House Of Commons
Wednesday, 1st May, 1957
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Petition
Rent Bill
I have been requested by the citizens of Poplar to seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to present a Petition against the Rent Bill. They claim that, suffering from a very severe shortage of housing accommodation in their area, if the Bill becomes operative, many of them, having lost security of tenure, will have to pay very high uncontrolled rents because no alternative accommodation will be available. But the vast majority of them, whilst retaining security of tenure, will have to pay severe increases in rent with no guarantee at all that their places are maintained in an adequate and proper state of repair. They therefore ask that, if the Bill cannot now be amended to deal with these injustices, it should be abandoned altogether, and they conclude by saying, as they should:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.To lie upon the Table.
Oral Answers To Questions
Welsh Passport Office
2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the difficulties experienced by some Welsh tourists and travellers abroad at certain foreign passport offices, particularly in countries in Eastern Europe, in respect of British passports which describe the country of birth and residence as Wales, but which carry an endorsement describing Liverpool as the place of issue, he will institute a Welsh passport office in the Principality for the issue of these documents.
No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave him in answer to a similar Question on 27th April, 1953. I have no knowledge of any Welsh national having experienced any difficulty arising from the fact that his passport was issued in Liverpool and his residence given as Wales. Local passport work would not justify the expense and manpower involved in opening a branch passport office in view of the fact that Ministry of Labour and National Service offices in Wales are empowered to deal with passport matters.
But is my hon. Friend aware that this Question is based on the actual experience of Welsh businessmen who have assured me that they find it extremely difficult to explain this apparent discrepancy to passport officers, particularly in Eastern Europe, and that their desire to remain anonymous is based on apprehension about their future treatment in these countries? Further, does not my hon. Friend agree that this would be an appropriate change to make now that Cardiff has been made the capital of Wales?
With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, I shall be only too glad to look at any specific cases which he cares to bring to my attention. With regard to the second part, I should like to make it clear that there is no question of national issues arising in the matter. It is only a matter of what the number of applications would justify. We do not think that at the moment the number of applications would justify this arrangement.
Bagdad Pact(Council Meeting)
3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether this country will be represented again at the Council of the Bagdad Pact at Karachi next month.
Yes, Sir.
May we take it that the Iraq Government have withdrawn all opposition to our presence there?
I should not like to make a comment of that sort at all. The fact is that the meeting will take place, and I hope to go there myself.
Is it not a fact that Iraq objected to our presence at previous meetings?
I cannot accept that at all.
Jordan (Military Storesand Equipment)
4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in order to prevent further trouble on the frontier with Israel, what steps have been taken to secure that military stores and equipment will not be left behind in Jordan when British Forces retire.
In considering what military stores and equipment should be disposed of in Jordan, Her Majesty's Government have had regard to the principles embodied in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950.
Middle East(Supply Of Arms)
5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consultations have yet been resumed in Washington on the question of maintaining an arms balance in the Middle East, as provided in the 1950 Tripartite Declaration.
As has frequently been stated in this House, we discuss with our co-signatories of the Tripartite Declaration and with other friendly Powers the question of arms exports to the Middle East. These consultations have not stopped; the question of their resumption therefore does not arise.
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any evidence that modern arms are still being supplied to Syria and Egypt from Communist country sources? If they are, is it not time that an attempt was made to secure an international agreement with a view to prohibiting the supply of these arms to the Middle East?
I do not think that the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Question arises out of the Question on the Order Paper. It is one which I should like carefully to consider before making my reply. If he will put it down in the form of a Question, I will try to answer it.
Can the Minister say whether, since the Suez crisis, any arms have been supplied by Her Majesty's Government to Egypt, Syria or Jordan?
The Question deals with consultations with friendly countries upon this matter. In the matter of exports to particular countries, if the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will see if I think it wise to answer it.
Suez Canal And Gulfof Aqaba
7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British ships which have exercised the right of free passage through the Gulf of Aqaba and whose destination was Elath in Israel.
I know of none. Sir.
9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present position with regard to the recognition of the free passage of ships of every nationality through the Suez Canal and through the Straits of Tiran.
15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present policy of the United Nations in regard to implementing decisions of the United Nations about freedom for shipping of all nations in the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba; and if he will make a statement.
The position of Her Majesty's Government remains as stated in the replies given to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) on 8th April.
In view of the unequivocal nature of the decision of the Security Council with regard to Israel's right to use the Canal, and in view of the fact that Egypt is deliberately flouting the decision of the United Nations in this regard, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he has not asked our representative at the United Nations to make a categorical statement in relation to this matter in the same way as those recently made by others at the meetings of the Security Council?
The position of Her Majesty's Government has been made absolutely clear. We regard the position in relation to free passage through the Straits of Aqaba to be as we have stated, and we have also said that we consider the provisions of the 1888 Convention to apply to Israeli ships.
As some ships have already made use of the Gulf of Aqaba and the docks at Elath, are the Government encouraging the diversification of the use of the Gulf of Aqaba in the best possible way as early as possible in order to establish the right of international navigation in these waters?
We maintain that the right of free navigation exists. I think that the question of any particular ships of any particular countries making use of that right is a matter for those who wish to charter such ships or to ship goods by them to that port. Her Majesty's Government have stated again and again that we regard it as the right of ships to sail freely through these waters.
In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have so far discouraged the use of the Suez Canal, would it not be desirable to encourage the use of the Gulf of Aqaba?
The use of the Gulf of Aqaba depends upon commercial considerations and whether British ship-owners or charterers of British ships are prepared to use it for a good economic reason. If they are prepared to do so, we should certainly support their right to use it.
Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if the State of Israel asserted its right—within the decision of the United Nations in 1950 —to proceed through the Suez Canal or force a passage through the Gulf of Aqaba it could easily lead to a conflict? As everybody desires to avoid a conflict, would it not be proper for the United Nations to seek to enforce the decision themselves by making representations to the Egyptian Government and continuing to make them until the right has been accepted?
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that this matter will be a test of the United Nations. At the moment, I do not think that the right of free passage through the Gulf of Aqaba has been challenged. As for the Suez Canal, I certainly hope that the matter will be dealt with in the arrangements finally achieved.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend's original reply mean that the Government still uphold unequivocally the six points of the October declaration?
We certainly think that no satisfactory premanent settlement of the Suez Canal problem can be achieved which does not conform to the six points.
As ships are already using the Suez Canal, are the Government going to make a clear statement about their view upon the navigation of the Canal; whether British or Israeli ships are to be advised to use it; in what currency the dues are to be paid, and whether any further steps are to be taken to enforce the six points?
Certainly Her Majesty's Government will make a statement at the appropriate time. I spent three hours yesterday consulting the representatives of seventeen other nations representing the users of the Canal in connection with these matters. We shall make a statement at the appropriate time.
United Nationsdisarmament Sub-Committee
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the progress of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee.
I have nothing to add at present to my reply given on 17th April, and to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the same date.
When does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement? Is it not a fact that the newspapers today published statements made by the Russian representatives, and that a few weeks ago statements were made by the United States representative? Can we not have some indication from our own Government of what they are proposing in this disarmament conference?
I am certainly very willing to make a statement to the House at the proper time. Personally, I think that it is rather contrary to the idea of having confidential discussions for these proposals of other Governments immediately to be issued to the Press. In fact, only yesterday we were told that Russian proposals were not going to be issued to the Press. Afterwards they were. I quite agree that that seems to put Governments which try to keep these matters confidential at a disadvantage, and I am considering the position.
10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British delegate to the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee to propose that the verbatim records of the Sub-Committee shall be published weekly, during the sittings of the Sub-Committee, instead of once a year and after a long delay.
I am asking my right hon. and gallant Friend to consult the other members of the Sub-Committee as to the desirability of publishing the records more frequently.
I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. May I say that I think that it would be a service to all Members of the House if this could be done? At present, it is impossible to follow what is going on, and it is extremely important that we should be able to do so.
I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of present developments in the discussions of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee, he will now, in accordance with precedent, lay the verbatim records of the Sub-Committee's meetings in 1956 as a Command Paper.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know from the reply given by my hon. Friend on 7th March, Her Majesty's Government decided not to print records of the Sub-Committee for the year 1956. Four copies of the verbatim record were, however, placed in the Library of the House. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, I will see that extra copies are made available there.
I am obliged to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. In view of the fact that proposals are constantly being put out in the Press which are now under discussion in the Sub-Committee, and in view of the fact that it is impossible to understand the importance—and very often even the meaning —of these proposals without reference to the discussions last year, would it not help hon. Members very much if they could have them in print?
It is a difficult matter. One is always having economy enjoined upon one, and I am informed that the cost of doing this would be about £700. In fact, we have received such a small demand or request for this that I think the matter is met by the arrangement I am making. I will certainly see that the right hon. Gentleman receives his copy of these verbatim records.
I appreciate that £700 is a considerable sum, but the cost of armaments is even greater. There is now a great interest in this subject and people are trying to follow the proceedings of the Sub-Committee. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will consider again whether we cannot have the records in print.
I will certainly consider it, but so far as the year 1956 is concerned I think the situation will be met if I make more copies available of the records in the present form.
Waters Of The Nile
11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when do the treaties or agreements now in force between the United Kingdom, Sudan, and Egypt in regard to the control and use of the water of the River Nile expire.
The two agreements now in force in regard to the control and use of the water of the River Nile are between Her Majesty's Government and Egypt only. Neither contains any provision fixing the date on which it expires.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman approach the Egyptian Government about this matter in view of the fact that development is being seriously held up not only in the Sudan but in Uganda and Tanganyika?
I agree that it is desirable that some sort of technical conference of those concerned—including many more States or territories than Great Britain and Egypt alone—should be held.
Fishing Vessels(Incidents)
12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communications he has had with foreign Governments, and which foreign Governments, about the recent fouling of the nets of British fishing vessels by foreign fishing vessels in the fishing grounds off Norway and the Faroes; and if he will state the agreements reached with those Governments for compensation for the damage so caused and also designed to prevent the recurrence of such incidents in future.
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has completed his investigations into the incidents involving Soviet and British fishing vessels off the Norwegian coast.
No communications have been exchanged with foreign Governments. Claims will be examined in the first instance by the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of English vessels, and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of Scottish vessels.
Does the Minister realise that, in the interests of the fishing industry and the fish-consuming public, he should devise some means of adjusting quickly and in a friendly manner difficulties of this sort when they arise and not in the roundabout way adopted in this instance?
I would have thought that the way of proceeding which was adopted in this instance was perfectly logical and not at all roundabout. I do not think that the Foreign Office is responsible in this matter.
Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Admiralty that fishery protection vessels should be available at an early date when these incidents occur, as a great deal of anxiety has been caused in connection with this matter? When he answered a Question upon the subject the other day, he was apparently not aware that this ship was already on its way.
The Admiralty is quite capable of looking after itself. I am sure that my hon. Friend could address such Questions as these to the appropriate Department. I will, however, have a word with my hon. Friend at the Admiralty with regard to the point she has made.
Later—
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I am not late in raising this point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Questions Nos. 12 and 13, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
We have now passed from that matter.
Kenya
Civil Servants (Civil Rights)
19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will apply to civil servants in Kenya the same conditions regarding civil rights as are applied in the United Kingdom.
The Kenya Government are now reviewing this subject in consultation with the other East African Governments.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he consider applying the policy of the Masterman Committee to civil servants in Kenya, particularly to the minor and manipulative grades and industrialists? Why, for example, should European employees on the railways not be allowed to join a trade union?
Of course, the Kenya Government have knowledge of the Masterman Committee and will, no doubt, take that into account in coming to their conclusions.
Strategic Base
20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations he has had with the Kenya Government on the use of Kenya as a strategic base.
The three East African Governments are aware of the recent Defence White Paper (Cmd. 124), the implications of which have been studied in East Africa by a team sent out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. This team has held discussions with the appropriate Government authorities in Kenya during its visit.
Is the Minister aware of the widespread feeling that it would be quite unwise to rush any policy of using Kenya as a strategic base—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Will the Minister make absolutely certain that all interests and communities in Kenya are consulted before he embarks on this policy?
I know of no such anxiety. I do know of a recognition that a strategic base in Kenya may well be a vital link in the chain of Commonwealth defence. With considerable personal knowledge of events in East Africa in the last two years, I am sure that all communities in Kenya appreciate the advantages of the presence of British troops as a safeguard for orderly progress.
If the Colonial Secretary has no knowledge of any such anxiety, will he cast his mind back a little to what has happened recently in British bases both in Egypt and in Cyprus? Will he recall the importance, in any defence arrangements made in these or other islands or territories, of carrying with him the goodwill of all the populations concerned and not merely one section?
The hon. Gentleman can be quite certain that all historical lessons are well learned.
Education
23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum is allocated to African education in the Kenya development plan for 1957 to 1960; by how much this is less than the sum allocated in the last three-year period; and what is the reason for this decrease at a time when there is so much lost around to be made up in this field.
£1,073,475, a reduction of £98,785 or 10 per cent. from the allocation in the last development period. The total sum expected to be available over the next three years for capital development in Kenya as compared with the last three years is itself lower by over 30 per cent. There has been, therefore, an increase in the proportion of available capital funds devoted to African education.
Will the Secretary of State impress on the Kenya Government the need for expending more of this money on the higher education of African students? Is he aware that there is no case on record of any African student from Kenya coming to this country having received a scholarship which educates him fully either in domestic science, agriculture or any other subject which will be of use to him when he returns to Kenya? Will the right hon. Gentleman impress that upon the Kenya Government?
I know that the Kenya Government are fully alive to the vital importance of education and also of the need to increase other revenue-earning activities in the territory.
Constitution
24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the constitutional position in Kenya arising from the demands of the African members of the Legislative Council.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 10th April to a similar Question from the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).
I have read that reply. But, since that reply was made, has it not become clear that the Lyttelton constitution must be reconsidered before 1960? No only did the majority of Europeans repudiate it in the election, but both the African and Asian groups in the Legislature have now asked for the amending of it. Must not those facts be borne in mind?
I must once more make it clear, if it is necessary to do so, that I do not intend to compromise on either of the two main principles of the Lyttelton plan; first, that all main races should have the opportunity for representation in the counsels of the Government; and, secondly, that no change will be made before 1960 without the agreement of all races in Kenya.
Archbishop Makarios
35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was upon his instructions that the Chief Secretary of the Kenya Government informed Archbishop Makarios that he was an unwelcome visitor to the colony.
No, Sir, no such statement was made to Archbishop Makarios. I understand that the Chief Secretary used similar words in replying to a question in the Legislative Council about a Press conference held by the Archbishop, when he was rebutting suggestions that the activities of the Archbishop were in any way the responsibility of the Kenya Government.
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, to say the least, it is extremely foolish to offer gratuitous insults to a man with whom the British Government will sooner or later be bound to negotiate on the future of Cyprus?
I do not think that any censure of any kind is deserved by the Governor of Kenya. There was very strong feeling in the Colony about the Archbishop being allowed transit through Kenya, and I cannot believe that hon. Members would wish that the Kenya authorities should not take account of those feelings and of the general resentment of the activities of the Archbishop and of some of his statements while in Kenya.
Nyasaland
Tangata
22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will press the Nyasaland Government to set up a commission of inquiry with a view to bringing to an end the system known as tangata in view of the resentment of the Africans towards this form of land usage.
No, Sir. I am satisfied that the Nyasaland Government fully understand the problems involved in the policy of progressively abolishing tanghata and are making good progress with its implementation.
Then the Minister accepts the fact that this is a system that ought to be abolished. Will he press that very urgently on the Nyasaland Government? Is he aware that it is a form of share cropping and ought to be abolished more quickly than is being done at present?
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the views of Her Majesty's Government on this system are well known. I must point out that the Nyasaland Government need no encouragement in this matter but are fully alive to all the difficulties and dangers. In the last fifteen months, the number of families with these obligations was reduced from 41,000 to about 23,000, which is really remarkable progress.
Can the Minister give the House an assurance that he will watch carefully the problem of European farmers who have come into Nyasaland? Is he aware that this is an emotional issue and a matter of political discussion among Africans in Nyasaland?
I am also fully aware of the vital contribution which European farming is making in Nyasaland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will always make clear that the land remaining in private ownership is about 4 per cent of the total area of the country.
Education
42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many African children sat the Standard VI examination in Nyasaland last year; and how many passed.
Two thousand two hundred and seventy, of whom 1,286 passed.
Would not the Under-Secretary of State agree that that is a very low proportion? Would he not carry out an examination into primary education in Nyasaland, particularly with regard to the size of classes and the qualifications of teachers?
These matters are always under consideration. I should point out to the hon. Lady that, expressed as a percentage, last year's results show an increase from 46 to 57 in one year. That is a trend in the right direction.
Cameroons
Future
21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the future of the Cameroons in view of the recent discussions at the United Nations Fourth Committee.
Her Majesty's Government's policy continues to be to administer the British Cameroons in accordance with the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not answer my Question? Would he be ready to urge that the problem of the Cameroons should be decided by plebiscite under the United Nations in which there should be the alternatives of unity, independence, association with the French Union or with Nigeria, as was done in the case of British Togoland?
Certainly not. I made it quite clear recently that, in my view, certain resolutions of the General Assembly relating to colonial problems were utterly unrealistic and unhelpful.
Barbados
Seamen
25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the seventeen colonial seamen from Barbados who were found not guilty of refusing to sail the ss. "Senator" to Cyprus in October, 1956, have returned to Barbados and are still without employment.
Nine have returned to Barbados; eight are still unemployed.
Will the Under-Secretary inquire into the allegation that has been specifically made to me that three of these men whom the shipping company were ready to employ on the ss. "Senator" had been refused permission to work by the shipping master, and in view of the fact that there had been previous allegations, which I have communicated to the Under-Secretary, about this shipping master, will he make detailed inquiries into the case of these three men?
I have made inquiries into this general position, and I will certainly be prepared to make any specific inquiries if the hon. Gentleman will let me have direct details. I can assure him that no attempt has been made to influence the selection of those employed.
Malaya And Singapore
Harbour Board Employees
28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the published report about Malayanisation, he will now state what proposals have been made about employees of the Singapore Harbour Board.
Certain proposals made by the Singapore Harbour Board are now under active consideration by the Singapore Government. These were made in confidence and it would not be appropriate to make a statement at this stage.
Will my right hon. Friend say when he thinks it is likely that a statement can be made?
This is a matter which I know the Singapore Government realise has aroused considerable anxiety. I am sure that they are aware of the need to make a statement at the earliest possible date.
International Co-Operativealliance (Conference)
31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the International Co-operative Alliance is convening a conference at Kuala Lumpur for the co-operative movements of Asia in the autumn of this year; and whether Her Majesty's Government will send an observer.
My right hon. Friend was aware of the proposal to convene such a conference but did not know that the place and date had been fixed. So far as I know, Her Majesty's Government have not received any invitation to send an observer.
Is the Minister aware that the nations associated with the Colombo Plan are particularly concerned about the development of this project in the East among the Asiatic peoples, and that this development is regarded as offering a vital opportunity for the development of the British way of life right on the doorstep of Asiatic Communism? From that point of view, will the Government consider sending an observer to this important conference?
With regard to the last part of the supplementary question, I should have to consider that matter if an invitation came. I am sure that this conference will help along the lines which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Colonial Territories
Nutrition Workers
30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which territories employ fully trained nutrition workers; and which have sent medical officers, teachers, nurses, or other personnel for detailed courses in this subject which is of such great importance to the health of the community.
As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
As an interim measure, would the Minister answer one or two points? Is it the case that in the whole of the Colonial Empire only two dependent territories have fully-trained nutrition officers, namely, Nigeria and Uganda?
I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman looked at my Answer and then, if he is not satisfied, I will gladly try to answer in detail any point he might like to put down in a Question. The Answer is extremely long as the Question is a most detailed one.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give me your guidance on this point? The Minister has said that my Question is answered in an answer which it is too long to read just now now. Does it reply to the point that I have raised?
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that because I have not seen the Answer. If he is not satisfied with the Written Answer, he then has the right to put down another Question. There is no point of order in that at all. The hon. Gentleman should know that.
Following is the reply:
The Uganda Government employ a fully trained medical and a non-medical nutritionist; the Nigerian Federal Government have a medically qualified nutrition adviser; the Governments of Fiji and the Eastern Region of Nigeria and the South Pacific Health Service employ full-time non-medical nutritionists, and in the Federation of Malaya there are fully-trained workers in the division of nutrition of the Institute for Medical Research.
There is considerable knowledge of this subject, and much work done on it, within the health services of other territories. Barbados, British Guiana, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaya, Malta, Tanganyika, Trinidad, Zanzibar, the Leeward and Windward Islands and the three Regions of Nigeria have sent students to the Applied Nutrition Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, while a number of Caribbean territories have sent students for training in Canada or the United States.
Coloured Students, United Kingdom(Welfare)
32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to safeguard the welfare of coloured students temporarily resident in London.
Welfare facilities for colonial students temporarily resident in London are provided by the British Council. Further welfare facilities are provided by the various colonial students units and liaison officer services maintained in London by Colonial Governments.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a colour bar is operated by the Victoria League in the allocation of hostel accommodation, and does he not agree that this is a deplorable state of affairs in an organisation which professes to promote international friendship? Will he, in the strongest terms, dissociate himself from this segregation and discrimination?
The hon. Gentleman will, I know, recognise that the Victoria League is a voluntary body for which my right hon. Friend has absolutely no responsibility, and in the circumstances I think that it would be improper for me to make comment on that body.
British Guiana
Great Falls, Mallali (Survey)
33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the result of the survey of the Great Falls, Mallali, on the Demerara river, which has been undertaken by Demerara Bauxite Company, with the permission of the British Guiana Government.
Site investigations and engineering surveys have been completed and the company's principals in Montreal are now analysing the data.
Will the Minister see, if this project goes forward, as we hope it will, that the Demerara Bauxite Company will not exercise racial discrimination either in housing or in wages and promotion? Is he further aware that very serious allegations have been made to me? I have no full means of checking them, but I should be very grateful if he would look into the facts to see if there is any racial discrimination.
Perhaps the hon. Lady would be good enough to drop me a line and give me any evidence that she has. Meanwhile, I will look into the matter.
Is my hon. Friend aware that in the present operations of the Demerara Bauxite Company there is absolutely no racial discrimination whatever? The hon. Lady need have no fear that in future operations there will be any either.
Is the Minister further aware that I have received information from several serious public representatives? I would therefore ask him to suspend judgment until he has all the facts before him.
As the hon. Lady perhaps knows only too well from recent experience, the information one gets is not always accurate.
Cyprus
Terrorist Activities
34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Cyprus has now accepted or rejected the offer of E.O.K.A. to suspend terrorist activities.
I have nothing to add to the statements which I made to the House on 20th and 28th March.
Why cannot the Colonial Secretary give an unequivocal reply to this quite simple question? Does he not agree that the present half-truths carry extreme dangers and that this hunting by the security forces may well lead to an incident which would start all over again the whole business of violence in Cyprus?
I am certainly aware of the fact that it would be out of the question to ask the Governor of Cyprus or Her Majesty's Government to suspend operations as long as armed men are still at large in Cyprus.
When will the Colonial Secretary take some political initiative in this matter and discuss with the people of Cyprus what their future is to be? Does he not realise that the longer the present drift goes on the higher the price he will have to pay in the end? Will he not give way to the divisions in the ranks of the Conservative Party that are preventing an honourable settlement.
If the hon. Gentleman reads my statements of the 20th and 28th March, he will see that there has been no lack of initiative by Her Majesty's Government.
Is the terrorist leader still on the island?
So far as I know, Sir.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are sated with replies referring us to his statements of the 20th and 28th March? Is it the case that nothing has taken place since that time to implement the promise that the Colonial Secretary gave, that when violence came to an end he would proceed with the discussion of the implementation of self-government with the islanders themselves? When is he going to start that?
The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to paraphrase what I said in two lengthy statements on the 20th and 28th March. I cannot add to the answer I then gave, which dealt with all aspects of the problem, internal and international.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now say that his reply means that the Governor of Cyprus has rejected the offer of a truce?
There is no offer as such. It would be just as wise for me to regard as an offer the recent pamphlets distributed by P.E.K.A., which is the political wing of E.O.K.A., which could be held to imply that the terrorists might yet demand the lifting of the emergency altogether as their price for the indefinite suspension of operations. It would be just as wise for me to regard that as an offer.
Hong Kong
Chinese Refugees
37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on what has already been achieved in the settlement of Chinese refugees in Hong Kong; how many squatters have been rehoused in flats; and what is the extent of the remaining problems.
The Hong Kong Government have provided homes for 210,000 squatters, most of whom are refugees from China. At least 116,000 of them have been housed in large blocks of flats. Some 334,000 squatters remain in need of resettlement.
Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that probably no country in modern history of similar size has had to meet with a refugee invasion such as has taken place in Hong Kong? Does he not think it is high time that this country and the United States knew a little bit more about the wonderful achievements of the Hong Kong Government in dealing with the situation?
Yes, Sir, I entirely share the view expressed by my hon. Friend.
While joining in the tribute that has been paid to the efforts of the Hong Kong Administration, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State how many people are still living on the rooftops in Hong Kong?
About 64.000 roof-top squatters await resettlement.
Does my hon. Friend know whether any money is yet available from the United Nations Refugee Fund to help the Hong Kong Administration in their admirable work?
I do not think that there are any funds available.
Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that it was recently represented to me by someone I met from Hong Kong that there is serious concern there about the terrible overcrowding and the dangers arising from it because of the continuous arrival of refugees the Colony? Do Her Majesty's Government propose any discussions with the Chinese Government about the future of these refugees?
Her Majesty's Government have not in view any discussions with the Chinese Government. I do not believe they would help towards a solution of the immediate problems. I am sure that the whole House shares our concern about it. I am glad to be able to say how well we think the Hong Kong Government are doing in this extremely difficult problem.
Fiji
Troops (Malaya Service)
38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Fijian troops were employed in Malaya, and for how long; what thanks have been given them for their services there; and to what extent arrangements are being made to disband them on their return to Fiji.
As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Will my hon. Friend also take steps to make sure that something is known in this country of what the Fijian troops have done?
Yes, Sir. When my hon. Friend reads the answer to which I have referred, he will see that it pays the tribute which is rightly deserved to these troops for the work they did when they were in Malaya.
Following is the answer:
The 1st Battalion, Fiji Infantry Regiment, served in Malaya between January, 1952, and the 18th June. 1956, when it returned to Fiji for disbandment. A total of 1,650 Fijian troops passed through the battalion during its period of Malayan service
Thanks for the Battalion's services were expressed by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on behalf of the Army Council, by the Commander-in-Chief Far East Land Forces, and by the Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya.
On return to civil life members of the battalion were given free issue of clothing and in appropriate cases, agricultural tools and equipment. Assistance was also available, if required, for the repair and replacement of fishing boats. Other forms of resettlement benefits included exemption from communal duties for six months, trade training, agricultural training for settlement on the land, navigation training for prospective seamen, and bursaries for higher education. Assistance was also given through the Labour Department in placing demobilised men in suitable employment.
The above benefits are available up to twelve months from the date of discharge of the individual members of the battalion.
Malta
Constitution (Discussions)
40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement as to how far the negotiations with Malta on integration in all its aspects have progressed; what consultations have so far taken place with the Archbishop of Malta; and when he expects to introduce legislation on this matter.
Discussions with the Maltese Government on the outcome of the talks last month are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to make a statement at the moment. In reply to the second part of the Question, there have been no consultations on these matters with the Archbishop of Malta at this stage. There will, of course, be such consultations at the right time. The timing of the introduction of legislation will depend on the outcome of the present discussions.
Is it likely to be in the present Session of Parliament?
I cannot add to my answer, I am afraid.
Sierra Leone
Electoral Qualifications (Petitions)
41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been made to the petitions concerning electoral qualifications in Sierra Leone.
I have asked the Governor to inform the petitioners that their petition has been laid before the Queen, but that I was unable to advise Her Majesty that it should be granted, since I regard the matter as primarily one for the people of Sierra Leone themselves. If, however, after the general election a different view were expressed in the new House of Representatives, I should be prepared to consider it afresh.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this restriction is more stringent in Sierra Leone than in any of the dependent territories? Can he not indicate that he regards it as desirable to change this regulation, even though it might not be possible to do so before the election?
