CLAUSE 1.—(Additional to percentages by which pensions may be increased.)

HC Deb 11 July 1924 vol 175 cc2636-73

Mr. PRINGLE

I beg to move in page 1, line 7, after "1908," to insert the words as amended by Sub-section (1) of Section two of The Old Age Pensions Act, 1919. This is purely a drafting Amendment. I think it is an unfortunate matter regarding this meagre Bill that we are simply referred to the paragraph of the original Act which has been superseded by a paragraph in the Act of 1919. Obviously a person reading this would be confused, and I think my Amendment elucidates the matter.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham)

I think this point can be quite easily ex- plained. The Section in the Act of 1908 lays down a limit of £31 10s., but in the Act of 1919 there is substituted a limit of £49 17s. The effect is that in a later part of this Bill it is provided that the two Acts are to be taken and read together, and therefore there is no necessity for this Amendment because that has not been altered and it remains exactly as it was. Accordingly, the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is unnecessary and there is no difference between them. I suggest that after this explanation he may find it unnecessary to press this Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE

I quite agree that this would make no alteration whatever. I merely suggested it for the purpose of making the matter clearer for ill-informed people, and I think it might be accepted without doing any harm.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY

I hope the Government will reconsider their decision. It is very important that ordinary people should be able to understand Acts of Parliament, and, while admittedly this Amendment makes no difference to the Clause, it does make it more intelligible to the ordinary person.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I should like to support what has fallen from the two hon. Members opposite. Personally, I think it is extremely difficult to understand this Bill, which is full of references to other Acts of Parliament, and it is a great pity that the Government could not have consolidated the Acts and made a simple Bill. Although I quite agree that my hon. Friend's Amendment makes no difference, I do maintain that it makes it much easier for an ordinary person to understand, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden)

It is quite clear that every Member of the Committee is agreed that the insertion of these words would make no difference whatever to the law. When I first considered the Amendment, it did seem to me that if the words proposed were inserted they would make the matter clearer to the ordinary person; but I have taken the best advice that is at my service, and I am assured that they are unneces- sary. Of course, it would have been quite impossible for us to have done what the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) proposed, because it would have provided the opportunity at any rate for a long discussion of the measure. I am somewhat in a difficulty. I am always anxious to meet hon. Members when I can do so without involving any additional national expenditure. There is, of course, no money involved in this Amendment, and, seeing that it will not make any difference at all, I think I can accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Captain TUDOR REES:

In page 1, line 9, to leave out from the word "though" to the end of the Clause and to insert instead thereof the words instead of the words 'thirty-one' there were to be added the word 'seventy'.

Mr. GRAHAM

I have no desire to prevent the hon. Member from saying what he wishes on this Amendment, but I suggest that it clearly increases the charge. The hon. Member's Amendment would take away the phrase "other than earnings," and that would add largely to the charge. I suggest that on that ground the Amendment in out of Order.

Captain TUDOR REES

I anticipated that objection but I would like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is quite satisfied that this Amendment, if accepted, would in fact increase the charge?

The CHAIRMAN

I was not sure, owing to the acceptance of the last Amendment, and that is why I called on the hon. and gallant Member. But, in the circumstances, I think this Amendment is out of Order. The remaining four Amendments on this Clause—

(1) in page 1, line 10 after the word "words" to insert the words save in respect of the yearly value of any property which is invested by the person which shall be taken to be the actual income received during the preceding year, and; (2) in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "other than earnings";

(3) in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert the words Provided that the word 'earnings' shall be held not to include the earnings of the husband or wife of an old age pensioner if the husband or wife is under the age of seventy years; and (4) in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert the words (2) For the purposes of this Section earnings includes wages, salaries, or other remuneration gained in any regular trade or occupation, but does not include receipts in respect of casual or occasional work— are in the same category. They would increase the charge.

Mr. PRINGLE

Does that include the last Amendment, standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)?

The CHAIRMAN

Yes.

Mr. PRINGLE

Then may I make a submission to you on that point? The question before the Committee, I submit, is not whether this Amendment may or may not increase the charge, but whether it is within the terms of the Resolution which was introduced in Committee? The charge may be increased, I submit, if the terms of the Amendment come within the Resolution, and I suggest that this Amendment is merely a definition of a word which appears both in the Bill and in the Resolution, and that therefore it cannot be ruled out on the ground that it increases the charge. I submit that the standard that determines this matter is the terms of the Resolution, and not the question whether the Amendment does or does not increase the charge.

Sir JOHN SIMON

May I make one further submission? There is surely a distinction between Amendments which attempt to strike out in effect the word "earnings" and substitute for it something which obviously cannot on any view be a fair meaning of it and a definition which says that the word "earnings"—which is not a word which always means the same thing—is a word which, for the purpose of this Sub-section, is one of the perfectly legitimate meanings of that word. If the word "earnings" were a word which had a precise definition in an Act of Parliament for the purposes of that Act of Parliament, then I quite admit that it would not be possible, with- out increasing the charge, to cut down its meaning and thereby put more burden on the Treasury. But the word "earnings," as you doubtless know, is a word which has no fixed meaning in an Act of Parliament, and, as long as the Amendment is one which does not attempt to make nonsense of the word or attempt to turn it inside out, but merely attempts to lay down the boundaries within which the word may be fairly understood to apply, I submit that it is entirely within the rules of order. May I give one illustration? No doubt you are aware that the question of earned and unearned income is defined in the Income Tax Act, in which there are express words saying that "earned income" means this and this, giving a list of the meanings. I respectfully submit that if the Committee had passed a Resolution with respect to earned income without defining it, it would have been perfectly in order for the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to have introduced into the Finance Bill a definition of earned income, and that is all I am asking to be done by my Amendment.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Really, I am amazed at the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Simon). Both the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have omitted to make any reference to the concluding words of the Amendment. The Amendment is a definition of earnings, and the last part of it says: but does not include receipts in respect of casual or occasional work. I respectfully submit that by altering the earnings in this way you make no difference. I take it that the purpose of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to exempt from the calculation for the purpose of Old Age Pensions occasional earnings. The fact that they are occasional earnings does not take them out of the category of earnings, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not alter the position in the slightest degree by calling them receipts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention is equivalent to the argument of the workman who said to his employer, "I very much prefer that my wages shall be called salary." "Very well," says the boss, "we will call them salary; but why do you want them called salary?" The workman replied, "My experience shows me that wages are always going down and salaries are always going up." That is precisely the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, if I may say so without offence, it is perfect nonsense to try to draw this distinction between receipts and earnings. The point, however, in which I am particularly interested is whether this Amendment goes beyond the scope of the Resolution. Most undoubtedly it does, and if that be so then these occasional earnings, or receipts as they would be called under this Amendment in the future; would not come into calculation for the purposes of the Old Age pension and thereby a very large additional burden would be thrown on the Exchequer. That is a decisive reason against this proposal.

