HC Deb 31 July 1908 vol 193 cc1970-2000

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment— In page 1, line 5, after '(1),' to insert the words until the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fifteen.'

*MR. SPEAKER

With regard to this Amendment and the next, I have to say that in my opinion they are what are called "privilege" Amendments, and I say so on the ground that they vary the grant of the old-age pension as determined by this House, and, if no further legislation takes place, they would make the grant to end after a certain period of time. In my opinion these two Amendments are privilege Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment— In page 1, line 21, at end, to insert the words 'as verified wherever practicable by certificates of birth or baptism or in the absence of such certificates by census returns or other official documents, or where no such certificates or documents are attainable in such other manner as may seem sufficient to the pension authorities.'

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs) moved, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." In the first place, this was obviously a matter which ought to be dealt with by regulation. No Amendment of this kind could possibly cover all contingencies that would arise and have to he provided for. As a matter of fact, the regulations which had been framed were much more elaborate than anything contained in these words. It was perfectly clear if they accepted the Amendment that the man over seventy years of age, when required, would have to prove it in the way it proposed, and they would thus impose upon the person applying a charge of half-a-crown or three shillings and sixpence, though it was known to everybody in the locality that the man had reached the age of seventy, and the pension officer had satisfied himself by other means that the applicant was seventy years of age. Why should a man in a case of that kind be compelled to provide official documents, the getting of which would involve a great deal of trouble, and make it really difficult for him to get his pension? In fact, in the case of a deserving old person, they wanted to make it easy for him to get his pension. There were cases where it would be necessary to have some sort of evidence, and these were the cases which would be carried up to the pension officer. There might be some cases of difficulty, but for these there were elaborate regulations, and therefore on these grounds he moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

said the object which the Lords had in view, so far as he could judge, was to make good a plain defect in the original Bill. The amount of charge thrown upon the taxpayers, or as he should rather say the accuracy of the estimate of the charge, would really depend upon the success attending the efforts to prevent the receipt of pensions by persons not entitled to them because of their being under the age of seventy. He thought the scheme in respect to that age would have to be modified in the future, but as all financial estimates, all the prophecies of the Government, of the charges on the public depended upon the accuracy and success with which they were able to prevent persons getting pensions, it war quite clear the machinery of the Bill and its loose wording might be somehow or other greatly improved. This could not be denied. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he had already had regulations drawn up of a more elaborate character than this Amendment, or any that could be introduced into the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had not shown the House these regulations, but he was quite ready to accept the statement.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said it was obvious that he could not lay the regulations before the House until he knew what were the decisions to which they came, because these regulations might be affected very seriously one way or the other by these very vital Amendments.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said there was force and substance in this objection, and if the right hon. Gentleman was far advanced with his regulations——

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Yes.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If the right hon. Gentleman considered that the regulations, would be more effective for attaining the object of the Lords Amendment, then he did not quarrel with the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived.

LORD R. CECIL

did not think the right hon. Gentleman had really done justice to the Amendment. It did not require the production of official documents in every case, nor at the cost of the pensioner; it merely said that where it was practicable a certificate should be provided, but the committee had the alternative of doing without it; it was merely an indication of the method to be pursued. He did not envy the position of a pension officer in certain parts of the United Kingdom who, in doubt as to the age of the applicant, demanded the certificate. That was a much less workable arrangement than to indicate on the face of the Bill that official evidence when required should be procured, not at the expense of the applicant, but at the expense of the pension committee, who should themselves say the particular instances into which the pension officer was to be entitled to inquire. The right hon. Gentleman said the regulations were in draft, but that he could not present them until he knew the final form of the Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he had them all ready.

LORD R. CECIL

said that if they had seen them, in draft Members would know what they were doing. So much was left to regulation that practically all that the House had done was to tell the Government to draw up a scheme for old-age pensions. It would have been better had the Government presented the draft regulations at the earliest stage for discussion, and afterwards amended them if necessary. He did not propose to divide the House on this Amendment after what the right hon. Gentleman had said.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment— In page 1, line 22, after the word 'must' to insert the words 'satisfy the pension authorities that.'

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that this was really a drafting Amendment, and he did not think that it really mattered much. If the Lords thought they were better than the words of the Bill he was not disposed to quarrel with them; it was a pure matter of drafting. Then in line 24 they would have to put in the word "has" instead of "have."

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments— In page 2, line 24, to leave out the first 'have,' and to insert, the words 'he has,' and to leave out the second 'have,' and to insert the word 'has.' In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'means of the,' and after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'must satisfy the pension authorities that his yearly means.' In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word ' must,' and to insert the word 'do.'

Agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 7, to leave out from the word 'until' to the word 'Parliament' in line 9.'

*MR. SPEAKER

It appears to me that this is also a privilege Amendment, and the effect of it might be to vary the period of disqualification. The Bill says the period of disqualification shall be determined on 31st December, 1910; but if these words were struck out the period would be indeterminate; it might be a shorter or a longer time; they would, at all events, vary the period the House has fixed. I therefore consider this a privilege Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments,"—(Mr. Lloyd-George,)—put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment— In page 2, line 34, to leave out the word 'for,' and to insert the words 'during the last.'