The House should bear in mind that a similar provision was, with the agreement of all parties in the Assembly, applied to the Freetown Municipal Council, as it was felt that higher standards should not be asked of a local authority than of the Government central machinery.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the same stringent regulations were applied to candidates for the British House of Commons some of our colleagues with us today would not be here?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Ordinance was carried by the House of Representatives in Sierra Leone with only half of the representatives voting, that the voting was 16 to 3, that nine of the votes were by officials and threee were by chiefs indirectly elected, and that only three who participated in the voting were respresentative of the people? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that it is not true to say that the decision was supported by all parties, because the largest party has opposed this regulation from the beginning and—
Order. I think that that is enough.
A fairer way of breaking down the figures to show the way the voting went would be to say that the motion was carried by the votes of the five official members and also of the eleven elected unofficial members. I am bound to take very serious note of that fact.
Royal Navy
Fishing Vessels (Incidents)
43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a comprehensive statement on the purposes and results of the recent voyage of H.M.S. "Bramble", the Government ocean-going fishery protection vessel and mine-sweeper, to the fishing grounds near the coasts of Norway and the Faroes Islands where disputes arose as to the fouling of the nets of British fishing vessels by the actions of foreign fishing vessels; and if he will, in particular, publish the evidence collected and conclusions he has reached and agreements arrived at as a result of that voyage.
The patrol of Her Majesty's Ship "Bramble" was arranged at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, following reports of damage to gear sustained by British drifters off the Norwegian coast, where Soviet fishing boats were also operating. The commanding officer was able to secure the co-operation of the Soviet vessels with a view to reducing the risk of such incidents. No incidents have been reported since Her Majesty's Ship "Bramble" left the area.
While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether it is completely exhaustive, and whether he will publish or put into the Library the evidence which was collected and the conclusions at which the Ministry arrived? Does he not think that some permanent method should be devised to settle disputes of this kind quickly and in a friendly manner when they arise?
This dispute was settled in a friendly manner. When the "Bramble" reached the scene the captain went aboard at the invitation of the masters of the two Russian vessels and handed them a note in Russian. The masters were most friendly and co-operative and undertook to distribute the note and promulgate the request to all Soviet vessels in the area.
Does my hon. Friend consider that these incidents were deliberate or were due to bad seamanship, as they took place over a long period of time?
We have no evidence that they were deliberate.
Roads
Expenditure, Kent
44.
asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what is the estimated sum to be expended on the maintenance and construction of roads in the County of Kent for the financial year 1957–58: and how this compares with the financial year 1956–57.
Expenditure on the maintenance of trunk roads and of those classified roads to which we contribute is estimated at approximately £1,466,000 for 1957–58. The corresponding figure for 1956–57 was £1,500,000. Major improvements may take several years to complete, and it is difficult to quote annual expenditures, but we hope to commit new schemes on trunk and classified roads in 1957–58 to a total of £3,220,000. The estimated cost of similar schemes committed in 1956–57 was £385,129.
Whilst that slight increase is very welcome, it is still insufficient to do necessary maintenace work and has resulted in a number of roadmen being discharged or down-graded. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that policy will pay in the end?
I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said, but these maintenance figures were submitted by the county council which, it is understood, could not accept grant at any higher estimate
Footpaths And Bridleways
46.
asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will recommend to local highway authorities that provision of footbridges should be made wherever possible when footpaths and bridleways are severed by new motorways.
A public footpath or bridleway can be severed by a new motorway only by an Order under Section 3 of the Special Roads Act, 1949. Where the new motorway is the responsibility of a local highway authority my right hon. Friend can only confirm the Order if he is satisfied that another reasonably convenient route is available or will be provided.
Will the Minister keep this matter in mind? Is he aware that in some counties quite a valuable provision is being made of footbridges or other convenient methods, whereas other counties do not seem to take the same precautions?
That would certainly depend on whether an alternative route was easily available, in which case it would be necessary to seek two routes; otherwise there might certainly be cases where footbridges could be provided.
Park Lane Scheme
48.
asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a model of the proposed Park Lane Scheme.
We will consider this at an appropriate time.
When will the appropriate time be? This scheme has been published already. Plans have appeared in the Press, and they are extremely difficult to follow. As this matter will be the subject of some controversy, will not the hon. Gentleman consider having a model placed in the Library as soon as possible?
The Question is about whether a model should be provided in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend is certainly considering whether he can do that.
Railways
Political Posters
45.
asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that it should not allow the display of posters on railway stations which advertise the activities of political parties.
No. Sir. The Commission does not accept politically controversial posters for display.
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why one such poster was exhibited at a railway station in my constituency? Will he give an undertaking that fair treatment will be given to all parties if such posters are to be displayed?
I am sure the Commission would consider accepting a poster similar to the one which was displayed on the station from any other party, because it was merely the announcement of a dance, giving necessary information as to time and place. It is not the policy of the Commission to accept political advertisements which are controversial.
May we take it from the Answer that it is a principle of the Commission not to accept controversial posters to be exhibited at their stations?
That is what I said. They are accepted only if they do not contain political propaganda.
Transport
Bus Fares(Temporary Increases)
49.
asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many applications to continue the increase in fares made under the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Act have been made by omnibus undertakings to the Traffic Commissioners; how many have been granted; and in how many cases fares have been reduced in accordance with the terms of the Act.
Of 258 applications made, 250 have been granted wholly or in part. The power to charge increased fares under the Act has now automatically lapsed for the remaining 4,500 operators.
Is it not a fact that a very large number of these applications for increased fares came from private undertakings, whereas in the case of municipalities practically none of them asked for an increase in fares? Is it not a fact that these applications are partly based on the emergency surcharge, which still persists? If that were removed and the price of petrol reduced, there would not be the necessity to grant these applications for increases.
I cannot give the hon. Member the exact figures showing how many of the 250 which have been granted —that is a very small proportion of the 4,802 operators—apply to local authorities and how many to private operators, but the Traffic Commissioners assume that all those who have not made application have removed the surcharge in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Would my hon. Friend say what possible grounds there are for allowing any omnibus company to continue to charge the specially high fares arranged during the Suez period now that the "Suez shilling" has been removed? Should there not be a commensurate reduction in the fares of all omnibus companies?
On 10th December, when moving the Second Reading of the Act with which we are concerned, the Prime Minister explained that only where there were special reasons would these companies be allowed to continue the surcharge and only a very small proportion have made application. Those special reasons are, of course, a matter for the Commissioners, but they may involve cases where applications for increased fares have already been made.
Ministry Of Defence
Scientists And Engineers
50.
asked the Minister of Defence how the figures of the numbers of scientists and engineers estimated to be required by the Defence Departments in 1959, as set out in Appendix IV of the Report on Scientific and Engineering Manpower in Great Britain, should be revised in view of the new defence policy outlined in Command Paper No. 124.
I have been asked to reply.
There will be a reduction in the numbers needed; but I am not able to give precise figures.
How can that be so when the estimates of the Minister's own Department show a very considerable increase in the amount to be spent on research and development and even in the numbers of scientists and engineers to be employed in the divisions of his Department?
It is because, as the hon. Member will appreciate, there are ramifications to those facts. There are scientists engaged by the Ministry and those engaged indirectly, and it is difficult to calculate the number of indirect engagements.
Ministry Of Supply
Rocket Testing Station, Northumberland (Road)
52.
asked the Minister of Supply why it is proposed to build a road to the rocket-testing station through the grounds of the Gilsland Co-operative Convalescent Home in the County of Northumberland; and whether he will make a statement.
The present approach road to the new testing ground will not be able to handle traffic to and from the ground when it is in use. The Cumberland County Council, which is the local highway authority, was asked to prepare a scheme for its improvement. To avoid a steep hill, it was proposed that a diversion should run through the grounds of the Gilsland Co-operative Convalescent Home. However, the convalescent home has objected and the highway authority is trying to find another route.
Agriculture, Fisheriesand Food
Fishing Vessels (Incidents)
54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, as a result of the recent visit of H.M.S. "Bramble", the Government fishery protection vessel and minesweeper, to the fishing grounds near Norway and the Faroes, he is in a position to state the extent and value of the damage to the nets recently caused to British fishermen there.
The fishermen concerned have been asked to provide detailed reports of the extent and value of damage sustained. Until all these reports have been received and examined, I cannot give an estimate of the losses.
What is being done to compensate the fishermen? Who will pay the compensation?
When I receive the reports, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will then consider whether they should be forwarded through diplomatic channels to the foreign fishermen concerned—in this case, mainly the Russians.
Will my right hon. Friend take into account that a Lowestoft drifter was given twenty new nets by the skipper of a Russian trawler who had damaged them and that these new nets have been impounded by the British Customs as Russian imports?
That is a very unusual import. Certainly, with the co-operation of my hon. Friends, I will look into the matter.
Does not this clear up the suggestion that the damage was done maliciously by the Russian trawlers and show that it was very largely the result of inexperience? Is not that the case?
That is the evidence I have received so far. The explanation is that probably it was inexperience by the Russians of our methods of fishing.
Does my right hon. Friend think the Admiralty supply sufficient patrol vessels to deal with these incidents, because they are causing a great deal of anxiety to trawlers in general?
I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is impossible to ensure that there will be patrols at every point throughout our widespread fishing grounds. We are very grateful indeed for the efforts made by the Admiralty to ensure that the patrols shall be as effective as possible.
Rather than pursuing the matter through the diplomatic channels, as the right hon. Gentleman has threatened, would it not be better to authorise the captain and crew of the "Bramble" to handle the matter? They have dealt with it very satisfactorily up to now and seem to get on with the Russians better than the Foreign Office does.
Ballot For Notices Ofmotions
The State Of The Press
I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th May, I shall call attention to the state of the Press, and move a Resolution.
Commonwealth Migration
I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th May, I shall call attention to Commonwealth migration, and move a Resolution.
Colliery Spoil Heaps
I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th May, I shall call attention to the spoliation of the countryside by colliery spoil heaps and the urgent need for more control over their extensions, and move a Resolution.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[ Mr. Heath.]
Orders Of The Day
Ways And Means
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
National Health Service(Contributions)
3.22 p.m.
I beg to move,
1. That persons who, either as insured persons or as employers, pay, or are liable to pay, contributions under the National Insurance Act, 1946, as amended by subsequent enactments (hereinafter referred to as "national insurance contributions"), shall be liable in addition to pay contributions, to be known as national health service contributions, as follows:—
2. That national health service contributions shall be paid to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but, as between that Minister and the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State, shall he taken to be so paid for the benefit of the Minister of Health, towards the cost of the national health service in England and Wales, and of the Secretary of State, towards the cost of the national health service in Scotland, in such shares as the Treasury may determine, subject to—
3. That, in consequence of the provision made by the preceding paragraphs of this Resolution, it is expedient to provide—
| TABLE | |||||||||
| Description of person | Weekly rate of national health service contributions | Reduction of weekly rate of national insurance contributions | |||||||
| s. | d. | s. | d. | ||||||
| 1.Employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment | … | … | 1 | 4½ | 8½ | ||||
| 2. Employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment | … | 1 | 0½ | 6½ | |||||
| 3. Employed boys and girls under the age of 18 | … | … | … | … | 8½ | 4½ | |||
| 4. Employers (for each person employed) | … | … | … | … | … | 3½ | 1½ | ||
| 5. Self-employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment | … | … | 1 | 8 | 10 | ||||
| 6. Self-employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment | … | 1 | 4 | 8 | |||||
| 7. Self-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 | … | … | … | 1 | 0 | 6 | |||
| 8. Non-employed men between the ages of 18 and 65 | … | … | … | 1 | 8 | 10 | |||
| 9. Non-employed women between the ages of 18 and 60 | … | … | 1 | 4 | 8 | ||||
| 10. Non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 | … | … | … | 1 | 0 | 6 | |||
I think I should first explain to the Committee how it comes about that a Bill designed to institute a separate National Health Service contribution and to increase the amount of the contribution which has heretofore been paid, together with the National Insurance contributions, for the purposes of the National Health Services, requires to be founded upon a Ways and Means Resolution.
The National Health Service element in the present joint contribution, after being paid into the National Insurance Fund, is subsequently transferred to the Exchequer, and under these new proposals the new National Health Service contribution, although in a slightly different form, which I will explain later, will also find its way at one stage of the story into the Exchequer.
In point of form, therefore, the proposals represent an increase in the amounts paid by the public which pass into the Exchequer and in consequence of that, in accordance with the practice of the House, the Bill for the purpose requires to be founded upon a Ways and Means Resolution.
These proposals, for which this Motion paves the way, have a twofold purpose. The first is to separate out as a distinct contribution the sum in respect of the National Health Service—the 10d., if I may so refer to it—which has heretofore been paid for the purpose of the National Health Services and to constitute this as a National Health Service contribution; and the second purpose is, by doubling the size which that element has so far had, to restore it to something approaching its originally intended rôle in the financing of the National Health Service.
Will there be one stamp or two?
There will be one stamp.
Those who have taken any interest in our National Insurance scheme will, of course, be familiar with the fact that from the beginning the 10d., the National Health Service element, has been separate from the rest of the contribution. It has been separate in that, unlike the rest of the contribution, it was paid from the Fund, where the rest remained, into the Exchequer. It was separate in the sense that it did not constitute a qualification for receiving benefit. There was no direct or necessary connection between the payment of this element in the National Insurance contribution and the entitlement to the benefits of the National Health Service. It stood thus upon a different footing from the rest of the combined payment. Finally, whereas the rest of the combined payment was, actuarily, at any rate, and on certain assumptions, designed to meet the whole cost of the insurance benefits, it was never contemplated that this element should represent more than a fraction of the cost of the National Health Service. The history of this element, this 10d., goes back fifteen years to the Beveridge Report, and it is not without interest at the present day to glance back for a moment to the Beveridge Report.I should be glad if the Minister would tell me the purpose of making this change. Previously, there was a contribution towards National Insurance which was composed of several elements—for example, pensions, unemployment and sickness. One of the elements was a contribution of 10d. to the National Health Service. What is the purpose of now making it a separate contribution? I gather that there will be only one stamp. In the Table contained in the Motion the headings to the columns are:
and" Weekly rate of national health service contributions"
Can the Minister explain the purpose of the change?" Reduction of weekly rate of national insurance contributions. "
I will come later to the detailed provisions of the Motion but, as I have pointed out—
This is not a change of detail. It is not merely increasing the amount to be paid from the Insurance Fund to the cost of the National Health Service; it is the creation for the first time of a new National Health Service contribution, which was not in the 1946 Act. Apart from the quantitative change, what is the reason for making this fundamental change?
The right hon Gentleman calls it a fundamental change, but I have already reminded the Committee that the National Health Service element in the present contribution has always been different in kind, in purpose and in treatment from the rest. Indeed, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding and misapprehension as to the nature, the amount and the effect of the National Health Service element and I should have thought that it would have commended itself to the Committee that this entirely separate nature of the element should be recognised and that the separateness both in the purpose and in the treatment of this element should be recognised by a step separating it as a different kind of contribution, marked openly with the purpose to which it is in the future to be devoted, as it has always been devoted in the past.
If I may bring the Committee back for a moment to the origin of this National Health Service element, we find that in his Report of 1942, in discussing the financing of the comprehensive Health Service, which was one of the presuppositions of his social insurance scheme, Sir William Beveridge, as he was then, wrote:He concluded:"There is no obvious reason, apart from a desire to keep the insurance contribution as low as possible, why insured persons should be relieved of this burden wholly, in order that they may bear it as taxpayers. If importance attaches to preserving the contributory principle for cash benefit, it attaches also to contribution for medical treatment."
Accordingly, he recommended that a sum of 10d. in respect of an adult male employee and appropriately smaller figures in respect of other contributors should be included in the weekly contribution for the purposes of the National Health Service. In the Memorandum which was attached to the Beveridge Report, the Government Actuary of that day calculated that the 10d. would bring in £40 million a year. The same Memorandum assessed the total gross cost of the National Health Service at £170 million. So it was the conception at that time that this contributory element of finance would represent something approaching one-quarter of the gross cost of the entire service. That proposal of the Beveridge Report, in precise terms down to the employer's fraction of the 10d., was adopted both by the Coalition Government in 1944 and in the 1946 National Insurance Bill of the party opposite. It is, therefore, from that original recommendation that the element now to be made formally, as it is already in reality, separate, and has to be increased, originates. The Government Actuary who made the estimate in the Memorandum of 1942 may well feel some satisfaction with his foresight, for his estimate that the 10d. would bring in £40 million has been exactly and punctually fulfilled. Almost precisely £40 million is the yield of this element in the present financial year."There appears to be a case for including part of the cost of domiciliary treatment in the insurance contribution."
That is what actuaries are for.
There is no reason why we should not recognise their successes.
Every other feature of the landscape, however, has changed. The gross cost in this year of the National Health Service is not the £170 million which was estimated in 1942, but is no less than £690 million; so that of that gross cost the yield of the 10d. today represents, not nearly a quarter, not something over 20 per cent., as was the intention embodied in the 1946 Bill, but 5·8 per cent.Can the hon. Gentleman give the proportion that it represents of the national income both then and today?
I am not sure that I see the exact relevance of that. What we are concerned with is the relationship between this element and the other elements in the finance of the National Health Service.
The Minister has stated that the cost today is running at £690 million, whereas in 1942 it was estimated that it would run at £170 million. I ask him, therefore, whether he can compare £170 million of the national income then with £690 million of the national income today.
I have no doubt that when the gross national product of the two years is taken into account, the increase in real cost of the Service between the 1942 estimate and the present year's expenditure is, of course, not so large as the gross figures suggest. That does not, however, affect the ratio with which I am dealing. I am dealing with the fraction of the gross cost which is financed by one means or another and I have pointed out that the fraction of the gross cost, whatever it may be, whatever be its proportion of the gross national product, which is financed by these contributions has fallen from the originally contemplated quarter or fifth of the war and immediate post-war years to 5·8 per cent. today.
Will the Minister give way?
It may be that I am about to meet the point that the hon. Member has in mind.
It is true that since the 1946 National Insurance and National Health Service Bills, another element of finance of the National Health Services has been introduced—actually, it was in 1949 by the party opposite. I refer to the charges paid by patients for certain elements of the Service. It is fair to take into account those charges upon the users in connection with these contributions made by insured persons. Nevertheless, even if the payments which it is anticipated will be received in the present financial year are taken into account, they and the contributions together still account for only just over 11 per cent. of the gross cost of the Health Service, or scarcely more than half the amount which it was expected and intended should be yielded by the contributory element when the scheme was started.I should like to ask a question. When the Minister is putting to the Committee the difference between the anticipated yield of the 10d. in 1942 and the yield realised today of 5·8 per cent., he must take other things into account, also. For example, the Beveridge Report anticipated that there would be a liability for unemployment of 8 per cent. In fact, that expected 8 per cent. has turned out to be only 1 per cent. Therefore, although the Minister isolates the one element, we are entitled to argue the other points as well.
The lower incidence of unemployment may well affect considerations applying to the insurance element of the contribution but they have no relevance to the specific Health Service element. Nothing can overturn the fact that the proportion of the gross cost of the Service which is now met contributorily has fallen steadily and sharply since the inception of the scheme until it is now scarcely more than one-quarter of what was envisaged by the party opposite when launching both schemes in the year 1946. The doubling of the National Health Service element to form the new National Health Service contribution will, in fact—
The Minister refers to a new National Health Service contribution. I gathered from him earlier that there is to be only one stamp and, therefore, one contribution. Why does he continually refer to a new contribution? I gather that there is to be one contribution and one stamp and a division between the various elements, one part of which will be a contribution towards the cost of the National Health Service. This will not be a new contribution. It will be an increased contribution paid on one single stamp. Let us get that clear.
One can have one stamp which is used to collect two separate contributions. Hitherto, the stamp has been used to collect two entirely separate elements devoted to different purposes by different channels. That will be so in the future as in the past. All that is happening is that we are more formally, clearly and explicitly recognising the separateness and earmarking, as it were, the National Health Service contribution to the purpose for which it is designed.
This National Health Service contribution—I will not call it new in future, in case I should flush the right hon. Gentleman—in the amount proposed in the Resolution, will still represent only about 11·6 per cent., or, if one adds for good measure the yield of the charges, some 17 per cent., of the gross cost of the Service; so that it will be still below the fraction of the gross cost which it was anticipated originally would be met in this way. The constitution of a separate National Health Service contribution so designated will have a result which, I think, the debate of 19th March showed was in accordance with the intentions of both sides of the House. It will have an effect upon the allowance of certain elements in the contribution for taxation purposes. The result will be that, except of course in the case of an employer engaged in trade or business, the National Health Service contribution—the old and the new element—will not in future rank as an allowance for tax purposes. This result, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on 17th April, is both logical and fair. It is logical because these benefits in respect of which contributions are paid will themselves be tax free. By way of illustration, the Committee will recall that when, in 1949, the unemployment, sickness and maternity benefits were made tax free, a consequential change in the tax law was made to the effect that the element attributable to those benefits did not run as an allowance against tax. It is, therefore, surely logical that these contributions in respect of an untaxed benefit should not run for tax allowance. The second ground upon which I claim that this result is entirely fair is the one made both by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my right hon. Friend in the debate to which I have referred, namely, that if this contribution runs as an allowance against tax there is almost a hyper-regressive effect, in that the more tax a person pays, and the higher his income is, the less he contributes in this way towards the maintenance of the National Health Service.In view of the interesting point that my hon. Friend has made, am I now to understand that we are to have a recasting of this tax matter, in relation to the whole of the National Insurance contributions? He will he aware that at the moment those who do not pay tax are paying more for their social insurance benefits than those who do. I am glad to know that he has this point in mind.
Yes, but my hon. Friend will recognise that there is a difference between the relationship of a contribution and a benefit which is taxed when it is received and a contribution and a benefit which is untaxed when it is received. We are here dealing with a benefit which is untaxed in the hands of the recipient, and we must find some other occasion upon which to pursue the relationship between the contribution and a taxed benefit.
But it is very interesting.
I now turn to the Motion itself, and I want briefly to draw the attention of the Committee to its effects. Paragraph 1, taken in conjunction with the first two sub-paragraphs of paragraph 3, has the effect, of which I have already spoken so many times, of reducing the National Insurance contribution by the amount of the existing National Health Service element and constituting a National Health Service contribution of twice the amount of the present element.
Paragraph 2 deals with the machinery by which these elements will be made. The course of payment will be that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will, after deduction of the costs of collection, transfer the amount collected by way of National Health Service contribution to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the purposes of the National Health Services. Under the respective National Health Service Acts those sums will then be paid by them to the Exchequer, but the Treasury will authorise the application of the sums so paid as appropriations in aid of the National Health Service. Thus, the connection of these contributions with the National Health Service, however devious, is firmly established. The Committee may note that the Treasury plays a part in this mechanism of determining the respective shares, I hasten to assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister about this. The basis of sharing between the Health Services of the two countries will be on the same principle as has been applied hitherto to the National Health Service element of the contribution, and the purpose of the determination by the Treasury of the shares is simply to ensure that rough apportionments, instead of precise calculations of individual payments, can be made. It is really a device to simplify accounting. There are one or two detailed provisions in paragraph 3. Hon. Members will see that in sub-paragraph (d) provision is made for the Ulster Parliament to legislate on this matter. That is necessary because these contributions will be paid by Crown servants, amongst others, and unless expressly permitted to do so the Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot impose burdens upon Crown servants. Paragraph (e) provides the necessary mechanism for the new adjustments which will have to be made between the social service finances of Great Britain, on the one hand, and the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, on the other. I have endeavoured as briefly as possible to indicate to the Committee both the purport of the Resolution and its general purpose, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be able to deal, at the end of the debate, with the matters that I have left untouched.3.57 p.m.
We take very grave objection to the contents of this Motion. The Financial Secretary quoted Lord Beveridge. I have not his exact words, but he pointed out that Lord Beveridge seemed to think that it might be rather silly to relieve our people of their insurance burden merely to increase their tax burden. Surely the Minister and the Government realise that those who pay insurance and those who pay Income Tax are not always the same persons, and that many people who will be asked to pay this extra contribution of 8d. per week—the lowest paid wage earners—will find it a very great burden.
Income Tax is not the only tax.
I am dealing particularly with Income Tax.
Lord Beveridge was not.
It is of the greatest importance, because most of the National Health Service finance is taken out of what is contributed by way of Income Tax. If that is not the case it still behoves the Government to examine the rest of their taxation structure and to see that it does not bear heavily upon the people who can least afford to pay taxes. Whether we take it as coming from Inland Revenue or from other sources it still means that, as a result of the decision of the Government, in a very short time the lowest paid wage earners will have to pay an extra 8d. a week for the National Health Service.
I would remind the hon. Member that the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, have not been infallible. When my hon. Friend raised the point about the basis of unemployment, the Minister pointed out that we were not dealing with unemployment. Of course we are not. In this Motion we are dealing with a proposal by which the Government think they can get more money out of the people through National Insurance contributions, instead of placing the burden on those who could most easily bear it. Let the Committee consider the National Insurance contribution burden, the taxation burden, and all the burdens which have been put by this Government upon the wages and salaries of our people to meet the costs of the National Health Service. We see that the additional burden is not only an increase of 8d. in the contribution. In considering these we cannot leave out of account the additional burdens of prescription charges, the extra charges for dental treatment, the extra charges for surgical appliances—all extra burdens put upon the shoulders of the people least able to bear them. This extra 8d. is, I hope, the last of the burdens which this Government will have a chance of putting on our people. If we link the burden imposed by this Ways and Means Resolution to what has happened to the National Health Service under this Government we see that the insured workers today are worse off than they were before the National Health Service was introduced in 1946.rose—
When I have finished this part of my speech I will give way.
Ordinary workers who paid contributions from 1911 onwards were able to get medical attention and whatever medicine they needed, without any additional cost if they were ill. That provision now has disappeared, and now this additional burden is put upon them. The Financial Secretary made great play with the proportion of the amount of the National Health Service cost which is met today out of National Insurance contributions, compared with the proportion which Beveridge estimated we should obtain from them. When the Government were considering that did they take into account the proportion of the old people and of the insured workers? Many of our old people have to make far greater use of the National Health Service than many of the insured workers. Were we to examine this we should find that the cost to the National Health Service per head of the old people is much greater than the cost per head of those who are still working. Was that taken into account when the Government decided to add this extra 8d. to meet the cost of the National Health Service? When my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked what was the proportion today of the national income which went to the National Health Service the Financial Secretary, rightly at that moment, I think, said that that did not relate to the matter with which he was dealing, for he was dealing with the proportion which was going from National Insurance contributions to the National Health Service, compared with the estimate made by Beveridge of the cost. However, it is of very great importance that we should consider the effect of this extra 8d. The question we have to consider is: is the National Health Service today taking a bigger proportion of our national income than it was in 1948? Does what it is taking today far exceed that estimated by Beveridge in 1942? The Financial Secretary said he did not have the figures, but that he thought that possibly it was not taking a greatly increased proportion. The fact is that it has decreased. I have the figures here. In 1948 to 1949 the proportion of the whole national income that went to the National Health Service was 3·51 per cent. The following year it went up to 3·75 per cent. In 1950 to 1951 it fell slightly because of the charges which were then made for the National Health Service by the Labour Government. In 1951 to 1952 it fell even further. In 1952 to 1953 it was 334 per cent. The latest figure of which I can get an estimate is that for 1953 to 1954–3·24 per cent. So, since the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948 to 1949, the proportion of the national income which it has taken has declined from 3·51 per cent. down to 3·24 per cent. now. In the light of these figures it seems to me that the Government have no case at all for raising this contribution. In particular, they have no case at all for imposing it upon the low-wage earners, who will find it in the nature of a poll tax which they will be ill able to pay. We shall not vote against this Motion since, I understand, the Bill will be coming forward next week—rose—
If the hon. Member will wait just a minute I will give way. As I said at the beginning, we strongly oppose this Motion, for the reasons which I have given and for many other reasons, which, know, my hon. Friends will adduce. I ask the Government, even at this late hour, to rethink this matter and to decide that this burden which they are proposing to impose is one which many of our people are quite unable to bear.
I have been following the hon. Lady's argument closely, and I see her difficulty in escaping the fact that the Labour Government established a contribution which exceeded, as a proportion of the cost of the National Health Service, the combination of the contribution now suggested and the prescription and all other charges which have been made. The question which, I am sure, the Committee would like the hon. Lady to answer is: where would she look to find the £40 million? Is it to come from raising charges, or is it to come from the raising of direct or indirect taxation?
If the hon. Member has read the Report of the Guillebaud Committee he will realise that we have no intention of raising this extra money by putting additional charges on the National Health Service. One way in which, we feel, it would be correct to raise this additional amount would be that of taxing the people who could well afford to pay the additional taxation.
4.9 p.m.