Sir J. SIMON

May I say one word. So far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expressing the view of the Treasury this will really mean a substantial addition to the number of old people receiving the pension, but that I submit is not a point of order at all, and I am quite willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's rebuke in the best of tempers. But I do suggest his decision will not be regarded as satisfactory by a number of old people. It is entirely within the competence of this Committee to accept, if it thinks fit, a definition of the word "earnings" so long as that definition is fairly considerate of what the word may be supposed to mean. I am not suggesting that anyone could propose a definition of earnings in this section to mean everything that is not earned, because that would be nonsense, but it is not nonsense to say that, for this purpose you are not going to take into account as earnings any earnings when a man may get other than as a result of regular labour, and that you do not mean that the words shall cover money which drops into his hands, as the result of an act of mere benevolence in order to give the old man something to do. If we keep to this point of order, the Treasury view is going to make a great deal of difference, and it is going to penalise a large number of old people. I most respectfully submit that it is plainly within the rules of order that the Committee should adopt a definition, be it in wider or narrower terms, so long as it does not contradict the plain substance and meaning of what appears in the Resolution.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER

May I point out that if you rule it is out of Order to define the words in this way, that ruling will act as a precedent in the future in regard to other attempts to define words in financial resolutions. For that reason I hope the Chairman will consider very carefully the point which is under discussion.

Mr. FOOT

Is it not practically certain that unless a definition is adopted in the passing of this Bill that question will arise within a comparatively short period as soon as the Act comes into operation. Let me cite a case which will bear out my point. An old man in the country has a couple of pigs. Inquiry is now made as to what he gets from those animals, and some return is included in the calculation of his pension. As soon as this Act is put into operation will not the question arise whether or not the small return which the old countryman gets from these two pigs shall be reckoned as earnings, or shall it be reckoned as some part of the allowance for which he can claim exemption in the calculation of his means? Certainly the necessity of defining the word "earnings" will shortly arise, and I submit it is within the competence of the Committee to anticipate what will undoubtedly come under review later on.

Mr. SNOWDEN

The Old Age Pensions Act in which the term was originally used has now been in operation for about 16 years. The hon. Member who last spoke seems to have assumed that something new is going to be needed when this Act comes into operation. The point is this. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) told us there had been no difficulty whatever experienced in the past in defining what is meant by the word "earnings."

Sir J. SIMON

Is that a point of Order?

Mr. SNOWDEN

Yes, I think it is. The Resolution in the form in which it has been passed makes no alteration in the system of law, but it will take out of the calculation any income which is not derived from earnings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes in his Amendment to divide earnings into two kinds, and to say that for the purpose of this Act earnings shall be income de- rived from a regular occupation, and that income derived from casual work shall not be treated as earnings. I suggest that that is simply playing with words, the purpose of which is quite clear. Then I have a further point of Order. If we accept this Amendment it will bring these people within the category of those whose means are now included in the calculations. The right hon. Member has suggested that this is penalising old people. It does extend the benefit of this method to people who may consider that they may have some claim to have their condition taken into consideration. That I admit. The point is that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to establish an arbitrary and impossible distinction between two things which are the same, namely, earnings from work; because income from casual work is just as much earnings as income from regular work; and there is the further point that this will impose an additional charge beyond what was contemplated and what was passed by the Committee when the Resolution was agreed to.

Mr. PRINGLE

I think the Chancellor is somewhat unfortunate in arguing this point. On the question of Order, it is not relevant whether this is a good or a bad Amendment. I am dealing with the point that I raised originally. Whether this is a good or bad definition does not concern us. It may be playing with words, as the right hon. Gentleman says; it may be intended to extend the number of beneficiaries; but the sole question, I submit, is whether this Amendment, good or bad, is capable of discussion by the Committee as being within the rules of Order. There is, I submit, only one limitation upon the Committee, and that is the limitation imposed by the terms of the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it may increase the charge, but I submit that the Committee is not bound in that respect. If we were on the Report stage, it would certainly prevent the Chair from accepting such an Amendment, but while we are in Committee the sole question is whether the Amendment is within the terms of the Resolution. I submit to you, Sir, that, as this Amendment is merely an attempt to define a word which is common both to the Bill and to the Resolution, it is in Order for the Com- mittee to consider such an Amendment, irrespective of its intrinsic value or of its effect. On these grounds I would very respectfully submit to you, Sir, that the Committee should have an opportunity of dealing with the merits of the Amendment.

Mr. D. HERBERT

I think the word "ridiculous" has been used in this discussion, and, surely, in the first instance, it does seem ridiculous that the House of Commons should not be able to define what meaning it intends to put upon a word in its own legislation, unless there be some express reason against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has apparently put forward the reason, if I understand him aright, that the word "earnings," for the purposes of Old Age Pensions, has already been defined in practice by those who have been concerned in the working of the old Act. I venture most respectfully to submit that, if the word "ridiculous" is to be applied to anything in connection with this argument, it is the suggestion that the House is to be limited in its definition of its own meaning by a practice which has grown up in connection with an administrative body.

Mr. SNOWDEN

May I say that I applied the word "ridiculous" to the attempt to discriminate between earnings derived from regular work and earnings derived from casual or occasional work?

