I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has a statement to make about the business of the House.

Yes, Sir. The House will recall that exchanges took place across the Floor of the House yesterday about the time to be devoted to the debate on the Report of the Bank Rate Inquiry.

The Government are still of the opinion that one day for this debate is adequate. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked that a Supply Day should be taken formally in order that a second day should be added for the debate on the Bank Rate Report. As Supply Days are at the disposal of the Opposition, this can be arranged.

It will not, however, be possible for a two-day debate on the Report of the Tribunal to take place next week and it is proposed that this debate should be held on Monday and Tuesday of the week after next, 3rd and 4th February.

This will mean a change in the business announced for Thursday of next week, which will be the first allotted Supply Day, when we shall take in Committee the four Civil Supplementary Estimates relating to Agriculture and Food Services. These Supplementary Estimates are contained in Paper No. 48 and were issued yesterday.

We shall ask the House to vote the money for these Supplementary Estimates.

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

This is a Bill to

"reduce death duties in cases where two or more persons perish as a result of a common calamity."

I must start by apologising, for having a rather severe cold. It may mean that my voice may not carry through to the end of my speech. Having listened all about bus shelters, I feel sorry for myself for the lack of shelter on my way back from Hong Kong in the last seven days which has resulted in this particularly unpleasant feeling.

The Bill is very short and very simple, but it is necessarily one that covers the whole of this very serious problem. It seems to me that all questions that might arise would be dealt with more appropriately in a Finance Act rather than by a Member bringing forward a Private Member's Bill. On the other hand, this is one of the opportunities Private Members get to bring forward a Measure which, I hope, can be a stepping stone to something much more important.

I also feel it is important that this matter should be aired today, especially as we have had in the not very distant past one or two quite prominent cases which have made people feel that the present situation is extremely unfair. Another point is that the tax-gatherer spends almost the whole of his time, while husbands and wives are alive, trying to bring them together to obtain as much taxation as possible out of them. The moment they die, far from following the same procedure, he does everything he can to separate them and make them pay at least two death duties. It seems to me that he should be logical and come to the conclusion either to bring people regularly together in life and death or separate them both in life and death, as he tries to do after death today.

It also seems to me that the main object of death duties—which, after all, only follow the historical method of fines which were used in the old days—is so that people, when they come into property and are about to enjoy it, shall pay a form of levy to the State because they are about to enjoy it. When it comes to people dying almost at the same moment and, possibly, from the same cause, there can be absolutely no question that the second person does not receive any enjoyment. That being so, it is grossly unfair that the State should demand that the tax should be levied, whether it is, as at present, 50 per cent. in the first year for certain types of property and 10 per cent. spread over the first five years. The very fact that it should be taken at all, with people who are dying possibly in the same minutes, seems to me to be grossly unfair.

These things may not have happened so very often in the past, but they are beginning to happen more frequently now, with aeroplane crashes, motor car crashes in which husband and wife and, indeed, whole families may be involved, and appalling railway accidents, like Lewisham. One must think of these appalling tragedies now taking place because of the faster methods and more modern methods of transport, which, of course, are more dangerous.

I first noticed this unfairness when the son of an old friend of mine some years ago went with his young wife for their first visit to France. On their return, the plane crashed at London Airport, caught fire and they were both killed, leaving a considerable family with not much money, made much less by death duties. Luckily, they happened to belong to a wealthy family connected with the Press and something was done for them privately. That will not happen in every case. Then there is the now famous case of the Beare family, to which I will return in a few minutes.

Shortly after I put down the Bill for First Reading there was a very serious seaplane crash near the Isle of Wight in which no less than six couples were killed. Three of those couples were on their honeymoon. One of those couples came from my constituency. I believe that if the old common law had been in practice the man's estate would have gone to his relations and the wife's estate to her relations. Under the present law everything went to the wife and, through her, eventually to her family, although the property belonged to her husband. That does not really come within the scope of my Bill, but I should like to bring it to the notice of the Financial Secretary, as it is a matter on which I think he might well ponder.

The case that has caused most publicity and one which led me to produce this Bill, together with the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) asked me to do so—and he is largely responsible—was the case of the Beare family. That so upset many people that, as will be seen from the backing of this Bill, it has the support of two prominent Labour Members, one prominent Liberal Member and nine Members of my own party, some of whom are well-known lawyers.

The Beares were husband and wife who were motoring somewhere near London and met with an accident in which their car overturned into about three feet of muddy water. The husband was hit on the head, as it was afterwards discovered at the post mortem examination, and knocked completely unconscious. The wife was not. When, however, they were found they were both already dead. The medical evidence proved that by the husband being unconscious—they were both drowned in three feet of muddy water—he would not have tried to breath in the muddy water unduly fast, whereas the wife, being completely conscious, would make a mad effort to try to get air and in that way would use up the oxygen in her body, and so it could be proved that she died first.

However, the judge, seeing that it was only a question literally of a few minutes, had to take the law as it stands under Section 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, which proved that the husband was the elder, as he was by about seven months, and that therefore it must be presumed that he died first. That being so, he had left a will leaving everything to his wife who was the sole executrix.

There again double death duties became payable. There were four infants to lose not only their parents but, in addition, a very large percentage of any money that might be available for their education and upbringing, which seems to me to be particularly unfair. However, there was nothing that could be done about it under the law as it stands at present.

There was a long correspondence about this in The Times which showed how other countries deal with this sort of matter. It was pointed out that in Germany both are considered to die as one, and reference was made to a case of some German refugees who were killed in this country during the war and who were allowed to be treated as if they were German. More or less the same law applies in other countries—for instance, in Greece, Italy, Holland, Switzerland and China.

In the Dutch law there is a provision, saying that in the event of a number of persons, one of whom is entitled to inherit before the other, dying in one and the same accident, or on the same day, without it being possible to ascertain who died first, the assumption is that they deceased at the same moment and no devolution of the estate of the one takes place on behalf of the other. There are other countries which are already agreed on the basis that they die as one. I believe that we ourselves have begun to realise that that is a more just state of affairs because in the case of intestacies the intestate gets off. According to the First Schedule of the Intestates' Estates Act, 1952, that is what happens. If Mr. Beare had not left a will at all, but had been intestate, none of these financial tragedies would have happened to their children.

In France a different view is taken, but I believe that the French themselves consider the situation to be extremely unsatisfactory and are attempting to alter it. They go on the basis of the survival of the fittest, and they work it out in this fashion. If a person is under fifteen years of age at the time of death, the elder survives. Between the ages of 15 and 60 the younger dies first, but males are presumed to come before females because females are not considered to be so fit. Over 60 it seems that the youngest, whether male or female, survives. That is the position at the moment in foreign countries but what about our own country.

I am not trying to bring forward a Bill which will cover all the many problems involved. I am merely seeking to bring forward one side of the situation. The Bill might easily be amended one way or the other in Committee, and, indeed, it could possibly be dealt with in the next Finance Bill if the Government should think fit.

I have called this

"A Bill to reduce Death Duties in cases where two or more persons perish as a result of a common calamity."

It may be asked, why must it be a common calamity? If the husband is killed in a motor accident and somebody tells his wife who collapses at the news and dies, it is the same tragedy but it is not the same common calamity. One can always find these detailed problems which are heaven to lawyers but a little difficult for the ordinary layman completely to understand. However, I have brought in this Bill to deal with a common calamity, to confine it to one particular issue as in the case of the Beare family and as might arise in a bus or aeroplane accident.

I have said:

"Where, in the case of deaths occurring after the commencement of this Act the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that…Estate Duty has become chargeable on any real or personal property passing on the death of any person…"

Up to now they have always been able to get off 50 per cent. in the case of business and land, and it seems to me that they should be able to get 50 per cent. or more in the case of any real or personal property.

I have used the words:

"within one month thereafter Estate Duty has again become chargeable on the same property or any part thereof."

If I am asked why I have chosen the period of one month I would reply in this fashion. Suppose that in a bus accident in which six couples are killed, four die within the month and the fifth dies just after it. It would become unfair. It is true that in Committee we may alter the period so that it becomes one day as it is in other countries, or longer than a month, or we may introduce a graduated scale. I should think that could easily be left to the Committee, but one has to state some period of time in the Bill, and one month was the period which seemed the most reasonable to me.

There is the possibility that, between the death of one and the other, the estate may go up in value. Not unnaturally, I ask only for the duty to be taken at the figure it was at the start. Finally, we have chosen 95 per cent.; this is just a figure, and again it can be gone into later on.