I do not want to delay making the point I want to make by engaging now in this Income Tax controversy, but I was very glad indeed that the subject was raised by the Financial Secretary, because I had been looking forward to its being discussed in this Chamber and I feel now that, as my hon. Friend has brought it up in this debate, we shall be able to have a very full discussion of it sooner or later.
I have always believed, and I reassert, that it is quite wrong to allow those who pay Income Tax to get Income Tax reliefs while forcing those who do not pay Income Tax to pay—relatively, of course—higher contributions for the benefits which they receive out of the social insurance scheme. Owing to our procedure in the House it is very difficult to raise these matters because we are precluded from dealing with them on the Adjournment, so I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought this matter forward today, for that will open the door to debating it. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has already taken the matter up, but I would say one word to her. I must point out that the Income Tax arrangements which impose a higher burden on the lower income groups in the payment of these insurance contributions was made by the hon. Lady's Government. I am only too delighted to know that at last they see the error of their ways, and I am sure that they will help to get this major injustice put right. I should like to know whether the area covered by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board will have full value for money as a result of these new proposals. I do not feel that people in the higher ranges of income object to paying a reasonable sum for value given. That is the whole basis of national expenditure in this country on what is properly referred to as the Welfare State. Taxpayers, and particularly direct taxpayers, pay a large sum into the Exchequer and they want value for money. That is a very natural desire and one to which we should all subscribe. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, when he replies to the debate, will give a specific answer to my questions. After being a Member of the House of Commons for a long time, I realise that sometimes, when awkward questions are asked, Ministers give a very general answer and do not deal with the difficult details which are brought to their notice. This is a very good opportunity for my right hon. Friend to give a specific answer to a point which has been a very sore one among people in my region, which is governed for National Health Service purposes by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board. Will the people who live and work within that region, both those who pay Income Tax and those who do not, have the full benefit of the extra payment which we are now asked to make? Up to the present, many other parts of the country have had much better service under the National Health Service than we have had on the North-East Coast. My attitude—and I hope it is the attitude of my colleagues on both sides of the Committee who represent the North-East Coast—towards these new proposals will be governed by how we fare when we have paid the new contributions. In other words, shall we have value for money? The seventh Report of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board has, fortunately, just come to hand. Since this debate was to take place it was a heaven-sent opportunity for me to see just what the situation really was and to ask my right hon. Friend what proportion of the new payment will come to my region. This is a very important matter indeed. One has only to examine expenditure on the National Health Service to realise that a great many regions get a great deal more out of the Service than we do. This is the first time that we have been able to deal with the National Health Service outside the general National Insurance Fund as far as payments by the individual are concerned. That is why it is so exciting to me to be able to raise this matter today. I am very pleased indeed about it. Now that we are to have a capital sum extracted out of the increased contributions paid by the community as a whole, I want to know what will happen to that money and where we in the North of England will come in. I should like to read one or two observations made by the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board. The Chairman, Mr. Collingwood, a very distinguished man who, with the officials, runs the Board very efficiently, says in the Report:that is, the capital expenditure—" As I said in the introduction to last year's Annual Report the Board would like to see this figure "—
we receive just a little over £500,000 annually for capital expenditure—" increased to £2–3 millions,"
That brings me right up against this problem. It is not so now, thank goodness, but in the old days our area was one of the special areas and for that reason our health services fell far behind those in many other regions which were much better off from the point of view of employment. When the National Health Service was brought into being, and general expenditure was allocated, we received a much smaller share than more fortunate regions because we had fewer hospitals and fewer specialist services. I understand that to make up our deficiencies we require about £42 million. We are receiving £500,000 a year and we have calculated that we shall have to live—and I shall not do so—another ninety years before the Newcastle region has a health and hospital service comparable to that in some other parts of the country. The Chairman of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board has made a very modest request. He has asked for only £2 million to £3 million. It would be absolutely superb if I could hear from my right hon. Friend that we were to have that sum annually from the extra contributions which we are now being asked to pay towards the National Health Service. There is a further very interesting point. It is that we have less accommodation for convalescents under the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board than any region in the country. As the Financial Secretary is bringing forward this scheme to meet the mounting cost of the National Health Service, it is important that we should look for economies. It is quite obvious to anybody who is interested in the working of the Service that if there were more accommodation for convalescents we could have a quicker turnover and could make more hospital beds available. In the Newcastle region we have not the necessary accommodation. We had the great good fortune to have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health visit my region only last week. I took him to look at a tremendous building which is under the control of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board and happens to be in my constituency. It is a memorial home which was built as a convalescent home for miners—and we have a great number of very good miners in the Newcastle region. I agree that that great building is not suitable now for a convalescent home, but the National Health Service took £135,000 from the area and left that great building on one of the best sites on the North-East Coast standing empty and unused ever since the National Health Service was introduced. We still have no good accommodation for convalescents and I should like to know whether, as a result of these increased contributions, we shall have something done and, if that building is to come down, we can have for the Newcastle region—not for my constituency—a really good convalescent home. I can assure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I am sure, will agree with me, that the air of the North-East Coast is very stimulating and invigorating. Therefore, I should like to see a new convalescent home there which will meet some of our deficiencies. This is what the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board says:"which would more closely represent the expenditure required to overtake in a reasonable time the deficiencies in accommodation and facilities in this Region."
Please note "more favourably endowed —"" Arrangements for Convalescence. …The Board continues to rely to a large extent upon the assistance given by other regions, more favourably endowed "—
We have to send out people to other regions for their convalescence. Instead of having to transport them to other regions for their convalescence, can we not have a little of this money so that some convalescent beds can be available for our people? Every time I think of that £135,000 which the National Health Service grabbed—and we are getting only £5,000 back this year for the whole of the region—I say that it is up to my right hon. Friend to tell us what benefits we are to get out of these increased contributions. I will turn the screw only once more. Here is another thing which absolutely infuriates me. The present system of estimating means that we must spend the capital allocation by the end of the financial year, otherwise we lose it. Again, this is what the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board has to say about capital expenditure:"with convalescent hospital accommodation. The assistance given during the year amounted to the equivalent of forty-nine beds occupied during the whole of the year and once again this assistance is gratefully acknowledged."
that is, on the estimates—" The actual capital expenditure incurred during 1955–56 was £785,339, which was an underspending "—
I underline "delay"—" of £12,693, equal to If per cent. This is the first year in the history of the Board that the capital allocation has not been wholly expended, and the underspending can be directly traced to the delay "—
It is intolerable that we should have to lose over £12,000, when, in any event, we are at the bottom as regards capital allocation, because the Ministry has not been able to pass our plans in time to let us use that money. So, again, I want to know from my right hon. Friend whether we can have that £12,000 made up? Otherwise, as we have those plans approved now, we shall have to meet the expenditure involved out of our estimates for next year. And as we have not had an increase this year, we shall have nothing with which to make up our deficiency. So, as I have said before, I am delighted to know that as we have to take this unfortunate step of increasing contributions, there will be more money available. Also, I want to know what benefits those who live under the aegis of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board will get out of that additional money. If I can be assured that we will be able to make up our deficiencies, then we might even feel that the increased contributions would be of benefit to us. If, however, we are not to benefit, and if these contributions merely go to make other regions better off than we are, we would be very foolish indeed to support the Government's new proposals. I hope there will be many speeches because now I want to join a deputation to try to harry another Minister to do something. I hope that when I come back the Minister will be able to give me the necessary information about what is to happen to this money, and whether we in the North-East will benefit." in receiving Ministry planning approvals in connection with the major projects of the new hospital for West Cumberland and the Middlesbrough General Accident and Orthopædic Department."
4.25 p.m.
I am surprised, but pleased, that the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) has been able to widen the general subject for discussion and bring in the very important matters which she has been raising as to the use of the funds we are discussing today, and how they can be used to the best purpose in the North-East of England.
I will only follow her comment on that matter by saying that I fear she will be as disappointed on this occasion as she has been on many others in the past. The estimates upon which the Government are basing their figures and these proposals have been made available already to the House, and there is relatively little sign of the kind of increases of available funds for the specific proposals to which the hon. Lady referred in the information that has been given to the House about the provisions for the North-East of England and the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board. For example, I would point out that the regional board is, rightly in my view, concerned with the fact that it has not been able to expand its specialist services as it has wanted to do. I myself have had some correspondence with the Minister of Health on this matter, and I fear it will still be as difficult as it was previously to get those extra specialist appointments made, even if the increased 8d. a week is voted. I am afraid that there are many other problems that we face in the North-East of England, and which many other regions face, too, that will still have to be met even though the 8d. is voted. I have far less hope than the hon. Lady, I am afraid. I would be delighted if I could hear from the Minister of Health this evening, when he replies to the debate, that this extra provision, if voted by the Committee, will mean that the Board will no longer be restricted in the way it has been over specialist appointments. Not only has it been restricted in the ordinary financial sense by the size of the allocation, but it has also recently been restricted by the direct fiat of the Ministry of Health, which is denying opportunity to the board to make appointments, especially in the psychiatric and other services, which are in the view of the Board, and in our general view, extremely urgent. So I would add that to the other points to which the hon. Lady has rightly been calling attention. It is true that in this area there is a large backlog of work which it has not been possible to overcome because of the very real restrictions on capital expenditure over a long period of years, and not only capital expenditure but ordinary running expenditure as well. I see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has left the Chamber for a moment. I am sorry about that.Just to hear about spending the money that we want to spend.
The hon. Gentleman, as we all know, is a great Greek scholar. I was always brought up to fear the Greeks and the gifts they bring, and when the hon. Gentleman introduced this Motion by saying that he hoped that because he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury—I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place again—none of us would be too suspicious of it, frankly, I am suspicious of it. Inevitably, I am suspicious of proposals coming from the opposite side of the Chamber, and I am also suspicious of this proposal coming from the Treasury.
We have some reason to be suspicious about it. I believe that here we are being offered only the thin end of the wedge. I believe that it is the desire of hon. Members opposite—it is their view, and I do not blame them for it; but I believe it is also their desire—gradually to convert the finances of the National Health Service so that it is a Service paid for by contributions in one form or another, either by flat rate insurance contributions or by charges imposed on the Health Service itself. This is a good opportunity to look at that principle rather seriously. It is quite true, as the Financial Secretary said, that this had the respectable origin of a Beveridge Report recommendation, and that there was the implementation, in effect, of a subvention from the National Insurance Fund to the National Health Service in the past. The Financial Secretary claimed that all that he is doing on this occasion is to restore the value of that subvention and give it fuller formal approval and recognition. No doubt he is hoping that in that way people generally will recognise the amount which they are contributing through their weekly contributions to the National Health Service. All that is no doubt true, but, surely, while the hon. Gentleman was very careful to analyse the proportion of the total Health Service expenditure that has been met out of this flat rate contribution, what he was not doing at all was examining the effect upon the contributors themselves of these very heavy increases. He was certainly not doing that. I suspect very strongly that what we are now facing in this Committee is the definite objective of hon. Members opposite to finance the National Health Service in large part out of insurance contributions and also out of charges of one kind or another in the National Health Service. After all, that would be generally in line with what the hon. Gentleman himself and others in his party have suggested in times past. It would not be out of character if they wished to do this. Why is it that we should oppose this so strongly? Surely it is because we recognise that a flat rate contribution of this kind and of this magnitude is the most regressive kind of taxation that we could have. The right hon. Gentleman realised that, when this particular contribution is chargeable to tax—that is to say, when one could claim it as a deduction against tax—it becomes even more regressive in character, and to that extent he has recognised the point. It remains a very regressive tax, and we argue that it is far fairer to meet the cost, the undoubtedly very heavy cost, but not, in our view, an unreasonable cost—of the Health Service out of the general national revenue rather than meet it out of insurance contributions in this way. I hope that it may be possible, before the debate is over, to get an assurance from the Minister that it is not his intention—I do not know what power he may have over his colleagues—to carry on this process of financing the Health Service out of insurance contributions. It is a very serious matter. Already, the total contribution is a very high one, and this is not the only increase that we have had. We have had others, and no doubt we will be faced with more before very long. It is all very well to talk about relating it to some rather spurious figure of average wages or earnings. What we have to realise is that these flat rate contributions have to be made by low-wage earners as well as by high-wage earners, and this becomes a very serious matter indeed for the very many workers who have very low rates of earnings at the present time.Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that, whatever the cost of a particular service may become, on no account would it be proper at any time to make any charge, but that the cost of that service should always be borne entirely by the general body of taxation?
I am not quite as hidebound as some hon. Members opposite often seem to me to be. I was quite prepared in the past, when considering these contributions, to consider the value and the possibility of some contribution coming from the Insurance Fund.
What I am arguing today is that the flat rate contribution has now reached such a size, both because of this contribution for the National Health Service and also because of the level of the insurance contribution, that it has become a very serious burden to people on low earnings, and that it is a matter which, I think we were generally agreed, should be looked at again. I hope very much that we shall have the opportunity, especially those of us on this side of the Committee, not only of looking at it again, but also of bringing in proposals that will make a valuable contribution towards it. What I am saying, therefore, is that it is a matter of the level which this flat rate contribution has now reached, rather than a question of whether or not we should have a flat rate contribution. I am concerned with the size of the contribution, which seems to me to be a quite considerable burden upon lower paid workers. It was very much in the minds of all of us in introducing the National Health Service in the early days that those who have to make claims upon this Service and the facilities which it could provide would not be faced with payments and contributions at that time, nor that those services would be restricted to people paying insurance contributions. I agree that that is not happening in this case, but I fear that the approach which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are making is leading us almost inevitably, stage by stage, to the position in which we are getting back to an insurance scheme, rather than maintaining the kind of National Health Service which we all had in mind when the National Health Service Bill was passed through this House. A retrograde step is being taken by imposing this extra burden. I agree that we shall have the opportunity of discussing this matter in more detail when the Bill comes before us, and I am sure that we shall also have the opportunity of proposing Amendments and of making clearer the details of our opposition. I merely want to use this opportunity to try to obtain from Her Majesty's Government a statement as to their future intentions. Is this merely a step towards their longer term objective with regard to the financing of social services generally, namely, the objective of financing them more and more out of charges and out of flat rate contributions, or is this a "once-for-all" proposal to which we are being asked to agree? The answer to that would have a very considerable influence on the attitude of many hon. Members to this matter, and I hope that the Minister of Health will be able to deal with the point and will not be too nervous of his relationship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with any of his other right hon. Friends.4.40 p.m.
I have one or two comments to make on what has been said. It was difficult to find, in the speeches of the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), any mention of the magnitude of the figure with which we are dealing. It is fair to suggest that when the original Act was passed, in the Parliament of 1945, few people in the House of Commons at that time would have dreamt of such a figure as that now approaching £700 million per annum. That is one of the things which we must have in mind in considering a Motion of this kind.
Surely the hon. Member cannot be bemused by that figure in isolation. He must consider it in terms of our general national income.
I said that it is merely one of the things which should be in our minds when we are considering a Motion of this kind. That consideration seemed to be absent in both the speeches from the benches opposite.
Another consideration which we have to bear in mind is that we are dealing with a country which is today probably the most heavily taxed, in one form or another, in the whole world. The hon. Lady said—and one can sympathise with her point of view—that this matter could be dealt with by adding to the general burden of taxation. Superficially and speciously, that is a most attractive remedy. For one thing it is easily the most popular remedy, because it gives a comfortable illusion to many people. It is not a pleasant thing to propose a charge, but a charge does bring people sharply against the cost of the service, and on a matter of such dimensions we must face the question whether it is desirable to have a comfortable illusion. It is very important that we should recognise that this is a most valuable Service. We are in a very fortunate position compared with countries which do not possess a Health Service of this kind, but we must be realistic and appreciate our privilege of having such a Service. It would be quite dangerous if we got rid of our financial difficulties in financing the Service by adding the cost to the general burden of taxation in the light of the fact that we are heavily taxed already. The hon. Lady went further than that. She not only suggested that it was undesirable that there should be a flat rate, but said that indirect taxation had the same objections. One can sympathise with that kind of argument, because it is the easiest to put over to the broad mass of the people. But if we do away with these contributions, and with much indirect taxation, the hon. Lady and her colleagues must face the alternative which would be to impose a very high rate of direct taxation, probably one which would be almost unbearable, even to the more highly paid workers, because they would have to bear the burden of the persons who do not pay tax. The hon. Lady and her colleagues must also recognise that if that policy is followed, it will bring a large number of people back into paying Income Tax. It is questionable whether that would be merely a small amount of Income Tax. If the policy is followed for National Insurance benefits, too, as hon. Members opposite believe it should be, the amount of direct taxation which would have to be paid, even by the people now earning moderate wages, would be extremely heavy, because they would have to bear the burden of those not paying Income Tax.
I should like to make it clear that I did not say that I was against all indirect taxation. The hon. Member seems to be supporting the Motion in the belief that the cost of the Service will be brought sharply home to the people. Does he support it in spite of the fact that some of the people to whom it will be brought home sharply are already finding it very difficult even to meet the present rate of contribution?
The hon. Lady is carrying the argument to its extreme. I said that not having the contributions would create for everybody a very comfortable illusion. I did not say that it is desirable to bring it sharply home, but it is perhaps a small virtue that it brings into our minds as legislators—and that is very important—the fact that this is a tremendous undertaking for any country, particularly a country with an economy so precariously balanced as our own.
My other point is of a more local nature. I gather that the money will be collected and, after the administrative expenses have been paid by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in due course some of it will accrue to the Minister of Health in England and Wales and to the Secretary of State in Scotland. Obviously, therefore, the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) will not apply to Scotland. Scotland is secure and is bound to have a reasonable share. Is an arrangement being made to protect the interest of the Welsh Board of Health a body which has now existed for a long time? There is apprehension in Wales that there has been some loss of status in recent years by the Welsh Board of Health due to other administrative changes. As it is obvious from what my hon. Friend has said that the apportionment of the money in favour of Scotland is amply secure and as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth have already pressed for some assurance for the North-East will the administrative separateness of the Welsh Board of Health which has existed for the last thirty or forty years be recognised by some allocation of the money collected in this way?4.47 p.m.
I understand that the argument which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has just adduced is the classical Tory argument that here we have a Health Service which is open to every inhabitant of Britain, that the overall cost is rising each year and that we must, therefore, look at it from that aspect and say that the time has now arrived when everybody must pay a poll tax towards its cost, irrespective of his or her income, that everybody must pay a flat tax towards the total cost.
Such an argument swings more and more against the small wage earner, but at least it is an honest argument and an argument which we undertsand. It is an argument which has been heard from the Tory benches for a long time. It is fair to say that the people of Britain must decide between that argument and the argument from our side of the Committee, which is broadly that a free National Health Service is one of the finest ways in which the national income can be invested.Again, the hon. Member is carrying my argument extremely far, because even if the Motion is passed a large amount if not most of the money will still be provided from the general body of taxpayers.
Of course it will. I do not dissent from that.
I want to proceed to the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and to take it further. The hon. Member for Barry wanted to isolate from his argument what one could describe as the Tory inflation since 1951. The fact that the £ has lost more than 4s. in value and other things like that are to be glossed over in the one statement that this huge and increasing amount of money must be met in some way other than the way we suggested, which is broadly the argument for increasing taxation as such. The Financial Secretary would have done a better service to the Committee if he had been as plain and honest in his argument as was the hon. Member for Barry. The Financial Secretary tried to give us the usual deployment of figures to show that it was necessary to make this matter administratively possible, that we should now increase the actual amount which people pay for the Health Service. He did not refer to the main principle with which the Committee is now concerned. We on this side of the Committee are pledged to the reinstitution of a free National Health Service and at recent conferences we have affirmed our determination to proceed on that principle. The Government have decided that they will not only introduce a contributory service, but will do so in such a way that it will be virtually difficult for the Labour Party when going into office to reinstitute a free National Health Service. I know that the hon. Gentleman was at pains to show us that a Labour Government introduced certain charges. But he knows as well as we do—and it was stated quite freely at the time—that those charges were intended to be purely temporary and that they would have been taken off at a given date. It was his own party which made the charges permanent. The Government are now going to the next stage. The hon. Gentleman wants to argue that there is something rather illogical in the way in which a certain content of the National Insurance contribution went to the Health Service. I do not dispute that. It may be a typically illogical British way of doing it. The hon. Gentleman is now enshrining not only the contributory Health Service, but is putting it in such a way that it is common knowledge that a certain percentage is to be paid in the insurance contribution towards the Health Service itself. In other words, we are now instituting for the first time a contributory service instead of the free service which we had in mind. I say at once that, from the point of view of those who feel in principle that there should be a contributory service, this is a natural development. I remember the present Minister of Labour, when he was Minister of Health and, indeed, even before that, often arguing the principle of the contributory Health Service. I thoroughly disagreed with him then and I disagree with him now. I can understand him thinking as he does, but it was really not good enough for the Financial Secretary to begin to enshrine that principle in legislation without even mentioning that he was trying to do so in any shape or form during the course of his speech. I should have thought that we ought to examine the problem from that point of view. At present, there are very grave doubts as to whether our present system of contributing to National Insurance as a whole can go on much longer. We are coming to the argument of whether or not it will be possible for a very considerable section of the community to afford the higher charges of the National Insurance scheme which are now becoming necessary if the scheme is to be kept administratively possible. We are now, at the very moment when that issue is arising, saddling that section of the community permanently with a further handicap. I should have thought that the next logical stage in this Tory attitude towards the matter would have been to make it possible for people to contract out of the scheme altogether, because we are certainly coming to the point where for people in the lower income bracket the percentage which will have to be paid for the health part of the scheme will be pretty prohibitive. Therefore, unless there is some proposal, which I would deplore and which every hon. Member In this side of the Committee would deplore, for people to contract out of the scheme, that pattern of Tory legislation is incomplete. We have arrived at the point when, to get rid of the main objection to the present system, we shall have to get rid of those who represent the greatest liability to the scheme. Then the scheme will be composed only of those in the higher income brackets, who will be able to make it administratively possible. The matter becomes quite hypocritical when one remembers that only a few days ago the hon. Gentleman opposite was deploying the argument in favour of giving back £34 million to Surtax payers because he thought that that would be an inducement to them in the weakened state of the national economy. When we get these two debates in the same week it is clear that the Government are proceeding in a very hypocritical manner. The House has recently shown its concern about wage claims, industrial disputes, and things of that kind. Do not the Government realise that while this sort of policy is going on it is completely impossible for those charged with the conduct of industrial negotiations to act merely as if this had not happened, to act as though it was in isolation, a sort of Alice in Wonderland concept in which increases in expenditure of this type must be isolated from the fact that they are designed to lower the living standards of those who have to pay them? We are moving into the phase in which we hope before long to see an industrial scheme. Is the same principle to be invoked there? Are we to have an additional impost upon those who have dared to be employed in industry merely because they take greater risks, because that is the real point of a contributory scheme? The greater the risk one takes, the greater the contribution one pays. Therefore, one is compelled to assume that, with the development of an industrial health service, that kind of principle will apply again. Indeed, one could apply the argument to industrial injuries and argue quite logically that the miner or heavy engineer should pay a greater amount towards the Health Service or towards industrial insurance in general than those who do not take the same sort of risks. In other words, we discourage people from going into the very type of industries upon which the life of the country may very well depend. I believe it is important that this principle which I feel is now at stake should be stated clearly and that the attitude of the political parties towards it should also be stated clearly. One could almost come to the point where the working people would dread an increase in efficiency in the Health Service because the logical sequence of that would be that the amount they paid towards it would have to be increased. The Health Service is one of the greatest and most objective steps ever taken by this nation. When listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Barry, I thought that if we looked at the global sum of £670 million involved and then looked at the amount of time lost in industry as a result of bad health, much of it attributable to the conditions in which people have to work, and if we could improve the facilities of the Health Service, we should have a proportionate decline in the amount of time lost in industry for health reasons. Surely that would be the way not only to increase the efficiency of the Service, but to get a far greater return for industry itself. I hope that the Government will consider that kind of point instead of introducing what I believe to be a method of victimising those who are compelled to work under bad conditions, or those who, unfortunately, are unable to get a greater return for their labour than they are at present receiving. I believe that we should look at general taxation far more than we are doing at present as a way of financing the Health Service instead of using this back-door method, for the first time since the Service was inaugurated, of introducing a contributory system which is meant to be permanent and which is couched in such a way that it would be most difficult to get rid of. That is the point which the Committee is discussing today.5.0 p.m.
I agree very sincerely with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). Having listened to what one or two hon. Members opposite have said on the matter, I was not convinced with their argument. In the main, they seemed to be suggesting that we should do what we are doing to introduce a sense of reality into the matter. Whenever I hear the Tories talk about a sense of reality. I immediately wonder what is to happen to ordinary folk. This is precisely the argument which the Tories used when they cut the food subsidies. They said, "We must introduce a sense of reality by making people pay."
The result of that policy was a slash in the food subsidies—in the bread and milk subsidies. It has now resulted in a slash in the housing subsidy. People must be made to realise what it costs to build a house. This is the argument which we always hear, and whenever I hear it I am conscious of the fact that it is the prelude to an attack on those who can least afford it. The issue at stake is a very simple one. The Health Service is costing a lot of money. How should we pay for it? The argument of the Government is that we ought to pay for some of it by means of a flat rate poll tax. It is not quite a flat rate because the contribution varies, but everyone should contribute. In the case of the employed man, it would represent 8d. a week. The suggestion made from this side of the Committee is that we ought to pay in accordance with our ability to pay. Surely the fallacy of the argument of the party opposite is that it is a simple matter for a man with £20 a week to afford an extra 8d. a week, but it is not a simple matter for a person earning only £4 or £5 a week. The suggestion is indicative of the Tory state of mind and of the ignorance of hon. Members opposite. They seem to think that coppers do not mean much to people. Let them go into the homes of those with small incomes and see how the domestic budget is planned. I have often listened to the Financial Secretary and been intrigued by the very clever manner in which he deals with statistics, but he has never convinced me that he knows much about human life. One cannot deal with human beings by juggling with statistics. In matters of this sort we are dealing with flesh and blood and with a vast variety of people. Some are living almost up to the hilt, struggling to get the things they need. An extra 8d. a week to such people represents the cost of a pint of milk, whereas to others it represents only about the third of the price of a cigar.Did not the party opposite impose a flat rate contribution for this purpose?
I will argue that point with the hon. Gentleman at another time. At the moment, I want to pursue my argument. At present, we are discussing the activities of the hon. Gentleman and it is no alibi for him to cite what somebody did in 1947 or 1948. I am always rather intrigued with the arguments of the Tories and their endeavour to justify their actions by comparing them with what the Labour Party did. Do not they see that it is a great tribute to what the Labour Party did always to try to justify themselves for what they are doing by making the comparison?
That question does not mean a thing. We are discussing what the hon. Gentleman is doing here and I was in the course of suggesting to him that this amount means a great deal to people with small incomes. He should not forget, as I have said, that it probably means a difference of whether the members of a working-class home will get an extra pint of milk or not. It may mean nothing to hon. Gentlemen opposite and nothing to a man with an income of £20 a week. The greater the sum total of the insurance contribution increases, and it has been increasing very substantially, the greater the burden on the poorer people. It imposes a much greater burden and it is much more serious to increase the burden on poorer people by 8d. or a 1s. than to increase the burden on the wealthy people. I do not know what sum the hon. Gentleman expects to get by this—[HON. MEMBERS: "£40 million"]. That is something like the amount which we gave away to Surtax payers a couple of weeks ago. I suggest that when this matter is examined in that light, and it is borne in mind that we suggest that people should pay in accordance with their ability, our case is unchallengeable. Surely, from a social point of view, that is a much better proposal. I should have thought that the lesson to be learned from the last century is that the more we do things socially, in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend, the better for the community as a whole. Of course, it would have a consequence which hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like, the consequence of levelling things up; of reducing the gap between the various classes in society. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to like that, because the whole of the legislation which they have brought about has resulted in entirely the opposite happening. This is a bad thing for the Government to do. There is no justification for what the hon. Gentleman has said today. His arguments do not bear examination. I should have thought there were other ways of achieving this along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. When we debate the Bill itself we shall have far more to say about these proposals and their effect upon the people than has been said during this short debate upon this Motion.5.5 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in, what I think the Committee will agree, was his usual lucid and logical way
I did not deny the lucidity of the hon. Gentleman. I said I was intrigued by it, but that it had little to do with human beings.