Sir J. SIMON

I apologise for interrupting again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put his point very clearly, and I am obliged to him for being so full in his statement; but, surely, as regards a portion of what he has said, he is under a real misapprehension. I speak subject to correction, and I shall be glad to be corrected, but am I not right in saying that the word "earnings" does not occur anywhere at all in the existing Old Age Pensions Acts? You can read every Section of every Old Age Pensions Act that has ever passed the House, and the word "earnings" is not in it. In these circumstances, I submit with great respect that surely, it cannot be right to say that the House of Commons is not at liberty, for the first time, in an Old Age Pensions Act, to define fairly what it means by it. If the Chancellor were right in what he said just now, if he were suggesting that the word "earnings" was a word which existed in the Old Age Pensions Acts, and that, at some time or other, it had acquired a particular meaning which had hitherto been understood, and that this was an attempt to alter a statutory meaning, then, in my submission, it would be wrong. But the truth is that it has never up to the present moment been relevant to ask, under the Old Age Pensions Act, "Is this item to be called 'earnings' or is it to be called 'other income'"? Now, for the first time in the history of the Old Age Pensions Acts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Statute Book, is making it relevant to determine whether a particular sixpence which comes into a man's pocket is earnings or not. I think I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury making inquiry in the proper quarter, and I venture most respectfully to ask for information from the Government bench as to whether I am right or wrong when I say that the word "earnings" has never yet occurred in any Old Age Pensions Act at all, and as to whether, therefore, it can be out of Order to define it when it is first put into such a Measure?

Sir J. REMNANT

If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) will allow me to say so, I entirely agree with what he has said. May I urge another point in favour of allowing this Amendment to be put? That is the example afforded by the very next Bill we are to consider. There an interpretation was allowed to be inserted, without altering the object of the Measure, where the word "may" had been construed as "may", and not, as the House intended, as "shall". When the House allowed that suggestion to be made, without altering the object of the Pensions (Increase) Bill, it might undoubtedly in that case have been urged that the insertion of the word "shall" instead of "may" would involve an increased expenditure under the Measure, although it Might properly have been urged that in most cases—indeed with very few exceptions—the word "may" had been construed, as the Solicitor-General of that day said it would be, as "shall", but not in all cases. When it was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that great hardship had been involved by the word "may", being treated as "may" and not as "shall", he did give effect to it by putting it beyond all doubt that what was meant was "shall" and not "may". In this case the meaning of the word "earnings" does require to be properly fixed, and, therefore, I submit that the Amendment might be allowed.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I desire respectfully to urge that there is a need for a definition, either somewhere in the Bill itself or in the Regulations under the Bill, because of the anomalous reading which has been read into the previous Act by various Pensions Committees. The question of some old woman having a few hens has been raised more than once, but a case was brought to my notice a short time ago which was even more anomalous. It was the case of an old man who was receiving an old age pension from which—

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think that that is relevant to this point of Order.

Sir J. SIMON

May I have an answer as to whether I was right in saying that the Statute law at present in connection with old age pensions never, as such, uses the word "earnings", but, on the contrary, uses the term "yearly means"—whatever those means may be—and that, therefore, this is the first time it has become necessary to make plain what is and what is not earnings for the purpose of old age pensions?

Captain REES

Might I just say one word on the point of Order, to emphasize the desirability of allowing this Committee to define once and for all "earnings" with respect to this particular matter. As a practical point, two days ago in the High Court, in a workmen's compensation case, the learned Judge, when asked to define the word "earnings", said it was utterly impossible for him or anyone else to give a watertight definition of the word "earnings". If this Bill passes as it is, and we do not define what we mean by "earnings", it simply means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to impose upon the local authority—

Mr. WALLHEAD

May I ask whether this is any more in Order than the remarks I was making?

Captain REES

I submit that I am in Order. My point is that, if this Bill be passed without our being allowed to put in any definition of the word "earnings," we are going to impose upon the local pensions committee or upon the local pensions officers the discharge of an obligation which a High Court Judge himself has found to be impossible.

Mr. GRAHAM

In this matter I think the Committee will agree that we must confine ourselves strictly to the point of Order which has been raised, and, as far as I can make out, the point of Order was whether in fact the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman will increase the charge.

HON. MEMBERS

No!

Mr. PRINGLE

May I ask you, Sir, is the question before you whether the Amendment increases the charge or whether it is within the scope of the Resolution?

The CHAIRMAN

The point of Order put to me was whether the proposed Amendment is within the terms of the Resolution, but it does not necessarily follow that the other point may not be considered.

Mr. GRAHAM

As I understand the situation, if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed merely a definition of something which was already within our Resolution and in our Bill that would have been well enough, but there is no doubt whatever that he goes beyond that. It is clear that he and others intend to bring in people who think they will be excluded at present. There cannot be any manner of doubt that it would increase the charge. It seems to me to be more than a mere definition. I do not think there is any doubt that there will be an opportunity on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" for the discussion of the whole question of earnings, and I should imagine that with such information as we are able to give, a good deal of the existing misunderstanding will disappear.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I think the Financial Secretary is talking on the merits of the Amendment, and not on the point of Order whether the Amendment is actually in order. As I understand it, it is quite clear that the word "earnings" does not occur in any Act of Parliament at all. If it is merely a case of what has been the practice in the past, it is possible that the practice in the future will increase the ambit of the word "earnings." How, then, can you say that an Amendment which defines this word is out of Order when you do not know what the practice is going to be in the future? I submit that we are wholly now on the point of Order as to whether this Amendment is actually within the terms of the Resolution or not. When a Resolution is drawn in general terms, any Amendment is allowed which varies that Resolution, even if there is a possibility of an increase. The Resolution is in general terms so far as earnings are concerned. Why in that case should an Amendment be out of order which attempts to define the meaning of the word?

Mr. D. HERBERT

I wish to put a somewhat similar point in rather different words. The Financial Secretary appears to argue that this must be regarded as out of Order, basing that on the rather curious and, as I think, false premise that the word "earnings" in the Resolution is to have the meaning which he or the Government chooses to put upon it. We have the word "earnings" in the Resolution, and it is not for the Government, that proposed the Resolution, but for the House, which passed it, to say what is the meaning of its own Resolution. Therefore the House, in the ordinary way being entitled to define what it means by a particular word, is perfectly entitled to define the meaning of the word "earnings" not only in the Bill, but the meaning they choose to put on it in the Resolution they have passed, and to say that when they passed it they intended, and they do intend in the Bill, that the word "earnings" shall mean a certain thing. That would bring the Amendment, I submit, in order and within the scope of the Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN

I had considered before I came to the House what really would be the result of this Amendment, if carried. I agree that if it simply defines something without increasing the charge it would be my duty to allow it, but as this Amendment in my estimation increases the charge in excess of what the Resolution meant, I feel that I cannot accept it.