Even though the present position may be legally sound, it seems to me to be morally right that such a Bill as this should be brought in and, in some form, incorporated in the law of the land. The Treasury will, no doubt, say that there are appalling difficulties and that, if we do one thing or another thing, we shall be opening the floodgates to various other problems. My answer to that would be that, from the moral point of view, it is up to the Government to try to do something about it. I leave the matter, therefore, in his way, that I very much hope that I shall have the support of the Government and the Treasury. The moral issue ought to be settled and the position made a great deal fairer as it affects the estates of people who die more or less at the same time.

I beg to second the Motion.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on using his good fortune in the Ballot to attempt to effect this very necessary law reform. During the last year, in particular, there has been a great deal of publicity about the legal results of tragedies occurring in consequence of motor car, aeroplane and other accidents. We have fresh in our minds the recollection of the two accidents to which my hon. Friend referred, the Lewisham railway accident and the Isle of Wight air accident. My hon. Friend referred partticularly to the case of In re Beare, a case which prompted a great deal of correspondence in the Press. Many hon. Members, no doubt, received a great number of letters, as I did, from constituents who were very shocked at the legal consequences of that particular tragedy.

Today, not only the lawyers and the tax experts but more and more people generally are becoming aware of what is, in fact, a manifest injustice. In cases of double death resulting from an accident, and the consequent quick succession of property, the operation of the law is such that the State automatically—indeed, cold-bloodedly—may add to the troubles of a family which has already suffered almost unbearable loss and sorrow the further disaster of material hardship or ruin. In my opinion, there can be no principle of law or equity to justify the continuance of this state of affairs.

Hon. Members will know that the legal problem resulting from quick succession has a long history. Various aspects of the matter have occupied the attention of the House from time to time ever since we passed the Wills Act in 1837. A number of limited reforms have been effected over the years, but in rather piecemeal fashion; for instance, under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1914, partial relief from double duty is allowed on a graduated scale in the case of individually owned land or business property.

Perhaps I might say here that, although the Bill does not deal with that particular type of exemption, there is, of course, a very strong case now for extending the graduated relief to all classes of property when there is a quick succession. That, however, is a much wider matter than that contained in the Bill before us, and I think that the House might well consider that such wider reform would be unsuitable for a Private Member's Bill. I merely draw the attention of hon. Members to it, if I may, particularly the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

It is an odd reflection on the operation of the law that the calamitous results of the Beare tragedy might have been avoided had Mr. Beare, the father, made no will at all. In those circumstances, under the Intestates' Estates Act, both husband and wife would have been deemed to have died second from the point of view of his or her estate.

As my hon. Friend has stressed, in an age of fast travel by motor vehicles and aeroplanes, accidents being inevitable, the time has come for the House to make a further amendment to Estate Duty legislation. The scope of the Bill is deliberately limited to cases arising out of a common calamity or accident.

There has been criticism of the Bill, but, as far as I have heard it, that criticism nearly always stresses that the Bill does not include this or that hypo- thetical case; in fact, the criticism is directed not at what the Bill seeks to do, but at what it omits.

There has not at any time been an intention to include exemption in the case of certain other anomalies and injustices which arise out of quick succession and double death. The Bill does not attempt to deal with the case of a husband and wife who died from different causes within a short period of time. Criticism of it upon that ground appeared in a leading article in The Times, which commended the Bill as a step in the right direction, and which was, I think, published on 21st December last year. There is, of course, a very strong argument for including some such provision in any broad reform which the House may favour in the future.

It has also been suggested that the blame for the unhappy result of the Beare case lay in the fact that the father did not make a sensible will, that he did not draw up his will in a different form. It is said that if he had, as many do, inserted a proviso that the property should not pass unless his wife survived him by a stated time—say, one to three months—the results would have been not so unhappy.

There is a difficulty there, to which I have no doubt some of my hon Friends who are lawyers will refer. It is an administrative difficulty; the period must be short, and I am told that anything longer than three months causes the very greatest difficulty to those administering the estate. It is said also that Mr. Beare did not take advantage of the exemption from Estate Duty which is usually referred to as "the surviving spouse exemption."

I cannot see that the onus for avoiding what is recognised by a large number of people as a manifest injustice should be placed by the State on the shoulders of the individual. There is a principle here to which the House should pay attention in considering any reform of the law in this connection, and I will indicate briefly what I consider the principle should be.

Estate Duty is a tax on the passing of property and, as my hon. Friend has already indicated, in this particular aspect it is on the passing of property where there is a change in the enjoyment of property on a death. In my opinion, it is clearly unjust that where a person dies so soon after another and, although normally entitled to the enjoyment of property on that other's death, he could never in reality have had an opportunity of enjoying it. In such a case, as the House has heard, two lots of duty are payable, and they are payable in respect of only one real change in the enjoyment of that property.

This short Bill attempts to bring the law into line with that principle. It only does so, however, in the restricted class of cases where the death of the two persons is caused by one and the same calamity. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, if he should intervene in this debate, will invite the House to give the Bill a welcome.

In asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, I also ask the Financial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a wider exemption in all cases where two material deaths occur so close together that the second deceased never had any real opportunity to enjoy the property. By doing so we would remove what is universally recognised by an increasing body of responsible opinion in this country to be a manifest injustice.

I will begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on the able way he has introduced this rather complicated Measure. He said that it was a legal matter, as, largely, it is, but I join with him in agreeing that it is also a human matter.

The object of the Bill is to remedy an anomaly or injustice which arises under the Estate Duty law when two people die as the result of the same accident. I stress that it applies to two people, not only a husband and wife, because an interesting article which was in The Times of 21st December, giving full support to the general principle of this Bill, appeared to suggest that this anomaly applies only where a double death occurs as between a husband and wife and not in the case of ordinary individuals. Of course, as the law stands, it applies to any two persons.

This position has arisen from the passing of Section 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, a Measure which changed to a great extent the conveyancing law of this country. It was a well-founded Measure. Although I was not practising as a solicitor at the time, I was an articled clerk. Sir Arthur Underhill was responsible for this Act to a great extent. I mention this because I think it would be appropriate to recount a conference I had with the late Sir Arthur Underhill before 1930, when this Section of the Act was discussed. It is very short and clear, and runs as follows:

"In all cases where, after the commencement of this Act, two or more persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or others, such death shall (subject to any order of the court), for all purposes affecting the title to property, be presumed to have occurred in order of seniority, and accordingly the younger shall be deemed to have survived the elder."

Incidentally, it is interesting to recall that when I saw Sir Arthur a similar case to the Beare case had arisen. We had some discussion on the workings of this Section, and he said that in his view it was essential to have legislation by Statute to make clear the position when such circumstances arose.

I do not criticise the High Court judge in any way, but difficulty has arisen over this Section, not so much as it is drawn—because there must be some limitation—but in the way it has been interpreted by the courts, I am sure correctly. The practical effect is an extremely serious one, however, and it has recently been brought to the notice of the public owing to the decision in the case of Re Beare.

In quoting this case, my hon. Friend dealt with it fairly and properly, but I want to read to the House a fuller report of it because there is another point which should be stressed, namely, the hardship which can be created in such a case. I am quoting from the current document on the effects of the Beare case, Current Law for October, 1957:

"In Re Beare, Barclays Bank v. Beare (October 3, 1957) the testator and his wife were killed when their car overturned in a ditch. The testator had left a will giving the whole of his property to his wife. The wife had left no will."

This is the point I want to stress:

"There were four infant children of the marriage who had survived their parents. There was medical evidence to the effect that the husband, who was seven months older than his wife, died a very short time after her. On the question of the order in which the spouses must be presumed to have died. Danckwerts J. held that the medical evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion contrary to the presumption prescribed in such circumstances by s. 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, that the elder had predeceased the younger."

I am sure the judge was right in his decision, but the fact remains that as a result of the decision—this was not stressed by my hon. Friend—these four infants suffered very great hardship under the existing law as regards Estate Duty. Therefore, in considering this difficult problem, we must bear in mind that in Many cases we are dealing with the interests of infants.

Quite a lot has been said about the Beare case and how the difficulties which arose there could have been avoided by Mr. Beare making a proper will. If he had made a will in a form which is known to most practising lawyers, the difficulty would probably have been overcome. I feel strongly that the State has a duty to assist people who are ignorant of the law, although I am all in favour of people consulting solicitors in order to make wills. I do not think it is a responsibility which should be thrown on the individual.

It is said by most lawyers that one thing that they all desire is a case in which a testator has made his own will because it is almost inevitable that a self-made will will lead to litigation. That is probably a very fair truism. I certainly feel that the State has a responsibility in this matter. I do not know the circumstances of Mr. Beare's will, but it might have been a will that he made himself. There is a common form of will in which one leaves everything to one's wife. In such cases as these the State has a duty to assist the individual.