I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend explained very clearly both the reason for this Ways and Means Motion and the purpose of the Motion itself and of the Bill which will follow it. I think the Committee realise that in many ways this Motion is an advance copy of the Bill which it will be my task to introduce to the House. Therefore, it would have been possible to have had a duplicate today of the debate which we shall have on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I appreciate the restraint of hon. Members in not taking up an undue proportion of time in discussion today. Naturally, I do not wish to anticipate the speech which I shall make when I introduce the Bill. I intend to deal solely with the points raised this afternoon. I think it wise to repeat once again the purpose of this Motion. The purpose is twofold. First, it is to double the contribution at present paid to the National Health Service and, at the same time, to relieve the taxpayer—and by no means only the Surtax payer—of an equivalent amount. Secondly, it is to establish for the first time a separate National Health Service contribution. I would say one further word about the contribution. My hon. Friend made it clear that this proposal has its origins in the Beveridge Report and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) claimed respectability for it on that account. Of course, it has another claim to respectability, in that right hon. and hon. Members opposite did, in fact, give it their blessing. If hon. Members are in doubt about that, they should refer to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) during the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill. Right from that time up to the present it has been accepted by right hon. and hon. Members opposite that there shall be a direct contribution to the National Health Service, so there is nothing new about that. In 1946, as the Committee will be aware, the contribution was fixed at 10d. It was then thought that that would represent 20 per cent. of the total cost of the National Health Service. My hon. Friend dealt with what proportion that contribution now provides. I ask the Committee to look at it from the other point of view. In 1946, it was anticipated that 72·4 per cent. of the total cost would be found from the Exchequer. In fact, year by year since 1946 the proportion financed by the Exchequer, that is by the taxpayer, has steadily risen. Last year, it stood at 80·2 per cent. When this proposal is implemented, the Exchequer—the taxpayer will find approximately 74·1 percent., which is still in excess of the proportion intended, in 1946, to be financed by the taxpayer. Therefore, if one accepts, as the Committee has done on previous occasions, that there shall be a direct contribution, it is not unreasonable that that contribution should be doubled to restore the position to approximately what it was originally. There is one further argument which I would advance to those who have talked of hardship. Since 1946, when the contribution was fixed at 10d., there has been a considerable increase in wage rates and earnings. By 1956, there had been an increase in wage rates of 70 per cent, and in earnings of 99 per cent. The increase is, of course, even greater today. Therefore, on that account also, it seems to me reasonable that there should be an increase in the contribution. If it is argued that a contribution of 1s. 8d. will be a hardship to people with low incomes, it can equally be argued, possibly with greater effect, that 10d. was a hardship in 1946. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) spoke of the old people. I was not certain what point she had in mind, because the contribution will only be paid, as at present, by insured persons. If the hon. Lady had in mind those who have retired, they will be asked for no increase.I know that when a person is retired and is paying no contribution, he makes no contribution towards the National Health Service. What I was asking the Financial Secretary was whether the Government had taken into account the increased proportion of old people—in other words, those who will be paying no contribution—as against the number of insured people when coming to a decision about the amount or proportion of the Health Service which is to be financed from contributions.
I thank the hon. Lady for making clear the point. I had thought that possibly she was suggesting that this method of contribution was an increased burden on the old people, whereas this method of finance can, in fact, have the opposite effect.
Can the right hon. Gentleman now answer my original question?
Both my hon. Friend and I are well aware of the point which the hon. Lady has in mind, but I do not think that this change in the method of financing is particularly affected by it.
The second purpose of the Bill will be to establish a separate contribution. This seemed to cause concern to the right hon. Member for Llanelly. At present, the contribution is paid direct into the National Insurance Fund and is thence paid by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance as a lump sum to the Ministers of the Health Departments. Either because of that or for some other reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said, there is undoubtedly confusion in the public mind as to the source of finance of the National Health Service. That was quite clear from the reaction to the publication of the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which have led to the Bill. Probably many hon. Members of this Committee did not realise that they themselves paid 10d. a week, and neither more nor less, towards the finance of the National Health Service. Many people, I believe, thought that either the whole of their insurance contribution in some way went towards the National Health Service, or that none of it did. It seemed important to my right hon. Friend and myself that we should seek to establish more clearly in the minds of the public that a portion, but only a portion. of the insurance contribution went to the Health Service.Will the new system be affected by the total exemption from payment of National Insurance contributions which people in receipt of not more than £ 104 a year can claim?
The small income exemption will apply exactly as at present. There will be no change in that procedure.
It was our intention, therefore, to seek to establish in the minds of the public and of those who pay the contribution that part of their contribution goes to the National Health Service. For that reason, there has been a change in the procedure in that the contributions will no longer be paid into the National Insurance Fund, but, although collected by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, will be paid to the Health Ministers and thence into the Exchequer, where they will be treated as appropriations-in-aid. In a further attempt to clarify the position—this answers the right hon. Member for Llanelly—the stamp will, in some form as yet to be determined, make clear that a portion of the contribution, although included in the same stamp, is to be devoted to the National Health Service. By that and other means, through publicity channels, we shall seek to establish this as a separate health contribution designed to meet a portion of the cost of the National Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) must be congratulated on her ingenuity, which caused some surprise to me and, I think, to your predecessor, Mr. Hoy, in bringing, into the debate matters which I certainly had not anticipated would be in order. Of course, though this is an increase in the contribution, it is not an increase in the total National Health Service finance. The contribution, in fact, will be only sufficient to meet the estimates of regional hospital boards already approved by the Ministers. I must, therefore, disappoint my hon. Friend in that respect. I would add, however, that the capital allocations to regional hospital boards is, and always has been, made on a population basis, but that special consideration has been given to under-developed areas. I had occasion only a few days ago to look at the estimates for the Newcastle Regional Board because of an allegation by another hon. Member that it was receiving an undue proportion of the finances available. I was satisfied on that occasion that both the hon. Member in question and the hon. Lady were wrong, but I take note of what she has said. She will have noted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave up a great part of his Easter Recess to visit that Regional Hospital Board, partly in company with my hon. Friend. Beyond that, I cannot go on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry also raised the question of the Welsh Board of Health. I have no reason to suppose that the Welsh Board of Health will not have a fair share of this contribution or that that Board has in the past had a diminishing share of the available revenue. I am, however, meeting the Board in the near future and I will certainly take up the point made by my hon. Friend. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North said that although the Opposition took exception to this proposal, hon. Members opposite would not vote against the Motion. They oppose it, I understand, as a regressive measure. In a sense, it is a progressive measure, because, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said, by making this adjustment for Income Tax we are putting right something which has in many ways been a regressive measure since the introduction of this contribution in 1948. I cannot accept that this is by any means a regressive measure. I am pleasantly surprised by the small volume of protest which has been received by my Department and by the Departments of my right hon. Friends. The hon. Lady will know that in many quarters our proposal has been greeted as a sensible measure. I am still anxious to know what alternative the Opposition propose. We have had one or two suggestions today. The hon. Lady said that she would increase taxation on those best able to afford it. That is easy to say, but not so easy to put into practice. The hon. Lady did not go on to say whether she would remove the existing contribution, because that would need an additional tax of some kind of £80 million a year.I was dealing only with what the Government expect to get from the increased contribution. I did not use the word "regressive". I said that this proposal was a burden on the smallest wage earners. many of whom bear far too great burdens already.
I take note of that, but it does not seem logical to oppose this increase in the contribution and to let the original contribution of 10d. remain. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East spoke as though he was in favour of the existing contribution but not of an increase. I understand the logic of saying that there should be no contribution towards the National Health Service. I do not quite understand the logic of saying that 10d. is a fair contribution but that anything above that amount is unreasonable and unfair.
Does the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, in logic, propose, what I suggest he may be intending to propose, that the whole of the finances of the Health Service should be met by a flat rate contribution.
If the hon. Gentleman will study this Motion and the Bill which is to be introduced he will find nothing there to enable that to be done. I am certainly myself not advocating that in the Committee today.
Is not that logical?
The Opposition must also face up to the fact that, if they are not prepared to increase taxation to a considerable extent to finance the whole of the National Health Service, they may have to do what they had to do on previous occasions, and that is to increase the charges to patients. It would be possible for the Opposition to propose a hospital boarding charge. Is that in their minds? Today, we have not heard the answer. Perhaps when we reach the Second Reading we may receive some elucidation of what is their real policy, not only as to the increased contribution but also as to the existing contribution which some hon. Members opposite seem to favour and some to oppose.
For our part, the Government's policy is quite clear. It is that the Health Service should be financed in part, but in part only, by direct contributions paid by those who are fit and at work, and we believe that that is something which commends itself to the great mass of opinion of this country. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the Motion.Question put and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow;
Committee to sit again Tomorrow.
National Insurance Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 2.—(BENEFITS FOR PERSONS
OVER PENSIONABLE AGE.)
5.23 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "and".
I think that this Amendment and the following one might be considered together. These are technical Amendments designed to ensure that the improvements in the Bill apply to the largest number of people who may stand to benefit. There is a small group of widows who were not insured before 5th July, 1948, and who will reach the age of 60 between the appointed day and 5th July, 1958. At present these widows, in common with other widows, have their widows' pension automatically converted to a retirement pension on reaching the age of 60, unlike late-age entrants, who have to complete ten years in insurance and who do not qualify until 5th July next year. Clause 2 (1) would remove the automatic conversion to retirement pension at the age of 60 and, as it stands, would turn the small group of widows into late-age entrants, so giving them no right to earn increments as we propose other widows shall be able to do. The Amendment will prevent that, and will enable all widows to earn increments if they choose to defer their retirement beyond the age of 60.We accept the Amendment. We think that it is very good indeed that those widows should be able to earn increments if they work beyond 60 years of age.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 41, at end insert:
" and
(d) regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) of section seventy-one of the principle Act (which relates to certain women over the age of fifty immediately before the appointed day for the purposes of that Act) shall not apply ".
Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, at the end to insert:
(5) In subsection (4) of the said section twenty (which provides in certain circumstances for an increase of the weekly rate of a retirement pension) there shall be inserted after the words paid by "the words" or credited to "and at the end of the subsection the following—
" Provided that for the purposes of this subsection no contribution shall be credited to a person over pensionable age other than contributions (not exceeding five in any contribution year) for periods of incapacity for work."
This Amendment has been put down as a result of a number of cases which have come to the notice of hon. Members on this side of the House. I think that the Minister will have come across quite a number of cases of men and perhaps women who are in the position with which the Amendment deals.
By the Amendment, we are trying to give to the men or women who work after retirement age an opportunity, even although they are ill for a certain time, to obtain the maximum increments to their pensions. In Section 20 (4) of the principal Act a provision is made for the increase for every 25 contributions paid by the beneficiary after that man or woman has reached normal retiring age.
The subsection states:
"Subject to the next following subsection, the weekly rate of a retirement pension shall be increased by one shilling for every twenty-five contributions as an employed or self-employed person paid by the beneficiary in respect of the period after his attaining pensionable age "
If a man or woman is absent from work through illness or incapacity before reaching the retiring age contributions are credited to them. In other words, contributions are not paid by them during the period of absence but are credited to them. The contributions credited to them make it possible, on their reaching retiring age, to get the full retirement pension.
The men or women who work beyond the retiring age are in a different position. If they are off work through sickness, no contributions are credited to them to help to increase their pension. In other words, if they are away from work because of sickness they have to pay the contribution if, when they come to retire, they want to get the maximum increments. A number of people—perhaps the Minister will know the exact number—find that they have failed to get an increase because of the lack perhaps of one stamp. We feel that that is wrong.
When this matter was raised in Questions to the Minister, he suggested that it had been made perfectly clear to the contributors who continued to work after pensionable age that for any period of absence from work because of sickness no credits were given for an increase in pension, and that the worker had to pay his contribution. That may be so; I am not doubting that. The fact is that there have been cases where old men or old women have been terribly disappointed, when the time came for them to collect their retirement pension, to find that they have not got the increases they had expected, That shows that no matter what publicity has been given to this matter by the Minister, it has failed to register with some of our old people.
5.30 p.m.
We are not asking in this Amendment for parity of treatment between those who continue to work after the normal retiring age and the men and women below retiring age, who, when absent from work because of sickness, have contributions credited to them for a very long period. I would call the Minister's attention to this proviso in our Amendment:
" Provided that for the purposes of this subsection no contribution shall be credited to a person over pensionable age other than contributions (not exceeding five in any contribution year) for periods of incapacity for work ".
That is all we are asking to cover periods of incapacity. Surely that is not too much to ask.
As we want as many old people as possible to continue to work after the normal retirement age we must give them as many inducements as we can. If we can tell them, "We are trying to provide for your short periods of illness during those extra years of work," we shall be adding another inducement and giving them a measure of justice.
Men from 65 to 70 years of age and women from 60 to 65 pay exactly the same contributions when they are at work as do people under pensionable age. As we want them to continue at work it might not only be an inducement but justice to give them even more than we ask in the Amendment, but we have limited our proposal in the hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and I hope that the Minister will muster all his reserves of sympathy when he considers the Amendment, because there is something in it. When we have made this proposal hitherto, by way of Question in the House, or in the correspondence which I have had with the Minister's Department, we have not found the right hon. Gentleman very forthcoming. He does not seem to think that there is anything in the case that has been made. I hope that he will look at it rather more sympathetically today. Let us look again at what is involved. At present, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us at Question Time recently, it is possible to be excused contributions for two weeks in one year and still earn the maximum number of increments within one year. Pensioners have to get fifty contributions recorded in the one-year period. The Minister indicated that that was equivalent to two credits being given in the year. The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter) indicated dissent.The Minister is shaking his head, but I have his remarks here. He actually said that ten contributions in five years were excused, which was two a year.
I was shaking my head because the hon. Gentleman was talking about credits.
I went on to say that these people were excused two payments per year. It is conceivable that a man taking on a new job might only have fifty weeks' employment in one year, so there is no gap or room for manoeuvre for sickness. People have to work fifty weeks in the year to get the maximum number of increments. That is asking a lot of people who have reached that age.
I understand that there are two reasons why, under the legislation passed by the Labour Government, this concession of counting sickness credits could not be given to the employed person after the age of 65 or 60. The first reason was repeated by the Minister in a letter which I have here. It is that a person who is sick after reaching the age of 65 gets his sickness benefit, and, the benefit being the same as the retirement benefit, he could not possibly expect to be given a credit for it for the same week. The fact of the matter is that the contribution includes an element of insurance against sickness, so that these people pay extra for the sickness insurance in addition to the amount they are contributing towards pension entitlement. They are not getting anything twice over; they pay an element in the insurance contribution for sickness, and are therefore entitled to sickness benefit. Secondly, it was apparently thought that a person over the age of 65, or 60, in the case of a woman, was more likely to be sick and more easily able to get a certificate for sickness than a younger person. There has been talk about it being possible for an older person to malinger, but it seems odd if we are accepting the proposition that sickness benefit is paid to a person who is not genuinely sick. If, under present arrangements, that is possible, the arrangements ought to be tightened up. The argument seems to be underlined by the practice now followed of credits in the case of industrial injury being counted for pension increments. The justification for that appears to be that before a person gets an industrial injury pension there has to be a check by an independent doctor. If industrial injuries benefit is payable, and the contribution is credited and is counted for pension increments, credits should be given in the case of a person who is genuinely sick. A constituent of mine was injured in the course of his work at London Airport. He was off work with a broken arm for fourteen weeks and was two payments short of gaining the maximum pension entitlement at the age of 70. Had he realised what the effect of that would be on his eventual pension I have no doubt he would have claimed industrial injury benefit. If the claim had gone through that procedure he would have been entitled to an industrial injury benefit and would then have qualified for the maximum increments to his retirement pen- sion. It seems wrong that there should be this difference in the way the two classes are treated. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North said that we were not asking for parity for these older people with the ordinary insured persons under the age of 65 or 60, but when I consider the figures I think we are entitled to claim rather more than parity for the older person. I do not think that these people who earn their increments owe anything to the State insurance scheme. It seems to me that we profit, if we do not profiteer, out of the man who goes on working after the age of 65 and tries to earn additional increments up to the age of 70. Going into the matter very roughly, with the aid of a little mental arithmetic, I find that he forgoes about £800 or £900 of pension payments between the ages of 65 and 70. That is quite apart from the extra contributions that he pays and any accrued interest on the sum that he has forgone. If he is to get back the £800 or £900 he has to live until he is 81. He and his wife would both have to draw the maximum number of increments for eleven years to get back the amount of pension that he has forgone. I do not know what statistical evidence the Minister can bring forward to suggest that that is fair. I do not know what the actuarial basis is, but I have spoken to a number of people about the matter, and they support my feeling that we are making a profit out of those whom we have persuaded to carry on working until the age of 70. That being the case, I think we ought to be as generous as possible when we consider sickness credits. In this Amendment we are not asking that all credits should be counted towards the increments. I accept that it would be wrong for a man on reaching the age age of 65 to say that he would carry on until he was 70, then promptly go sick and remain sick until he was 70 and, with credits for five years, ask for the additional pension. We are asking that each year five of these credits should be countable towards the increments. That seems a very modest request and one which I hope the Minister will meet. I wish to underline the unfairness of the present position by referring again to a particular case. In that case, instead of having an additional 25 contributions, my constituent had 23. He does not lose the equivalent of two weeks, but that of the whole six months. He is now 70 and draws 2s. 6d. a week less for himself and his wife than he would otherwise be entitled to draw. I think that that is wrong and ought to be looked at again. Another point which I think is relevant to this Amendment, although it is an administrative matter, is that in this man's case it was first stated by the pensions officer that he was 25 contributions short. That was gone into rather more carefully, and it was found that he was only 14 contributions short. I would refer to another case this month on which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has written to me, and I am very grateful to her for her courteous reply. She had inquiries made and it was found that, although in the first place it was reckoned that the man had paid 218 contributions between the ages of 65 and 70, he had, in fact, paid 225 contributions. Those are two cases which came to my notice in the last two or three weeks. I do not say that there is slackness in the administration, but there seems to be something in the arrangements which makes a mistake possible. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would say that he will look into this administrative question again because these are only two cases on which those concerned have written to me recently, and there may be many others. Apart from that administrative fault, there seems to be something wrong in principle in the Act as it stands. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this very moderate and modest Amendment.5.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) will, I hope, acquit me if, without notice, I do not go into the details of the two individual cases to which he has referred, although I recall that in respect of one of them there was some genuine misunderstanding, not in principle affecting the number of increments the man was entitled to earn, but simply in stating the necessary figure enabling him to earn the nine increments and falling short of the further 25 contributions which deprived him of the tenth increment. The hon. Member and the House know that I am only too glad to look into any case that he or any other hon. Member feels has been improperly handled.
I wish to deal with the proposal which has been put forward. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) quite accurately described the effect of the Amendment, which would be to ensure that where a person was earning increments by continuing at work —in the case of a man at 65 and of a woman at 60— for five weeks of sickness he or she should be entitled in each year to credits which would have effect and take effect for the purpose of earning increments. That is very clearly stated and I say at once that I am not without sympathy with the objects of the proposal. I do, however, suggest to the House that this proposal seeks to deal with the problem in a manner which is fundamentally unsound. The essence of the incremental system is that one earns increments on one's pension by forgoing drawing it and paying contributions at an age when one would be entitled, if one retired from work, to draw a pension. It is of the essence of this that one should not draw a pension or its equivalent under another form, such as sickness been. At, and that one should pay contributions. The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that, be that as it may, the bargain is such a bad one that we ought to strain the system in favour of the pensioner. I do not think that the bargain is a bad one. Nor does it appear that contributors to our National Insurance system think so. The other day I gave the House the interesting figure that of the male pensioners now retiring half have earned some increments before they retire. That seems to indicate that the incremental system is not without its appeal to the insured population.Has the right hon. Gentleman not thought that there might be another reason for men working after they are 65 and women working after they are 60? That other reason is that wages are much larger than any pension which those men or women could get. It is because they wish to try to keep the same standard of living they had before they were 65 or 60 that they continue to work. Yet many of them feel when they have retired that they certainly have lost something for which they have contributed.
Of course, there are reasons, of which wages clearly is one, and I think that the improved health of the older section of the population is certainly another. There are many factors. I merely mention that with a sensible population such as ours if half in the case of men and a smaller proportion in the case of women continue at work and earn increments it cannot be such a bad bargain. I shall follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge on that.
In his calculations about the advantage or disadvantage of earning increments and forgoing pension, the hon. Member left out one element, an element which his hon. Friend has just supplied—that of wages. If a person is earning wages during that period—the first five years—unless those wages are very small, then, under the earnings rule, he or she cannot also draw the pension; and, therefore, it is quite unrealistic simply to take the pension forgone and the contribution and set it against the other side of the equation, the increased pension subsequently paid, if, at the same time, one ignores the fact that wages are being earned during that period and that as a result of earning them. in any event, under the earnings rule, the pension could not have been drawn. I hope I have made the position clear. I will now give way to the hon Member if he desires.I clearly followed what the Minister said, although I did not agree with a word of it. They get the extra wages, but, of course, they have to earn them; they are giving some additional services for which they get the additional wages. Does the Minister challenge the arithmetic under which the pensioner will have to work an additional eleven years before he gets back the bare amount which he has forgone?
The hon. Member has not faced the point which I put to him. If the man were earning wages of any substance he could not, in any event, have drawn the pension. It is, therefore, wrong for the hon. Member in that context to describe it as forgone. While his mathematics are, as one would expect from a distinguished airman, always accurate, his navigation is somewhat below the high standard of his Service.
Let me come to the proposal put for ward. I think it is fundamentally unsound, because it ignores the essence of the incremental system which—and I say this in no carping sense—is a system for which right hon. and hon. Members opposite were responsible under the original Act. If I may say so, I think it is one of the very best parts of the original Act. For that reason, I do not think that this proposal can be accepted. Let us follow up the difficulties which would arise in practice from ignoring the difficulty of principle and accepting the Amendment. I think it is inherent in the Amendment that right hon. and hon. Members opposite appreciate that this is an unsound proposal and, therefore, suggest it only in respect of five weeks in each year and only in respect of sickness as opposed to unemployment benefit. If their principle were sound, there would seem to be no reason for limiting it in this arbitrary way—in a way which clearly would give rise to all sorts of unfairnesses. Why do it for five weeks in each of the five years when somebody might be very sick for 20 weeks in one year and not sick at all in the remainder of the five years? If it is sound in respect of sickness, why do it in respect of sickness and not in respect of unemployment benefit? Unemployment may be just as conclusive a bar against being able to do work as sickness. It is clear from the limited nature of the proposal that it is appreciated by the hon. Lady that, although her objectives are sound, her method of seeking to achieve them is fundamentally unsound. I ask the House to appreciate the ill-feeling which would be aroused if we were to enact it, and the individual cases which hon. Members would have to encounter in their constituencies of people who would say, "This is unfair. So-and-so has been sick for five weeks for each of five years and he has credits for the whole of that period, whereas I was very ill for a long period in one year and perfectly fit and working over the other four years, and I am credited with only five weeks". It is obvious that hon. Members and the Minister of the day would find the greatest difficulty in defending anomalies of that sort.
If the right hon. Member wishes to carry logic as far as this, why has he not laid it down that there should be 26 contributions before one can earn one increment? Why is he prepared to accept that there should be two excuses?
I am coming to that point. I hope the hon. Member knows me well enough to know that I do not duck the points which have been put, especially when they have been put as clearly as he has put them, but I shall detain the House less if I am allowed to develop the argument in its logical order. I therefore put it to the House, first, that this proposal would create a great number of anomalies and a general and understandable feeling of unfairness between one person and another.
The hon. Member asks, "What about the two weeks?" Of course, they are dealt with at present in a totally different way from that in which the Amendment proposes to deal with the five weeks. If a person does not contribute during ten weeks out of the five years, he is still able to earn the maximum increments—by 250 contributions for increments in 260 weeks —but this is the fundamental difference: during those two weeks in each year, as I said to the hon. Member in an interruption, he is not given a credit for purposes of earning increments. He is credited in the ordinary way in respect of sickness and in respect of other benefits, but he is not given credits in respect of the earning of increments. There is, therefore, a very real distinction between the existing position in respect of the two weeks and what the hon. Member proposes in respect of the five weeks. What is provided under the original Act is that there shall be periods of 25 weeks for contributions and forgoing of pension in respect of which a man earns one increment. As the hon. Member appreciates, to earn the maximum—I am sorry to say that the hon. Member's constituent just failed to do so, but earned nine increments—this payment of contributions and forgoing of pension must have taken place on 250 occasions. That is the difference. I am not concealing that difficulties have arisen in these cases, and I think one difficulty arises not from the fact that credits are not given for this purpose in respect of sickness but from the fact that it is possible that a period of 25 weeks for each increment is on the long side. I agree that it is rather hard in the case of the hon. Member's constituent, where he has made 23 out of the 25 necessary payments. Certainly, one of the ways in which it might well be worth looking at the problem would be to consider whether, instead of 10 incremental periods of 25 weeks, a somewhat shorter period would be administratively possible, earning a proportionately smaller increment. No system will prevent someone by hard luck just missing the increment by one contribution, any more than this Amendment would obviate such a thing, but the suggestion which I have just made might be well worth consideration. Another matter which I should like to consider at leisure is whether the difficulty does not arise, as it arises in the case of the hon. Member's constituent, from the fact that the guillotine comes down at the age of 70 and that it is not possible for a man to complete an incremental period after that age, when he wants only two more payments. This is not a Bill which seeks to deal either with the amount of increments or with the incremental system. The House knows, however, that National Insurance legislation—although I can give no pledge on this—appears with a regularity and punctuality which many railway systems might well envy.6.0 p.m.
In the light of what has been said I will consider whether the admitted difficulty which we have experienced over these years can be met in some of these ways. It might be a matter in which it would be fruitful to consult the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which has great experience of these problems. In the light of the discussion, I should like to see whether there is a method of preventing, even in these limited number of cases, difficulties of this kind arising.
Although I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Lady has moved her Amendment, as I have ventured to say, I hope without discourtesy, the proposal itself is fundamentally unsound, would undermine the incremental system to a substantial degree and would create far more unfairnesses and anomalies than it could possibly cure.
In his future consideration of this problem, would my right hon. Friend particularly ascertain whether it would be possible for each elderly person who has lost actual benefit owing to a certain number of periods of sickness to qualify by some such method after the age of 70 or, alternatively, whether it would be possible for each such person to pay something at the end of each qualifying period in the years between 65 and 70? In other words, at the end of a period he would retain the right to increase the stamp payment so that in the second period he might make up his qualifications. I think that that might be included in any future consideration of this rather difficult problem.
I am not sure that I wholly follow my hon. Friend's proposal. Perhaps I shall follow it better when I read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Naturally, nothing said in the House evades consideration by myself and my advisers. On the face of it, there would be considerable difficulty in the method which my hon. Friend suggests; it is not possible to forgo more pension than one is entitled to. I will, however, look at his proposal.
The latter part of the Minister's speech was certainly more helpful and more hopeful than the earlier part. Indeed, as he came to the conclusion of the speech with the suggestion that he would like to consider the whole matter further and probably refer to the National Insurance Advisory Committee some of the difficulties about postponed retirement rules, we modified our view somewhat on the action we should take on this Amendment.
We do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Amendment. He says that the essence of the arrangements for earning increments is that the insured person should continue to pay contributions and forgo pension. Whatever the essence of the retirement rules is, this House put those rules there and we can change them. In six out of its eight Clauses the Bill changes things which he could very well have said were the essence of the original rules. One thing which the right hon. Gentleman does, which is so typical of his right hon. and hon. Friends, if I may say so, is that when there is something in a Labour Measure which we criticise after a lapse of time and after seeing it in operation, he says, "But your Government put it there." When we on this side of the House claim some credit for the great social reforms which we introduced during the period of the Labour Government, right hon. and hon. Members opposite say, "But everybody was thinking of those. Lord Beveridge started them, the Coalition White Paper carried them forward, and these were Measures which the Conservative Party was moving towards introducing if an ungrateful and unwise electorate had not thrown it out of office in 1945." We claim the right to re-examine the rules which have been in operation for so long and to see whether there are flaws in them. I looked up the Reports of the Committee upstairs on the principal Act, and it is not surprising to find how many things were not discussed in that Committee. After all, it was a very large Measure, containing several scores of Clauses. When Clause 20 was under discussion in the Committee, other matters received the Committee's attention, but not this. In a long and complicated Measure of that kind, introducing a scheme with entirely new principles, it is not surprising that the first thoughts on those proposals undergo change in the course of experience. We do not agree that our proposal in the Amendment is fundamentally unsound. We do not agree that there is necessarily any anomaly in giving credits for sickness and not for unemployment. We were trying to be reasonable. We thought that after pension age there are two tendencies somewhat stronger than before pension age. One is a greater liability to sickness and the other is perhaps a somewhat greater risk of unemployment. Our Amendment does not propose to extend beyond retirement the more liberal conditions for giving credits in lieu of contributions before retirement and it limits the credits to be given for sickness to what seemed reasonable in the circumstances. It does not give credit for very long illnesses, which would certainly destroy the basis upon which increments to pension are being earned by postponed retirement and continuance in employment. What we do in the Amendment seems reasonable enough. The right hon. Gentleman, has, however, redeemed himself. When Ministers have something helpful and hopeful to say, why do they not say it to begin with instead of leaving it to the end? Why do they bring out all the unpleasant things and make all the party points and scoring points and then become reasonable at the end? We should have much greater admiration for the right hon. Gentleman if he had been reasonable to start with and reasonable the whole way through. However, we forgive him the earlier part of his speech and we hope that he means to act on the latter part. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4.—(TREATMENT OF DAYS AS DAYS OF UNEMPLOYMENT.)