Mr. PRINGLE

Is the Committee to understand that you now rule that the Amendment, which is within the Resolu- tion, is incompetent in Committee solely on the ground that it increases the charge? If that be the case I would ask for a precedent for such a ruling.

The CHAIRMAN

I did not say that.

Mr. PRINGLE

As I understood your ruling, you ruled against the Amendment on the ground that it increased the charge.

The CHAIRMAN

No, I said if the Amendment was only a definition which did not increase the charge that was one reason why I should not rule it out of order, but I ruled it out on the ground that we are now in the position of discussing an Amendment which in my opinion goes beyond the scope of the Resolution.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir J. SIMON

I need hardly assure you, Sir, that I accept with complete loyalty, and of course with complete good temper, the ruling which you in the discharge of your duties have thought it right to give, and we are obliged to you for the care with which you have considered the submission we have made. I should like to point out what would be the effect of the Clause as it is now proposed to be passed, because it appears to me that, whether the difference is small or great, the Clause as it is now proposed to pass it is going to produce rather unfortunate contrasts. Let me take for simplicity s sake an instance in order to sea to what it is that the House under the Resolution, which was so very carefully limited by the Treasury, is committing the old people of the country. Take two old people who are alike in every other respect, both over 70, neither of whom has any trade or regular occupation, neither of whom is in the least in any ordinary sense a person following a trade or occupation and each of whom has total means amounting to 20s. a week. Let me admit at once, gratefully, that the Chancellor's proposal whatever its shortcomings, is going to improve the lot of both those old men. I am heartily glad it is so. A, we will my say, gets 10s. a week by way of allowance from a grown up son or from a benefit club or by way of a gift from an old employer. He gets another 10s. by way of purely casual gains. He will get an old age pension of 10s. in addition. To that extent the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated, because the Government has undoubtedly improved the position of that old man. I do not want to disguise the fact that that is an advance for which everyone ought to be grateful. But in contrast with that, take the other old man, B. He is of the same age and has the same total means, 20s. a week, and you might think he also ought to be entitled to 10s. old age pension. He is not engaged in any reguar trade or occupation. He is not attempting to invade the labour market or to do any injury to any trade unionist. He is an old man who only gets 8s. a week from his grown up son or from his old employer or from his benefit club and he makes the sum up to 20s. by earning 12s. a week by way of merely casual and occasional jobs. I do do not think he ought to be reproached for it. It seems to me probably very good for him that he should still feel that he can occasionally turn his hand to something. To many of these old people the continuance of life is almost dependent upon this ability and the desire to do a little something. In this Clause, for which the Treasury have fought so hard, "B," though he has no trade or occupation, and in every other respect he is like "A," is not to get the old age pension of 10s. On the contrary, there is to be an inquiry to find out exactly how much these casual earnings amount to. I should have thought that it was an unfortunate thing to have to ascertain whether or not he is getting as much as 12s. or more than 12s. by way of casual earnings. It seems to me that that is a very unfortunate result. We have to put up with it, because since the Resolution has been drawn in this way it contains no definition of earnings at all, except such definition of earnings as the Treasury mind thinks is right. Since that is so, let us face it, and let us say that what we are doing by this Clause is that we are making it a matter of distinction between two old people in every respect alike, and whereas in the one case one is 2s. short and what is granted by the son or the daughter and he makes up the extra 2s. by say occasionally sweeping up leaves in a street or in the case of an old woman she gets a little work a deduction is made from this small pension. I think it is most unfortunate.

I was very much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his argument on the point of order, to say that the remedy would involve a serious additional burden on the Treasury. I should have thought that these cases would be comparatively few. Assuming that they are comparatively few, it is wrong, either on a point of order, or at any other time, to inform the Committee that such a thing will involve a great additional burden upon the Treasury. Be the burden small or great, it is a misfortune. May I refer to a less controversial subject? It appears to me a most desirable thing that ordinary citizens, ordinary men and women, should be able to get upon a piece of paper in an authorised form, a statement which anyone can understand as to what the position is. This Bill is a shocking example of legislation by reference. One would have thought that a Bill having the object which this Bill has, of amending the Old Age Pensions Act would have had such a title, but so nervous was the Treasury that somebody might be able, even by the smallest amount, to enlarge or alter the Bill, that the Bill which confers this boon is to follow in title: A Bill to Amend paragraph (3) of Section two of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908. The First Clause reads: 1. Paragraph (3) of Section two of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 * * * shall for all purposes have effect as though after the words "calculated under this Act" there were inserted the words * * * To 999 people out of a thousand that is pure and unadulterated gibberish. [An hon. Member: "Legal phrases"] I hope the hon. Member will not join in the gibe, always cheap, that this is a case of the lawyers. The people who were so astute as to draw up the Bill in that form were not two lawyers but two Members of the Labour Government.

Mr. PRINGLE

One of them is a lawyer.

12 N.

Sir J. SIMON

I do not want to say anything against the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; he is one of the obvious successes, and he explains things so clearly that no one would sus- pest him of being a bachelor of law. By this excessively bad example of legislation by reference, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got his point, and has prevented the possibility of this Bill being extended. Might it not therefore be possible for him to have a White Paper printed which would state in accurate and complete terms, without reference to other documents, what is the situation as regards Old Age Pensions. He published a very useful White Paper before we had our discussion, which gave certain illustrations. I suppose they were illustrations which showed the benefits of the Bill but not the disadvantages.

Mr. SNOWDEN

The case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave just now is one of the cases mentioned in the White Paper.

Sir J. SIMON

That is not what we want now. What a great body of the public would like would be a piece of paper, which could be bought for 1d. or 2d., printed officially but not as an Act of Parliament, which would state what exactly has been done. If the earlier part of our proceedings should happen to adorn any portion of the newspapers to-morrow—of course, that will depend on whether there has been in the twenty-four hours any incident outside of a more exciting nature; a baby's perambulator running into the Thames or some really important national event—I cannot think that it will be very intelligible. I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be good enough to consider the publication of such a White Paper, giving a perfectly simple statement of the ease. I think I know some lawyers who could draw it up.