Reference has been made to the position which arises in the case of intestacy. It is clear in the law as it stands that the position under the intestacy Acts is much more satisfactory than it is if a will has been made. The intestacy law enacts that if two people die simultaneously and there is no evidence to the contrary, it shall be held that the estate does not pass from one to the other, and, therefore, no double duty is payable. That seems to be a very sensible and reasonable way to approach the matter.

It is proper to point out that under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1914, a relief is given against double death duty, on a graduated scale, where double deaths occur within five years. That seems a very sensible and equitable way to deal with the matter. Under that section a maximum relief of 50 per cent. was given. I should have thought that that was wrong and that it was a matter which should be reconsidered. For some reason which those of us who were not present at the time do not know, the relief applies only to land or business. It does not apply to an insurance policy, shares or furniture. I stress that because I think it is very important.

The Bill provides that where two persons die within one month as a result of the same accident there shall be a 95 per cent. rebate in duty. The only comment that I have to make on that—my hon. Friend knows that I am all in favour of the Bill—is that where one has a fixed period, such as a month, one always has cases arising of death occurring just after the period. Consequently, I feel that in legislation of this nature one should as far as possible avoid a date as short as a month. I should have preferred a period of three months.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) said that that would create great administrative difficulties. I do not see how administrative difficulties of that sort could be great. At all events, I consider a month too short and would have preferred a formula having no fixed date except something in the neighbourhood of five years, as laid down in the 1914 Act.

Although I fully support the Bill and hope it will be given a Second Reading, I suggest that this anomaly and the present problem should be dealt with on a rather wider basis. I feel that if Section 15 of the 1914 Act could be amended a great number of problems would be overcome. The Bill has been difficult to draft, but it is an excellent one and I congratulate my hon. Friend. While I hope it will be given a Second Reading, I trust that the Government will give careful consideration to whether the problem cannot be remedied by means of some amendment of the 1914 Act.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) upon having given us an opportunity to debate at least one of the many injustices perpetrated by existing Estate Duty legislation. I agree that it is the duty of the State to protect its citizens in this respect. They should not be expected to try to wind their way through the very tortuous channels of existing Estate Duty legislation.

I regret to say that even if one takes legal advice about the drawing up of a will one does not always obtain the safeguards that one ought to have. In fact, there is probably as much litigation about wills drawn up by solicitors as there is about wills drawn up by individual laymen themselves. It is a very complicated subject, as anyone who is involved in these matters realises.

Since the abolition of the legacy and succession duties, Estate Duty legislalation has been enshrined in statutes going back as far as the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881. It is true that the principal Act, passed in 1894, still applies in most cases, but it has been amended so often that to ascertain liability to Estate Duty one has to wade through a mass of amendments, to have a knowledge of a vast amount of case law, to know something about the provisions of about 62 Finance Acts and other main Acts, and to have a knowledge of numerous orders relating to such matters as double taxation relief, and so on. It is quite beyond the capacity of the ordinary individual, and, I suggest, beyond that of many solicitors, to provide safeguards against all contingencies which may arise.

My objection to the Bill, the principle of which I support, is that it adds another complication. It seems to provide a rich source for future litigation which can advantage no one except the legal profession. I have sometimes thought that one of our troubles is that so much of our legislation is introduced in the House of Commons by members of the legal profession, as a result of which they ensure for themselves very lucrative careers for many years, sometimes for centuries ahead. Perhaps that is slightly unfair.

Very.

I apologise if I have hit too hard below the belt.

The hon. Gentleman is far too moderate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham referred to Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1914, which deals with quick succession relief and enables a certain amount of relief to be given to a second beneficiary over a period of five years on a descending scale. Section 30 of the Finance Act, 1954, gave some further relief in that respect in the case of holdings in private companies. I feel that the principle which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion has in mind might be better served if we amended Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1914.

I want to deal with one or two provisions of the Bill which offers tax relief in the case of those who die as the result of the same calamity. First, how is "calamity" to be defined? I know precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion has in mind. He is thinking of an accident in which two people are killed simultaneously, or as near simultaneously as can be ascertained. But a calamity could easily be an epidemic and two people might die simultaneously as the result of an epidemic, but be miles apart at the time. Is that to be a calamity? There will be a great deal of argument about that.

Another difficult problem arises when two people have an accident and one is killed outright and one is apparently not seriously injured, but, within the time laid down, the survivor, who appears to have recovered, suddenly dies of pneumonia. In such a case, there would be long legal argument about whether the pneumonia was caused by the accident, or was due to a quite different cause not associated with the original accident. From time to time, there would be similar complications and decisions would be very difficult.

If the existing Finance Act, 1914, were amended, there would be a number of beneficial effects. It would be far better to allow the present five-year period as the benefit period. One could also take advantage of the change in the rate which the Bill proposes—a reduction of 95 per cent.—by substituting the existing scale under Section 15 of the 1914 Act and reducing death duty in respect of any successor dying within the first twelve months after the death of the original testator by 95 per cent., instead of 50 per cent. as now, and scaling up the remain- ing years to the end of the five-year period.

The real problem we face today is the fact that Estate Duty is confiscatory in character. The matter is so complicated that it requires a complete revision of all the legislation as it exists today, not only to make it more understandable, but to make it more just. Let us take, for example, the gamble of the five-year gift. Many people are apparently suffering from an anxiety neurosis and adding to the dangers of their existence by the mere thought of dying before the five years is up. It seems to be far more just for Estate Duty to be assessed on the unexpired portion of the five-year period so that if the donor dies after, say, four years, the recipient of the original gift would have to pay only one-fifth of the duty.

It might be far better to abolish Estate Duty altogether and to revert to legacy duty, assessing tax at the rate applicable to the particular gift in the hands of the recipient. I was very interested, when in Eastern Germany recently and talking to officials of the Ministry of Finance there, to find out that that is the system adopted in that Communist country. It may be that they think that no one in a Communist country will ever accumulate sufficient money by the hardest possible work and thrift to yield very much in the way of death duties, but it is interesting to find that they have a system of legacy duty which is much less onerous and much less hard on the legatees or beneficiaries than is our existing system.

The Bill refers only to two deaths and not to single deaths.

I mentioned that as a point of interest and to illustrate some of the difficulties and problems of death duties.

I was about to point out that under the Bill an injustice which now exists when two people die together and which results in their successors having to pay an excessive amount of Estate Duty can be put right, but it could be put right more easily by amendments to existing legislation. This is not a small injustice. We have to remember the scales of Estate Duty which now have to be paid.

Section 15 of the 1914 Act refers specifically to the relief in the case of quick succession and yet in that year death duties started at about 4 per cent. on an estate of £5,000, were 7 per cent. on an estate of £50,000, and 10 per cent. on an estate of £100,000, to quote three examples. Today, the rates are 3 per cent. on estates over £5,000, 35 per cent. on estates over £50,000, and 50 per cent. on estates over £100,000. On the whole, the rates have been increased by about five times, despite the fact that the value of money has probably fallen by as many times or more. One would have expected that the rates would have gone down rather than up. That illustrates the savage effect of Estate Duty and emphasises, if emphasis were needed, the necessity of Measures of this kind and reforms of the existing law.

There seems to be an attitude of mind today which can be summed up in the following way: a man who tries to make money is often described as being money-mad; if he keeps it, he is described as a capitalist; if he spends it, he is often called a play-boy; if he does not try to get it, he is told that he lacks ambition; if he gets it without working for it, he is a parasite; if he accumulates it after a lifetime of hard work and thrift, he is often told that he is a fool not to have got the best out of life. When one realises the deprecations of the Treasury on his estate after his death, one is inclined to think that the last definition of the man who has tried to make and save money may be correct.

If that is so, it is a pity, because it is a great pity to have a system which encourages people to spend what they have and not to develop the habit of thrift. I want to conclude with a short extract from one of Chesterton's poems which is well-known and of which one is sometimes reminded when dealing with the Treasury about tax matters, especially about Estate Duty matters. I want to quote what seem to me appropriate verses.

The poem is entitled "On England" and the verses I want to quote are:

"They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords,

Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.

They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;

They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.

And the load of their loveless pity is worse than ancient wrongs,

Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs."

That seems to be an appropriate description of the Treasury when dealing with Estate Duty. The concluding lines of the poem, which I have slightly paraphrased, are:

"But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.

Smile at us, tax us, pass us. But do not quite forget."

While supporting the Bill in principle, because it does remedy some small part of one of the injustices we suffer, I hope that the Treasury, as represented by my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, will take account of the many hardships suffered under existing legislation and will not quite forget those who have to pay such heavy taxes today.

I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on putting forward the Bill. I express to him my sympathy for the unfortunate cold from which he is so obviously suffering, and I wish him a speedy recovery. I would riot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) in advocating a complete reform of the laws of inheritance; I think that the task would be almost beyond us, and the final result might be even less happy than the unhappy condition in which we find ourselves today.