I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, to leave out "each" and to insert "at least one".
I suggest that it may be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in page 5, line 23, at the end, to insert:"or unless in that week and in the week immediately preceding that week the same day (other than Sunday) of each week is a day of interruption of employment".
Subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should have thought that that would be a very convenient course.
As it is for the convenience of the House, the two Amendments can be taken together.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The meaning of the second Amendment, which I have just read, will not perhaps be immediately apparent at first sight, although I think it is a skilful piece of drafting. I hope, however, in the course of my remarks to leave the House in no doubt of what we are trying to do. The Amendments are an attempt to find a somewhat better remedy than the provisions of Clause 4 for a problem concerning unemployment benefit for very short spells of unemployment. The problem arises from the wide extension of the working of a five-day week. For practical purposes, Clause 4 relates to short-time working by those normally employed on a five-day week. At present, a worker on a five-day week who is put on short time and who works only four days may claim unemployment benefit for two days in that week, that is to say, for the Friday when he is stood off, if the Friday is the day of unemployment, and for the Saturday which is also a working day and for which he may claim unemployment benefit. The fact that he is unemployed for only one day and yet can draw unemployment benefit for two days is alleged by the right hon. Gentleman to be unjustified. The Minister further alleges that it also creates an anomaly in relation to a worker on a six-day week who, if unemployed for one day only of his working week, can draw no benefit at all. I am surprised that hon. and right hon. Members opposite should swallow and condone the greater injustices and yet should strain at the technical anomalies. I do not believe that this is either unjustified in itself or anomalous to the extent that it need be remedied in the Bill. The problem was referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which reported upon it in Cmd. 9609 in December, 1955. That Committee devoted a large part of its Report, which dealt also with other associated matters, to this difficulty. That Committee did, however, dispose of two points of importance. The first was that where neither the normal working week nor the weekly wage is interrupted, there is no case for granting unemployment benefit. In other words, if a man is on a four-day week and he works four days, the fact that there are two remaining working days would not entitle him to unemployment benefit. He will have completed his full working week and is not, therefore, entitled to unemployment benefit even though it is a shorter working week than usual. That is the first point that the Committee disposed of. The second point was that when a man is unemployed for the whole of a week, whether he is on a working week of six days, five and a half or five days, he shall be given a full week's unemployment benefit; if he is unemployed for the whole of his working week, whatever length it may be, he is entitled to a full week's unemployment benefit. Neither of those two issues arises now. What we are dealing with solely is the worker whose normal working week is less than six days and whose work and weekly wage are interrupted by unemployment for a period of less than the full working week. The Minister said that there was something wrong about this and that it should be put right. The National Insurance Advisory Committee was unable to come down on one side or the other in the matter. In paragraph 36 of its Report, the National Insurance Advisory Committee said:The Committee was almost equally divided about it. The Minister, however, has said that from his point of view that is the nub of the problem and that it is wrong in principle to pay unemployment benefit for a day upon which a man or woman does not normally work. The Minister has reached a judgment which the National Insurance Advisory Committee found it difficult to reach, so divided was that Committee in its views." As things now stand, we find ourselves almost equally divided as to whether or not there should be an extension of the full normal extent rule by providing that unemployment benefit should never be paid for a day on which a person does not normally work."
6.15 p.m.
The Committee did, however, say one or two things about both sides of the question which it is worth while to recall. In paragraph 31, the Committee said:
" Having regard to the object for which unemployment benefit is provided, it may be argued in principle that benefit should not be paid for any day on which a man does not normally work."
That is the argument which the right hon. Gentleman is using. On it, the Committee said:
" At the same time it must be recognised that, where a person has lost earnings in respect of a day on which he normally works, the loss for each day is likely to be a more serious matter the fewer the number of days normally worked."
That is certainly one aspect of the matter. The worker on a five-day week who loses one day's work has lost a higher proportion of the week's earnings than a man working a six-day week and who is unemployed for one day.
In the same paragraph the Committee went on to say:
" We think, therefore, that if there were to be a general rule that unemployment benefit should not he paid on any day on which a person does not normally work, special provisions as to the amount of benefit would have to be made in the case of persons who normally work on five days a week or fewer."
That is very important. Acknowledging the argument—which the Committee did not acknowledge—that unemployment benefit should not be paid for a day upon which a man does not normally work, the Committee said that if that was made the rule special provisions as to the amount of benefit would have to be made for those who in the ordinary way work five days a week or fewer.
The Minister, however has not done that. What he has done in Clause 4 is to accept the argument that no unemployment benefit shall be paid for a day upon which a worker does not normally work and he has left it at that. He has done nothing more. He has not accepted the view of the Advisory Committee that if that were done, some special provision would have to be made regarding the amount of benefit.
In paragraph 33, the Committee went on to say:
" If five-days a week working were universal, or nearly so, in this country, there could be no dispute about the proposal put forward in this representation—"
the Committee was referring to a representation in the previous paragraph—
" that the daily rate of benefit should be one-fifth of the weekly rate."
Supporting the view that it is not right merely to disqualify a worker from drawing unemployment benefit for a day upon which he does not normally work and to make no change in the calculation of unemployment benefit, we on this side believe that present arrangements should remain. The Minister, however, in Clause 4, has put forward a change in conditions which, it is fair to say, earn the criticism of the National Insurance Adivisory Committee if the views that I have quoted represent the Committee's viewpoint on this proposal.
The argument for retaining things as they are was set out in paragraph 35 of the Committee's Report. One point that the Committee made, which has been fully supported by the Trades Union Congress in discussing the matter subsequently with the Minister, was this:
"The argument "—
that is, the argument that things should be left as they are—
" is reinforced by pointing out that there would be considerable, and justifiable, resentment if five-days a week workers regularly on four days a week short-time, lost half the benefit they are now getting."
We are here to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there exists that considerable and justifiable resentment amongst the workers who may be principally affected. What we are trying to do is to find a less objectionable way of dealing with the matter than the Minister has put in Clause 4.
This, again, is something which the Advisory Committee considered. In paragraph 34 it said:
" We have examined a number of alternatives to the present rule designed to secure that a five-days a week worker should not receive two days' benefit for one day's unemployment. In particular we gave much consideration to what seemed to us to be the most promising alternative, that is that a person working on less than six days in the week should not receive benefit unless he lost two or more working days in the week, or unless he lost the same day in at least two successive weeks. The effect of this (apart from waiting days) would be that the five-days a week worker who lost one isolated Friday would receive no benefit instead of two-sixths of a week's benefit as at present. If he lost two successive Fridays he would receive one-sixth of a week's benefit in each week instead of two-sixths in each week as at present. If he lost two or more days in the week he would receive benefit for all the days of the week on which he was unemployed, as at present."
That promising alternative which the Committee considered is what we have put in our Amendment. The effect of it is that if the worker on a five-day week is unemployed for one Friday he gets no benefit; if he is unemployed for the Friday of the following week he will get one day's benefit—that is, the two Fridays, the same day in successive weeks, would count as one day's unemployment, that is half benefit for each day; and if he were unemployed for four successive Fridays he would get two days' benefit because he would have had the same day unemployed in two successive weeks in a period of four weeks.
That seems to us to be a preferable alternative to the disqualification from unemployment benefit completely in this case without any change in the calculation of unemployment benefit. I cannot say that we regard even our own Amendment as preferable to leaving things as they are, but we are trying to save something from the wreck, and we agree with the National Insurance Advisory Committee that it is better than the Minister's solution.
I cannot see why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should see anything seriously wrong in giving unemployment benefit to men who are unemployed, even though for a short period. One would have thought, in conditions of full employment especially, that when some temporary recession hit an industry and put large numbers of men out of work for one day a week the Government would have been prepared to regard the operation of the existing rules as some comfort to those who, for a time, were suffering a reduction in wages. Unemployment benefit is there to compensate for unemployment, and I do not think that we ought to be too meticulous in applying that principle.
Why is it that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the line that to pay unemployment benefit for a day upon which a person does not normally work is wrong in principle when unemployment benefit is related to being available to work a full week? When men do not get it, unemployment should be a supplement to replace the loss of earnings they have suffered. Why do those who are in a position to get away with so much take the high moral line about social benefits and claim the right to stop the poorer folk from getting away with so little?
I think that this should be regarded as an inevitable feature of the transition of British industry from six days a week working to five days; and as, as the Committee says, when the five-day week has become universal, or nearly so, then a change could be made in the basis of calculation of unemployment benefit.
The Minister knows full well that the Trades Union Congress has expressed itself as strongly opposed to this change, and we on this side of the House feel so strongly about it that we shall have to divide the House upon the Amendment in the same way as in Committee upstairs resistance to the Minister's proposal was carried as far as could be. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment and, in present circumstances, to regard it as a compromise of respectable origin, namely, the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
He need not take it from us. He can say, "I found this in paragraph 34 of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee "—a wise body to
which the Minister pays frequent tribute. Cannot he do that? We hope he can. Then we shall be able to finish consideration of the Bill without dividing the House upon it, and that will be a very pleasant ending to our discussions on the Bill. I hope, therefore, that this time the Minister will begin with hopeful comments and give us encouragement to feel that, by the time he has finished, he will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
If the Minister does not accept the Amendment, he will have remedied what he believes to be one anomaly and created another. Even by the Amendment we are not giving unemployment benefit in full measure to the actual amount of unemployment. That is a sacrifice which we are making in the hope that this compromise will appeal to the Minister as a reasonable way out of the difficulty, leaving the wider reform of unemployment benefit conditions to a later stage when the pattern of British industry and the working life of our workers are, perhaps, a little clearer than they are at the present moment.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I must begin by saying how glad I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said that we on this side of the House regard the proposal which we are putting forward as second best. We would rather the position had been left as it was. I do not know what the joke is on the Government side of the House. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies to the debate. Among the workers of the country, in the Trades Union Congress, certainly in the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, in Coventry, opposition to Clause 4 is as strong as ever it was before, and in the few minutes only for which I intend to detain the House I shall try to explain to the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what our objections are. I hope that the hon. Lady, if and when she replies, will try—I know she will—to give me an answer to the questions I shall raise. When we discussed the Bill on Second Reading the hon. Lady, who had been asked how much the Government expected to save by the Bill, replied that they hoped to save very little because they did not believe that there would be any short-time working. 6.30 p.m. There is a great deal of short-time working in Coventry today. The unions are very much concerned about it. The hon. Lady will know that it is always very difficult to get figures of short-time working because employers do not like to give them to the employment exchanges since they hope to have their men employed again. The figures provided by the unions and the estimates given by the employers vary widely. I shall not give any figures now, but I ask the hon. Lady to take it from me and from the Coventry District Committee of the Confederation that there is a considerable amount of short-time working. I do not know whether the hon. Lady can possibly remove the district committee's feeling that the present legislation will make it much more difficult for people who are on short-time to claim unemployment benefit. That feeling was not removed by our previous discussion. The second point is that in column 615 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, to which I have already referred, the hon. Lady gave me an assurance that the Bill would not change the legal effects of any agreements which were then in operation. We are still not happy about that. I do not mean that I doubt the hon. Lady's word, but perhaps she could emphasise the point a little more this evening. The Confederation has been working for years to devise a form of words that would ensure that short-time workers would qualify for unemployment benefit within the framework of present legislation for odd days of unemployment. The Confederation is not convinced that that agreement, worked out by it and accepted by the employers, will not be invalidated by the Government's present proposals. When this matter was raised with the Engineering and Allied Employers' Federation, that body supported what the hon. Lady subsequently said. The Federation said that the Bill would not nullify agreements already reached. It added that if short-time workers were laid off on the Friday of one week and on Monday of the following week they would still qualify for unemployment benefit under the rule that they must be unemployed for at least two days within any period of six days to qualify for benefit. The Confederation argues that this would not always be practicable. I should welcome the hon. Lady's views on that point. The secretary of the Confederation's district committee at Coventry has said, and I think that this is unanswerable, that in any case the arrangement would not enable the short-time worker to qualify for benefit every week and even if it were practicable the employee would qualify for benefit only twice in three weeks. In that same debate I asked the hon. Lady whether she could answer another question. I do not think that she did so. The Confederation's district committee, at Coventry, is of the opinion that a man could be employed for only one day in each week yet still be refused benefit for the other days of unemployment because he would be said to be covered by his guaranteed week agreement for four days a week. In that debate on Second Reading I mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the views of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The unions find it very hard to understand why the Government feel that there is such great urgency to introduce the Amendment to Clause 4. When the Advisory Committee was quite unable to recommend any change, the Minister has been advancing the argument that this is something vital which really must be done. The Advisory Committee said that if this matter were to be dealt with, some special provision would have to be made for those working five days or fewer. We are quite unable to understand why the Government say that this is a matter of great importance when the Advisory Committee could offer no such recommendation. We cannot understand why the Government should now put forward a solution which is not in accordance with the Advisory Committee's views. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply on this Amendment will be as reasonable as was the Minister's reply on the first Amendment, and that she will enable us to withdraw it.A large percentage of people who are now working in industry are regularly working a five-day week. The six-day week, as we knew it before and during the war, has disappeared over a very large area of industry. Therefore, we are dealing with a very appreciable percentage of employed workers when we talk about those who habitually work a five-day week.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out, we are discussing a situation in which men stand to lose half the benefit to which they are now entitled when, through no fault of their own, they are, unfortunately, working a four-day week. It seems to be the philosophy of the Minister and of the Tory Government that when an employer cannot employ a man for five days the man is to be penalised again in unemployment benefit when he has been penalised already by being forced to work short-time. I believe that behind the Minister's mind is the knowledge that in these days employers are very loath to dismiss their workers. In other words, there is, in effect, an agreement between employers and trade unions that, instead of dismissing out of hand 200 or 300 workers, the employer tries to spread the work over the whole of his staff. He does not do that because of any particular liking for the workers themselves. The background to it is that in days of full employment employers like to keep their team together. That is very laudable and I have nothing against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) mentioned industry in Coventry. A great many of these employees have had to be specially trained to take part in a team working on a production belt. Once that team is disrupted, the employer, when he gets back again to a period of full employment, has to start training "green" labour. Therefore, I think it is a correct approach that the trade unions and the employers should agree, that as far as possible short-time working should take supremacy over the dismissal of a number of employees. I believe that in the Minister's mind is the point that this is causing a certain drain on employment problems which he feels is not justified. Again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the alternative. If we are now to say that we will penalise employees wherever four days a week is worked, it will discourage workers from agreeing to remain in the team of a given factory when there is short time. Therefore, the flow of production will be disturbed permanently by that kind of reaction to the present suggestion of the Minister. I should have thought that on a calculation of the losses which are incurred by leaving the unemployment benefits as they are now, and contrasting that with the loss in production which will undoubtedly take place if the Minister's present proposals are maintained, it is very much in the interests of the nation that he should think again. Although I am supporting the Amendment, and I have my name to it, I feel it would be far better if the Minister would think out the problem again, and agree that, on balance, in the interests of the nation, it would be far better to leave the position as it now is. Let us look at the future. We all agree that we are living in a period which will see vast changes in the methods of industrial production. Automation is the word which most readily springs to mind, but in many industries which will not automate there will, nevertheless, be vast changes in the methods of production, and, inevitably, there will be changes in the working week. It may well be that we shall see a great extension of "round-the-clock" working. I should have thought that in such a fluid situation the first thing we must try to do is to give a basis of security to the people who are employed in order to get them to appreciate the need for the changes which, in modern times, are a necessity. Yet at the very moment when it is so necessary to give that feeling of security as a preliminary to asking people to accept such vital changes, we cut down in this stupid way, and put fear and insecurity into the minds of the very people whose decisions on these matters will affect us all so deeply. Rather than get into that position, and then merely label them as Luddites because they do not accept the need for change, I should have thought we would ourselves be culpable if we agreed to this legislation going on the Statute Book as a preliminary to asking people to change the way of life they have known in some cases for thirty or forty years. These are reasons of great importance. They affect the whole of the productive effort of this nation at a time when production is already stagnating. When we cannot see our way, because of present Government policies, to get an increase in production comparable with our competitors, we are putting insecurity into the minds of our workers. I should not think that there was anything discreditable in achieving an agreement between the employers and the unions that wherever work is short there should be four days for all instead of the sack for quite a number, which was the old pre-war sanction that we do not want to see again. I can assure the Minister that many working men will feel that this is a deliberately conceived attack upon them because they are unfortunate enough to work only four days a week.indicated dissent.
The hon. Member shakes his head. I am not saying whether it is so. I am saying that is the interpretation I would put upon it if I were working in industry only four days a week. Because I would do so, I know that millions of people in the same position as I was will also put that interpretation upon it.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to hesitate before forcing a position of this kind which will create a defensive mechanism in the minds of many people. The T.U.C. itself, weighing the balance of it, has asked the Minister not to do this. It would appear that we have almost reached the point that when the T.U.C. advises something it is always certain to mean that the Government go precisely the other way.No.
6.45 p.m.
Oh, yes. It is not good enough for the Government to expect cooperation from mechanised labour in these matters and from men of great responsibility. They are by no means wild cats, and it is not good enough for the Government to expect co-operation from them on a series of economic problems and then snap their fingers in the faces of these men when they suggest things which do not happen to suit a Tory Government. I hope that the Minister will think again before forcing us to take a defensive attitude towards this proposal.
I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). At the same time, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that I would rather see the law unchanged so far as Clause 4 is concerned. The Amendment was ably moved by my hon. Friend who gave convincing arguments in support of the plea which we put before the Standing Committee when this matter was discussed there.
Speaking now mainly about the five-day week people—because I believe that under the Bill it will be they who will be penalised and rendered an injustice—it does not mean that these people are not doing a full week's work. A five-day week has been brought about in this country mainly by the trade unions and by enlightened employers who realised the benefit of the long weekend to the health of the workers in industry and commerce. Today, in this country nearly 50 per cent. of the working population is on a five-day week. Various methods have been used to bring that about. Sometimes they work an hour longer early in the morning or later at night. Sometimes there is a shortened interval for meals. Therefore, it can be seen plainly that though people may be working a five-day week, the hours worked are equal to those of a six-day week or a five-and-a-half-day week worker in many instances. In Middlesex there are many on a five-day week, which I believe is almost universal in the engineering and kindred trades. This is also pronounced in a large number of productive and distributive units. When it covers a population of nearly half the country it will be seen that this is an important matter. It seems to me unfair that a five-day week worker should lose one day's benefit if he is unemployed one day of that week. This is clearly an injustice for a five-day week is often equal in hours to a six-day week. I have said that this practice is prevalent in the engineering industry. The Minister does not represent a Middlesex constituency but he represents one which is only just across the border in Surrey. There is a large number of engineering workers at Hawkers, so some of them work in his constituency and some of his constituents work in the Feltham constituency. Therefore, this matter affects many not only in my constituency, but the majority of those in Middlesex and in the London constituencies, and also in many other parts of the country. I have always considered the Minister to have a logical mind. I put this point to him. If a five-day week worker is not to get the same benefit when he loses a day as a six-day week worker, why should he pay the same National Insurance contribution? Surely, it is not logical that the five-day worker and the six-day worker should pay the same contribution unless both are to be covered for all the unemployment risks. I therefore ask the Minister, even at this late stage of the Bill, to give consideration to these points. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby rightly said that the National Insurance Advisory Council was divided on this point, and that there was a great difference of opinion on it. On insurance matters, I think all Ministers follow the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Council. Therefore, when it is a question of a big division of opinion, which must have the effect, as some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have said, that the five-day week worker would be penalised if the Bill went through unamended, I think that if the Minister cannot withdraw Clause 4 he should accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. Personally, I would like to see the law unchanged, and it is in the interests of my constituents, many of whom work a five-day week, that I make my plea that they should not be penalised by this Bill.Lest the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) should later reproach me with beginning unreasonably and ending reasonably, may I make it quite clear at the outset that neither of the two Amendments is acceptable. The hon. Member began by referring to the skilful drafting which he thought he and his hon. Friends had employed. In fact, I think they have been very clever, for they have endeavoured to negative the Clause by a procedure different from the straight vote which they employed in the Standing Committee. But they have not been quite as skilful as apparently the hon. Member himself feels, because, unless I misunderstood him, the effect of the Clause would be different from that which he outlined in the speech which he has just made.
The effect of the first Amendment would be to negative Clause 4 and leave the position as it now stands; that is to say, the five-day week worker could count Saturday as a day of unemployment if he was unemployed on one other day in that week, and so he would still get, as he does at present, two days benefit for the loss of one day's work. That is an abuse which Clause 4 is designed to remedy. It is an abuse which has grown up with the growth of the five-day working week, and we seek to remedy it because it is unfair to other workers and other contributors. This Saturday is not a normal working day for the men on a five-day week, and that represents about half the working population. This status of the man working the five-day week was confirmed, I think perhaps unconsciously, by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. A. E. Hunter) during the Committee stage of the Bill when, if I may quote him, he said:The hon. Gentleman has repeated himself today, and I propose to comment on that later on, but what I have just read from his speech in the Committee stage defines exactly what I believe the position to be with the five-day week worker—that Saturday is not a normal working day, but is part of the leisure time of the worker. The second Amendment is slightly more restrictive in its application, but it would have almost the same effect, except perhaps for some consequences which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may not have foreseen. The effect of the second Amendment would still be to allow the normal idle day to count for unemployment benefit where the same working day was lost in two consecutive weeks. It means that a five-day worker unemployed on two or more successive Fridays could be paid for the Saturday of the second week and each succeeding week when unemployed on the Friday. I now take up the hon. Gentleman on his own speech. He said, unless I misunderstood him, that the effect of his Amendment would be that the worker would be paid unemployment benefit for two Fridays when he lost them in succeeding weeks. In fact, the effect of the Amendment would be to pay the worker for three days—two Fridays and one Saturday. It would mean, again, that the five-day week worker would continue to draw benefit for Saturday, with the exception of the first one, which would again negative the purpose of Clause 4. It would also produce indefensible anomalies which the hon. Gentleman has not foreseen. The man who lost Friday in one week and also Monday in the next week would get no benefit for the Saturday in the second week. He would get two days, because of the two-in-six rule, whereas he would get Saturday if the day lost in the second week had been Friday, instead of the Monday which I took as an example. Alternatively, the man who lost four days in one single week would get no benefit for Saturday, whereas the man who lost the same day in two weeks running would receive benefit for Saturday, though, in fact, he would only lose half as much as the man who lost four days in a single week."The five-day week has been brought about in this country by enlightened employers, by trade unions and by public opinion, and it has been recognised that the weekend break is beneficial to the health of the workers, because it provides them with leisure, … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd April, 1957; c. 42.]
Is the hon. Lady now criticising the Amendment in its literal effect, or is she also criticising the most practicable alternative mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee? I made it quite clear that, whatever may be the pitfalls of the drafting, our intentions were those set out in paragraph 34 of the Report.
If I may answer the hon. Gentleman, this is not the same as the alternative considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in the paragraphs which the hon. Gentleman read out to us. I will try to come back to the point in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that this is a technical anomaly, meaning the present operation of unemployment benefit, which we intend to alter by Clause 4. Surely, his choice of the word "technical" is unfair to the other half of the working population, the men who are themselves still on the five-and-a-half or six-day week. I would have thought it was much less than fair to dismiss the payment of two days' benefit for what is really only one day's unemployment as a "technical anomaly." The hon. Member for Sowerby, and other hon. Members who have spoken, have referred again to the fact that the National Insurance Advisory Committee found itself almost equally divided on this subject. In fact, the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Minister in his judgment has reached a decision which the National Insurance Advisory Committee did not do. At the risk of repetition. I want to quote from the conclusions of the Report presented by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in which it said:One can understand that a committee set up as an advisory committee, finding itself almost equally divided, would naturally feel that it was not proper for it to make a recommendation unless there was a majority in favour of it, but, having tendered its advice and having put forward the interests which it had take into consideration, it was then a matter for the Government to make up their minds what action they proposed to take. The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) asked me a number of questions. She asked me whether this provision in Clause 4 will make it still more difficult for men on short time to claim unemployment benefit. The answer really is "No." They may not get the benefit as they have been doing up to now, being able to claim Saturday as a day of unemployment, but any other time when they are unemployed and they lose two or more days in a week they will be able to claim unemployment benefit. 7.0 p.m. The hon. Lady also asked me to confirm what I said during Second Reading about guaranteed week agreements. I do so gladly. In our Ministry we have no wish to take any action which would affect the operation, the introduction, or the expansion of guaranteed week agreements. That is a matter of industrial relations and certainly Clause 4 is not aimed in any way to get round any guaranteed week agreement at present in operation. The hon. Lady also said that the Engineering and Allied Employers' Federation had advised her that, under Clause 4, if an employee was laid off on Friday of one week and Monday of the next he would qualify for unemployment benefit. She asked me to confirm that. That is correct because, as I said during Second Reading, whether a man qualifies depends on the pattern of his unemployment, and if he lost Friday in one week and Monday in another, he would lose two days in six successive weekdays. It depends on the pattern of his unemployment and whether his employers are prepared to work in that way. Another question the hon. Lady asked was whether a man who has an agreement which guarantees work for four days a week would be affected by the Clause. That again would depend on the particular pattern of the working week which he normally followed. I hesitate to give an outright answer on that question, because these cases, as the hon. Lady knows, are decided by the independent statutory authority. But I hope that I have been helpful to the hon. Lady in replying to some of the things which concern her so much in her Coventry constituency. The hon. Member for Feltham concluded by saying that it was unfair that the five-day week worker should lose one day's benefit. He asked why a five-day week worker should not get the same benefit as a six-day week worker. That entirely makes the case which we have been putting from the Government benches. The intention behind Clause 4 is that the five-day week worker should be treated in exactly the same way as the five-and-a-half-day and six-day week workers, and not better, as is the case at present. I conclude with this comment, which I think will interest hon. Members. During Second Reading I was asked to what extent short-time was being worked. I gave some figures. I said that 155,000 men were on short-time at the beginning of the year and that that number had dropped to 100,000 by the middle of March. I have the latest figures available, and hon. Members will be happy to learn that by the end of March the figure had dropped to 82,000. Short-time working is declining, but although it has focussed attention on this Clause in the last few weeks, the anomaly still remains. Even though short-time working may entirely disappear, as we all hope it will, nevertheless there is an anomaly in our existing unemployment insurance scheme, and we hope that Clause 4 will remove it. For that reason, we are not able to accept either of the Amendments." We are agreed, however, that where an existing right to benefit is at issue, we should not recommend its removal save by a substantial majority of opinion."
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary made great play with the fact that the wording of our Amendments does not meet the case which we on this side of the House have in mind. That may be perfectly true. The Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary must know better than anyone how difficult it is to make Amendments to any National Insurance Bill. However, after the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) there can have been no doubt what we intended the Amendments to do. In answering the debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary paid no attention to the speech of my hon. Friend and to the case he made for what we wanted done.
In Committee, there was great play about the anomaly which the Government were trying to remove by Clause 4. There, the Minister had much to say. For instance:On the question of the advice from the National Insurance Advisory Committee, he said:" If he has evidence that there is a substantial anomaly in the sense in which I have defined it, he is bound to give consideration to putting it right."
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has again stressed that. On this side of the House we have no objection to the Minister feeling that he must make the decision. The National Insurance Advisory Committee is an advisory committee, but we feel that the decision which the Minister ought to have made should have been made not merely in the light of paragraph 36 of the Report, but in the light of every paragraph dealing with unemployment and the five-day worker. If he had considered everything that was said, he would have decided either to leave things alone and to keep the anomaly about which he has talked so much, or to introduce some Measure which would have given effect to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby was trying to do. The Minister decided against that. In Committee, we voted against Clause 4 and for the status quo. Today, our Amendments were an attempt to salvage something for the five-day worker. It is evident that the Minister has no intention, whether our wording is correct or incorrect, of doing anything about the matter. The Committee's Report is important and Ministers of National Insurance always pay great attention to whatever the National Insurance Advisory Committee says on this subject. In paragraph 35, the Committee said:" On the contrary, I suggest in the light of that Report that the duty then falls on the Minister of the day to consider what in all the circumstances it is right to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 2nd April, 1957; c. 33–4.]