It would be a great satisfaction to me and to other people who, at any rate, do their best to try to make things plain in this House if it was once for all realised that there is nothing in the world so technical in the House of Commons or out of it as a layman trying to talk law. The law is capable of being stated as a rule, in quite simple terms, and it, is untrue that the, appalling state of our Statute Book is due to lawyers. It is due to the actions of Governments, not only this, but other Governments, for reasons which one can understand, because they want to save time, or because it is better to be unintelligible than to be plain, because they do not want their own followers to revolt as they would do if they knew what they were being asked to do. They are all alike. That is the reason why the Statute Book is filled with these extraordinarily elaborate provisions.

To anyone who wants to understand the thing, lawyer or layman, it is very regretable, and I wish that some method can be found by which the Government can protect the Treasury, which it is quite right to do, and get their business carried through, which it is quite natural to desire, without having to increase the number of cases in which the Statute Book contains these perfectly ridiculous elaborate formulas by way of reference. If an intelligent old man had the means to provide himself to-day with documents to find out what we have been doing in the House to-day, he would first have to buy the Statute of 1924, and then the Statute of 1920. Then he would have to buy the Statute of 1911 and probably also the Statute of 1908, and when he had collected this large library he would find out as a result of all his labour a quite simple change which ought to be capable of being stated in a few sentences.

Mr. WALLHEAD

May I draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as an instance of the hardships which occur under the existing method of calculating means, to the case which I have had brought to my notice of an old man who is an old age pensioner? His son, who is a poor man with a growing family of his own, said that he would like the father to come and have dinner with him four or five days a week, and as a result of the old man having dinner four or five days a week with the son he has had 1s. 6d. a week deducted from his pension. The dinners were counted as part of his income. That kind of thing shows extraordinary meanness and it ought not to be done. If the House does want to provide for aged people it ought to do so in a more generous spirit, and I hope that the Treasury will take into consideration the issuing of regulations under which anomalies and meanness of that description cannot possibly occur in the case of those who have the old age pension.

Mr. LUMLEY

I am not a lawyer, and I am not sure whether that is an advantage or not, but I can say that, whether I am or not, there is a number of things in connection with this system which I do not think I should ever be able to understand. This is a Bill to amend a Section of an Act which is amended by another Act which is itself amended by a third Act. But I do not want this Clause to pass through Committee without voicing my protest against the fact that the Financial Resolution to the Bill has been drawn so closely as to admit practically of no Amendment. I had an Amendment on the Paper which sought to remove what is an injustice and an anomaly to a certain class of people. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he does accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to consider whether it would not be possible before very long to bring in a Bill consolidating all the Old Age Pensions Act, and whether he could not see his way to amend this hardship, which I wish to put before the Committee?

Hon. Members who represent constituencies in great industrial centres know that there is a very large number of people who put their savings into trustee savings banks. Under the Act of Parliament of 1888 these banks are not allowed to pay interest on the capital which is deposited in them at a higher rate than 2½ per cent., but, in calculating means for old age pensions, the calculation is based on the assumption that the income is 5 per cent. up to £400, omitting the first £25, and after £400 it becomes 10 per cent. I may give one particular instance of how this acts. It is the instance of a man who has been able to save the sum of £1,000. Of course, there are many people who save smaller sums, and still deposit them in the trustee savings banks, but I give this particular instance, and if my Amendment were carried this man would be eligible for an old age pension.

Under the existing law the first £25 of the £1,000 is excluded from the calculation of means. The next £375 is calculated as bringing in an income of 5 per cent., that is to say, £18 15s. The £600 which remains is calculated as bringing in an income of 10 per cent., that is to say, £60; so that an income of £78 15s. is calculated as being received on the £1,000, whereas the income actually received is only £25. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he thinks it just that the man who receives an income of only £25 from these deposits should be assessed, as far as calculation of means is concerned, at three times that amount? I think it right to make this protest. I am very sorry that the financial resolution has been so drawn that the Bill cannot be amended to provide for this hardship, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will not consider this grievance at some future date and try to remove it.

Sir J. PENNEFATHER

I need not say that I sympathise entirely with the main object of this Bill, which carries out to a large extent the policy of my own party to remove discouragements to thrift, but it is interesting to realise that in an endeavour to carry out a laudable object the Government has gone to the opposite extreme of discouraging earnings on the part of old people.

I think that that is worth noting. The present Government have, unintentionally no doubt, produced a remarkable anomaly. Under the Income Tax laws earned income is supposed to be so much more meritorious than unearned income that a preference is given to those who earn their incomes over those who do not. If you take the smallest sum on which Income Tax is payable—an unmarried single person—you will find that an earned income of £150 is not taxed, while the same unearned income is taxed £2. Therefore, as regards the Income Taxpayer, a preference of £2 is given in the case of earned income as against unearned income, but when we come to the case of the Old Age Pensioner (who of course is not an Income Taxpayer), the Old Age pensioner with 15s. a week of unearned income is entitled under this Bill to a pension of £26 a year. But another person of similar age living next door, having no savings and therefore compelled to earn—we will assume that he earns exactly the same sum of 15s. a week—is allowed a pension of only 4s. a week, or £10 8s. a year. Therefore, a preference of no less than £15 12s. a year is given to the one man whose income is unearned over the other man who earns exactly the same income. That is a curious anomaly which has been created, and I think that it is hard upon a large number of very industrious and excellent people. I do not think it is quite fair to say to everyone who has no savings at the age of 70 that he or she has been thriftless. In many cases they have not got savings because they have been virtuous and unselfish and have perhaps, contributed out of their earnings at the time when they were young, towards the maintenance of an old father or mother. There was mentioned in the "Times" yesterday the case of a woman, a housekeeper, earning £1 a week. In order to keep her old father in a nursing home she contributed every penny of her £1 a week. That means, of course, that she is unable to save. She is compelled to go on earning. But such earnings will, under this Bill, be penalised.

I agree that it is desirable to remove this discouragement of thrift, but I cannot agree that it is advisable or necessary to penalise the earnings of industrious old people.