I want to put in a word for those persons who have to operate in the Treasury and take part in discussions, agreements and the necessary arguments about Estate Duty. They are bound by the law and the regulations. Their own private view—if they have one—may be that the law operates, in some cases very harshly, as indeed it does, but the Ministers have no power to say, "This is a hard case; I propose to ignore the law. I shall do my duty, and although Parliament says that this must not be done, I shall come to a totally different conclusion." They must say, "This is the law. I did not make it, but I have to enforce it in this way."

This is a problem which has affected many countries for hundreds of years. It has been dealt with in different ways, and I do not propose to go through the history again; it has already been touched upon by the proposer and seconder of the Bill. But it has always resulted in very great hardship when, as the Bill states, the deaths

"are the result of some one and the same calamity."

Nowadays, when Estate Duty is so very high, it results in many cases in the financial crippling of a family and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) said, the infants and the young people suffer most of all.

How are we to remedy this difficulty? Whenever we want to amend the law to deal with a hard case we must be careful not to make the resulting position worse than the original position. It is a truism that hard cases make bad law. This is undoubtedly a hard case, and we must, therefore, be very careful not to make bad law when we deal with it.

I want to add to the warning which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has already given, namely, that Clause 1 (c) is very difficult to follow when applied to individual cases. The cases which the draftsmen had in mind were those where two people are concerned in the same accident and both die at approximately the same time. That is fairly clear, but what is a calamity?

Can a loose stair rod cause a calamity if the husband, as he goes downstairs, falls, and, later, before the rod has been replaced, the wife also falls downstairs, and both break their necks in the process? It is undoubtedly a calamity that a careless person pulled out the rod, or that it happened to come out by accident, and two deaths result, but I do not think that the Bill was drafted to meet the case. Nevertheless, I think that it would cover it.

Then, again, the phrase that the deaths

"are the result of some one and the same calamity"

is very ambiguous and sweeping. As one hon. Member has said, it may be that a person is killed in an accident and this is such a shock to the spouse that he or she has a heart attack and dies. In one sense that is the result of the calamity, but in another it is a result of the news of the calamity. I can see an interesting point of law arising there. I should hesitate to give an opinion in the matter. Lawyers could argue about it for some time, but the last place in which to argue it would be this House.

Again, if we produce a Bill to alleviate a hard case we shall produce other hard cases. The Bill provides an arbitrary period of one month. Those who operate the Estate Duty laws cannot say, if a person dies one month and one day after the spouse, "This is a very hard case. It is only a few hours outside the period, therefore we propose to take alleviating action." They have no power to do so. They are bound by the terms of the Bill, if it becomes an Act. In that event, we shall perhaps have another private Member, or a Government, bringing forward another Bill to deal with that hard case. Those are merely points of particular criticism in what I regard as a sound Bill, which is, at any rate, a genuine effort to deal with a very great hardship.

I do not know whether the calamities of today are any worse than those that occurred in past ages. It is true that we have aeroplanes, but we have fewer terrible accidents. Train smashes are all too familiar, but they are not so frequent as they were in the last century. Even stage coaches were not immune from accidents. The point is, however, that in those days, when Estate Duty was so much lower, if two people died as a result of the same calamity it was not considered to be the same hardship as it is today, because there would probably still be a healthy part of the estate left and it would, therefore, not be necessary to have separate legislation to deal with the problem.

Nowadays, however, when Estate Duty is so cripplingly high in any event—indeed, it is not unfair to describe it as a form of capital levy, because a levy is taken from the capital—the Bill certainly becomes necessary, especially when the incomes of husband and wife are not taxed separately. The present situation really becomes rather ridiculous. There are many cases where, partly for this reason, husband and wife will not travel in the same aeroplane. If they are going to Paris one will fly by Air France and the other by B.E.A. The same consideration may not apply in the case of ocean liners, but it certainly applies to air travel.

They travel separately partly because, if they do die at the same time, there will be nobody left to care for their children, but also partly because their children may be left financially embarrassed. I there- fore support the Bill and commend it as going some way towards alleviating a great hardship, but I add, as a word of caution, that we must be careful not to make bad law out of a hard case. I hope that the Bill will be very carefully considered and improved in Committee.

As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) said, the Bill has the support not only of hon. Members of the Conservative Party but also of the Liberals and some distinguished hon. Members of the Labour Party. I say at once that we do not accept the general diatribe against Estate Duty which was made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) but there are, within the ambits of Estate Duty, injustices which require consideration. Whether an injustice occurs in questions of Estate Duty or in questions of wages, I hope that the Government will be as open-minded and sympathetic towards remedying it as are hon. Members on this side.

I do not know what the cost of reform on the lines proposed by the Bill would amount to, but I assume that if it were anything less than £50 million it would be regarded as chicken-feed, and that we could expect to have action from the Government.

I hope that if the Government are to deal sympathetically with the principle of the Bill they will deal equally sympathetically with the case of Health Service employees where there is a manifest injustice as between one set of employees and another. It is in that spirit, as I say, that I hope the Government will approach the Bill, and it is in that spirit that we on this side of the House approach it.

I agree at once with the criticisms made by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) about the Bill. I do not think it would be putting it too high to say that the Bill, as a technical production, is almost a shambles. I do not see how the Government can accept the Bill. However, I propose to treat it as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion invited the House to treat it, as a discussion on principle with a view, perhaps, to the Government dealing with the proposal, because it is, above all, a proposal which should be dealt with by the Government and in a Finance Bill and not by a Private Member's Bill on the lines put forward today.

The Bill contains proposals for dealing with an injustice arising out of common calamity. I agree at once and will not repeat the criticisms made, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, of "common calamity" and the difficulty to which it gives rise. As I understand, there are two aspects of common calamity. First, there are the people who die together, and, secondly, the people who die one after another after a comparatively short interval of time. I make that distinction between the two because in the Finance Acts as they at present exist there are those two distinctions.

The injustice does not arise because there is a calamity—let us be perfectly clear about that—in which two people die. The injustice arises because, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), I think, pointed out, there is such a short interval of time for the enjoyment of the property which passes from one to the other. Therefore, I hope that in any Bill dealing with the matter these very contentious and misleading references to common calamity will be eliminated. The essence of the matter is not common calamity, but the elimination of enjoyment of the property. That is the calamity from the Estate Duty point of view.

I will deal, first, with those who die at the same time, but I shall be very brief because I know that there is another important Bill coming before the House. In existing legislation on intestacy, where husband and wife die together double Estate Duty is not levied. Therefore, we have that principle recognised in one small class of case.

Secondly, as I understand the matter under the 1894 Finance Act, if, for example, there is under a settlement a gift to A for life and then to B for life, and then other limitations in the settlement, and if A and B die together again double Estate Duty is not levied. That being so, we have in the Finance Acts another instance where double Estate Duty is not levied when people die together.

I should have thought that what is required is consideration of whether that principle which is embodied on intestacy and under settlements should be expanded to apply to other cases. I must say that I cannot see the justification, although there may be one, for limiting the non-levying of double Estate Duty to those two kinds of cases.

I now come to the second point where there is, in fact, survival, but where one person dies a short time after another, whether by reason of common calamity or not. My approach to this part of the Bill is very much on the lines taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), that is to say, the lines laid down in Section 15 of the 1914 Finance Act where provision is made on a sliding scale for relief from Estate Duty where one person dies within periods up to five years after another.

The present maximum relief is the 50 per cent. reduction in Estate Duty if the person to whom property passes dies within twelve months of the person from whom the property passes. Surely what should be considered is that when a person dies within a shorter period than twelve months there should be a greater increase than the 50 per cent. in the concession. I sympathise more with the approach of the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham than I do with the approach made by the Bill. Of course, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, Section 15 of the 1914 Act is limited to cases of land and business for the reason, as I understand, that if that concession were not made it might lead to difficulty in handling the land or dealing with the business. But that is not a reason which appeals to me for limiting the concession to land and business.

Why should this be so simply because there is an embarrassment or because an embarrassment might arise in the case of land or business? The same embarrassment might easily arise in other ways—in the realising of shares or of any other thing in which the property happens to be locked up. Why the concession in the amount of Estate Duty should be made in that case instead of a concession in time in which the duty can be paid, I completely fail to understand.

I sympathise, as I say, with the approach of the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham; I do not understand why the concession is limited to land and business. I hope, therefore, that, whatever is the fate of the Bill today, the matter will be dealt with not in the last resort by a Private Member's Bill, but by the Government. I hope that the Government will tell us what cost involved, and that if the matter is to be dealt with by the Government it will be dealt with along the lines of the 1894 and 1914 Acts which deal with people who die together or who die within a very short period of one another.