There was no difference of opinion among the members of the Committee on that. That seemed to be a unanimous decision. Clause 4 is doing exactly what the Advisory Committee said would cause justifiable resentment." The argument is reinforced by pointing out that there would be considerable, and justifiable, resentment if five days a week workers, regularly on four days a week short-time, lost half the benefit they are now getting."
I am sure that the hon. Lady wants to be fair to the Advisory Committee. The whole of paragraph 35 puts the argument for one point of view. To get a balanced view of the views of the Advisory Committee, which was admittedly divided, the hon. Lady must refer to other paragraphs, not least to the very clear and cogent criticism of the present position in paragraph 30.
Certainly. I have read the Report very carefully. My contention is that the Advisory Committee must have given a great deal of thought and time to the topic of unemployment benefit for the five-day worker and apparently examined every alternative. It gave the pros and cons for this alternative. Our complaint, and our serious criticism of the Government is that, in spite of the fact that the Advisory Committee dealt with all the alternatives, the Minister has accepted none of them. He has just made a clean sweep, which seems to me completely against the advice contained in paragraphs 31 to 35.
I am not saying that because the Advisory Committee could not come to a decision the Minister should not come to a decision. The Minister must come to a decision. We would have preferred the status quo, but since we failed to get it during the Committee stage discussions, we prefer the alternative which we have tried to put before the House today, and which is to be found in paragraph 34. We may have the wrong wording in our Amendments, but I do not think that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary are in any doubt about our intention, particularly after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. This is an injustice to the five-day workers. If one examines the question of the five-day workers one comes to the conclusion contained in paragraph 31—I am sorry to have to go over this again, but it is of great importance. In that paragraph, it states:Of course, it is much more serious for the five-day worker. I cannot say how it applies to all of them, but in my constituency there are a number of workers who, though they work five days a week, work exactly the same number of hours as when they worked for six days a week. These are the people who will be seriously penalised by the provisions in this Bill. Now I come to the question of the Trades Union Congress. The men who" At the same time, it must be recognised that, where a person has lost earnings in respect of a day on which he normally works, the loss for each day is likely to be a more serious matter the fewer the number of days normally worked."
Division No. 101.]
| AYES
| [7.15 p.m.
|
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Carr, Robert | Gower, H. R. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.) | Graham, Sir Fergus |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Cole, Norman | Grant, W, (Woodside) |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Cooper, A. E. | Green, A. |
| Atkins, H. E. | Cooper-Key, E. M. | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) |
| Barber, Anthony | Corfieid, Capt. F. V. | Hall, John (Wyoombe) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Barter, John | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Crouch, R. F. | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Deedes, W. F. | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Doughty, C. J. A. | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James |
| Bidgood, J. C. | du Cann, E. D. L. | Hesketh, R. F. |
| Biggs-Davison, J. A. | Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Elliott, R. W. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount |
| Body, R. F. | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Hirst, Geoffrey |
| Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) | Fell, A. | Hobson, J. G. S,(War'ok & Leam'ton) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Finlay, Graeme | Hornby, R. P. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Fisher, Nigel | Horobin, Sir Ian |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) |
| Bryan, P. | Freeth, Denzil | Howard, John (Test) |
| Burden, F. F. A. | George, J. C. (Pollok) | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Glover, D. | Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) |
| Butler, Rt. Hn. R,A.(Saffron Walden) | Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan | Hyde, Montgomery |
| Campbell, Sir David | Goodhart, P. C. | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry |
compose that body are very responsible. They give serious thought to matters such as this. They represent all, or almost all, of the workers in this country. At one stage during the discussion on this Bill I was told that, of course, the six-day worker complains about the conditions of the five-day worker so far as unemployment benefit is concerned. But the T.U.C. speaks not only for the five-day worker, but for the five-and-a-half-day and six-day workers, and the T.U.C. is completely opposed to this provision in Clause 4.
We have just recovered from a spate of industrial trouble and measures such as this must cause industrial unrest among those who work for five days a week. If I felt that there was any justice in this, no matter how unpopular it might be, I should be willing to support it. But it is because we on this side of the House feel that there is no justice in this provision in Clause 4 that we oppose it so strongly. It appears to me that, for the sake of some sort of saving, or for some party political purpose, the Minister has turned his back on the Report of the Advisory Committee and on the opinion of the responsible men who compose the T.U.C. For those reasons and for others adduced by my hon. Friends, we intend to vote on this Amendment.
Question put, That "each" stand part of the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 130.
| Iremonger, T. L. | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Irvine. Bryant Godman (Rye) | Medlicott, Sir Frank | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | Storey, S. |
| Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) | Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Nairn, D. L. S. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) | Neave, Airey | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Joseph, Sir Keith | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th & Chr'ch) | Teeling, W. |
| Keegan, D. | Oakshott, H. D. | Temple, John M. |
| Kerby, Capt. H. B. | O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Kerr, H. W. | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Kershaw, J. A. | Osborne, C. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S. |
| Kimball, M. | Page, R. G. | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P. |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Lambton, Viscount | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) |
| Langford-Holt, J. A. | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Leavey, J. A. | Pitman, I. J. | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Leburn, W. G. | Pitt, Miss E. M. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Pott, H. P. | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) | Powell, J. Enoch | Wade, D. W. |
| Linstead, Sir H. N. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Raikes, Sir Victor | Wall, Major Patrick |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Rawlinson, Peter | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Renton, D. L. M. | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) | Ridsdale, J. E. | Whitelaw, W. S. I. |
| McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Rippon, A, G. F. | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Robertson, Sir David | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Roper, Sir Harold | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Maddan, Martin | Schofield, Lt.-Col, W. | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle) | Scott-Miller, Cmdr, R. | Woollam, John Victor |
| Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Sharpies, R. C. | |
| Mathew, R. | Shepherd, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Maude, Angus | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) | Colonel J. H. Harrison and |
| Mawby, R. L. | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Mr. Hughes-Young. |
NOES
| ||
| Ainsley, J. W. | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Parker, J. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Herbison, Miss M. | Paton, John |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Houghton, Douglas | Pearson, A. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Hubbard, T. F. | Pentland, N. |
| Balfour, A. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Popplewell, E. |
| Beswick, Frank | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Hunter, A. E. | Randall, H. E. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Rankin, John |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Rhodes, H. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Janner, B. | Ross, William |
| Brockway, A. F. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Short, E. W. |
| Burke, W. A. | Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Kenyon, C. | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Callaghan, L. J. | King, Dr. H. M. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Champion, A. J. | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook) | Sparks, J. A. |
| Chapman, W. D. | Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Steele, T. |
| Clunie, J. | Lindgren, G. S. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) | Lipton, Marcus | Stonehouse, John |
| Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) | Logan, D. G. | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | MacColl, J. E. | Sylvester, G. 0. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | MacDermot, Niall | Timmons, J. |
| Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Deer, G. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Usborne, H. C. |
| Delargy, H. J. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Viant, S. P. |
| Dye, S. | Mahon, Simon | Watkins, T. E. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Mellish, R. J. | Weitzman, D. |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Mitchison, G. R. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) | Moody, A. S. | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| Fernyhough, A. | Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mort, D. L. | Wigg, George |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Moss, R. | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Gibson, C. W. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) |
| Gooch, E. G. | Oswald, T. | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. | Owen, W. J. | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Grey, C. F. | Padley, W. E. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearme Valley) | Woof, R. E. |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Hamilton, W. W. | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | |
| Hannan, W. | Pargiter, G. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price | ||
Does the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) wish to move the next Amendment?
Yes, Sir.
I beg to move, in page 5, line 23 at the end to insert:" or unless in that week and in the week immediately preceding that week the same day (other
Division No. 102.]
| AYES
| [7.25 p.m.
|
| Ainsley, J. W. | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Parker, J. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Herbison, Miss M. | Paton, John |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Houghton, Douglas | Pearson, A. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Hubbard, T. F. | Pentland, N. |
| Balfour, A. | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Popplewell, E. |
| Beswick, Frank | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Hunter, A. E. | Randall, H. E. |
| Blackburn, F. | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Rankin, John |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Rhodes, H. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Janner, B. | Ross, William |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Jeger, George (Goole) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Brockway, A. F. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Short, E. W. |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Burke, W. A. | Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Kenyon, C. | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | King, Dr. H. M. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Sparks, J. A. |
| Champion, A. J. | Lever, Leslie (Ardwiok) | Steele, T. |
| Chapman, W. D. | Lindgren, G. S. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Clunie, J. | Lipton, Marcus | Stonehouse, J.T. |
| Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) | Logan, D. G. | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | MacColl, J. E. | Sylvester, G. 0. |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | MacDermot, Niall | Timmons, J. |
| Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Deer, G. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Usborne, H. C. |
| Delargy, H, J. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Viant, S. P. |
| Dye, S. | Mahon, Simon | Watkins, T. E. |
| Ede, Rt Hon. J. C. | Mellish, R. J. | Weitzman, D. |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Mitchison, G. R. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) | Moody, A. S. | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mort, D. L. | Wigg, George |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Moss, R. | Williams, David (Neath) |
| Gibson, C. W. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) |
| Gooch, E. G. | Oswald, T. | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. | Owen, W. J. | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Grey, C. F. | Padley, W. E. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) | Woof, R. E. |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Hamilton, W. W. | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | |
| Hannan, W, | Pargiter, G. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price. |
NOES
| ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Elliott, R. W. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Bryan, P. | Farey-Jones, F. W. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Burden, F. F. A. | Fell, A. |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Finlay, Graeme |
| Atkins, H. E. | Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Fisher, Nigel |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Campbell, Sir David | Fletcher-Cooke, C. |
| Barber, Anthony | Carr, Robert | Freeth, Denzil |
| Barlow, Sir John | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | George, J. C. (Pollok) |
| Barter, John | Cole, Norman | Glover, D. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Cooper, A. E. | Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Goodhart, P. C. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Gower, H. R. |
| Bidgood, J. C. | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Graham, Sir Fergus |
| Biggs-Davison, J, A. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E. | Grant, W. (Woodside) |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Crouch, R. F- | Green, A. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Deedes, W. F. | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) |
| Body, R. F. | Doughty, C. J. A. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) |
| Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) | du Cann, E. D. L. | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) | Harris, Reader (Heston) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) |
than Sunday) of each week is a day of interruption of employment "
I beg to second the Amendment.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 174.
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Sharpies, R. C. |
| Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Shepherd, William |
| Hesketh, R. F. | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Maddan, Martin | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Storey, S. |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Mathew, R. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Hobson, J. G. S.(War'ck& Leam'gtn) | Maude, Angus | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Hornby, R. P. | Mawby, R. L. | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Horobin, Sir Ian | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. | Teeling, W. |
| Howard, Hon. Grevitle (St. Ives) | Medlicott, Sir Frank | Temple, John M. |
| Howard, John (Test) | Milligan, Rt. Hon.W. R. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. | Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E' b' gh, W.) | Nairn, D. L. S. | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.) |
| Hyde, Montgomery | Neave, Airey | Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. P. |
| Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'oh) | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Oakshott, H. D. | Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) | Osborne, C. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Page, R. G. | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) | Wade, D. W. |
| Joseph, Sir Keith | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Keegan, D. | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. | Wall, Major Patrick |
| Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Pitman, I. J. | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Kerr, H. W. | Pitt, Miss E. M. | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Kershaw, J. A. | Pott, H. P. | Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border) |
| Kimball, M. | Powell, J. Enoch | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Langford-Holt, J. A. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Leavey, J. A. | Raikes Sir Victor | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Leburn, W. G. | Rawlinson Peter | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Ronton, D. L. M. | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Ridsdale, J. E. | Woollam, John Victor |
| Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) | Rippon, A. G. F. | |
| Linstead, Sir H. N. | Robertson, Sir David | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Roper, Sir Harold | Colonel J. H. Harrison and |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Mr. Hughes Young. |
| Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. |
Clause 9.—(REGULATIONS— MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL.)
I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, after "of". to insert:
This is a technical Amendment to facilitate the bringing into operation of the provisions of Clause 9. The provision enables an annulled marriage to be treated in the same way as a marriage ending in divorce, and so to qualify a woman for child's allowance where the husband was making a contribution before his death. We shall be submitting to the National Insurance Advisory Committee within the next month or two draft regulations to enable the divorced woman to count her ex-husband's contribution during the marriage as credits and so to improve her record for retirement pension purposes. This improvement, though small in itself as it affects only a limited number of women, will be welcomed, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), Winchester (Mr. Smithers), and Bedford (Mr. Soames), who have recently written to me on cases in their own constituencies. I am sure that all hon. Members will be glad to learn of the acceptance by my right hon. Friend of this recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which is made in its Report on Contribution Conditions and Credits Provisions. Regulations to give effect to it will be made under Section 59 of the Act, and will be subject to affirmative Resolution of the House. We desire to give the same benefit to the woman whose marriage has been annulled, but that would also involve the affirmative Resolution procedure and would not be possible until the Bill is in operation. To avoid delay which might mean that no action was possible this Session, we have put forward the Amendment to permit regulations under Clause 9 to modify the provisions of regulations as well as of Acts of Parliament. We shall thus be able to help the woman whose marriage is nullified in the same way, and at the same time, as the woman whose marriage ended in divorce. For those reasons, I hope that the House will find the Amendment acceptable." or of any regulations under ".
We welcome the Amendment, because it gives help to a greater number of people.
Amendment agreed to.
7.36 p.m.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, a few weeks ago, I indicated that it seemed essentially suitable for examination in Committee and to be one on which it was almost impossible to make a clear and agreeable speech on the Second Reading. Whatever other proposition I have failed to establish in the course of the discussions on the Bill, I think that I have clearly established that one. The same applies in increased degree to the Third Reading. The Bill is essentially a collection of Measures on which a great deal of thought and care has been expended by my Department, by the National Insurance Advisory Committee and by hon. Members in all quarters of the House. We have sought to bring the results of all those efforts together in a Bill which, as I indicated on the Second Reading, is designed to remove difficulties and correct anomalies and unfairnesses which our experience of the working of the National Insurance system has brought to light. We had a good discussion in Committee, and to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Standing Committee and of the House on Report I would express my thanks for the quick but thorough examination which they gave to the inevitably complex provisions of the Bill. I should ill requite that courtesy and helpfulness if I were at this stage to make a speech which could not be other than a recooking and reheating of the subject matter of our earlier discussions. I have indicated that the Bill contains a number of measures which are adjustments and minor improvements in the National Insurance Scheme. It includes three matters of somewhat greater importance. It initiates that hopeful and helpful process which will have to go forward under the ugly name of "deretirement" and of which the House will follow the development with interest. It may well help to mitigate some of the difficulties which have arisen, particularly in connection with the operation of the earnings limit. It makes improvement in the dependency test in respect of dependent wives. It also makes a not unimportant change in the law with respect to unemployment benefit in the context of the matter which the House has recently been discussing. There are other matters of importance, such as the new special children's allowance to help children of parents who have been divorced, when the father subsequently dies. The House has given full and careful examination to the Bill and is well acquainted with these details. It certainly is our intention, as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary indicated at an earlier stage, to make the necessary regulations under the Bill as speedily as possible and to exercise the power to appoint days of operation, with a strong bias in favour of bringing the provisions into effect as speedily as possible. In some cases, regulations made under the Bill will have to go to the Advisory Committee. That will inevitably take a little time, but I assure the House that the same spirit that the House has shown in its desire to get the Bill with reasonable expedition on to the Statute Book will be shown by my Department in ensuring that the provisions of the Bill shall come into effective operation as speedily as possible.7.42 p.m.
I am sure that we on these benches are grateful for the Minister's appreciation of what we were able to do in examining the Bill in Standing Committee and to conclude those proceedings without unnecessary delay. Today, we have re-examined the controversial Clause in the Bill, but, nevertheless, we are not delaying its passage through the House. We were glad to hear the Minister's assurance of the speed with which his Department hopes to implement the various provisions which will require the drafting of Regulations.
Seven out of the eight legislative Clauses implement the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I hope it is not now a commonplace to acknowledge the value of its work. It undoubtedly simplifies the work of the House and, I am sure, of the Department in these most complex matters. It not only simplifies our work, but enables different points of view to be brought to bear on flaws and possible remedies for them, which it is its duty to consider. That is a most valuable institution for which I am sure the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who first incorporated it in the National Insurance Act. We are particularly pleased to be able to improve benefits for certain categories of children who are placed in conditions of difficulty, or even of hardship, because of the unusual nature of their plight in life. For instance, the child's special allowance in Clause 5, as the right hon. Gentleman said, deals with the absence of any provision for the payment of child allowance to divorced mothers whose ex-husbands have died and who were contributing to their upkeep before their death. We were astonished to find that there were difficulties in granting guardian's allowance to a child one of whose parents was dead and the other could not be traced. We have now relaxed the exacting condition of "cannot be traced." That is a good thing and will let some children into benefit who previously would be kept out. Another surprising thing to find was that guardian's allowance was denied where one parent was dead and the step-parent still alive. The step-parent, apparently, could legally disclaim all responsibility for the child and accept no responsibility for its maintenance, but the mere fact of that person being there denied someone who was caring for the child getting guardian's benefit. These unusual types of case obviously could not be provided for in the principal Act and probably not in subsequent legislation until the real nature of these difficulties became known. We shall all watch with interest how Clause 1 turns out. Speaking for my self, I shall be very glad to discover how many retired husbands are tied to their wives' apron strings and will be forbidden to re-enter regular employment because their wives say, "If you do I shall lose my wife's pension and I am not having that happen." I should certainly hope to be present at the first appeal to the statutory authority when a husband goes there complaining that his wife's consent was being unreasonably withheld. That brave man should go down in history. I hope it will be possible to know when he is proclaiming his courage as a husband and is going to a statutory body to ask it to decide that his wife's consent is being unreasonably withheld. Also under Clause I there are husbands who are tied to their wives, but certainly not by apron strings. They are tied by the legal point only of whether wives separated from their husbands may withhold their consent—from a distance, as it were—from motives I do not wish to discuss. They may be many and varied: some worthy and some not worthy. Experience will show how that turns out. We on these benches wish that we could be speeding to another place a Bill containing widespread and substantial advances of National Insurance benefits generally, but, since the rules of order prevent us from turning the Third Reading of a Bill into a wailing wall where the lamentations of distressed suppliants can be heard loud and long, I regret that today we are not dealing with improvements for old-age pensioners.Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Represenation Of Thepeople, Scotland
7.47 p.m.
I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th April, be approved. It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I briefly explain the effect of these Regulations. They are consequent on alterations made by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, and due to come into effect on 16th May next. There are two such alterations involved. The first relates to registration areas. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 6 (3), in Scotland the assessor of any county or large burgh carries out the functions of the registration officer for any constituency or part of a constituency situated within that county or large burgh. At present, every county or large burgh has its own assessor and "registration area" is accordingly defined in the Representation of the People Regulations, 1950, as a county or large burgh. Section 1 of the 1956 Act, however, provides that from 16th May, valuation areas are to be counties of cities and counties, including all the burghs within them other than cities. Regulation 4 of the new Regulations accordingly alters the definition of "registration area" toThe second alteration is in regard to local government franchise. Under Section 2 (1) of the 1949 Act the right to vote at a local government election in any electoral area is conferred upon persons who are resident in the area or have a non-resident qualification therein and are in either case qualified in the other respects specified in that subsection. In Scotland, a person has a non-resident qualification in an electoral area at present" a county or county of a city."
That is a quotation from Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1949. On the abolition of owners' rates, however, it seemed appropriate that owners should have a non-resident qualification only in respect of premises which they occupy, as, in fact, I understand is already the position in England and Wales. Section 35 of the 1956 Act accordingly amended Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1949 so as to restrict the non-resident qualification to persons occupying as owner or tenant any lands and heritages. Accordingly, Regulations Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the present Regulations make consequential changes in certain forms used in connection with the registration of electors, and these are detailed in the Regulations. These Regulations have no purpose other than those which I have mentioned." if he is the owner, or occupier as tenant, of any lands and heritages within the area which are of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds and in respect of which rates are payable."
7.50 p.m.
We do not propose to vote against these changes, because they are the result of legislation passed by the House. I should, however, like to comment on the Explanatory Note. The purpose of an Explanatory Note is to explain what the Regulations are all about. The very fact that the Minister had to take such a long time to explain what they were all about shows that the four or five lines of the Explanatory Note are inadequate and are, in fact, explanation by reference.
I think that, originally, I had something to do with these Explanatory Notes being placed at the end of Regulations in order to make clear to the ordinary layman what these very technical changes were about, and I ask the Minister to call the attention of his office staff to the purpose of these Explanatory Notes. They are not intended to be merely a repetition of the legal jargon of the original Regulations but must explain to the ordinary person what the Regulations are all about. As the Minister says, these Regulations bring the registration area into line with the Act. Their other effect, which is incidental, carries my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and myself back to the days of the Speaker's Conferences. In those days, not only did the owner of property have a vote and an additional vote for his property, but his wife had a vote, too. He had a vote as a resident and a vote as an owner and his wife had a vote because he owned the property. The Speaker's Conference abolished the spouse's vote, but the owners' s vote remained, although the Representation of the People Act restricted his right to vote to only one capacity. He could choose in which capacity he would vote. Looking at these Regulations, it has struck me that one of the complaints made in Scotland about the low polls of our municipal and local government elections may not be fully valid. The fact that a person may be registered in three capacities and can vote only once means that, in certain cases, only 30 per cent. of the registrations can be registered as voting. Our poll may therefore be a much greater proportion of the people who are entitled to vote than is apparent in the results of municipal elections. Nevertheless, we hope that this registration will be carried through effectively and we also hope that those who are entitled to vote will, in fact, cast their votes at the elections which are to take place. We now have practically a manhood suffrage. This right to vote is a very important right and a very important duty for a community in the management of its affairs. We therefore welcome the change in as much as it is approaching the time when people have votes because they are individuals and citizens in the community and is taking a further step towards removing the right of people to vote merely because they own property. It is true that the vote will now depend on whether people pay rates. Whether they should still be able to choose where they shall vote, whether in respect of their business or in respect of their residence, is a matter which might be debated, but, in any case, this is a step forward in eliminating duplicate rights to vote and to that extent it is a further step forward in the progress of democracy in our country. To that extent, therefore, we welcome it.Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th April. be approved.
NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (REPORTS AND ACCOUNTS)
Mr. Robens discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. David Jones added. —[ >Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
Dr Adams (Trial)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
7.57 p.m.
On 15th April, I put a Question to the Attorney-General asking him
The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite curtly answered, "No". I make no complaint about the nature of the reply, although, of course, it was not as courteous to the Chair as it might have been. That is not primarily my business. I put a supplementary question to the Attorney-General asking him whether he was"… whether he will institute an independent inquiry into the preparation, organisation, and conduct of the prosecution's case against Dr. Adams, who was recently acquitted at the Old Bailey on a charge of murder, excepting the proceedings in court."
This evoked from hon. Members opposite cries of "Shame". Later, after an hon. Friend of mine had put further supplementary questions, the Attorney-General said:" quite unaware that throughout the length and breadth of the British Isles, the recent case of Dr. Adams has evoked discussion in terms which bring discredit upon the law and upon his office."
If one puts together the cries of "Shame" and the suggestion that rumours have been maliciously circulated, the democratic process has reached an extraordinary state, for if any hon. Member in any part of the House thinks it right to question the Executive surely he has a right to do so. Indeed, it is his duty to do so. It is certainly not a shameful procedure to suggest that in proceedings which have been concluded in the courts British justice and the office of the Attorney-General, to use my own words, have been discredited. It is certainly not shameful to suggest that proceedings have been conducted in such a way as to bring discredit upon the law and— I repeat the point—upon the Attorney-General's office. There is nothing shameful about holding that view. I should have thought that any hon. Member in any part of the House must admit, both from what he reads and what he hears—and hears, not least of all, in the corridors and smoking rooms of this House—that things have been said which are the reverse of bringing credit upon the institution of British justice. I entirely repudiate, therefore, any suggestion that my questions were either shameful or prompted by any idea of a personal attack upon the Attorney-General. Let me hasten to add that if I wanted to make a personal attack upon the Attorney-General I should do so, and would not think that there was anything shameful about it, provided I said it face to face. But I did not. I am not concerned with the Attorney-General nor, may I add, am I concerned with Dr. Adams. If there was anything about which I was concerned, let me say quite frankly that it was the memory of Mr. Timothy Evans, who died on the scaffold after being convicted of a murder which he did not commit. During the course of those investigations I played the role of staff assistant or, perhaps, labourer, to Mr. Geoffrey Bing, and I did enough work on that case to convince me that Mr. Timothy Evans, a poor man, a not highly-intelligent man, was innocent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite smile, but I do not mind that. Mr. Timothy Evans died because at some stage in the proceedings, someone, either in a Government office or elsewhere, reached the conclusion that Timothy Evans was guilty and then, regardless of what happened, set out to prove it. I have never forgotten that experience, and it was that memory that made me investigate what has happened in this case. I repeat, I am not concerned with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General—" I am glad to have an opportunity of repudiating some rumours which have been maliciously circulated."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 15th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 1525.]
Like my hon. Friend I am quite convinced—as I think that every dispassionate-minded person is—that Timothy Evans was, in fact, innocent; but I must say that I examined that case with every care, and read every line of it, and that I cannot myself find anything whatever to criticise in the conduct of the prosecution in that case.
I am not criticising the prosecution. I do not mind being interrupted, but I trust that the interruptions will be a little relevant. All that I was saying was that if there was any driving force that led me to look at the case of Dr. Adams with care it was the memory of what had transpired in a previous case. where I played a quite humble part in carrying out investigations that satisfied me, at any rate, beyond a shadow of doubt, that an innocent man had died.
In my judgment, that innocent man would not have died had he commanded great sums of money, or had there been a great profession behind him. That is my opinion. The facts which I managed to establish, had they been established at the time, would have created sufficient doubt for the courts to have taken a different course, and the case might not have had to be reopened years afterwards. I do not want to reopen the case of Timothy Evans but, as I say, that is the thought at the back of my mind, and I do not think that there is anything shameful about it. After my Question, in a desire to be fair, I wrote to the Attorney-General, and I put to him certain facts. He was kind enough to reply. I will not deal with his letter at length, but I want, first, to deal with just one point in connection with it that arises from what I have already said. I asked him whether, if I was wrong on certain facts, I could look at the transcript of the legal proceedings in the magistrates' court. The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied that he could not let me look at the transcript, but suggested that I should apply to the defence. With respect, I suggest that that was a quite improper suggestion to make. I am communicating with a Minister of the Crown, and questioning him here, because he is a member of the Executive. I am exercising the right of any hon. Member in any part of the House. To suggest, therefore, that I should go to Dr. Adams indicates, to me, a lack of subtlety, an insensitivity—almost, I might say, a stupidity—to which I must draw attention. It is not my purpose to pursue the controversy which, the Attorney-General says, has been directed against him in the Press. Hon. Members can inform themselves. They can read the account in the Spectator or, if they wish, they may go to the defence. They may be more fortunate with the defence than I was with the Attorney-General. I want to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if I was wrong in holding the view I did hold, I was wrong in very good company. The Attorney-General can brush me off, and so can the claque that supports him, but I want him to look at the transcript of a broadcast interview with Sir Norman Birkett which took place on Independent Television on 12th April, in a programme called "This Week". Sir Norman Birkett was questioned by a Mr. Kenneth Harris. The Attorney-General has said that I was quite mistaken. I do not know whether he means that I was maliciously mistaken, but he certainly said that I was mistaken in suggesting that the Crown had opposed the application of the defence that the Eastbourne proceedings should be held in camera. Let us look at what transpired, and learn what Sir Norman Birkett, who was a Lord Justice of Appeal, has to say about it—and as we have plenty of time, no harm is done if I read the actual questions and replies. The interlocutor, as I say, was Mr. Kenneth Harris who, in page 2 of the transcript, asked:SIR N. BIRKETT: Most certainly. You see. it has always been so—at least since 1948, the Indictable Offences Act, Section 19, and Mr. Justice Devlin was careful to point out that an Act of 1952 made it perfectly plain, if there ever had been any doubt, that justices, if they wish, can say 'These proceedings shall he in private.'"Now, is it the case that magistrates, if they like, can see to it that the original proceedings are held in privacy?
Did anybody ask these magistrates to hold these proceedings …?
They did. The counsel for defence made a special plea to these justices that the case should be heard before the magistrates in private.