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that this was very largely a question of drafting. They had had a discussion about it, on the initiative, he thought, of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and they had then decided to stand by the words of their own draftsman. He moved to disagree.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said he did not quite understand the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman refused the Amendment. He had informed them quite clearly that the Government intended the words to mean that a person should not be disqualified if he had continuously for the last ten years up to attaining the age of sixty made certain payments, and it seemed desirable that that should be made as clear as words could make it. This Amendment would leave no doubt in anybody's mind, and they clearly carried out the expressed intentions of the Government. In the interests of clearness and of the avoidance of litigation the House would be well-advised to consider whether it would not do well to accept the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he quite agreed that this was not a very important point, but he could not agree as at present advised that it was merely one of drafting, and he was very anxious to know exactly what the policy of the Government was as expressed by these words. Judging by what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer it appeared that in the opinion of the Government there was no question of substance involved. He was not sure that that was so. Was it not the case that if the Lords Amendment were accepted the mere omission of one month in the last ten years would disqualify? On the other hand, if the Government form were taken was it not also the fact that any ten years since the man was seventeen or eighteen and began to earn wages, would enable the pension to be given? He was not quite satisfied with the Lords' drafting or with the Government's drafting either. He took it that the Government were reluctant to make the mere omission of a month or two months in the last ten years a disqualification. There he agreed with them, and he thought the Lords Amendment was too stringent. On the other hand the Government form was far too lax. He wondered whether the Government could not arrange, perhaps not then, but before the Bill was finally settled, some form of words which would meet the general view of the Government, the rest of the House, and the House of Lords.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

thought they had made the policy of the Government abundantly clear on the Report stage; that policy had been stated very fairly by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought the words they had inserted, and which they proposed to stand by, quite adequately expressed that intention. He agreed that the Lords Amendment would, be too severe; he preferred the words as they were inserted originally, more especially as the House had accepted them at the time, with the exception of a few dissentients. It was the expression of the general sense of the House, and he was not disposed to depart from it.

LORD R. CECIL

said he was left in complete doubt as to what the real intention of the Government was. In the Report stage the Government said that what they intended was that a man should have been a subscriber to a friendly society for the ten years immediately preceding attaining the age of sixty. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his charming manner that he quite agreed with his right hon. friend as to what the House ought to do. But he understood that his right hon. friend put two alternatives before the Government and did not express agreement with either, but really expressed a wish to have a different solution of the question.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

thought the Leader of the Opposition put to him the specific case of rural societies which had become insolvent, and appealed to him to take that into account. That was why on the whole he preferred words which were not too absolutely stringent, and he thought the words of the Commons were better for that very reason, that it would enable them to take into account cases of that kind. If that society became bankrupt, through no fault of the person who had paid subscriptions all his life, just a year or two before he attained sixty, it was a case which they ought to take into account, and he responded to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition. He preferred the words as they stood.

LORD R. CECIL

said the right hon. Gentleman now deliberately said that he preferred vague words which left the matter in dispute to words which were precise and defined what the meaning of the House actually was. That was what it came to. That was a most extraordinary conclusion and was entirely different from the position taken up on Report, when the right hon. Gentleman said, with all the authority of the Government draughtsman behind him, that they meant exactly what they said they meant, that a man must have subscribed for the ten years up to attaining the age of sixty, and that they insisted on the words because they were so clear. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin made an appeal to him in an especially hard case, and he said he would introduce words to deal with the case if he could. Now he said the words were not clear, and because they were not clear he hoped they would be able to get round the difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. Surely that was a most admirable instance of the absurdity to which they had been put in the discussion of this Bill. He hoped the Government, if they could not accept the Lords Amendment, would draft an Amendment which really carried out their wishes. It seemed perfectly clear that the words contained in the Bill were doubtful. The Leader of the Opposition spoke without favour to the Lords Amendment, or to the policy of continuous payment for ten years, or discontinuous payment, and what he regarded as perfectly plain was that the words meant that any ten years before attaining sixty would do. Surely it was absurd for the Government to say that the words were perfectly clear. It was plain beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were not clear, but did they carry out what the Government said was their original intention? If they now said that was not their meaning, it was quite open to them to move to amend the Lords Amendment or to say they would introduce in the other House words which would make their meaning plain.