I think that there is a case here for consideration, and because we consider that there is such a case we on this side of the House will certainly not oppose the Bill. Indeed, as I have said, some hon. Members on this side have put down their names in support of the Bill. However, I would remind hon. Members opposite particularly that when it comes to dealing with injustice as between one person or one set of people and another on wage claims, or whatever we are dealing with, they will be equally as sympathetic to these invidious pieces of injustice as we are in this case.

I would add my congratulations to those which have been so justly offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) upon having introduced the Bill, as he did, in such a very able, clear, and human speech. It has led not only to an extremely useful debate upon the hardship in the particular case which gave rise to the Bill, but to a very interesting discussion upon Estate Duty and the reliefs which might be given in cases where persons have died in a common disaster or in quick succession.

The Government understand and sympathise with the feelings expressed by my hon. Friend. The Beare case was very hard. Mr. and Mrs. Beare died together in a motoring accident, leaving four children. No evidence was found by the court sufficient to show which of the two survived the other. Accordingly, by operation of a fiction of the law—a necessary fiction, as hon. Members who have experience in this branch of the law would agree—the husband, who was a few months older than his wife, was presumed to have died first. This rule was laid down by Section 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, for determining title to property in cases where it is uncertain which of two or more persons survived the others.

The Chancery Division held that the rule applied in this case. The husband had left his property absolutely to his wife by will. The result was that the property passed twice, first to the wife and then, on her intestacy, to their four children. In consequence, there was a double charge of Estate Duty on the husband's property, since the duty is levied on the passing of a life. It is only fair to point out that there was some relief under the quick succession provisions which have been mentioned in the debate. The House will understand that I cannot give details in the case of any particular taxpayer. The hardship was to some extent mitigated, but I do not pretend that no hardship remained.

We were all rather shocked that the Exchequer was entitled to two lots of Estate Duty at the expense of children whose parents had been killed in such tragic circumstances. The double claim does not arise out of any provision of Estate Duty law. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) made that point clear. It arises from the general law.

Hon. Members may wonder why this matter has never been raised before. Only in a very few cases is this situation likely to occur. As the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, pointed out, the case where husband and wife die without leaving a will is outside the operation of Section 184 of the Law of Property Act and is covered by the Intestates' Estate Act, 1952, which ensures that property shall not pass from husband to wife or vice versa if they die intestate and it is not certain which survived the other.

Where there is a will, the testator, if he is competently advised, usually provides against the possibility of this sort of case, either by granting his wife a life interest, which is quite usual in cases where there are children, or by providing that the gift shall not be effective unless the wife survives him by, say, a month. And even in some of the few cases which do occur there may be no financial hardship to the beneficiaries, who are by no means always children. Nor am I being cynical when I say that beneficiaries who are not close relations often experience an actual advantage because the property comes to them rather more quickly by reason of the common disaster.

Nevertheless, it has been made abundantly clear in the debate that there is a hardship here which merits the consideration of the Legislature and of the Government. I agree that there is a strong case for preventing such a situation happening again. On the other hand. I am bound to say two things. The first is, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion will agree—and I shall not repeat the details—that the drafting of the Bill has been subjected to great scrutiny by well-wishers of the principle which my hon. Friend has upheld. I will not repeat the criticisms made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) of the word "calamity", which raises very great difficulties of construction. It recalls Robertson Hare; and as in the case of his "Oh, calamity‡" it seems to cover a very wide range of circumstances.

Another point was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, which I think is just. It is this. This is the sort of reform which ought to be made by the Government in a Finance Bill and in the context of a general review of the fiscal structure. On the other hand, my hon. Friend is entitled to some assurance that the matter will be dealt with in that way. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it is his intention to deal with this problem in the forthcoming Finance Bill. I do not say that it will necessarily be dealt with by the method adopted in the Bill, but it will be dealt with in the spirit in which my hon. Friend has approached it.

There are at least three ways in which it could be dealt with. The first is merely by Amendment of Section 184 of the Law of Property Act. There has already been inroad made into that Section by the Intestates Estate Act, 1952. On the other hand, this is a general rule of succession. It does not by any means apply only to Estate Duty cases. It was enacted to deal primarily with cases of benefit by will. As I understand, according to the common law, whether the property was given by will or otherwise and it was uncertain whether the donee survived the donor, the onus was on the donee to prove that he had survived.

In cases of common disaster that led to very great hardship and imposed onus not only in such cases, but in cases of general calamity, in which it was uncertain which of the two had survived the other. In many cases the property did not go where it was intended to go and where justice demanded that it should go. It is necessary to have some rule of law in these cases which will mark out how the property shall pass. For that reason we have the rule that the younger is deemed to survive the older.

Although my right hon. Friend has by no means made up his mind on this matter, I would suggest that there are disadvantages—

indicated assent.

I am very glad to see that the hon. and learned Member, with his wide experience in this branch of the law agrees—in dealing with it by interfering with the law of succession.

The second way in which the matter could be dealt with is one which has found considerable favour in the course of this debate. It was mentioned particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East. That is an adaptation of the quick succession relief constituted by Section 15 of the 1914 Finance Act. I will not trouble the House by reading it, but it provides for relief on a sliding scale depending on the interval between the deaths—50 per cent. when the second death occurs within 12 months, 40 per cent. when it occurs between one or two years, and so on. Of course it would be possible to have a higher scale, as has been suggested, for deaths separated by less than twelve months, even rising, as the Bill suggests, to 95 per cent. for deaths occurring within one month.

The disadvantages of the provision of the 1914 Act are threefold. First, it is extremely complicated and difficult to administer. Secondly, it must be the same property which passes. If the property has changed in its nature between the two deaths, the Section does not apply. Thirdly, as has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East and my hon. and learned Friend, it applies only to certain types of property, to land and businesses. I think that the reason for that was that at the time of the passing of the 1914 Act they were types of property which were not easily realisable, but whether that criterion and differentiation are still valid I think is a matter for argument.

A fourth disadvantage of that Section is that it does not prevent aggregation. Although there is a relief, the property passing is still aggregated with the main estate and, therefore, may attract a higher rate of duty. I am bound to say that not only would a provision on these lines be very complicated, but it would be quite expensive. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East asked how much it would cost. I cannot give him precise figures at this stage, but it would be a matter of millions, rather than of thousands, of pounds.

There is a third way of dealing with the problem, which I mention for the consideration of the House. This is quite a short provision to eliminate the second charge on Estate Duty arising out of the operation of Section 184 of the Law of Property Act. That seems to be clearly justifiable on the ground that the double charge in these cases arises out of a pure technicality—a legal presumption as to the order of deaths—which may, of course, not correspond at all with the facts. It would merely put the parties in the same position as regards Estate Duty liability as they would have been in under Section 1 of the Intestates Estate Act, 1952, if the elder had died intestate.

That would be a simple provision, which seems to me to be a great advantage in this branch of the law, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) pointed out, is already over-complicated to administer, and its cost would be negligible. It would deal with the hard cases, such as the Beare case which prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion to introduce this Bill.

My right hon. Friend proposes to deal with this matter in the Finance Bill, although he has not determined whether one of these three methods, or even some other method, may be the appropriate way. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that these matters are better dealt with in a Finance Bill, and the drafting of this Bill has been subjected to stringent, although friendly, criticism, I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether, having heard what I have said, he should withdraw it at this stage and see what happens in the Finance Bill. As I recognise there is a case for remedy, I cannot ask the House to reject this Bill if my hon. Friend wishes to get a Second Reading, but I would ask him then to consider whether it would be really profitable to pursue the matter in Committee. Having heard what I hope he feels to be a fairly forthcoming attitude on the part of the Government, I would ask him whether the proper course would not be to withdraw this Bill and rely on action being taken in the Finance Bill.

Personally, I would prefer to go on with the Second Reading and then to leave the question of dealing with the Bill in Committee until we find what the problems will be. I have learned with great interest of all the difficulties which will now obviously arise from the drafting of my Bill. At the same time, there will be plenty of opportunity, should it be necessary, to deal with it, but I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend will carry out their promises and that there will be no need to go on after Second Reading.

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

I am sorry that so important a Measure cannot receive more time for discussion, but I suppose that for a third Bill on a Friday I must be grateful or thankful that I at least have an opportunity to move the Second Reading.

In moving the Second Reading, I speak with considerable feeling, because the only work to which I have been accustomed since I left school at the age of fourteen and until I came to the House is work in an office. I worked as a boy of fourteen under very unsatisfactory conditions, working in an office from seven in the morning until six at night for 6s. a week. I moved thankfully to better circumstances, and before I reached this House I had been working in ideal conditions with Messrs. Cadbury Bros. Ltd. of Bournville, Birmingham. I have always felt that this great section to which I have always belonged has not had a fair deal throughout the years.