And they refused?
They refused.
Did you approve of that refusal?
No. Of course, it was a matter entirely for the discretion of the justices, but I presume that they felt that because their attention was drawn to it in fact, that the publicity attendant upon a criminal trial is a very important thing, and they thought they (oughtn't) to depart from it. That is what I think.
Now, you have been chairman of the Bucks. Quarter Sessions for many years, haven't you?
Yes, I have, indeed.
What about the role of the prosecution in a case like this? If the prosecution had taken a certain attitude, might that have had some effect on the magistrates' decision?
Well, of course, one can only speculate, but I think for my part that if the defence had made the application, and it had been strongly supported by the prosecution, then I think the justices would probably have said, Well, let it be in private.'
Well, now, since the prosecution must share your feelings about this whole problem, why didn't they support the defence in this case?
Well, I think they left it to the discretion of the justices, pointing out that it was for the justices to decide, but publicity was an important matter, and, therefore, the justices felt, Well, we had perhaps better not depart from the old standards.'
Well, I gather there will be some Questions asked about the attitude of the prosecution in the House of Commons."
Of course, Mr. Kenneth Harris was quite right. I turn now to the letter that the Attorney-General sent to me. Again, I do not want to dwell overmuch on the point which is now in issue between, not only myself, but the Spectator and the Daily Express and other organs of the Press, and the Attorney-General. As far as I am concerned, I retire in favour of Sir Norman Birkett, who held the view which, as I say, is widely held, both inside this House and outside, that the defence asked for the proceedings to be held in private and that the Crown opposed that request. That is my first point. If Sir Norman Birkett heard that and repeated it on television to an audience of millions, and if the Attorney-General is right and the prosecution did not do this, the matter ought to be cleared up in the interests not only of the Attorney-General but, above all, of British justice. I would have thought that it was axiomatic that a prisoner on a charge is innocent until he is found guilty and that it is the job of the Attorney-General not to secure a conviction, but to ensure that justice is done. Mr. Justice Devlin, in his summing up, with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice, said that it would have been wiser if the proceedings in the magistrates court had been held in private. They were not. I want to be scrupulously fair and I have given the Attorney-General notice of what I have to say. In his letter to me, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:That may be so, but I repeat that people other than myself do not believe it. I come to another point made by the Attorney-General in his letter to me. In the quotation which he was kind enough to send me from the Eastbourne proceedings, Mr. Melford Stevenson said:" It is clear beyond doubt that Mr. Melford Stevenson did not oppose the application that the evidence in relation to the charge should be heard in camera."
There we get to the crux of the matter. To secure a committal, the Crown had to get evidence submitted on what are called systems. I must repeat that statement by Mr. Melford Stevenson:"I do not for one moment concede that the admissibility of this evidence can be the subject of serious debate."
I ask the Attorney-General specifically whether Mr. Melford Stevenson was instructed to use those words. Demonstrably, they are untrue. There are plenty of lawyers in this House and perhaps they will give their opinion whether that statement is true and whether it is clear beyond doubt that there could be no serious debate as to the admissibility of the evidence. If there is any doubt on the point, let us turn to the proceedings at the Old Bailey, where this evidence about which there was no serious doubt was not even produced by the Crown. So there had been a change of heart on this evidence, which Mr. Lawrence had been trying to oppose being given in public, on which he cast doubts concerning its admissibility and on which the Crown was saying that there was no serious doubt. When the case got to the Old Bailey that evidence had been completely dropped. Again, I say that these are matters which should be looked into, but in this connection I want to make another point. It is my information that before the trial opened at the Old Bailey, there was a conference between the Crown, the defence and the police concerning the question of the Hullett case. The news of this conference must have been known only to the three parties taking part. It is my information, however, that every newspaper office in London without exception was informed privately of what had happened at that conference. If the Attorney-General does not know the answer to this one, will he make inquiries to see how it came about? I am concerned not with Dr. Adams but with any person or subject of Her Majesty who might himself or herself in the position in which Dr. Adams found himself, particularly if such a person lacked the resources which, happily, Dr. Adams had at his disposal. It has been a bit of a job, but I have looked through most of the national newspapers in and around the period from 22nd August until the end of that month. I will not mention particular newspapers, because certain proceedings are pending and others, I gather, may be taken in respect of some of these articles. I invite hon. Members who are interested to look at the articles which appeared day after day from 22nd to 31st August and see the reports which then appeared and to ask themselves whether, once those reports had appeared, it was possible for a jury to be assembled which could have an open mind on the subject. That happened in newspaper after newspaper. Some newspapers are worse than others. I am not mentioning them by name, but some of the headlines are a scandal. They are a disgrace to the British Press. I am not making political points. I am not concerned with the Press—it can be dealt with by the Press Council. What I am concerned with is how the Press got that information. Clearly, it is of such a detailed character that it could have come only from official sources. I suggest that it could have come only from those who were actively engaged in the preparation of the case. There were stories that 400 people had been poisoned and that a mass murderer was at work. Some of the information was printed in such a form and Dr. Adams' name was put in juxtaposition with the headlines as to make it quite clear what was being said. I put to the Attorney-General, and, through him, to the Home Secretary, the earnest plea that there should be a detailed inquiry, conducted not by the Home Office or by police officers, however senior, but by a judge of the High Court, to see how it comes about that over that period this detailed information was leaked in this way."I do not for one moment concede that the admissibility of this evidence can be the subject of serious debate."
Is not the logical conclusion of the hon. Member's argument that he disagrees with the existing law and is saying that in all cases which are likely to arouse publicity, or in serious murder cases, we should go further than the existing law and say that they should always be heard in camera and that no evidence should be heard in public?
I do not know how long the hon. Member has been in the House, but he will have been here long enough to understand some of the simple rules of order. Either he is trying to trap me, or he should keep his mouth shut. On the Adjournment—
On a point of order. Is not the intervention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) a deliberate attempt to involve my hon. Friend in a breach of order, since it is out of order on the Adjournment to raise matters involving legislation?
It is quite out of order, on the Motion for the Adjournment, to suggest legislation.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your protection. I am prepared to be charitable and to assume that the hon. Gentleman, like so many of his colleagues, does not understand the rules of order. His time this evening will not have been wasted if he has learned this one of them. The lesson may be useful to him when he himself raises a matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.
I was saying that the national newspapers over this period had published detailed information about this case which they could have obtained only from official quarters, and I ask the Attorney-General, and, through him, the Home Secretary, to consider setting up an inquiry, conducted in secrecy if necessary, but by a judge of the High Court, having, like a Select Committee, power to send for persons and papers and to hear evidence in camera, to decide just how this happened. Quite clearly, there is something more involved here than merely titbits of information being given to newspapers to prevent an interesting news story. Here was a systematic, planned campaign over this period of ten days to build up a picture of a monster at large who had murdered people not by the score, but by the hundred; and done in such a way as to fasten it on to one individual. If my general case is not good enough I ask the Attorney-General to have a look at the News of the World of 26th August. On 26th August there was a story again giving detailed information about what was going on on the South Coast, and containing a picture of a graveyard, a picture, so the caption says showing Superintendent Hannam and Detective Inspector Pugh as theySomebody must have told the cameraman that Superintendent Hannam and Detective Inspector Pugh were to be among the graves at that time. I would ask specifically, how came it that this appointment was made in this way, in such a way as to prejudice the accused's opportunity of a fair trial? Let us go on from this original campaign to build up the story of hundreds of murders. Let us go on to the day on which Dr. Adams was arrested, 19th December. I have examined in detail all the national newspapers of the next day, 20th December. The Daily Express carried a story on its front page, and so did the Daily Herald, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Sketch, the Daily Telegraph and the News Chronicle. All the stories there are stories which are given by their special correspondents, and all the newspapers publish large photographs of the arrest of Dr. Adams. As far as I can discover, none of the photographs is the same as another. They obviously did not come from a news agency. So somebody must have told each of those newspapers that Dr. Adams was to be arrested at a certain time, because it is beyond the realms of probability that all the newspapers, quite accidentally, should have had their star crime reporters and photographers outside of Dr. Adams's surgery. Here, again, is more evidence of inside information being supplied from official sources to the Press. Again, two days later, in the newspapers of 22nd December, all the national newspapers carried their own independent stories and pictures of the exhumations in a cemetery near Eastbourne. Again, it is beyond the realms of probability that this was coincidence. Again, there must have been a supply of information by the police. It is perfectly clear that when all this was going on the papers, each of which, after all, employs its own legal department, knew perfectly well the risks they were running in infringing the law of contempt and the law of libel. Why did they take this risk? I suggest that the answer is quite simple. They took the risk because they were being fed by the police authorities with information which encouraged them to believe they were on to the biggest thing in crime history. Over a period there was a steady dribble of information to selected newspapermen, and then on the occasions when the story started to hit the front pages, 22nd August to 31st August, and again at the time of the arrest and of the exhumations, there was a mass and planned attempt to supply information, which, in my judgment— although this is a matter for inquiry— was done in such a way as to be known to be prejudicial to the accused when he was brought for trial. Again, from information I have been able to gather, things got so hot at one stage that the police themselves became a little worried, and an order was given from Scotland Yard that a shorthand writer should be present when the police interviewed the Press at Eastbourne. I should like to know from the Attorney-General whether he had any knowledge of this instruction, whether it was given under his authority, or whether it was given under the authority of the police themselves. In the course of giving an answer to a supplementary question arising from my Question on 15th April, the Attorney-General said that he was glad of the opportunity of denying the story that there was any disagreement between himself and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Needless to say, once the Attorney-General gives that assurance one accepts without reservation what he says, but one must confess, not only myself but others who have taken an interest in these matters, that one was a little flabbergasted. I wonder whether I may put the question in another way. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions is a civil servant, and once a decision has been taken by the political head of his Department it would be quite wrong for him to insist in his objections. I presume that were it not in keeping with his conscience he would feel compelled to resign. Now, I ask the Attorney-General whether he would be good enough to say whether the proceedings against Dr. Adams were launched on the positive advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions; that is to say, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions was entirely satisfied that there was a case against Dr. Adams; or whether there were doubts, and that only later those doubts resolved themselves, after action had been decided upon? The Attorney-General was glad of the opportunity of quashing the rumours which had spread on these particular points, but surely he is aware that similar rumours have circulated about the opposition of Scotland Yard. Stories are told, and are certainly current in Fleet Street and amongst the crime reporters of the national newspapers, that Scotland Yard was by no means unanimous in thinking that this case should have gone on. But these are small matters compared, first, with the actual handling of the case prior to Dr. Adams's arrest. I regard it as a matter of major importance that a case can be built up against a man in such a form as to prejudice his chances of acquittal even before a charge has been formulated. We are still some way from lynch law, but the publications in the national Press in the month of August had got perilously near to trial by newspapers. If the Attorney-General again thinks that I am exaggerating—and I am sure that some of the learned hon. Gentlemen on the benches behind him hold the view that this is all much ado about nothing —he and they should acquaint themselves with some of the articles which are appearing in the French Press at present. The French are rubbing their hands with glee. They are saying, "Here are the British who, for centuries, have been holding the view that their form of justice is superior to ours. Now what about it?" The Attorney-General, as custodian of the prestige of British law, has a great interest in putting these matters right. The way to put these matters right is not in the course of debate in the House of Commons. These are matters which ought to be inquired into. When any Government are in difficulty they never find it very hard to set up an inquiry if it suits them. I am not asking for a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, or anything of that kind. I am saying that the behaviour of the police, specifically, up to the time of Adam's arrest and the actual preparation of the case from that time onwards warrant the most detailed and careful inquiry. It should not be an inquiry by the Executive, not by high officials of Scotland Yard. not by somebody appointed by the Home Office. I am sure that nothing less than an inquiry held by a judge of the High Court will quieten public opinion and restore that confidence in the fair name of British justice which is one of the reasons why I have troubled the House tonight."Survey the graves in Ocklyne cemetery."
8.33 p.m.
The last time that I heard the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) speaking in an Adjournment debate it was in a debate begun by me and I think that he spoke for one hour and fifty minutes. I can assure the hon. Member that I do not intend to do what he did on that occasion. Listening to him I feel sometimes that if he were to have a further life à la Walter Mitty he would be in the rôle of Sir Edward Marshall Hall or one of the great lawyers of our time.
The hon. Member has spoken in this House on many occasions about the law and the practice of barristers. I have said on a previous occasion, and I say again, that the hon. Member spent a great deal of time in the Army and little, I imagine, in the law, whereas some of us have spent at least some time in the Army and a little more in the law. There seemed some confusion of thought in the matters which the hon. Member was raising tonight, in what I suppose must be a good fat subject for an Adjournment debate. The hon. Member has before called himself a radical and has referred to the only other radical in the House as being the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
No; I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) once call the Attorney-General a radical.
We are surrounded by radicals. As we have radicals to the front of us, behind us and a little to the left of us, perhaps the particular radical, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, can recollect—if he should intervene in this debate—expressing the opinion that there were certain charges which he felt were better dealt with by magistrates and not by juries; that, for instance, the offence of being drunk in charge was better dealt with by magistrates because they were certainly persons on whom one could rely to convict, whereas a decent, responsible British jury would at once acquit. So if he has anything to contribute, I wonder if it will be in the role of vile prosecutor, as on that occasion.
But who has the hon. Member for Dudley put in the box here in the great indictment which he has raised in this Adjournment debate? Who is, in fact, the prisoner? The prisoner is nobody but the Press, dealing apparently with the various matters that had arisen in the preliminary stages of this trial.On information supplied.
I am coming to that, if the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) will wait a little.
I have a certain sympathy with what the hon. Member for Dudley said about the circumstances of what happened then, but what this has to do with the conduct of the prosecution—as I understood from the great indignation with which the hon. Gentleman opened this debate—I fail to appreciate. I understand that writs of libel have already been issued. Obviously, there were wicked and gross exaggerations by some reporters who, I imagine, are looking a little silly at the moment when they are being summoned into their editors' or their proprietors' offices. There have been these gross exaggerations, and I stand second to none in being firmly against trial by rumour or trial by Press. And I stand second to none in believing that there should, in fact, be such discretion used by magistrates and by prosecuting counsel in preliminary proceedings as to ensure that there is not trial by the Press. What did happen in this case? Apparently, all these wicked things done by reporters were published all over the place. How did it end? By an acquittal, a triumph for British justice, it could be said. It is the duty of a prosecutor to prosecute. There is the duty, if a man is a criminal, of seeing that he is brought to justice, that he is prosecuted fairly and squarely, and that he is convicted and sentenced. Justice is not enough. Though many of us are engaged in seeking it a great deal, because that is our particular profession, justice lies not only in seeing that there is obtained a verdict of "not guilty." On countless occasions justice is served by the finding of a verdict of guilty. In these particular circumstances and on this particular occasion there was a verdict of "not guilty", despite all the terrible things which, the hon. Gentleman has said, happened. What happened in the preliminary investigation and if, in fact, matters were conveyed improperly by anybody to the Press, is surely a matter which should be investigated—which can surely be properly investigated—By whom?
If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I will tell him.
It is a matter which can surely be properly investigated, not necessarily by a judge of the High Court, but by that Department and by those persons who do not wish to see, and would never wish to see—unless the hon. Gentleman thinks they are all a collection of rogues—this kind of conduct happening, information slipping out, and being handed out to the Press in the dark corners of bars in Fleet Street after conferences, as has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman. If that has happened, then let that be investigated, and let it be prosecuted, if that should come to light. But what happens when the police make a report? I understand—and many others here know from practical experience better than I do—that when the police make a report they lay that report before the responsible person—the Director of Public Prosecutions—and say, "This is the information that we have. Are we to prosecute or are we not?" Ultimately, the responsibility may lie with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, based upon the information which he is given, and, based upon that information, the prosecution is conducted, and conducted usually, as I think it was in this case, with perfect fairness and perfect propriety. One of the most absurd notions is illustrated by the story of one of our judges —I think it was Mr. Justice Swift—who was told by one particular counsel "Judge, I had one good win before you today." Mr. Justice Swift, in his good North Country accent, replied "Nobody has a win in front of me," and nobody does win in front of the judge. If one loses or wins a case, it does not matter particularly whether one has done it well or badly. The fact is that a man should prosecute as ably and with fairness, but with the same vigour and strength as a man should defend, and I think it would be an unfortunate and bad day if ever that should cease to be the case. There has been a great deal of unfairness about this matter. I think there has been a great deal of gossip and rumour, based on a great misunderstanding, which the hon. Gentleman has apparently overheard in the Smoking Room, and which he said had been talked about in the lobbies and corridors here. Where the reports and statements are such that they are made before a responsible Judicial officer, who has his duty to do, then it is in the interests of us all that the prosecution should be conducted fairly, as I believe it was in this particular case. If there was a fault earlier, I hope that it will be investigated, and I am sure that that can be done without the inquiry which the hon. Member has suggested.8.41 p.m.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) supports an investigation, because I certainly feel that this is a case in which there ought to be one. Certainly, in nothing that I say do I wish it to be understood that there is the smallest personal attack upon the Attorney-General. Nothing would be further from my mind. We have been brought up in the same circuit.
I feel that there is a matter to investigate. I do not think that there is anyone who would like to see another Adams trial, or who would feel that it would be for the credit of British justice that it should occur, because a combination of circumstances led to a state of affairs in which it was impossible to empanel a jury which did not know or had not heard a very great deal which it ought not to have heard. I think everybody will be in agreement with that. It was impossible to empanel jurors who could bring new and fresh minds to the issue before them or who had not heard a mass of rumours which could not be put before them in evidence. That is surely very wrong. In the event, it was extremely fortunate that they had no issue to try, because, when the event came, it was so abundantly plain that the prosecution had produced no case whatever. That is what Mr. Justice Devlin, in a magnificent and powerful charge to the members of the jury, indicated to them, and they followed his advice. But if there had been an issue to try, could it ever have been fairly tried? I think the answer is that it could not have been fairly tried, and, that being so, surely we should investigate in order to see that no man is ever again in future placed in a position in which, if there be a case against him, that case is one which cannot fairly be tried. That is the first point which I would put on this matter. The second point concerns the conduct of the prosecution. Here, I join with my unlearned Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who raised this matter, in very emphatically saying that prosecution is a function of the Executive; it is the Executive in the name of the Queen which prosecutes, and, that being so, it is a function which it is the duty of an Opposition, and, indeed, of Parliament as a whole, to watch jealously and to criticise if necessary. I do not say that I shall criticise here, but I shall raise certain questions which require an answer. I have felt on one other occasion—that was the trial of Lord Montagu, which I unsuccessfully tried to raise—that there were grounds for criticism. Lord Montagu was charged with regard to a scout who had been on his estate. At the trial, the jury disagreed. A new trial was ordered. A second charge was then brought. Before that second charge was brought, or the original charge could be retried, the prosecution ascertained information about the boy on whose evidence it had relied which showed clearly that the boy's evidence was not to be relied upon. The new charge was tried before retrying the old charge, and when Lord Montagu's advisers insisted on the old charge being withdrawn the prosecution admitted that it could not rely on that evidence and accepted an acquittal. I believe that that should have been done before the second trial. That was a case which I sought to raise here, but did not succeed in so doing. I am very glad that my hon. Friend has been successful in this case. I want to ask certain questions about this case. The first of those questions is about the Hullett evidence. That was the evidence about a married couple whom it was suggested at the police court Dr. Adams had also murdered. That evidence was introduced as evidence of a system. The famous case of a system is the Brides in the Bath case. That was a case in which a gentleman married a number of women under a variety of names. They all died on the honeymoon by being drowned in their baths and he benefited under all their wills. That is something unlikely to happen to a man often. But is it so unlikely that a doctor's patients sometimes die? Is it unlikely that when a doctor's patients die, they have had drugs and medication from him? Is it even so unlikely that some of them remember their doctor in their wills? As evidence of a system, it always seemed to me to be very tenuous indeed. I gather that the Attorney-General agrees with me on this, because he did not produce that evidence at the trial at the Old Bailey. If doubtful but highly prejudicial evidence of that sort is to be produced, are there not two courses? The Rouse case was the case of the man who burned a wayfarer he had picked up in a car, apparently in order to disappear and provide evidence of his own death, but he was found by two men coming back to the place. In that case a lot of evidence as to his various amorous successes, and as to the reasons why he should want to disappear, was produced at the police court, and Sir Norman Birkett, when he came to prosecute, felt it was not evidence which ought to be presented because it was highly prejudicial and did not go sufficiently to the issue. There, again, was a case in which a jury had read prejudicial evidence coming before the magistrates, but which, in great fairness, Sir Norman Birkett did not think it proper to present before the jury. This issue was raised in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I think I am right in saying that it was said in the Court of Criminal Appeal that evidence of this sort whose admissibility was doubtful should not be given before the magistrates, but should be given by way of notice of additional evidence which could be presented to the defence after the hearing before the magistrates. That is one of the courses available where there is a prima facie case on which it is felt that a committal can he obtained—to leave evidence which may be of doubtful admissibility to a notice of additional evidence which then does not come into the Press, but which could be dealt with by the judge at the trial. That was the course suggested in the Rouse case. The other alternative is to have the hearing before the magistrates in camera. The Attorney-General told us that the prosecution here did not oppose the application by the defence that this evidence should be heard in camera. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, is that enough? Surely, in the circumstances should not the prosecution have supported the application? Should not the prosecution have urged strongly on the magistrates that in the circumstances this evidence should not be made public until the judge who was to try the case had decided whether it could or could not properly be placed before a jury? That is the first point. The second point which causes me a great deal of anxiety is the question of the exhumations which took place, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, with the maximum conceivable publicity. Those exhumations resulted in post mortems which, I am told, showed that the deaths were due to natural causes and that there was no occasion for suspicion with regard to them. Surely, once that was ascertained it should have been given publicity equal to that given to the exhumations. But that fact never "leaked" to the Press, or, if it did, it was not published. Surely, once the suspicion about the exhumations had been allowed to get around, in fairness it should have been demonstrated, when it was known, that that suspicion, as it happened, was entirely unfounded. That is the second point on which I should like an answer. The third point, which, I admit, concerns the Attorney-General directly, is this. For some extraordinary reason which I do not entirely understand, but these things do happen, it was the defence and not the prosecution which found the nurse's notes. Once the nurses' notes were handed to the prosecution, it had the opportunity to examine them and it recognised their genuineness. Is it not really quite obvious that there was no longer any kind of a case against Dr. Adams? At that point, why was it necessary for the prosecution to go on? Those are the three questions with regard to the prosecution itself with which I should like the Attorney-General to deal. I regard those questions as of very minor importance compared with the question with which I dealt first, that is, that a variety of circumstances built up a state of affairs in which a fair trial had become impossible if there had been—and in the event very fortunately it turned out that there was not—a real issue for trial. I feel that we should investigate in order to find out some means of avoiding that occurring again. It has not been good for the reputation of British justice.Now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has concluded his remarks on the third of those points, would he not agree that with regard to the nurses' notes the judge, apparently, decided, when he ruled against the submission of the defence, that there was something to answer.
Yes, the judge decided that it should go to the jury. But I do not know whether the hon. Member has observed this. It was reported in the Press that the judge sent a message, which was conveyed to Dr. Adams, that if there were a conviction, sentence would not take place that day. From that I draw the inference that, in fact, if the jurors had not followed the very strong direction which the judge gave them, he would at that point have ruled that there was no case.
8.58 p.m.
The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has raised this case on the Adjournment tonight does, I think, establish one thing, that there is widespread public misgiving about the case that we are now discussing. On that, I think that there can be no division of opinion. Even the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), although he did not agree with much that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, was, to this extent, so shaken by what had happened that he suggested that there should be some form of inquiry. He was not particularly specific as to the form it should take—although I took it upon myself to interrupt in the course of his remarks—and that part of his argument is still, in my opinion, a little vague.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has clearly established, first, that there is widespread public misgiving; and, secondly, that there should be some kind of inquiry. There can be difference of opinion as to the nature of the inquiry. I do not think that a Departmental or any hole-and-corner inquiry will satisfy the public, and that is why I think that, on the whole, it would probably be better to have an inquiry conducted by a High Court judge. What ought to be stressed is that, in connection with investigations into a serious criminal charge, it is surely a matter of concern that the details of those investigations should be made known so quickly and so accurately to all kinds of people. That cannot be a good thing. We are entitled to expect that when the police authorities are conducting an investigation which may result in a very serious charge being made very special steps shall be taken to ensure that the details of those investigations shall not leak out to the public. It cannot be to the advantage of the police that the detailed investigations on which they are engaged should be known to all and sundry. If there was a leakage it shows laxity somewhere which ought to be checked. I shall not take up the time of the House in discussing the disadvantage of hearing certain cases in public before magistrates. On the Question that I put to the Home Secretary just before the Easter Recess, he announced with commendable promptness that a special inquiry would be made into what I know is a difficult point, whether proceedings of this kind or any kind should, to a greater extent than hitherto, be heard in private by magistrates. I hope that we shall have a report of the inquiry very soon, and that when it is forthcoming the Government will take the necessary action. Taking all the circumstances into account, I think that there was a grave error of judgment in deciding to prosecute. It is not good enough to say that the case has demonstrated a triumph for British justice in that the accused person was acquitted. I know that it is very easy to be wise after the event; the Attorney-General is entitled to make use of that line of approach if he wishes. It is difficult for the outside person to come to the conclusion that there was a strong case on which to proceed with the murder charge. It is known that many doctors make the final weeks or months of life of their patients as comfortable as possible. We have not yet reached the stage at which euthanasia is legal, but we all know that in the case of people suffering from incurable and agonising disease the final weeks of life are made a little more comfortable by the medical profession. This case has shown that it will be extremely difficult to make any doctor a criminal who engages in that kind of treatment, which I think is regarded as standard by the overwhelming majority of doctors. But that is another issue. There was a grave error of judgment in deciding to prosecute at all. I do not know whether the Attorney-General will adopt, in his reply, the usual formula of congratulating the hon. Member. who introduced this subject on the Adjournment by saying that he has rendered a useful public service in so doing. In any event, if he does not make use of that familiar opening gambit, many other hon. Members will say that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has rendered a useful public service in bringing the matter to the notice of the House.9.4 p.m.
We have had an objective discussion of a very difficult case. It was difficult, if only because of the voluminous amount of evidence and writing there has been about it. There are many aspects of the case, as the Attorney-General has heard tonight, about which people are concerned. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the two points of paramount importance are the hearing in public before magistrates and what happened about the nurses' evidence.
The other points, which I will deal with first are, of course, of importance. An inquiry into them has been supported by every hon. Member who has spoken. I hope that there will be an investigation. There is concern about this aspect of the matter. It is not a matter which can be dismissed by saying that there is nothing much in it. On both sides of the House, in the profession, and throughout the country, there is concern. I hope that there will be an investigation and, if an investigation takes place, that it will not be that which was suggested by the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), a purely Departmental investigation. In a matter of this kind, which has attracted so much attention and concern, it would be an advantage to have an investigation conducted by a judge. I am not for a moment suggesting that it should be in public. It should be an investigation by somebody independent altogether of the persons whose actions are being investigated, and should be conducted by a person who commands the complete confidence of the whole country, whether it is held in camera or in public. What is wanted is an investigation by someone of that kind. I should have spoken at some length on the question of the preliminary hearing before the magistrates being conducted in public or private, but that matter has been considered by lawyers on our side of the House and we have come to the unanimous decision, on such information as we have been able to obtain, that there should certainly be far greater practice of hearing cases in private than there is at present. As the matter is at present—very wisely, if I may say so—referred for inquiry under the most distinguished chairmanship of Lord Tucker, I should merely be taking up the time of the House if I carried that matter further than my hon. Friends, so I shall leave that part of the question altogether. The next matter is that of the nurses' evidence and the nurses' notes. I put a Question to the Home Secretary asking if he would be so good as to make a copy of the transcript of the proceedings at the trial available to hon. Members. The Attorney-General and the Joint Under-Secretary were so good as to let me know today that they were this evening doing so and making the records available for hon. Members in the Library of the House of Commons. I am certainly very much obliged to them for that. I was particularly concerned to have those records for the purpose of considering, so far as I was concerned, the position in regard to the nurses' evidence. We had very full newspaper accounts, some really admirable newspaper accounts, but it is quite impossible, however objective and admirable those accounts may be, for them to give the full presentation and full picture of the case, which can only be obtained by a transcript of the evidence itself. There is simply not the space for newspaper accounts, however admirable they may be, to give an absolutely complete picture. As every lawyer will know, it is very misleading, in a matter of this kind, to base one's assumptions or conclusions upon anything less than a complete picture of the case. What I was concerned about in relation to the nurses' notes was the extent to which the separate evidence of the different nurses conformed to that of the others, so that, as it were, they were speaking in unison, and the extent to which their speech in unison would be contrary to what the notes, which were admittedly accurate, themselves stated. The impression which one had from newspaper reports is that there was a conflict there, and it seems to me to be a matter of deep concern that there was a conflict, because it would present itself to my mind in this way: either the nurses had come quite independently, quite separately and quite genuinely, each one separately giving her own proof but nevertheless giving it in a sense which was substantially and in substantial respects contradicted by the notes; or alternatively, as one newspaper reported the evidence, they had been speaking to each other and as a result of that, and as a result of giving three statements on separate occasions, they had somehow formed a consensus of view in the process of producing their own proofs. If that were so, of course, it would be desirable to take every conceivable precaution one possibly could against that kind of thing happening.