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

hoped the House would disagree with the Lords Amendment. The noble Lord was very particular about thrifty persons not being handicapped, but let him put a simple case, that of a man who had made a bit of money up to forty-five or fifty, went into business, and at sixty entirely failed, through no fault of his own. There were many in the unions who had failed in that way. Because in the last ten years of his life he had been away from his friendly society and come into poverty he was to be shut out, and the Lords had put in this cast-iron rule.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said he had taken a somewhat active part in the original discussion on the Report stage, and he did not quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an agreement was arrived at, because, as far as he was concerned, he said he was not satisfied with the language as it stood in the Bill, and he hoped the Government would find it possible to amend it. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given one hard case; but he thought he had entirely lost sight of the second class of case which was raised at an earlier stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred only to one class of case where a society lapsed through bad management, and a man suffered through no fault of his own. There were plenty of cases where a man having failed to maintain his subscription and his membership having lapsed, the society reinstated him into his former position. The words of the Bill would would exclude such a case. He considered the Amendment restrictive and unfair, and he could not vote for it. Still, he felt strongly that what the Leader of the Opposition had said ought to be listened to. He believed that when the Bill came to be translated into action, words such as those in question would lead to difficulty and in some cases to the greatest possible injustice. Perhaps the point might be cleared up by the regulations. There must of necessity be difficulties in the phraseology of such a Bill which could only be cleared up by means of regulations. The House had not seen the regulations, and would be proceeding in the dark. But the fault for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was arraigned was one which had also been committed by others He himself had declined to produce regulations when Bills were in progress, because it was impossible for the permanent officials to prepare the regulations till they had the whole Bill before them. All they could do was to frame part of the regulations governed by the main principle of the Bill. Difficult points of this kind could not be dealt with by regulation till the Bill was complete.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fifeshire, E.

Everybody appears to agree that it would be undesirable to accept the Lords Amendment, which, so far from bettering the position, would make it worse by imposing greater stringency than this House intended and than right hon. Gentlemen opposite contemplated. We have only power to accept the Lords Amendment, to reject it, or to amend it. I do not see any means by which it could be amended which would make it adequate to the requirements of the case. I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is the right one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurs, and it appears to us that, under the very wide language of the regulation section, a regulation might be made which would adequately deal with this particular case. If so, that would be better than adopting hard and fast words in the Bill.

MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said the words of the Bill were "if he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty." He was inclined to think that a Court of Justice might construe that as meaning continuously during the last ten years. He suggested that the words "if he has continuously during a considerable part of the last ten years" would be better.

LORD R. CECIL

asked if it was competent for the House to amend the Lords Amendment, and then make any necessary consequential Amendment.

*MR. SPEAKER

If the Lords Amendment is agreed to, it is competent for this House to make any consequential Amendment.

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment— In page 3, line 17, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'if the term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced exceeds one month he shall be disqualified.'

*MR. SPEAKER

I am of opinion that this is a privilege Amendment. It extends very largely the benefits of the Bill. The effect of it is to remove the ten years disqualification from persons sentenced to imprisonment of less than one month—that is, it limits disqualification for ten years to persons who are sentenced to more than one month. The effect of this will probably be to exclude a smaller number of persons; in other words, to add a certain number. Accordingly, it varies the charge. I may point out, however, to the House that the door is always open to the House not to insist on its privilege, if it desires to accept an Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should like to know whether the Government propose to insist upon their privilege.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Yes; I move that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I understand that the Amendment removes what is a manifest hardship in the Bill, and I should have thought the Government would have seized the opportunity of asking the House to waive its right and accept the Amendment. I am the more surprised that they have not taken the opportunity which the Lords have given them of modifying the Bill in favour of the pensioner, seeing that, as I understand, the Amendment was either moved or accepted by their representative. As to the action which the Government are now taking—action for which they have given no reason whatever—it appears that in their desire not to accept an Amendment of the Lords they deliberately refuse what is admitted to be an improvement in the Bill.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

asked if they were to understand that the Lords Amendment extended the number of those who would be applicants for old-age pensions.

*MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

said that the terms of the Amendment tended to modify this clause very considerably and removed possibilities of very great injustice. He regretted the decision of the Government, but would vote with them.

EARL WINTERTON (Sussex, Horsham)

hoped that after that debate the assertion would no longer be made in the constituencies that the Liberal Government were the only people who were in favour of old-age pensions.

LORD R. CECIL

desired to move that the House should not insist on its privileges m the ease of this Amendment. In the absence of some such Amendment serious injustice might be inflicted. If n carter was convicted of not having his cart lighted, or of being asleep in his cart, and the magistrates imposed a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine, he might find himself absolutely disqualified for a pension. That was a perfectly outrageous proposal.

MR. ASQUITH

I do not think, so far as I can form a judgment, that the effect of the insertion of these words would be anything like so great in extent as seems to be supposed. But we are here dealing with a question which in my opinion is of the greatest importance to the procedure and privileges of this

House. If the House, whatever may be its opinion on the merits or demerits of a comparatively small change in the Bill, were to allow the precedent—it would be a precedent—to be set of accepting an Amendment of this kind, in my opinion we should very greatly impair the rights and privileges we have always hitherto asserted, and we should be doing so for a price which is not worth exacting. On that ground I ask the House to refuse to agree with the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I put the point of order, are there not countless precedents for this House waiving its privileges in these matters and accepting an Amendment from the Lords which technically violates its privileges?

*MR. SPEAKER

I think almost every year, certainly very frequently, this House does not insist upon its privilege. It accepts Amendments, and in sending a message to the other House the statement is made that this House does not insist upon its privilege.