Major HORE-BELISHA

This Clause introduces into the law of England for the first time a very debatable and dangerous principle. For the first time it is Making a virtue of Idleness. [Interruption.] I always thought that that was an aristocratic principle, but it appears to be a Socialist principle, Perhaps my hon. Friends above the Gangway will bear with me. I do not suggest that it is desirable for old people to be compelled to work, but it is eminently un-undesirable to compel old people to cease work if that is the thread which binds them to life. This Clause introduces the principle for the first time that it is a harmful and wrong thing to work. The whole Clause is based on a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the Debate a week or two ago, when he said that he did not think it right for old people of 70 to work. The effect of a statement of that kind, embodied in an Act of Parliament, is bound to have implications and involutions which have not been fully considered. The present system is anomalous enough; it is a perfect honeycomb of inconsistencies. Now you have introduced quite a new principle, without thinking out what the real effect of it is to be. First of all it will have a moral effect on old people If they have been in the habit of pottering about in a garden for a nominal wage, and one given probably out of the kind- ness of heart of an employer, it will have a decidedly bad moral effect for them to know that their pension is contingent upon their giving up that work or doing it for nothing.

The proposal will have also a very bad physical effect, because work is life itself, and if a man keeps up in his old age the habit of his youth he is more likely to remain healthy, and is certainly more likely to remain happy. Many people like work. [interruption.] It seems to be disliked very much by hon. Members above the Gangway, but there are people—

Mr. WALLHEAD

It depends upon what a man's youthful habits were.

Major HORE-BELISHA

If in his youth he lived on money derived from investments, it would, of Course, be difficult for him to begin to work in his old age. A man who has worked all his life may have become attached to it, and I think it is worthy of consideration that that man may feel it a great wrench to be compelled to give up his work. This proposal is also going to have a very disastrous economic effect. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered that this is a direct subsidy to wages in money. The whole of our social reform legislation is an indirect subsidy to wages. If you pay for the education of a man's children you are subsidising his wages. If you provide him with part of the rent of a house you are subsidising his wages. If you provide him with any of these services you are subsidising his wages. But this is a direct subsidy in money, and it re-creates all the vices of the old Poor Law system. Before 1832 employers discovered that it was profitable to pay bad wages and to subsidise them by the rates. In other words they discovered a highly original method of making the community pay what the employers should pay. That has given rise to the whole of our social reform. Here you are reviving that principle, and you are saying to an employer, "If you pay this man twenty shillings a week he is not going to get a pension, but if you pay him ten shillings a week he will get a pension, and the State will contribute ten shillings a week towards that man's wages." You are directly suggesting to the employer that he should employ a man of 70, because it is more economical than to employ a man of 65, and you will throw the man of 65 out of work, because the employer will have to pay him twenty shillings a week as against the other man's ten shillings. That is the principle which this Clause introduces. It is a thoroughly harmful principle, and I seriously hope that it will be reconsidered.

It is also penalising the wife's earnings, because if the wife happens to be under 70 she has to give up her work in order to qualify the man for the Old Age Pension. With reference to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said with reference to the issue of a memorandum in a comprehensible form, whereby potential beneficiaries can understand what they are entitled to, I hope the Chancellor is not going to reproduce the memorandum which he has already issued explaining the Financial Resolution, because it gives a misleading impression. For instance, it takes the case of a man deriving 20s. from earnings and 11s. from property, making a total of 31s., and says that under the proposal a deduction of 11s. per week would be made in calculating means, but the amount would still exceed the statutory limit of 19s. per week, and the pension would not be payable. The Chancellor has not given a single instance to show clearly and concisely that a man who is only earning 20s. and who is not getting any income from any other source, gets no pension. Why does he in the instance given first add on the 11s. derived from property and then take it off? What he should do is to make perfectly clear that if a man is earning 20s., irrespective of any other money, he is disqualified from pension. That is the principle which hon. Members are introducing, and it is harmful and dangerous principle which is bound to have a disastrous economic effect and a disastrous physical and moral effect upon the country as, a whole.

Mr. D. HERBERT

I do not propose to detain the Committee for long, because having been unable to get this Clause into a form which we should like better, I think hon. Members are now anxious to see it go through. I respectfully suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might slightly improve the Clause on the Report stage. I can confirm what an hon. Member said some time ago as to the expression of a High Court Judge the other day with regard to the difficulty of defining "earnings." It will be very difficult for Old Age Pensioners who are, quite rightly, looking for some benefit under this Clause, if they are to be kept in doubt for a long time and if they are to be harried and harassed by the different views of different Old Age Pension Committees and inspectors as to the exact meaning of earnings. In order to avoid that, and in order to avoid the necessity of this Clause having to be interpreted by the Courts, I suggest that the Chancellor himself should put forward on the Report stage a clear definition of the word "earnings." The Chancellor might in the ordinary way retort that if we thought it well to do so, we should take that step ourselves, but it is really not competent for a private Member of the House to do anything in this matter. It is really only the Government who know the extent to which we can go under the Financial Resolution, and it is only the Government who can give a definition of earnings not liable to be ruled out of Order is likely to extend the scope of the Bill beyond the limits of the Financial Resolution. I trust the Chancellor may be able to save Old Age Pensioners trouble by providing a clear definition of this word.

Captain BENN

I desire to reinforce what has been said by the last speaker. If it is impossible to amend the Bill—and I understand the difficulty of bringing in Amendments on the Report stage—I ask him if he would undertake to lay a paper showing what the Government intend by the word "earnings" in this respect. No doubt the Old Age Pensions officers will require guidance in this matter and no doubt it is the intention of the right hon. gentleman to give them guidance and therefore I would ask him to undertake that before the Report stage a copy of the regulation defining the word "earnings" should be laid before Members of the House, so that when the Bill comes up on Report we may know exactly what is meant by this word. I do not quite share the views expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) as to the encouragement of idleness but we think it a hardship that if an old man or woman earns something they should thereby be prevented from receiving a State pension. We do not want to drive any old person to work but if they do get casual earnings it seems a pity that such earnings should go towards diminishing their pension rights. Probably the Chancellor does not intend to include in the word "earnings" such things as the produce of an allotment or even the proceeds of an occasional article or an occasional sermon. Why not allow the House to see the Regulation upon this matter so as to enlighten hon. Members and assist them in their further deliberations?