Surely the books of the notes to which the hon. and learned Member has referred were severely expurgated before they were produced in court.
Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that the nurses' notes were expurgated before being produced in court?
I thought that had been in the Press.
I cannot understand this intervention and I want to be quite clear what is in the hon. and gallant Member's mind. Is he suggesting that some things were deleted from the notes or that some things inserted in them before they were produced in court?
The hon. and learned Member is asking what I thought. I thought the notebooks which were produced were not in their entirety covering the whole period to which they referred.
I am not sure that that is exactly what the hon. and gallant Member said before but I do not want to misunderstand him in any way.
To my knowledge, no suggestion has been made anywhere that there was anything in the notes which was not completely accurate. I have looked at the judgment this evening, very briefly, since the Attorney-General has been good enough to put the transcript in the Library, and I can see nothing to suggest otherwise. I understand that the whole of the case was based on the assumption time and again that the notes were an absolutely complete and accurate record and that there was no question of expurgation or anything of that sort. In order to see how far there are these differences and how substantial are the differences between the nurses' evidence and the notes, it is obviously important to look at the transcript of the evidence, and in the circumstances it would be quite wrong for me to attempt to deal with these matters upon the footing of what has been reported in newspapers. I therefore do not propose to carry the matter any further, because I have not yet had time to examine the transcript and to work out what the position is. I am grateful to the Attorney-General and to the Joint Under-Secretary for ensuring that the transcript is available so that we can have the complete picture, and before raising the matter again in any form, if I so desire, I shall let the Attorney-General know precisely the points about which I am concerned and the extent to which it appears to me that it is desirable to have an inquiry into the matter. The important matters appear to be the two which I have mentioned—the magisterial proceedings being in camera and the position about the nurses' evidence—the way they came to give their evidence—and the nurses' notes. It was, of course, on the nurses' evidence, as Mr. Justice Devlin pointed out in his judgment, that the Attorney-General opened his case. With regard to the other matters, I hope that the Attorney-General will give serious consideration to the general demand that there has been for an inquiry.9.15 p.m.
I would begin by thanking the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for his courtesy in giving me notice of the points that he desired to raise in this debate. I shall endeavour to deal, not only with the points raised by him, but with those raised by other hon. Members.
It is, I think, true to say that the points raised by the hon. Member for Dudley tonight differ greatly from those raised by him on 15th April. He then alleged that the Crown had opposed the defence's application that the preliminary proceedings should be heard in camera. I told him that he was quite misinformed. He was. In fact, there was an application that certain evidence should be heard in camera, and on that occasion I told him, as, in fact, is the case, that counsel for the Crown had made it perfectly clear that he did not oppose the application that certain evidence should be heard in camera. I shall indicate later that counsel went even further than that. Following upon those Questions, the hon. Gentleman wrote to me, said that if he was wrong he was prepared to say so publicly, and asked to see a shorthand copy of that part of the proceedings at Eastbourne. Now, no shorthand notes of those proceedings were taken on behalf of the Crown. Indeed, the expense of doing so could not ordinarily be justified, since the evidence before the committing magistrates is taken in the form of depositions. The defence did have a shorthand note taken, and since the trial at the Old Bailey they have supplied to me a copy of that part relating to the application. That was the only copy in the Crown's possession. When the hon. Gentleman wrote to me, I did not delay. I wrote him a reply which was long, and which he has not quoted from in any detail. I do not complain of that in the least degree, but I set out in that letter, verbatim, all the relevant extracts, I think, from those two shorthand notes of which the defence had supplied me a copy. I told him that if, having read that—which completely confirmed what I had said in answer to the Question—he still doubted my veracity, he could ask any of the counsel engaged in the case, and I was quite certain that they would confirm what I had said. I told him also that the defence might be able to provide him with a copy of the transcript. I really do not see that, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman has any grounds for complaint at all with regard to that letter. As I say. I set out all the relevant extracts, told him that I could not spare him the only copy we had, and also told him where he could get further information if he doubted at all what I had told him. Therefore, he having had that letter, having had the advantage of reading exactly what was said by counsel for the Crown, it was with some surprise tonight that I did not hear him say publicly, as in his letter of 16th April he indicated that he would, that he was wrong in making that suggestion—rose—
No, I will not give way. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech in full, and not only did he not withdraw what he said, but said that if he had erred he had erred in good company, and referred to an account in the Spectator and to the broadcast given by Sir Norman Birkett. Sir Norman Birkett, in the passage which the hon. Member read out, did not say that the prosecution had opposed the application.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Dudley in a moment or two if he wants now to admit that he was wrong. I do not suggest that he made the allegation in bad faith, but I do suggest that he made it without any grounds whatever. It was made also—and the hon. Member has this to comfort him—by the Daily Express and the Spectator. When it had seen the passages in the transcript of which I sent copies to the hon Member, the Daily Express had the decency to make a prompt, unqualified and public withdrawal. Not so the hon. Member or the Spectator. The Spectator sought to justify that allegation by making selective quotations, deliberately omitting to refer to passages which did not suit its thesis and citing in its article a passage completely out of its context, I should like to give the House one instance—I could give more—of the way in which that article was compiled. Thanks to the courtesy of the defence which, of course, has the copyright in these shorthand notes. I have now been able to have copies made of them and I have had a copy of this part of the proceedings at Eastbourne placed in the Library so that hon. Members can see for themselves what happened. I want to give one instance of the kind of thing that was done to support the allegation that the Spectator sought to maintain. When the case at Eastbourne began, Mr. Lawrence said that he wanted to make an application in camera. Mr. Stevenson opposed that. What Mr. Stevenson said in opposition has been taken by the Spectator and quoted as if it related to the hearing of evidence in camera. It did not. Mr. Stevenson made it quite clear that it did not relate to the question of hearing evidence in camera, for he said:That is what Mr. Stevenson said in the middle of the passage quoted by the Spectator, but when the Spectator quoted that passage it left out that sentence and put in three dots. It left it out and so represented, deliberately and falsely, that what Mr. Melford Stevenson then said related to the question of hearing evidence in camera. I could give other instances of the same kind of thing." At this moment, I am addressing myself to the question whether you should hear the application which the defence wish to make in closed court."
What was the application that the defence wished to be heard in private?
As the hon. and learned Member will see, before eves the case was opened, Mr. Lawrence said that he wanted to make an application in closed court. Mr. Stevenson objected to the application being made in closed court. It was within his discretion, and I think he was right. The application was, in fact, made in open court. There is nothing at all that happened in the making of the application which could have prejudiced the trial.
I have given that one instance. I do not want to multiply it and take up too much time, but as a general observation I would say that if hon. Members who read the transcript compare it with the article in the Spectator, when they see what has been deliberately omitted and what has been deliberately ignored, they will, I think, be driven to the conclusion that it would be difficult to find an instance of more deliberate perversion of the truth and a more dishonest and disgraceful piece of journalism. Before the case started at Eastbourne, Mr. Melford Stevenson came to me and said that he knew the defence would apply that the evidence of system should be heard in camera. I told him what was my view then, and is my view today, that the Crown certainly should not oppose that application. He entirely agreed with me. I would have been staggered to find, had it happened—but it did not—that he had gone down to Eastbourne and done exactly the opposite of what he and I thought was the right course. So much for that allegation, which has been persisted in by the Spectator and the hon. Gentleman.First of all, I based my case in the intervention of 15th April on a report in the Evening Standard of 14th January. I kept it. I thought that account was pretty accurate. It is perfectly true I offered to withdraw, but I am not going to withdraw until I am convinced. I heard about Sir Norman Birkett's broadcast. I want that answered. The Spectator is not a Member of this House. I do not know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman brings in the Spectator at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member did.") If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to bring in the Spectator what he must also bring in is whether under his instructions or not Mr. Melford Stevenson telephoned the Daily Express, the Spectator and other papers and threatened them with an action for libel if they did not withdraw.
It just shows what an error it is to assume that the hon. Gentleman would have the decency to withdraw an unfounded allegation. He said in his letter, "If I am wrong, I am willing to say so publicly." He has in his possession a letter which sets out verbatim what Mr. Melford Stevenson said on this matter. He has had ample time for studying it. He has not taken the course, which the Daily Express had the decency to take, of making a prompt public and complete withdrawal.
I should like to conclude this part of my speech by saying that when hon. Members see that shorthand note they will see it was only at the instance of Mr. Stevenson that that part of the opening which related to the Hullett evidence was heard in camera. They will see that he made it clear more than once in the course of the hearing in open court that he was not opposing the application. Further than that, he conceded that there was ground for it. The hon. Gentleman will see that in the transcript of the shorthand note. Despite that, the magistrates—I do not wish to criticise them: it is not for me to do so— decided in their discretion that that evidence should be heard in open court. So much for that. I am glad that the procedure will be the subject of investigation and consideration by the committee presided over by Lord Tucker. I now want to turn to what seems to me really to be the main point which has been raised in this debate with regard to the conduct of the prosecution, and that is the decision to call before the magistrates evidence which in the event was not called at the trial. The hon. Gentleman suggested that that evidence was called because without it the magistrates would not have committed for trial. He has no grounds whatsoever for making that suggestion. It would be most improper, and I should certainly not be a party to any tactic of that sort, but the hon. Gentleman's technique is to throw out the wildest suggestions without any evidence or grounds to support them, and then, when he is told that there is no ground for them, when he is sent records of the shorthand note, he has not the decency to withdraw. He is quite wrong about that. It is an entirely false accusation. I would say this to him, that not only did the magistrates commit, but at the trial the judge held, without calling upon the Crown, that the prosecution had without calling the Hullett evidence established a case which required an answer. The evidence called at Eastbourne, without the evidence relating to the Hulletts, therefore itself established a case, and I will refer to it in a moment, which justified the magistrates in committing. In my opinion, they would have been entirely wrong if they had not done so. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) suggested that an alternative course might have been to have embodied all the evidence relating to the Hullett matters in a notice of additional evidence. I must say that I cannot conceive the defence regarding that as a proper course to take in this case. Views might differ, but that is my view. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member at all as to the admissibility of that evidence being in any real doubt. I agree with what Mr. Melford Stevenson said on the question of the admissibility of that evidence. I do not want to go into detail on that evidence and I do not think that the hon. and learned Member is fully aware of its character, but I do not think that, on the authorities, there could be any real issue about its admissibility. I want to say a few words about the evidence which related to the deaths of two persons other than Mrs. Morrell. I want to say this about the evidence, and it is right that I should say it. I do not want to conceal anything about the case that is within my knowledge. After the committal proceedings were over, facts came to light which satisfied me that the evidence relating to Mr. Hullett did not support the view of the case put forward in the magistrates' court that that evidence supported the allegation of system. Further evidence came forward and further investigation made it right, in my opinion, not to pursue that evidence at all. I want to make this clear. In my opinion, the evidence relating to Mrs. Hullett was clearly admissible, as the magistrates held it was, and that evidence, in my opinion, could quite properly have been called at the trial of the charge of murdering Mrs. Morrell. I want to tell the House why it was that I decided, and it was my responsibility, not to call that evidence at the trial on that charge. It is the established practice that evidence of this kind—evidence of system—is excluded if, notwithstanding its admissibility, it is, in relation to the weight it bears, so prejudicial to the accused that its admission would operate to prevent his having a fair trial. It was on that ground, after the committal proceedings had ended, that I decided that the evidence relating to Mrs. Hullett should not be called on the trial of the charge relating to Mrs. Morrell but that the leave of the judge should be sought to prepare a separate indictment charging the murder of Mrs. Hullett. As the House may know, that leave was granted and it was because there was that second indictment on the file that the leanned judge sent the message to Dr. Adams to which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton referred and in relation to which he drew quite the wrong inference. I can also now pick up another point. There is no foundation at all for the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dudley—The fact that there was a second indictment upon the files is perfectly well-known. It has happened in many cases. It happened, for instance, in the Evans case, but it has never been the occasion for postponing sentence.
I hope that the hon. and learned Member will accept it from me that the fact that there was a second indictment on the file was not well-known, except to the prosecution, the court, and the defence. The greatest care was, in fact, taken to keep that secret, so that the information that there was a further charge of murder should not appear in the Press and increase the risk of Dr. Adams's trial being prejudiced.
I fully accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but what I do not follow is why the existence of a second indictment on the file should have been an occasion for postponing sentence. One has always known that sentence is given right away.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may think that, but I hope he will accept it from me that it was thought desirable, if that indictment was to be proceeded with, that Dr. Adams should plead to it before there was any question of passing sentence.
Now I want to come back to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. He said that he had information—though what the information was, he did not reveal, nor did he reveal its source—that there was a conference between the Crown representatives, the defence and the police with regard to the Hullett evidence, and that every newspaper office was informed privately of what took place. That is what he said. Let there be no mistake about that. May I tell him that there never was a conference between counsel for the Crown, counsel for the defence, and the police, in relation to the Hullett evidence. Nothing of that sort took place. There was no reason why it should. There was nothing in the nature of a conference with the defence about that evidence at any stage. As I have said, the Crown was informed by the defence before the preliminary proceedings that objection would be taken to the calling of the Hullett evidence. I informed the defence in turn, after the committal proceedings, when I had decided not to call the Mullett evidence at the trial, and there were the usual interviews between counsel which take place in trials of this kind, sometimes at the request of counsel for the defence. There was nothing of the sort suggested by the hon. Gentleman, on information he says he received, but the source of which he carefully refrained from disclosing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Then the hon. Gentleman pursued that point by suggesting. without giving a single ground for it except inference, that there had been vast leakage of detailed information in the same way. I must confess this, that he has one advantage over me. I did not see those Press reports of August and September because was in the United States at the time, but I do not think one can safely conclude in these days that reports which are made in the Press are necessarily due to, or likely to arise because of, a breach by an official or police officer of his duty. There is this to be borne in mind. Eastbourne is not a very large place, and the information I have is that there was no shortage of Press men in Eastbourne the whole time that this inquiry was taking place. A point was made about the exhumations. It is never the practice to reveal the results of exhumations unless they are given in evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he knew what the results of those exhumations were.Yes, I read them in the Press.
If that is the source of the information I will not bother to answer it. As regards information to the Press as to when and where exhumations are to take place, the hon. Member for Dudley has given no ground whatsoever for assuming that there was any improper leakage of information by the police—no ground whatsoever.
I would say this to the hon. Member. I am not responsible, of course, for the conduct of the police in making inquiries into matters of this sort, but I do know that if the hon. Gentleman has any information in his possession which is worthy of any credence at all. or if it is even a justifiable basis for the wild allegations which he has thought fit to make, I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be only too glad to investigate that information.He cannot produce it.
In the absence of any source or any grounds for it, relying entirely on the inference which the hon. Gentleman chose to draw from the headlines, it really is monstrous for him to assert that the Press—and I quote his own words—" were being fed with information by the police authorities ". He went on to suggest, so he said, from the information he had been able to gather, that a shorthand writer was present when the police interviewed the Press, and he asked me to confirm or to deny it. I cannot tell him. I know nothing about interviews between the police and the Press, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will read and will give such consideration as is due to the words which the hon. Gentleman uttered in that respect.
Then, despite my answer on the 15th April, the hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that there had been disagreement between me and the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is an old canard, and I think the hon. Gentleman might have given that one up. I should like to correct him to this extent. I am not the political head of the Director's Department. He is under my general charge and superintendence, but he is no part of the Law Officers' Department. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there was no disagreement between those responsible for the preparation and institution of this case on the question whether or not a charge of murder should be preferred—no disagreement at all. That is the fact and I cannot say more than that. I am not concerned with the gossip which the hon. Gentleman has picked up from crime reporters on the views of unknown people at Scotland Yard. All I can tell him is that those who were responsible for the decision were unanimous in their view. The hon. Gentleman also compared the acquittal of Dr. Adams with the conviction of Timothy John Evans, and sought to suggest that the fact that, while one was defended privately, the other was defended at public expense, had something to do with the result. I do not think this is the occasion to canvass once more the merits of the conviction of Timothy John Evans, and I do not propose to do so. I do want to repudiate as emphatically as I can that the defence of accused persons is in any way prejudiced if they are defended by counsel instructed under the Poor Persons Defence Act. It is a proud tradition of the Bar, although the hon. Gentleman may not know it, that those who are accused of serious charges such as murder do get, often at great sacrifice, experienced counsel to act for them, and, in fact, the counsel who defended Evans and who is, if I may say so, a very able and competent junior, was my junior in the prosecution of Dr. Adams. I really do not think that that comment was worthy of the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] Yes, it was worthy of him. I want to refer now to the suggestion which was made yesterday in a Question to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the costs, or at any rate part of the costs, of Dr. Adams should be paid out of public funds. Under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1952, the court has power to order that the costs of the defence may, if the accused is acquitted, be paid out of local funds. No application was made to the court for an order of that kind. Now I come to the question which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, why this case was not dropped directly the nurses' note books were produced, and the question raised by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) when he said that this case ought never to have been brought. Let me summarise for this House the basis of the case for the prosecution, and the evidence on which I decided that the prosecution should be launched. It was on evidence about which there was no dispute, that very large quantities of drugs had been prescribed between 8th and 12th November, 1950, by Dr. Adams; on evidence, which was not contradicted, that Dr. Adams had said that he had administered that quantity to Mrs Morrell; that in the opinion of experts of considerable standing, that quantity was lethal; and that, in the opinion of those experts, there was no legitimate explanation for the administration of the drugs prescribed in those quantities. Whatever may be the criticism, in my opinion I would have been failing in my duty as Attorney-General if I had not placed that evidence before the court. If I was asked now to decide the same question I had to consider then. I should have no hesitation in reaching the same conclusion. Let me remind the hon. Member for Brixton what the judge said himself on this point. He said:It is said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton—and there is a certain amount of substance in it—that the case presented by the Crown at the beginning of the trial differed from that left to the jury as a result of the discovery of the nurses' notebooks. I cannot accept the imputation that the prosecution was negligent in failing to find those books. So far as I am aware, they were at all material times in the possession of the defence. Our information was that they had been destroyed, as one would have expected them to have been destroyed, just as the doctor's own notes were destroyed. No evidence was given as to where they came from, or, indeed, how they came to be kept. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) was quite right in saying that the accuracy of the entries in those books was not challenged at all, so far as those entries went—and, I repeat, so far as those entries went. I remind the House that there was expert evidence that even the lesser quantity of drugs shown by those books to have been administered— that is to say, shown as administered by the nurses or as injections which Dr. Adams said he had given, because he always gave them alone in the room—was lethal in its quantity and not justified as treatment of a doctor's patient. That was the evidence of expert witnesses. If those books had been available to the prosecution before proceedings were instituted, I should nevertheless have decided, again with hesitation, that the evidence ought to be laid before a court of law. I would remind the House that it was the case as based on those notebooks which the learned judge, without calling upon the Crown to uphold it, held constituted a case which required an answer from the defence. That is the real answer to the hon. and learned Member who asked why, when the notebooks were produced, we did not stop the case. There was a case to answer, and the judge so held, on the notebooks and an issue for the jury to try and determine as it did." No one can say that the Crown was not justified, on the material they had at the beginning of this trial, in prosecuting Dr. Adams."
The Attorney-General referred to the notebooks and said that they were accurate so far as they went and he repeated the words, "so far as they went." Can he explain that a little? What does he mean by that? Is he referring to injections, not recorded in the notebooks, but given by Dr. Adams or by the nurses, and was any evidence put before the court that there were injections which were not recorded in the notebooks?
The answer to that—I will deal with it as shortly as I can—is this. The evidence of the nurses was that they entered every injection that they gave; they entered the particulars of injections which Dr. Adams told them he had given. The prosecution did not challenge that at all. But there was ground, detailed ground, for saying that that was not a complete record of the injections. One instance which comes back to my mind is that, although there was a constant daily medication, there were, for instance, on one day no entries of any injections at all. There were also various entries of what was called a special injection. The defence tried to make out that the special injections were always of the same character. The prosecution said, "Well, by just giving it a label, ' special injection ', you cannot tell what it is."
All I am saying—I hope that I am not boring the House by going on too long; but in my final speech to the jury I did say, and I say it again—is that while one accepted the nurses' books as telling the truth so far as they told anything, one does not accept—because there was no evidence to that effect, indeed there was evidence to the contrary—that they told the complete story. That was the point I made about that.It is important to clear this up. Did not the judge rule, as a matter of law, that there was no evidence to go to the jury that anything was given apart from what appeared in the notebooks?
I was just coming to that.
I am sorry.
I wish to remind the House of the position as it was established by un-contradicted evidence, if I may do so, before come to the ruling. The first thing was that the amounts prescribed were lethal. The second was that the amounts prescribed had been supplied. The third element was to prove the amounts prescribed had been administered. On that we had the evidence of Superintendent Hannam and Detective Inspector Pugh that they had shown Dr. Adams a list of the prescriptions. Superintendent Hannam said he ran his finger down the prescriptions from 8th November onwards, and the answer made by Dr. Adams was, "Yes, she had all those. I gave them to her." I am quoting from memory, I think I am quoting accurately. But he did not merely say it once; he said it more than once at that interview.
That was the case for the prosecution, the case which was presented at the magistrates' court and presented at the Old Bailey and which formed the main part of the case in the final speech, although it is right to say that we depended up to a point on the nurses' books. I hope I have made that clear. The judge, in his summing up, did, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said —I will quote his exact words—direct the juryThat was his ruling. It is not for me—I do not wish to do so—to comment on that direction. But I think that in fairness, not only to myself but also to those who worked with me— there was a lot of work in this case, in the preparation and presentation of the prosecution's case against Dr. Adams— that I should point out that the defence never challenged, and the judge, in fact, did not deal with the evidence given by Superintendent Hannam and Detective Inspector Pugh—both of whom were commended for their fairness by the learned judge—that Dr. Adams had admitted to them that he had given Mrs. Morrell the amounts prescribed between 8th and 12th November, amounts considerably in excess of those recorded in the nurses' books. I hope that I have not taken too long, and that I have dealt with all the points that have been raised in this debate and which have been causing anxiety in people's minds. I would, if I may, confirm and endorse what the hon. Gentleman said—how impossible it is to gain any impression of how a case is going from merely reading it in the newspaper reports. I did not have time to read the full newspaper reports, but now and then I glanced at various papers—I was in court most of the time, and I think that I missed only a very little of the trial—and it was really quite astonishing, despite the skill of the reporters—and they are skilful— how seldom one got the same impression from reading the evidence that one had from listening to it in court. What struck me in court as an important sentence, or as something which had been said in a way which made it demand attention, had not, perhaps, quite that facet of news interest which required publication. I would say that I am glad to have been able to put the whole record of the trial, the shorthand note, in the Library. I have gone further than that because I have put with the transcript not all the exhibits, because that would have been a tremendous bundle, but some exhibits without which it would have been quite impossible to follow some of the evidence. I have also put, as I have said, a copy of the shorthand note of what happened in the magistrates' court. That may be important for consideration in relation to the proceedings of the committee set up by my right hon. Friend, but it is also important because I want to make quite sure, so far as I can, that no further unfounded accusations are made against Mr. Melford Stevenson and those who assisted him in the conduct of the case at the magistrates' court."as a matter of law that there is no evidence upon which you could properly come to the conclusion that any drugs were administered to Mrs. Morrell over and above the injections recorded in the nurses' books."
9.57 p.m.
By a figment of the constitution the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) is supposed to represent me in this House. In the speech which he delivered earlier he alluded to a former debate in which I took part but in which, owing to his lack of knowledge of the rules of the House, he did not participate. He saved up for this afternoon the heavy belting he intended to give me on that occasion. But I do not intend to let him distract me from doing what I think ought to be done at this stage in the debate.
The House is under a great debt to the Attorney-General for the full and frank way in which he has dealt with the way in which this case was conducted and with some of the preliminaries to it. I think that the important thing which worries most of us who, in one way or another, have to participate in these matters is the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which he alluded to as "trial by newspaper ". The right hon. and learned Gentleman explained to us that at the date about which my hon. Friend complained most, that is, the middle and the last days of August, he was not in this country but was in America. I am quite certain that anyone reading the newspapers, and not merely the sensational newspapers but any newspaper that reported what was then going on, could not have done other than have formed a most unfavourable view of Dr. Adams. That is a very serious thing. I recall that in the notorious Haigh case the Daily Mirror published a series of articles—two or three—in which it alluded to the accused in that case as a vampire. The newspaper was prosecuted for it, and the editor was sent to prison, where he stayed, I think, for three months.It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. E. Wakefield.]
I can well understand the Attorney-General's merely passing over that part of my hon. Friend's case with the statement that he was out of the country. I assure the Attorney-General that if he now looks at the newspapers and the pictures that appeared, even at that early stage, some weeks before there was even an arrest, he will come to the conclusion that there could hardly have been anyone in the country who was likely to be called as a juror who had not, at that time, had put before him comments on the investigation that must have made it very difficult for him, when called upon to be a juror, to come to the case with an absolutely open mind.
I have no doubt that the Attorney-General found in America that trial by newspaper has reached a very advanced stage and that it is often far better to have newspapers with wide circulations on your side than to have retained the most learned counsel. In the Americanisation of our Press, which, unfortunately, has gone on to a very considerable extent in recent years, I hope that it will be felt to be the duty of the Attorney-General and of the Director of Public Prosecutions to watch very carefully how this habit spreads. I am certain that it will be a very bad thing for this country if trial by newspaper goes much further, or even continues as far as it has gone at present. I had some responsibility at the time of the Haigh trial and I know the serious consideration that was then given to the matter of the articles which formed the subject of the prosecution before the Lord Chief Justice. I hope that the Press will be very carefully watched in respect of any repetition of what occurred in the case of Dr. Adams. During my period at the Home Office, I had on one occasion to consult Mr. Melford Stevenson about a case in which he had been counsel for the prosecution. It was suggested to me that the defence in the case had been so conducted as not to give the accused person an opportunity to get his case in front of the jury in the way that it should have been put. That was a very delicate question to put to counsel for the prosecution, but I am bound to say that, without any breach of what I imagine to be the strictest rules of professional etiquette, he gave me, in the course of conversation, such an insight into the case as enabled me to feel that I had been impartially assisted by one who was not of necessity an impartial person in the consideration that was submitted to him. Mr. Melford Stevenson is the son-in-law of a very old friend of mine and I am certain that he would do nothing that would prejudice the defence in a case when he was the prosecutor. The hon. Member for Epsom said that it was the duty of the prosecution to prosecute, but when the Crown or a public authority is the prosecutor it is also the duty of the prosecution to see that all the facts are in front of the court. I am glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he agrees with me in that view. Of course, occasionally that puts on the Crown or the local authority in the prosecution a duty which does not, of necessity, fall on a private prosecutor engaged in the courts.The Attorney-General indicated dissent.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees—
I would say, with great respect, that it is the duty of the prosecution always to put the case fairly and to put all relevant facts in the possession of the prosecution before the court. My hon. Friend referred to winning cases. It is not the case that when conducting a prosecution the prosecution is "going out to win a case."
I notice that the trade union is unsplit on this occasion as it has been generally throughout the evening. I have sometimes thought that my observation led me to a different conclusion. I am glad to know that if such did occur it was an unprofessional act.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has fulfilled a duty in bringing this matter before the House. I hope it will be a long time before it is felt that to raise matters of this kind in the House is a thing that ought not to be done. It is the duty of hon. Members of this House to watch for misgivings in public opinion and, when they find them to exist, to take the steps which are open to them to ensure that, if possible, those misgivings shall be set at rest. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, on this occasion—and not for the first time—has succeeded in performing that duty. I, for one, would like to thank him for doing it. At the same time, I think, as 1 said in the opening sentences of my speech, that the House is under a debt of gratitude to the Attorney-General for being as thorough, as frank and as revealing as he was in the reply that he made to this debate.Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Ten o'clock.