This subject has been before the House on a number of occasions, but the last occasion on which an Offices Regulation Bill was before the House was nearly 22 years ago, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), whom I am very glad to see in his place this afternoon, had the opportunity of presenting a Private Member's Bill. For a few moments, I should like to refer to some of the points which he put to the House at that time, because they all apply today.

Between 1923 and 1936, eleven Bills had been presented to the House, but the last was that introduced by my right hon. Friend and supported by all the clerical and non-manual workers' unions in the country. When he moved the Second Reading, my right hon. Friend made three points which I want to emphasis today. First, he said,

"There is practically no systematic or routine inspection of offices today…any old place may be used as an office without let or hindrance…there are no regulations governing the inspection of offices."

Secondly,

"there is a marked tendency among clerical workers towards tuberculosis, digestive and nervous disorders."

Thirdly,

"the death rate among clerks in commercial offices is almost double what it is in agriculture."

I mention those points, brought to the House 22 years ago, because today the situation is worse. We have suffered a world war which has added enormously to the difficulties which clerical workers have to endure. It is interesting to recall that on that occasion the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is the present Minister of Education, made a statement which I ask the hon. and learned Member the present Under-Secretary of State to consider. I do not quote the speech in any carping manner, because I am certain that when he made it the present Minister of Education believed that legislation would be forthcoming to put the position right for the black-coated workers. As reported in column 2560 on 13th March, 1936, the right hon. Gentleman said:

"…the Committee have produced a draft Bill, a copy of which I have here. It covers the whole of these questions and many others, and fully meets the representations which the Home Office made with regard to those doubts. It defines a work-place as any place in which persons are employed otherwise than in domestic service, and I think hon. Members will agree that that covers offices. In Clause 280, it makes a clear and definite provision in relation to powers of entry and inspection which cannot fail to remove all possible doubt as to the power of local authorities inspectors to engage in systematic inspection of offices, and not be dependent upon casual complaints."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1936; Vol. 309, c. 2495–2560.]

On what occasion was my right hon. Friend speaking?

He was speaking on 13th March in reply to the debate on the Offices Regulation Bill, the Second Reading of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield moved. That was in column 2560. He went on to say that if the Bill were passed the whole question of offices would come under the observation of inspectors, and added that there would gradually be accumulated a body of knowledge in regard to the real conditions in offices.

I refer to that only because it was ten years later that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) set up a Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers, which was able to show beyond doubt that what had been thought to be the case in 1936 was certainly not the case in 1946. The Gowers Committee investigated the facts and reported in 1949. Paragraph 16 of its Report reads:

"The interpretation of 'workplace' is uncertain. There are no specific requirements as to lighting, temperature, or facilities for washing or for taking meals, all of which have a direct bearing on health. The general character of the acts, moreover, is negative rather than positive: that is to say, an impression is created (rightly or wrongly that all the owner, occupier or employer has to do is to see that conditions are not so bad as to be a nuisance or actively prejudicial to health, and that local authorities have no power to intervene unless they are."

In paragraph 17, the Committee goes on to say:

"These arguments are reinforced in the case of London by the fact that it is doubtful whether under the Public Health (London) Act routine inspections of offices (as distinct from inspections based on specific complaints) can legally be carried out."

The Committee went on to make recommendations, based on the model of the Factories Act, 1937, which, it said, was

"…a model in its own field of what protective legislation can accomplish."

Those recommendations were made in 1949, and the Minister will see that they are all recommendations that have been considered by the Home Office, the Trades Union Congress and other interested bodies. Those main recommendations are embodied in this Bill.

The matter has been the subject of no less than six deputations from the Trades Union Congress. Two deputations saw Lord Kilmuir, then the Home Secretary, two saw Lord Tenby, who then held that office, one deputation went to see Sir Anthony Eden, and a deputation has seen the present Prime Minister. It will be seen that nine years have passed without those recommendations being carried out.

As a private Member, I have not been able to put into the Bill any Clause which would cost the taxpayer money. That is the difficulty. It means that the Bill may not have the teeth which a sympathetic Government can give to such a Measure. Clause 1 says:

"The Secretary of State shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, make regulations specifying the standards as to structure, arrangement and operation to be applied in every office for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of persons employed on the basis of the minimum requirements described in the First Schedule to this Act."

In Part II, I am making special provision regarding the fencing of dangerous machinery which is now being introduced into offices, the prevention of injury from electrical equipment, protection against the lifting of excessive weights, and the

"Prohibition of the employment of women before and after childbirth",

which closely follows the recommendation of the Gowers Committee's Report.

I realise that the minimum standards laid down can be the subject of discussion if the matter goes to Committee. In regard to the enforcement of the regulations, Clause 14 of the Bill provides as follows:

"Any provision of this Act or any regulation made by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be enforced by such authority and administered in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe."

I will say no more about the Bill, because I know hon. Friends of mine also desire to speak.

Why is this subject even more vitally necessary today than when it was last raised in the House? There was another Bill a few years ago which covered agricultural workers, shop workers and office workers. My Bill relates only to offices. The Bill is more vital today because unfortunately conditions are worse. The Second World War did so much damage to London that one-third of the floor space for offices and commercial warehousing was completely destroyed by bombs. That means that 84 million square feet of floor space was reduced to 57 million square feet in London alone. I am assured that all the plans for the rebuilding of London, when carried out in two years' time, will replace only half of the buildings destroyed.

I was invited by the City Press to inspect some of London's offices. I had no idea that there were such shocking conditions today in London. In fact, the Press office itself was, I thought, a terrible disgrace to any firm. Frankly, if those conditions existed in a factory the employer or the owner would be prosecuted under the Factories Acts. In the Stock Exchange area alone, hundreds of mirrors hang outside the dingy buildings to reflect the light into the dismal buildings. I was so intrigued by this that I went into an accountant's office next to the Mansion House. This accountant's office was in a building which had been occupied by the Lord Mayor of London in 1757. I asked the accountant if he could explain to me how these mirrors could be of value, and he demonstrated how, if they were taken away, the light which was the greatest craving would be taken away from the office. The Gowers Committee said:

"Good lighting is an investment which pays handsome dividends to employers, and does not benefit their staffs alone."

In London alone my Bill would be justified, but in Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester—in fact, all the great cities—there are frightening conditions not only in the offices of private employers but even in municipal offices. For instance, the City Council of Birmingham would do well to examine the conditions under which their clerks are working in the basement office of the council house.

If we looked further we would find that in other cities similar conditions obtain. I am told, for instance, that the Manchester fire authority is extremely afraid of the danger of fire in some of the old buildings. Perhaps more office blocks have been built in Liverpool—I do not know—but these evil conditions exist in every city.

I should like to quote one or two examples of the sort of conditions which exist. I have before me the result of an examination of the conditions under which the clerks are working in the Finance Department and the Supplies Department of the National Coal Board in Abercarn in Wales. There the clerks have been housed in a hut. They have been asking for improvements for nine years, and I was informed on 18th December:

"The buildings were originally infested with vermin and after a couple of years of the use of rat poison, the vermin is still present. Further to all these points, and in spite of them, the Board, instead of erecting the long-promised new offices of brick construction, are erecting more huts to accommodate staff. There is as yet no sign of any toilet facilities for these huts."

This is a public undertaking. I am only mentioning these facts to show that not only private but public and municipal undertakings are affected.

Let me quote as a further example a case which came to my knowledge only yesterday concerning a Midland town. I was informed:

"The building in which I work was once a row of cottages now converted into offices. The main offices are on the top floor and consist of the general office approximately 5 yards by 4 yards, accommodating two wages clerks, one counter cashier, an accounts clerk, one Comptometer operator, one shorthand typist and one junior. The costs office containing two people is 2½ yards by 3 yards. Only cold water is available here. There are no waste bins, and toilet rolls are only supplied on request, whoever would have thought that such conditions could exist?"

It is not difficult to appreciate that such conditions must adversely affect the health of clerical workers. According to the census of 1951, there are 2,341,319 clerks and typists, and, of course, if those who work in shops and the offices of shops are included, the figure would be well over 4 million. Moreover, those figures do not include bank managers, stockbrokers, civil servants, local government officials or even railway workers.

According to the Registrar-General's Report for England and Wales of 1951, which was published by the Stationery Office in 1954, the incidence of respiratory tuberculosis amongst clerks is 38 per cent. higher than the average for the country. The incidence among agricultural workers is 42 per cent. below the average. Furthermore, the incidence of anaemia, according to the figures, is twice as heavy among clerical workers as it is among agricultural workers. The average mortality rate from rheumatic heart disease, coronary heart disease, pneumonia, ulcers, diseases of the liver and nephritis, is higher among clerical workers than the average for the country, according to the Registrar-General's figures.