MR. LUPTON

expressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 145; Noes, 33. (Division List No. 239.)

AYES
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Cobbold, Felix Thornley Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cooper, G. J. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Barnard, E. B. Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Barnes, G. N. Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hall, Frederick
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Cowan, W. H. Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale)
Beck, A. Cecil Crooks, William Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Bell, Richard Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hardie, J. Keir (Merthry Tydvil)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Bowerman, C. W. Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Brooke, Stopford Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Dobson, Thomas W. Haworth, Arthur A.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Duckworth, James Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Byles, William Pollard Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight Essex, R. W. Hudson, Walter
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Everett, R. Lacey Illingworth, Percy H.
Cheetham, John Frederick Faber, G. H. (Boston) Jenkins, J.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Ferens, T. R. Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Cleland, J. W. Fuller, John Michael F. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Clough, William Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Jowett, F. W.
Clynes, J. R. Glendinning, R. G. Kekewich, Sir George
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Stuart, James (Sunderland)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Murphy, John (Kerry, East) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Laidlaw, Robert Nolan, Joseph Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Lambert, George Norman, Sir Henry Thorne, William (West Ham)
Lewis, John Herbert Norton, Capt, Cecil William Tomkinson, James
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Parker, James (Halifax) Wadsworth, J.
Lupton, Arnold Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walsh, Stephen
Lyell, Charles Henry Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Walters, John Tudor
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') Wardle, George J.
Mackarness, Frederic C. Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln) Waring, Walter
Maclean, Donald Robson, Sir William (Snowden) Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Macpherson, J. T. Roe, Sir Thomas Weir, James Galloway
M'Callum, John M. Rowlands, J. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
M'Laren, H. D. (Staflord, W.) Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Mallet, Charles E. Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland) Wilkie, Alexander
Manfield, Hurry (Northants) Sehwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Seaverns, J. H. Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Marnham, F. J. Seddon, J. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Mason, A. E. W.(Coventry) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).
Massie, J. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Winfrey, E.
Masterman, C. F. G. Stanger, H. Y.
Micklem, Nathaniel Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Middlebrook, William Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Mond, A. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Strachey, Sir Edward
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Collings, Rt. Hn J. (Birmingh'm) Magnus, Sir Philip
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Esmonde, Sir Thomas O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) Goulding, Edward Alfred Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Guinness, Walter Edward Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Bowles, G. Stewart Halpin, J. Thornton, Percy M.
Burke, E. Haviland- Hamilton, Marquess of Winterton, Earl
Butcher, Samuel Henry Heaton, John Henniker
Carlile, E. Hildred Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Lord Edmund Talbot.
Castlereagh, Viscount Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kettle, Thomas Michael
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Question put; and agreed to.

Lords Amendment— In page 4, line 2, after the word 'him,' to insert the words 'as to produce the largest income that can be reasonably obtained from it.'

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I want to submit to you, Sir, that this is an infringement of the privileges of this House. The effect of it would undoubtedly be to diminish the number of those who could claim a pension. The effect of the Lords Amendment is this. The pension officer would be obliged to recognise the income of a man, not in accordance with what it actually is, but in accordance with what it ought to be if he invested his money in a different way. For instance, if he invested it in Consols, the pension officer might say: "You are only getting 2½ per cent, for your money, and you should invest it at 5 per cent.," or, if he had £200 in the Post Office Savings Bank, he might say: "You ought not to invest it in the Post Office Savings Bank. If you were to invest it in some industrial security which you might acquire you would get 5½ per cent." That would have the effect of diminishing the number of those who could claim a pension, apart altogether from the merits, and consequently I submit on the question of privilege that it is an interference with the privileges of the Commons, because it is quite clear that under the words as they stood originally the pension officer would have no right at all to tell a man who claims a pension to invest his money at 4, or 4½, or 5½ per cent, instead of putting it in the Post Office Savings Bank or in Consols.