Sir J. MARRIOTT

On the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill I stated tolerably fully my objections to this Clause, and I have no intention of repeating them, but I should like to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Lumley). I am sure that there is a real and practical grievance involved in the matter which he submitted to the Committee, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some concession in that respect on the Report stage. I agree that it is not Within the competence of private Members to propose Amendments which may involve an additional charge, but that in no way prevents Members of the Government from contriving to meet what I think they themselves will agree to be a substantial and legitimate point. The hon. Member for East Hull put the point very clearly indeed. A man with invested savings which, as a matter of fact, produce an income of £25 a year, is, for the purposes of this Measure, regarded as having a much larger income. There are not many of those who are professionally connected with the Stock Exchange or the City of London who can command interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, yet that is the interest assumed to be payable to these people on some part of their small savings. As a matter of fact, in the vast majority of cases these investments are in Savings Banks and so on, and the rate of interest is 2½ per cent. per annum.

Mr. EGAN

They can get other investments at 4 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Co-operative Societies."]

Sir J. MARRIOTT

Even if they were wise enough to follow the advice of the hon. Members opposite and invest their savings as he would advise them to do, that does not touch my point. I gather he suggests that they might receive 4 per cent. per annum, but, for the purposes of this Bill, even those savings invested in Co-operative Societies are rated as though they were receiving not 4 per cent. but 10 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think what I state is within the knowledge of the Committee. The point is that for the first £400 a deduction is allowed of £25, thereby reducing the capital to an estimated sum of £375, and on that £375 it is assumed that a man is getting 5 per cent. per annum.

Mr. SNOWDEN

It is not assumed to be 5 per cent. per annum, but it is calculated to be 5 per cent. per annum, which is an entirely different thing.

Sir J. MARRIOTT

I will substitute the word "calculated," and say that it is calculated for the purposes of this Act that he is receiving an income on £400 of 5 per cent. per annum, but on the next £600 it is calculated, for the purposes of this Act, but it is not assumed—and it is very nearly as bad for the person in question that it should be calculated as that it should be assumed—at 10 per cent. I do not want to put the case too high; I want to follow the Chancellor's precise wording, and I will say that for this person it is no better that it should be calculated than that it should be assumed. On the calculation of his further £600, he is assumed, or, rather, he is calculated to draw interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. I say that that is both ridiculous and unfair, and I venture to reinforce the appeal so clearly put by my hon. Friend behind me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is going to assume or to calculate, will at any rate take this point into consideration before he comes to the Final stages of this Bill. I would like also to say a word in reinforcement of the plea put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who, if I may say so, made a very powerful plea for a clear statement of what this Bill is going to do for the benefit of rendering the Act intelligible to the recipients of old age pensions. May I make the appeal on behalf of Members of this House that the Act should be rendered intelligible to us, and not only intelligible to us, but may be stated so clearly that we may make it intelligible to our innumerable correspondents, who will most certainly appeal to us for informa- tion on this subject? I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to diminish the labours of his colleagues in this House, and I can assure him that, if he will listen to the plea of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, he will very materially diminish the labour of Members of this House who are called upon to explain the Old Age Pensions Act as best they can to their constituents.

Mr. E. BROWN

When I go to my constituents I shall be able to tell them that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been at least five times more generous than I proposed to be in my election promises, for I am one of those, as a matter of fact, who think that the effect on the old age pensioners of an alteration of the law might have been better, even if less money had been spent, if it had been done in another way. I believe that one of the things that troubles the old people in the country—and I speak with experience of many of them—is the sliding scale deductions under the present scheme, whereby one man gets 9s., another 8s., another 7s., and so on, right down to 1s. a week, and I would rather have cleared out that sliding scale and fixed the definite amount, even at a less cost, and so done away with these anomalies. However, that cannot be done now, but I hope it will be taken into consideration in any future Amendment of the Act. These earnings are going to cause county Members more trouble than anybody else. It is so hard in this House to get in any plea for the villages from any point of view, whether in regard to housing or pensions or what not, but I desire to make this point, that it has been fairly easy to advise our constituents or friends in the villages as to what a total income is for old age pension purposes. Old people come to ask me about farms, stocks and shares, land, property, and so on, and I always end up by asking this question: "Have you any old hens?" When they say "Yes," I say, "Kill them and eat them, or they will take the value of the eggs," and this is done, but as to whether I can tell them that the value of the eggs will be earnings, I do not know.

I do not know if I am going to advise my constituents as to whether the eggs that come from their industry in their own gardens—not somebody else's garden, as has been suggested—will be counted as unearned or earned income, and from that point of view it is not only a question of hens and chickens, but a question of vegetables, and so on. I want to point out that rural Members of Parliament find many aged people not so near to co-operative societies as the constituents of the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Egan). Some of them are miles away, and, although those organisations are doing a fine work throughout the country, there are many hundreds of villages which are miles away from their operations and which know nothing about getting four per cent. for their earnings. I would, therefore, heartily reinforce the plea of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for a simplified statement as to what earnings will or will not mean.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I will not detain the Committee for long, but one or two very direct questions have been put to me, and it would only be right that I should make some reply to them. But, first of all, may I say how very much I appreciate the compliments that have been paid to the dexterity and ingenuity of the Treasury Bench in drawing a Financial Resolution in such a way as to prevent the House of Commons from making any Motion to increase the charge on the Treasury.

Mr. PRINGLE

Even for the old people!

Mr. SNOWDEN

I think a remark of that sort comes with very bad grace from a Member of the party sitting below the Gangway. A good deal of the criticism that has been levelled against our pro posal seems to be on the assumption that this is the first time that any effort has been made to deal with questions of old age pensions, but I would like to remind hon. Members that every one of the restrictions in the existing Act was incorporated in the law by the Liberal party, and I would like to add this, that we have not been in Office yet for six months. In 1906 the Liberal Government came into power with a majority of 300 in this House, and they were in Office for three years before they made any attempt at all to redeem their election pledges in regard to old age pensions. [Interruption.] In view of the criticisms to which We have had to submit during the dis- cussion of this Bill, I think I am justifield in making the retort that I am making. In the third year of the term of the Liberal Government they introduced an Old Age Pensions Bill, but that was no redemption of their pledges. Until that Bill was introduced, there had never been a proposal in the country that the age for old age pensions should be more than 65 years. 65 had always been regarded as the age at which the old age pensions should be given, but the proposal to make it 70 years was a Liberal Measure, and that at a time when we had not a national expenditure of £800,000,000 a year, not an Income Tax of 4s. 6d. in the £and not a Super-tax of 6s. in the £but an Income Tax of 1s. in the £only, and at that time all those limitations were made in the Old Age Pensions Act, about which Liberal Members now complain in order to make political capital against a Government, who, by this Measure, are doing as much for the old age pensioners as was done by the first Old Age Pensions Act. It was estimated that the cost of the first Old Age Pensions Act would be £7,000,000 a year. I am giving £7,000,000 a year under this Bill, and I would like to remind hon. Members, too, that in the first Old Age Pensions Act the Poor Law disqualification was maintained, and the old man of 70 years of age who was getting a miserable pittance of 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d. a week was not to have an old ace pension.