The incidence of sickness is equally bad. The number of spells of incapacity due to sickness among males employed in agriculture is, I am told, nine per 10,000; for all workers it is 33 per 10,000, and for clerical workers it is 47 per 10,000.

Those are facts which justify my decision to use my opportunity through the Ballot to bring this Bill before the House. The white-collared workers have become the "Cinderellas" of the Welfare State. They are a section of mankind to some extent in captivity. I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary upon his appointment, and I hope that he will be able to give some help to these workers, many of whom are caged up, unable to enjoy the fresh air which God intended all creatures to enjoy as far as possible in their work.

I know that the Government are, in principle, sympathetic to the claims which have been made by all the trade unions. How long are we to wait for some action? There was an interesting article published in The Times on 2nd December, which said:

"It has still to be asked whether their status"—

that is to say, the non-manual staffs—

"should be allowed to decline to an extent which results in widespread cynicism and dissatisfaction. Are they to be tempted to try to improve their position by a militant trade unionism? Is industrial action necessary to compel the Government to legislate on office conditions?"

My answer to The Times is, "Surely not". This is the way in which we must meet the demands on this considerable section of the community. I trust that in principle this Bill will be accepted and that those who have been at the back of the queue for protection against unfair unhealthy conditions will at least have some hope from this debate.

Alexander Pope said:

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast:"

Man never is, but always to be blest:"

I hope the House will be united in doing justice to the black-coated workers of the country by giving a Second Reading to this Bill, and so giving them places which will enable them to live happier, better and healthier lives.

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he refer to Clause 17, which he has not mentioned? This excludes Government Departments, but, after all, nowadays an enormous number of workers in the classes he mentioned are employed in Government Departments. [An hon. Member: "That is a Committee point."] No, it is a Clause in the Bill which excludes from the benefits the hon. Gentle- man is seeking to make all those employed in Government Departments except by special order of the Secretary of State. Will the hon. Gentleman give the reason for inserting that Clause?

I should have the greatest possible pleasure to accept an Amendment in Committee. I am not permitted to put anything into the Bill which would cause the Government any expenditure. Unfortunately a private Member must be in that position and, as I said at the beginning, one can only hope. Of course the Government can do that, and I would not think such a provision would exclude the matter from being considered in Committee.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not also a fact that the Government have virtually agreed with the Civil Service trade unions on standard conditions, through the normal machinery of negotiation, which are approximately of the character incorporated in this Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

I am sure that it is the wish of the House that I should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) not only on his good fortune in the Ballot, but also on the admirable way in which he has presented the case for the Bill. My union, the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, has been seeking legislation of this kind for nearly fifty years and it would be appropriate if we got the Bill now as a result of the initiative of one of our members. I regret that my hon. Friend's good fortune did not go a little further and give us more time to debate this Bill, but, after all, it is not a contentious one. Today, we are only concerned with the principle, which was endorsed by the unanimous vote of this House in 1955, and both in public and private Her Majesty's Government have expressed themselves in favour of this legislation.

I hope, therefore, that the Joint Under-Secretary will immediately get up at the Box when I sit down and tell us that the Government are prepared to endorse the principle and, if need be, to consult with my hon. Friend on any necessary Amendments in Committee. If the Government will not do that today, then I must advise office workers generally that the Government are not interested in their conditions, and that the pledges they have given publicly and privately over the years are not to be accepted at their face value.

What we are asking for is very small and very reasonable. It is that non-manual workers shall have a charter equivalent to the Factories Acts for our industrial brethren, and that there shall be inspectors and a procedure of complaint similar to that which they have now enjoyed for over a hundred years.

In view of the time, I will not enlarge upon the excellent case that has been put before us. I wish just to make one point. It is not only in respect of old buildings that we need this legislation. Many new buildings do not conform to reasonable standards. The mot scandalous example of bad office building is provided by the Government. The Queen's Building of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, at London Airport, has office conditions which led to the following comment by Miss Godwin, the General Secretary of my union:

"It appears that a number of our members are being housed in boxes devoid of light and air, both of which are subsequently introduced at considerable expense."

The building was erected without proper consultation and without proper conditions. Some of the office block is still not used because the employees will not work in it, and it has been agreed that £40,000 of public money shall be spent to make it reasonable for the office workers. That is a building erected by the Government in 1955. Consequently, it is clear that this legislation is required not only to improve standards in old buildings, but to set a reasonable standard as a guide to the Government in their new building.

I hope that the House will endorse the principle of the Bill today with an unopposed Second Reading and that we may get down in Committee to the real work of making it the kind of Measure that we all desire.

This is obviously a non-party Bill; politics are not involved in the decision which we shall shortly make. In moving the Second Reading, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) greatly impressed us, and, indeed, moved many of us, by his obvious sincerity and the knowledge that he has of this subject. I hope that anything that I may say will not be taken as a criticism of the way he introduced the Bill or the arguments he used. It will merely be a criticism of the Bill as it is now drafted.

The intention behind the Bill is admirable, as we all appreciate, but some of us must complain about the phraseology which is used. Although this may not be intended, it gives the impression that British employers huddle their workers into underground workrooms and deny them adequate heat, suitable light and proper sanitation. It gives the impression that employers force their workers into conditions which no self-respecting worker would tolerate for a minute in these days of full employment.

If some employers do so, why should it not be rectified?

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to develop my own argument. If there is time, he may be able to intervene later.

The Gowers Committee reported in 1949, and there were thus two years in which an important Measure of this kind could have been introduced before the Labour Party left office. If the Labour Party thought it was of such importance to all of us, as it obviously is, why did they not avail themselves of the opportunity then afforded to them? This should be a Government Bill—it should not be left to a private Member on a Friday afternoon to introduce it—and it should be drafted by Government draftsmen so that it contains phraseology which will convey to employers exactly what their obligations should be.

There is another point in that connection. The miners and quarrymen demanded attention for the treatment which they obviously merited, but it was left to the Tory Government to bring in the Mines and Quarries Act. Why have we had to wait again for a Tory Government to do what the Labour Government of the time should obviously have done themselves? These points have no bearing on the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I agree, but, at the same time, they raise doubts in the minds of those who study the Bill.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that the Bill is intended to implement the recommendations of the Gowers Committee of 1946

"…with certain modifications reached after discussion between interested parties."

The hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned only the Trades Union Congress. I am an interested party and I was not consulted. Was the Federation of British Industries consulted? Was the British Employers' Confederation consulted? As far as I can find out, they were not consulted. They are all interested parties, because they are the employers who will be forced to find the money to undertake the renovations and constructions which the hon. Member for Ladywood said were necessary.

If my hon. Friend looks at page 107 of the Gowers Report he will see that the British Employers' Confederation gave evidence to the Gowers Committee.

I know, but we are talking about the Bill and not about the Gowers Committee.

The Gowers Committee recommended protective devices for dangerous machines according to the standards of the Factories Acts. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the provisions of the Factories Acts have been adopted. There is the matter of the conditions under which women should be employed for lifting heavy weights. We are all in agreement with the need to do something about that, but the recommendations of the Gowers Committee and what is in the Bill do not coincide.

The weakness of the Bill is bad drafts-manship. We all agree with its intention and with the hon. Member's purpose. My advice is that in the interests of what he seeks to do, he should withdraw the Bill and ask the Government, after consultation with the numerous authorities concerned—

The hon. Member should ask them, he knows them better.

to find out whether a new Bill could be drafted to give reasonable effect to what the hon. Member desires and, at the same time, not to put impossible obligations upon those who will have to undertake them. That is the one suggestion I make. It is wise advice and I hope that the hon. Member will adopt it.

I hope that hon. Members will think it appropriate for me to intervene at this stage to state the Government's point of view. Speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) on his initiative in introducing the Bill; to thank him for the work he has done in its preparation, and to assure him that we respect the motives which have inspired him in introducing it, and what he has said today. We are all familiar with this problem; I suppose that at some time or another nearly all of us have had to work in offices, good or bad.

In view of what has been said by my right hon. Friend, especially in the debate last June, it goes without saying that the Government support the objects of the Bill. We are, indeed, in general favour—as has been said so clearly—with the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. Our sincerity in this matter has been proved by our fine record of legislative and administrative reforms designed to improve working conditions. I shall not weary the House by listing them all; perhaps the most important was the Factories Act of 1937. The most recent improvement was the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act of 1956—and in my last appointment I had to play my humble part in administering the Mines and Quarries Act of 1954.

All Measures of that kind involve a major administrative and legislative exercise. I agree with the hon. Member for Ladywood that the Bill is an important one. It is a very important Bill—as any Bill which sets out to do what this attempts to do is bound to be. A Bill to organise conditions in all offices, especially offices as widely defined as those in the Bill, is bound to be a major exercise.