*MR. SPEAKER

I have considered this question, and I think the Lords Amendment is really an explanation of the words: "profitably used." Who is to say whether a man has properly or improperly used his money? What is intended by the words, "profitably used"? These are vague general words, and it seems to me that the explanation of the words is that the money is so invested "as to produce the largest income that can be reasonably obtained from it." An investment in Consols would not in many instances, but might in others, be the largest income that could be reasonably obtained. That is a matter of argument. I think that it would be the doctrine of privilege run mad to insist upon this as a breach of privilege. The House may or may not accept the Amendment, as it pleases.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that in that case he moved that the House disagree with the Lords Amendment on the ground that it practically directed a man to invest his money in something that would produce more than the 2½ or 2¾ per cent. which it would produce if invested in Government securities. It was not desirable that the House of Commons should practically drive a man away from investing in Government securities.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had never considered the merits of this question. The Government had sent up to the House of Lords a most slovenly piece of work, and the House of Lords had dealt with a plain and obvious blot in the Bill. A man had a choice between investing his money in some permanent security, like Consols, or of putting it in a building society, in a trade union, or in buying an annuity. If such an investor remained content with a small return only, he was able to preserve the corpus of his property for his children and, at the same time, to get a pension for himself from the State. The House ought to make up its mind how it meant to deal with the case. If a man possessed the money they ought not to encourage him to secure a provision for his old-age out of the taxpayers' money while leaving the corpus of his property to his children. If, on the other hand, they said it was desirable that people should leave their money to their children, and that they should be encouraged to invest their property in Consols or a similar security, rather than in a trade union or benefit society, then, at all events, let them say that that was their policy. He did not think it was a justifiable policy, but the Government had not, throughout the whole course of the debates, given one single word of explanation of what it was they meant. The case, which was really one of substance, might be put plainly and simply in this form. A man had £200 invested in Consols or some mortgage. This brought him in, say, £6 or £7 a year. If he had only this £6 or £7, he had a right, when he was seventy, to come down on the State and say: "Give me 5s. a week." But he had the £200 to leave to his children. Was that what they wanted to encourage? Let them make up their minds. If the man, instead of accumulating these few hundred pounds, had spent his money in contributions to a benefit society or to a trade union or in the purchase of a life annuity, he would have a larger income, he would have a smaller claim on the State, and he would not have the corpus of his property to leave to his children. He thought the Government should say under which of these two plans they meant to take their stand. It would make all the difference in the working of any scheme of old-age pensions. The language of the Bill should be made perfectly clear. Which of there two things did the Government mean? He submitted that the Lords were perfectly justified in trying to make the language and policy of the Bill perfectly clear. Whether their solution was the light one was another question, but that the House of Commons had never been allowed to argue.

MR. LLOYD-GEOEGE

said the right hon. Gentleman had asked him a question and, with the leave of the House, he would answer it by putting to him the specific case of a man who had £200 saved up and who had a family dependent on him—let them say an unmarried daughter.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not my case.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he did not say it was the case of the right hon. Gentleman. But the case the right hon. Gentleman put to the House was of a man with £200 saved up, which he could leave to his children. His case was: Suppose the man had an unmarried daughter living with him. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that in that case they ought to force——

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he must interrupt. The right hon. Gentleman was putting into his mouth, as an illustration, a case which he had not put. Let them suppose that the owner of the £200 wanted to leave his money, not to an unmarried daughter living at home, but to a nephew who was extremely well-off in America.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

did not think the man with £200 would take the same trouble to save his money for a rich nephew in America that he would if he had some one dependent upon him in his own house. He would take an illustration which was a more practical and a more usual one, that of an old man who had an unmarried daughter, or it might be a widowed daughter, looking after him. He was seventy-two or seventy-three, and the right hon. Gentleman said he must buy an annuity with his £200. He bought an annuity. He might live six months, and then, at his death, he left those dependent on him absolutely penniless. The right hon. Gentleman called upon them to decide what the Government were going to do in such a case. His reply was that they stood by the Bill, which would not impose upon such a man the necessity of buying an annuity, which he might only enjoy for two or three months and then leave those dependent on him penniless.

MR. BOWLES

said he did not know what the Government really intended by this part of the Bill. Did they mean that the means of a person for the purposes of the Act should be "the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him." Did that or did it not mean that account should be taken of the income which might reasonably be obtained from the property? Unless the words meant that, they had no administrative or practical meaning at all; and the sole effect of the Amendment was to make that apparent. The right hon. Gentleman gave an instance of an old man with an unmarried daughter looking after him, and said that it would be very unfair indeed for him to have to buy an annuity and leave his unmarried daughter who was dependent upon him penniless. But was it quite clear that under the clause as it stood without the Lords Amendment the man might not be forced to do so? Could the right hon. Gentleman point to the words which would enable the old man to say to the pension officer: "I am not bound to do it; I resist your demand, and I will not buy an annuity, and nevertheless, you will have to give me a pension." As the Bill stood, as it left this House, it was perfectly open to the pension officer to suggest—he was not at all sure that it would not be the duty of the pension officer to say: "No; you have £200; so long as you have that £200 invested in Consols, I cannot grant you a pension, and that on the ground that you are not profitably using your £200 within the meaning of subsection (3) of Clause 4 of the Act." That was the point. The sole effect of this Amendment was to make it clear that they were to take into account the property of the man, the use which he made of it, and whether that was the largest income he could reasonably obtain from it. The Amendment would remove all doubt upon that point.

MR. GOULDING (Worcester)

said that this was another of the clauses which, owing to the operation of the guillotine, the House had had no opportunity whatever of discussing.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

This was discussed.

MR. GOULDING

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. This particular provision was not discussed at all.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

It was discussed. The Leader of the Opposition, certainly, and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, put this dilemma in the debate. Whether the answer was satisfactory or not is another matter, but it certainly was debated.

