed—I do suggest that there should be no delay in carrying on with that—and if the county council is ready for the scheme to go to tender, we would very much hope—I am afraid I can go no further than that—that it would then be possible to recommend the issue of loan sanction; but that would, of course, depend upon the economic situation obtaining at that time.

I hope that the county council will go ahead with quantities and tendering, and be as far advanced as possible by the autumn. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will consider the project as favourably as it is possible to do within the limits of our capital allocation in the autumn.

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for raising this matter, and particularly for the way in which he did it. Personally, I want to express my thanks to him for the assurance that, on both sides of the House, the difficulties of old people are understood. Having regard to the lack of years of the hon. Gentleman himself, I was particularly pleased to hear what he had to say, since I have not always noticed that my juvenile friends do appreciate the difficulties that come with old age.

Does not my right hon. Friend remember that a year ago I myself made great efforts to stop going into an old people's home?

If my hon. Friend expects the Gloucestershire County Council to provide old people's homes for people of his age, I can well understand the perturbation of the Minister. I am disappointed with the speech of the hon. Lady, except for the glowing testimonial which she has given to the Gloucestershire County Council. I can only imagine that if it gets fully reported in all the local newspapers in Gloucestershire, the inhabitants of the county will be surprised to hear of the high regard of the Minister of Health for their county council.

This is one of the disappointments that we are coming up against every day in all branches of the social service. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health went to Jarrow and made a speech which was commented upon by my hon. Friend, and quoted, as it was also quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield), in which he talked about adding life to years. Now I understand that everybody has to have two years added before the life begins in this particular phase of public activity. The most that can be said is that the six local authorities which were mentioned by the hon. Lady may have some hopes for the autumn if, by that time, the economic situation has improved.

The right hon. Gentleman is rather suggesting that no plans have been allowed to go forward. I have only mentioned those which, unfortunately, have been postponed, but that does not limit in any way the many projects that have gone forward.

There is no complaint about those that have gone forward. The hon. Lady really should not assume that because she draws the line at a certain place, or her Ministry draws the line at a certain place, those people below the line who do not get through feel any very great satisfaction for seeing those above the line going forward.

I cannot imagine why, after the testimonial which the hon. Lady has given to the Gloucestershire County Council, its good work in the past should not be rewarded by some assistance in the present. Of course, this is a doctrine which is being applied all round. If one gets on with the job and does it, one can rest assured that it will be held against one if difficult times come, if, in the days when moving was possible, one moved. I know of one Welsh county which always produces a wonderful scheme for education development the moment a financial crisis occurs, and then complains that whenever it tries to move, the Government of the day, no matter what colour it may be, is always against it.

Here we have a county council which, on the hon. Lady's own showing, has done very well, and which has a number of buildings which it is using—and all honour to it for using them—which are not of the highest quality and which have involved a certain amount of ingenuity in even making them adaptable to the present circumstances. I think that authorities such as that, when we get to these difficult times, instead of it being said, "You have done something, but there is another county or county borough which has done nothing at all, or has done very little, and, therefore, we are going to give it preference now", should be encouraged to get on with the job.

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I would suggest that however much he may wish to encourage authorities which do their job well, our first responsibility is to the over-riding needs of the patients. If the patients in an area have had less than the average provided for them, we have to provide a spur and stimulus to see that they get their share.

If there were a spur and stimulus, I would be glad to see it. But the hon. Lady did not say, "We are now going around stirring up these other people and saying that because we are shutting down on Gloucestershire they can have one." There is no spur and stimulus, as I understand, at the moment. Everyone has to wait until the autumn.

Not everyone has to wait until the autumn. Many of the projects are going through as approved. But in the total programme there was some limitation to be made, and the six which I have mentioned are the six which are delayed, but there are many other projects which have not been changed in any way.

Perhaps the hon. Lady can say how many projects have been sanctioned since the day on which the Gloucestershire County Council was informed that this project would not be allowed to go forward.

I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman without notice, but if he cares to put down a Question I shall be only too happy to tell him how many of these building projects are going forward under this year's building programme. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the date since approval was given—which was November, 1955—so the figure he has in mind is virtually last year's approvals, which include that of Gloucestershire. I think he wishes to know how many are still going forward.

That was not the question I asked. How many have been sanctioned since the date in February, when Gloucestershire County Council was told that its scheme could not go forward? Have any schemes been sanctioned on those lines since February? If so—and I do not expect the hon. Lady to tell me this today—how many? Have any schemes been sanctioned since February?

I hope that this will not degenerate into an argument. The House is debating the Question, "That this House do now adjourn." These rapid exchanges are quite out of order.

If the hon. Lady is anxious to answer the question, I will put a Question on the Order Paper.

I want the hon. Lady to realise that these delays in the provision of objects which councils have been urged for some years to provide, especially in the case of those councils who have responded reasonably well in the past, cause great dislocation in the offices of local authorities. They also cause considerable disappointment to the voluntary people who are engaged on the committees of these homes.

I hope that when the time comes, if not before, not merely the six authorities the hon. Lady mentioned, but others which are anxious to get on with this work, will find sympathy from the Ministry and some assistance in getting on with tasks to which, as she said, in some cases they may have had to be spurred and stimulated, but which, in the case of Gloucestershire, appear to have been undertaken cheerfully and willingly, as a recognition of the public duties which they have to discharge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.