A major exercise of that kind involves various things. First and foremost, it Involves consultations between Government Departments, local and other public authorities, and representatives of trades unions and employers' organisations. That consultation is a necessary first step to the making of even the first draft of any such Bill, and that consultation needs to take place both upon matters of principle, in the light of what was said in the Gowers Report, and, to some extent, on matters of detail.

Secondly, before legislation of this kind is introduced decisions need to be taken by the Government at the highest level about such matters as the method of enforcement—whether it shall be by a certain Government Department and, if so, which one—and as to administration and cost.

The Government's own position, in their own numerous and varied offices to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) referred, has to be very fully considered. If I may use a colloquial expression, I would say that that position has been "ducked" entirely by Clause 17. I should have thought that a well-considered Bill, drafted by Government draftsmen—it is bound to be a major Bill—would need to be put before the House by the Government, supported by a Financial Resolution, considered fully in the way that Government Bills always are, and scrutinised by the House.

It therefore follows that it is very doubtful whether a private Members' Bill could ever be suitable for such a major exercise. I agree that private Members' Bills have sometimes been successfully taken over by the Government assisting the private Member, and drafted and amended with the help of Parliamentary draftsmen, and that they have sometimes become Government Bills by the addition of Financial Resolutions. That has been successfully done on occasion, but I feel bound to advise the House that such a procedure would not be suitable for the purposes of this Bill. Even if, having accepted its objects, we tried to adopt that course on this occasion, I am obliged to advise the House that for reasons which I shall enumerate we should not be likely to succeed.

The first reason is that there have not been the necessary full consultations which I mentioned. The second reason is that too many important questions are left unresolved. As I say, Clause 17 leaves unresolved the question of the application of the Bill to the Crown. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the Government were to legislate for higher standards in all offices other than their own, so that is an important question left unresolved.

Then there is the question—Clause 18 of the Bill refers to it—of there being no decision as to the expense of enforcement. Again, there is the third question of any decision as to who shall enforce. Bearing in mind that it would be necessary to dovetail the decisions and the legislation with existing legislation, in which the local authorities as well as the factory inspectors play an important part, we feel that it would be premature for the House to rush in and attempt to amend the Bill.

There is another reason why we feel difficulty about the Bill. If I may put it broadly, without entering into too much detail, we say that the general method of carrying the hon. Gentleman's intention into effect is, with great respect to him, a rather awkward one. I will say more about that, if I may refer to some of the details of the Bill.

If we refer to Clause 10 (1) we find the definition of "office," and that it

"includes any room, suite of rooms or premises used wholly or partly for clerical work, including book-keeping, filing, typing, typing…"

It may well be that this is a point which could be amended in Committee, but what I have to say about the detail of the Bill has to be considered as part of the general scheme which the hon. Member for Ladywood is putting forward. There we find the word "premises", which is about as broad a term as one can possibly use to define real property. We should find, therefore, that if clerical work were being done on a dockside, such as the checking of goods going into or being taken out of a ship, the provisions of the Bill would have to be applied to the person doing that clerical work. That sort of point would arise at once.

However, a much more serious matter of detail is that in Clause 11. The responsibility for seeing that the Bill is enforced is to rest upon the occupier of premises. Again, "occupier" is a very wide term in one sense and too narrow in another. I can best illustrate that by citing the case, which is very familiar these days, of a large block of offices which is let off to a considerable number of tenants and which contains services, such as sanitary facilities, shared by all the tenants.

Clearly, it is not by a broad sweep of the brush that we can provide for circumstances of that kind. Very detailed and complicated provisions would be needed to ensure that responsibility lay upon the shoulders of the people in whose hands it lay to rectify the inadequate standard of facilities. I cite that case as just another example of the plan put forward by the hon. Member for Ladywood.

There is also the difficulty, to which I must refer in slightly greater detail, of imposing minimum standards of working conditions. As I see it, the intention of the Bill is that the Home Secretary should be compelled to make regulations, either in the terms of the First Schedule or in some other way more favourable to the office worker. The Home Secretary is given power subsequently to amend those regulations, but only for the purpose of making improvements, presumably from the point of view of the office worker and perhaps quite rightly so.

This limitation on the power to amend regulations is a necessary result of the provision which prevents the Home Secretary from making regulations which do not come up to the minimum standards of the First Schedule. This seems awkward. The regulations are bound to repeat substantially, if not wholly, the precise terms of the First Schedule, especially as the requirements of the Schedule are more onerous than has hitherto been contemplated and are, so far as we know, put forward without prior consultation with those concerned.

I do not want to labour the point too much. It is because of the general unsuitability of the Bill for handling as a Private Member's Bill that I feel obliged to advise the House that the Bill should not be accepted, rather than because of any intrinsic detail. I wish to leave the House in no doubt whatever that the Government accept the need and the principle which the hon. Gentleman has put forward, and secondly, that we feel bound to advise the House that that need is not adequately or satisfactorily met by the Bill. With the best will in the world we do not see how the Bill can even be drastically amended so as to make it workable.

In June, 1955, the Minister of Health made, in debate, a promise that recommendations of the Gowers Report would be implemented and a Bill brought forward. What do the Government intend to do?

Is the Minister aware that in an interview with trade union representatives in July, 1955, the then Prime Minister held out a very definite expectation that legislation along these lines would be introduced by the Government in the Session 1956–57? It is now stated that the Bill is to be held up because consultations have not been completed. Perhaps the Minister would explain why the then Prime Minister was able to offer that promise and today the Minister has given us a negative answer.

May I, also, remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 1st April, 1955, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), when he asked my hon. Friend to withdraw his Bill, said:

"The Government have already made it clear that it is their intention to introduce legislation of, broadly, the same scope."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 756.]

We are three years from that date, and we have seen nothing.

I am aware that the former Prime Minister, in July, 1955, saw a deputation from the Trades Union Congress and did say that legislation on these lines might be introduced in a future Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "Would be."] I am not aware of any specific undertaking being given—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the legislation would be introduced in any specific Session. We have already announced to Parliament, through the Gracious Speech, a very heavy programme of legislation for this Session. Nothing would be more unwise than to rush into legislation without adequate preparation and consultation. We are, as I say, proud of the record which we have in this matter, and while thanking the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) once more for his initiative, I regret that I cannot advise the House to accept the Bill.

I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) on coming to the high office that he has now attained. I can only regret the first use he has made of his opportunity.

What is the position in regard to this matter in his Department? Does the Department contemplate ever legislating on this issue? The closing sentences of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech would make one understand that the Department cannot do that. How far have negotiations gone? I initiated negotiations on this matter in 1949. The matter came before the House again in 1955, just before the General Election, when my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) introduced a fairly comprehensive Bill dealing with all the issues raised in the Gowers Report.

We actually had one sitting in Committee before the General Election when, in the frame of mind which overtakes even Tory Ministers just before a General Election, the enthusiasm of the Government for this matter was expressed by the Minister who was in charge of the proceedings on the Bill in Committee. He is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Department in which he was previously, he carried out the undertaking he gave. The hon. and learned Gentleman reports, with a pride in the record of other people's achievement which does not in any way reflect on his own Mate modesty, that the Government were proud that they had done that.

When will the other Departments concerned in this matter get on with their job, particularly for those people who, over the years, have seen increasing legislative protection for the working conditions of nearly all other kinds of salary and wage earners but others of whom have been left in the condition mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) in his speech today? It is a shameful thing that the Joint Under-Secretary cannot say this afternoon that the Government contemplate, within the lifetime of this Parliament—I do not ask anything more—bringing legislation before this House to redeem the pledge they gave in 1955 just before the General Election.

I can only hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have better luck when next he receives a brief from the office. I can at least thank him for not doing what one of his predecessors did. He gave a promise to us that we would have legislation to deal with the Report by the Royal Commission which considered betting and which has been repudiated since by his Departmental chief and, we understand, is now to be regarded as one of the pledges given to the House only to be broken. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have better luck in a Department which deserves a better Joint Under-Secretary than he has proved himself to be this afternoon.

In the very short time remaining, I want to pose this question to the Minister. I support the principle of the Bill and agree with a great deal that has been said. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. V. Yates). Could not this Bill be sent to a Select Committee in the same way as the Obscene Publications Bill was sent? I quite appreciate that the drafting of the Bill is hopeless, but the hon. Member for Ladywood is not a Parliamentary draftsman—not many of us are.

I support the Bill and think it right that its principles should be carried out, but I would rather that it was sent to a Select Committee. It is almost impossible to amend the Bill and draft it satisfactorily in Standing Committee. If I am in order, Mr. Speaker, I commend that suggestion to the House.

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

I am in general sympathy with this Bill—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Then sit down".]—but, for reasons which time will not allow me to give—