MR. GOULDING

said the right hon. Gentleman forgot that it was put to him as the guillotine was falling, and there was no opportunity whatever of any further discussion of the matter. He could not for the life of him see why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the very reasonable Amendment inserted by the Lords. Surely it was not desirable to encourage the poor to hoard their money, to hide it in a stocking. They should rather encourage them to invest it. The Amendment gave a distinct guide and direction to those who were to estimate the yearly income to see that reasonable precautions were taken to invest the money instead of hoarding it.

MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)

asked the Government to explain what they meant by the words the Yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property "if profitably used by him." Take the case of a man with an unmarried daughter, owning a piece of land which he was holding up. He was getting no income out of it, but he was holding it up for the benefit of his unmarried daughter, because he knew that at the time of his death this land would have ripened and would be worth more. What was the pension officer to do in a case of that kind? Was he to say that this man was entitled to a pension or not?

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said that, to his mind, the Lords Amendment would increase the hardship in rural districts to a considerable extent. Many cottagers had household gods such as old clocks, old brass candlesticks, warming-pans, and china which had been in their families for a hundred years or more and which they valued for themselves. There were collectors who would be quite ready and willing to give £50 or £100 for the contents of these cottages, because there was an immense demand for these articles, and under the Bill that value would have to be capitalised and the interest reckoned as part of the income of the cottager, although he had no doubt the pension officer would take a very lenient view of such cases. He hoped the House would resist the Lords Amendment. The clause itself, for the reasons he had stated, was an unjust one. Such property as these people might have which from the point of view of sentiment they would not sell, but which a collector would value at anything from £25 to £100, should not be regarded as property from which an income could be derived.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR,

by leave of the House, asked the Attorney-General whether, in his view of the clause, a man who sold the remainder of a life annuity and invested the proceeds in some permanent investment would or would not be "directly or indirectly depriving himself of any income or property in order to qualify himself for the receipt of an old-age pension" under subsection 3.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)

said he certainly would say, so far as his own opinion was concerned, that a bona fide act of the kind described by the tight hon. Gentleman would not be an attempt within the meaning of the section which forbids a man to deprive himself of his income. It would be a perfectly reasonable and legitimate change of investment. The clause was directed against the person who obviously intended to bring himself within the scope of the Bill by lessening his income for that purpose. A reasonable change by a man in the use of his money, still retaining it in profitable use, would not bring him within the penalties laid down in the clause. As the Bill stood it sought to prevent hoarding, and it said that any man possessed of property must put it to a profitable use. The inquiry of the pension officer went to that extent only. But the Lords Amendment would push the inquiry very much further, and the pension officer would have to go, not merely into the broad general question as to whether a man was profitably using his money, but into the question of how he had exercised his judgment in the use of that money, whether he had done it reasonably or unreasonably. He had rather gathered that the Opposition objected to the great scope already given to the inquiry by the pension officer; they were seeking now to push that inquiry into a sphere of a very dangerous character. They would make a mistake if, under cover of preventing fraud, they proceeded to stimulate reckless and improvident investment.

SIR H. NORMAN (Wolverhampton, S.)

said the case which might arise was even stronger than had been stated by the Leader of the Opposition. A man of seventy otherwise qualified might have £739 invested in Consols. With £266 he could purchase himself a Post Office annuity of 13s. a week and still have £470 of his original capital invested in Consols. There was an even stronger case. An old couple of seventy living together might have £2,218 invested in Consols, and still, if they chose, draw from the State a pension of 2s. a week. He was perfectly aware that not many cases of that sort would arise, but, at the same time, the point could hardly be dismissed by a humorous observation.

MR. BUTCHER (Cambridge University)

asked whether old furniture, an old clock or ornaments and things of that sort, in the possession of these persons would come under (b) or (c). If it fell under (b) there would be no danger, but if it fell under (c) it was another matter.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he did not think that under the Bill, as it stood, the old clock would be taken into account at all by the pension officer. But if Lords Amendment were inserted it would undoubtedly be taken into account.

MR. CROOKS

said it appeared to him that some people wanted to turn the pension agent into a touting agent for speculative builders. He thought this was legislation for poor people. Could anyone imagine a man who had toiled for a daily wage for seventy years developing into a speculator? They would never find a working man who had put by £2,200. He had a better opinion of the Englishman than to believe that he would descend to subterfuges of the kind suggested in order to obtain a pension. That might be the view of the noble Lord and other hon. Gentlemen who had an intimate knowledge of the criminal classes, but after all, the majority of the people were not of the criminal class. The whole opposition to this declaration was frivolous. Those supporting it did not know what they were talking about. He had never come across these working men with hundreds of pounds. He wished he had. He did not believe they existed save in the imagination of those who were opposing this declaration.

LORD R. CECIL

said the last speech rather confirmed a doubt which he had felt as to whether those who called themselves Labour Members really knew anything about the subject. The hon. Member had suggested that it was impossible to find a working man who had saved any money.

MR. CROOKS

Nothing of the sort.

LORD R. CECIL

Of course, the man who had saved £2,000 would be an extreme case. The point of the discussion was a perfectly simple one, and it had not been met by the Government. At present subsection (c) of the clause was absolutely vague, it might mean one thing in one case and another thing in another, and the result would be that in some districts pensions would be given under one set of terms, in others under another set of terms. That could not be desirable. All the Lords did was to make a guess at what the House meant and to try to put it into clear language. If they meant, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that people were not to be forced to buy an annuity, but could invest their money in any way they liked, then let them say so in the Bill. The point was that the Bill teemed with instances where the meaning was left absolutely vague and unclear, which must lead to injustice. He confessed that the Attorney-General's speech seemed to him, if he might say so, not really to deal with the point. He said they could not put on the pension officer the duty of inquiring whether the investment had been made profitably or not; but the subsection itself said— The yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used. That was to say, if there was property which was not profitably used so as to produce the income expected to be derived from that property, then the property was not being dealt with in the way directed by the Bill. That was a view which it was possible for any pension committee to take, and if the House were to deal with thing fairly they should make their meaning clear. It was farcical to say that they had discussed this matter, which he thought was interrupted by the fall of the guillotine. It had never been discussed by the House, and despite the humorous observations of the hon. Member for Woolwich he thought this was a proper opportunity to discuss the matter. He thought the right course would be to agree to the Lords Amendment, and then subsequently to amend that so as to carry out the true intention of the House.

MR. MOND (Chester)

said they had only one lot of money to go round, and the more they gave to the people who did not want it the less they would have for the people who did want it. As far as he could see, the case of capital was provided for in the Australian and New Zealand schemes, and if persons owned more than a certain amount of money they were not entitled to a pension. He had always been surprised that no provision of that kind was made in the Bill. He did not think the Lords Amendment met that point, but he suggested that it might be possible to draft the regulations so as to meet it.

MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)

thought the Amendment as it stood was open to the objections of his right hon. friend, and he therefore hoped it would not be agreed to. There was another point which he did not think had been touched upon. What was to become of the case of a man who had put money into the reversion of a small cottage property? Would it be treated as if that property had to be sold and an income taken from it or not? For the time being there would be no income from it. Would any income be taken into account?

Lords Amendment— In page 5, line 20, at end, to insert the words (d) If any person is aggrieved by the refusal or neglect of a local pension committee to consider a claim for a pension, or to determine any question referred to them, that person may apply in the prescribed manner to the central pension authority, and that authority may, if they consider that the local pension committee have refused or neglected to consider and determine the claim or question within a reasonable time, themselves consider and determine the claim or question in the same manner as on an appeal from the decision of the local pension committee.'

Lords Amendment— In page 5, after subsection (d) to insert the words '(e) The expression "party aggrieved" shall include a member of the said committee who has taken part in the consideration of the report and has dissented from the decision.'

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment. The proposal was that any member of the pension committee should have the right of appeal. He thought that was very undesirable. It would add enormously to the expense, and the moment anyone had got any political or other reason against a party to whom a pension was granted, he could pester the Local Government Board, and enter into the whole matter again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said there was no definition in the Act. The right hon. Gentleman had criticised the definition given by the Lords of the person aggrieved and there might be substance in his criticism, but was he going to substitute any other definition? The term "person aggrieved" might be so easily interpreted that a definition was not required, and in that case it was only the would-be pensioner who had the right of appeal.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

And the pension officer.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then that will be all right.

Lords Amendment— In page 5, line 30, at end, to insert the words for the purposes of this subsection the expression "borough" includes a metropolitan borough and the city of London, and the expression "council of a borough" includes the council of a metropolitan borough, and as respects the city of London, the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London in Common council assembled.'

*MR. SPEAKER

This appears to be a privilege Amendment which alters the constitution of the body appointed by this House to carry the Act into execution, and in whom is vested the expenditure of the money to be granted.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment.

Lords Amendment— In page 5, after line 40, to insert as a new subsection '(3) The Local Government Board may appoint any person or any persons not exceeding three in number to be a member or members of any local pensions committee, or of any sub-committee appointed by the latter, who shall, when appointed, have all the rights of ordinary members of such committees.'

*MR. SPEAKER

This gives to the Local Government Board the power of varying the constitution of the body to whom the House has entrusted the expenditure of the money, and therefore I think this also ought to be considered a privilege Amendment.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the House should disagree with the Amendment.

Lords Amendment— In page 6, after line 6, to insert as a new subsection: '(6) Any reference in this Act to pension authorities shall be construed as a reference to the pension officer, the local pension committee, and the central pension authority, or to any one of them, as the case requires.' In page 6, line 7, after the word obtaining, to insert the words 'or containing.'

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment— In page 6, line 8, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'either for himself or for any other person, or for the purpose of obtaining or continuing an old-age pension under this Act for himself or for any other person at a higher rate than that appropriate to the case.'

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the House should agree to the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was glad the Government were doing all they could to strengthen this clause, because fears which were expressed at an earlier stage of the debate, that political organisations would be dragged into this matter, had already begun, unfortunately, to be fulfilled. He had just had put into his hands the copy of a letter from the Downend and Soundwell Liberal Association in these terms— Dear Sir or Madam,—As you are probably aware, the present Liberal and free trade Government is making provision for an old-age pension. The above association is compiling a register for the district of persons who are seventy years of age or will attain that age this year. The committee of the association desire to place their services at the disposal of any person who is eligible, and will assist such to obtain the pension. If that kind of practice was to prevail, and if the experiment of obtaining old-age pensions was to fall into the hands of political organisations, on whatever side they might be, they would produce one of the gravest political scandals possible. This letter he believed to be authentic, and it had been put into his hands by an hon. Member who, at any rate, believed it to be authentic. He regarded it as absolutely scandalous, and he hoped the Government would by every means in their power prevent such a state of affairs.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he agreed that it would be a grave misfortune and might easily become a disaster if a Bill of this sort was to be worked for the purposes of corruption, and therefore he strongly deprecated any attempt of that sort.

Lords Amendment— In page 6, line 9, after the word 'representation,' to insert the words 'or if any person directly or indirectly deprives himself of any income or property in order to qualify himself for the receipt of an old-age pension, or for the receipt of an old-age pension at a higher rate than that to which he would otherwise be entitled under this Act.'

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he had very grave doubts with regard to this Amendment. He had come to the conclusion that on the whole it was undesirable to insert the words. He thought the penalty much too severe. Supposing a man rearranged his pension with his employer with a view of getting a little more, whatever view they took as to the desirability or undesirability of it he thought they must admit that to make it a penal offence was rather severe. The subsection might be capable of that interpretation, and he therefore on the whole thought it undesirable to insert the words and moved that they should disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

LORD R. CECIL

said he largely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not know whether his intention had been drawn to subsection (3) of Section 4 of the Bill. The subsection proposed by the Lords was really only carrying that out.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he had given his attention to subsection (3) of Section 4. He wanted to draw the distinction. A person who acted in the manner suggested ought to be disqualified, but it would be rather severe to make his conduct a penal offence.

Lords Amendment— In page 6, after line 11, to insert as a new subsection: '(2) The pension officer may at any time, without the matter having been referred to him, call upon and require a person in receipt of an old-age pension to establish that he has not since the same was granted to him become disqualified to receive it, and the pension officer shall inquire into the matter of the pensioner's disqualification and report on the same to the pension committee, who shall receive and, as far as applicable, act upon the said report as if it were a report received under the provisions of Section 7, subsection (c) of this Act.'

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he did not object to the substance of the new subsection, but to its insertion in the Bill. It was really a matter for regulations, and there was an advantage in dealing with it in that way. Regulations could be altered and adapted according to circumstances as they arose, and he had no doubt that in practice they would discover a good many things which they could not at present foresee. It would be very undesirable if they had to introduce a Bill to amend matters of procedure in every particular because they had inserted in an Act of Parliament what ought to be left to regulations. Matters of this kind, therefore, really ought to be dealt with in regulations, and for that reason, and not because he disagreed with the substance of the subsection, he moved that they should disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

MR. BOWLES

said he could quite understand the reluctance of the right hon. Gentleman to incorporate a provision of this sort in the Bill, because they must all agree that the duty upon the pension offices would be very disagreeable. The right hon. Gentleman, however, must feel and know that, however disagreeable the system was, it would have to be carried out unless the taxpayers were to be completely overwhelmed. He preferred that it should be provided for by regulation. Unless, however, the regulation was clear and stringent and was observed throughout the country, the Exchequer would be little less than overwhelmed. If the duty was made obligatory upon the pension officers, that no doubt would meet the case, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would assure them that that would be so.

MB. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars)

said he was rather sorry to hear the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he did not think it was necessary to have this Amendment either on the face of the Bill or in regulations. He hoped nothing would be done by the issue of regulations after the passing of the Bill to require the pension officer or anybody else to go touting round ascertaining whether a man had ceased to be qualified for a pension. The Bill already provided a penalty for a man who was found to be in receipt of an old-age pension when he did not fulfil the statutory conditions or when he was not qualified, and he thought that was sufficient.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the cases were altogether different. This was a case of a person who, though qualified at the time the pension was granted, had since become disqualified, having possibly received a legacy. He thought in such a case the pension officer should be entitled to go and ask for information.

MR. BARNES

said he quite agreed that in a case of that character it would be the duty of the pension officer to go and inquire into the matter, and, if necessary, have the name of the person removed from the register; but he did not want anything put in the Bill or any instructions given which would make it the duty of the pension officer to go touting round to discover such cases. It would, make it rather awkward for the old people if they were to be continually liable to inquiry as to any alteration in their circumstances. He therefore regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated his intention of considering the matter in connection with the regulations, and he hoped he would not carry it out.

Lords Amendment— In page 7, after line 17, to insert as a new subsection: '(3) Every regulation under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House had sat next after tiny such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.'

Agreed to.

Committee of seven Members appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.

Committee nominated of,—Mr. Asquith, Mr. Balfour. Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and Mr. Eugene Wason.

Three to be the quorum.

Committee to withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)