With regard to the calculation of means from invested property, I have not embodied that in my Bill. It was the proposal of the Liberal Government, and was carried into law by the votes of Liberal Members.

Major HORE-BELISHA

You promised to abolish that.

Mr. J. JONES

You promised to abolish nothing—only yourselves.

Mr. PRINGLE

We are not in liquidation yet.

Mr. SNOWDEN

The calculation of the means from investments was not proposed in the first Old Age Pensions Act. It was introduced, I think, in the second Act. I remember Mr. Hobhouse, who is not now in the House, was the Financial Secretary at the time, and I, as a private member, criticized the proposal, and Mr. Hobhouse made no satisfactory reply. If he had given a satisfactory reply, I should have been satisfied. From that time, the real reason why this method of calculating means of income from invested property has not been given. I myself have denounced the proposal on public platforms, but I now understand it. It must be realised that there is a difference between income from invested property and a similar income which ceases at the death of the recipient of the pension. Take the case cited by the hon. Member of a man who has invested property of £1,000, which is bringing 'him in, say, £50 a year. For the purposes of the old age pension, the income is calculated at a much higher figure than that, and the fact that the property passes at his death, and the income continues to be derived from it, makes the essential difference between an income of that kind and an income which ceases at the death of the recipient. The calculation is based upon the value of an annuity, but it is extremely generous, because at 70 years of age the annuity calculation would be about ten per cent., but we are not taking it at ten per cent., because £25 is excluded, the next £375 is calculated at five per cent., and only the remainder at ten per cent. Therefore, this gives a decided advantage to the applicant for an old age pension. That is the reason for it. Let me touch upon one or two other points raised in the Debate, and to which, I think, the Committee is entitled to have a reply. Before passing to that, may I say that I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) would look into the case that he cited more closely because it is perfectly obvious the facts could not be as he said.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I probably made a little error, but what I meant was that it was very likely reduced by 18d.

Mr. SNOWDEN

That sort of thing might happen, though cases of the kind are likely to be very rare, indeed, under the provisions of this Bill, because if an old man went to live with his son, and the calculation of the value of those free dinners were as much as 10s. it would have no effect. But no Pension officer would assess the value of a meal at as much as 2.s.

Mr. J. JONES

Sunday afternoon tea has been calculated.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Under this Bill all that would be in effect excluded.

Mr. WALLHEAD

It is in the experience of many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who have been members of Pensions Committees, that these things have been done.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I say that that is done, but my point was that in the case of an old man living in the house of a son, a few shillings are not taken into calculation. I have been asked to prepare and circulate some paper which would be a sort of guide to an understanding of the Old Age Pensions Acts. I think that is a suggestion worthy of consideration, but, without any disrespect, I am quite sure it should not be done by a lawyer. If it is to be done, I think I would rather undertake the task myself. I think it is quite desirable and necessary that an Old Age pensioner should understand what his rights are, and I think we could supply a little explanatory paper, put in simple words, that would be within the comprehension of the Old Age pensioner. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even to a Member of Parliament."] Even to a lawyer. As regards producing a definition of earnings before the Report stage, I cannot promise that at the moment. I should have to make inquiries. Of course, certain instructions will have to be given to the local Pensions Officers, and possibly I can inform the House at a later stage generally what these instructions are going to be.

Captain BENN

Before the Bill is concluded?

Mr. SNOWDEN

I hope so. Let me just add this because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) quoted the case of a single old man who had 10s. per week from some benevolent source and earned Ws a week, and my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that under the provisions of this Bill he would be entitled to a full pension of 10s. per week. My right hon. and learned Friend hardly did justice to the proposals we are making here. That man might have had an income of 25s. a week, or a married couple of 50s. a week, and still the old age pension will stand. Then he quoted another case of a man with 12s. a week from earnings and 8s. from benevolence. I quite see his point there. He pointed out that in the second case the full pension was reduced by 2s. That is quite true, but I should like to remind him that under the existing law neither A nor B would get a single penny of pension. Under the present proposals they get the full pension.

Sir J. SIMON

Not the second one!

Mr. SNOWDEN

The one gets a pension of 10s. and the other of 8s. Neither would be entitled at present to a pension at all. With regard to some of the earlier observations I made, it is probably true that if I had been sitting below the Gangway and someone else had been occupying the Front Bench, I should have been as critical as some other Members—and I leave it at that!

Mr. PRINGLE

With regard to the good natural concluding observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may I say I merely ventured to make what seemed a perfectly innocent interruption which brought forth that eloquent outburst. I have never, let me say, at any time either here or in the country disparaged what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing. I have always paid a tribute to what he has done both in his Budget and in the present Measure, but I do not think we are to be blamed if we find there has been a reversal of rôles since 1908–11. In those years my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sitting on the bench in front of where I am now standing, was pressing at the door, was banging at the door, for further concessions. Now he is holding the door. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not quite!"] Well, he has opened it in favour of some concessions, and he has closed the door against others. It is perfectly right that other individual Members now should be discharging the function which he discharged 16 years ago, and urging with perfect justification that we should be given something more.

1.0 P.M.

My complaint was not against my right hon. Friend withholding more at present, but against his limiting the liberty of the House of Commons. Let us take the example with which he dealt at some length in his speech. The way in which invested property is calculated. He says in the old days Mr. Hobhouse was incompetent in his defence of that Measure or proposal, and that he was unable to convince my right hon. Friend. However, since my right hon. Friend himself has been at the Treasury he has found it all out. He finds now that the Treasury officials have a perfectly good defence. My point is this: if there is a good defence, why was the Resolution so drawn as to exclude discussion in this House, where you could have had it, and where the right hon. Gentleman could have had presented from Members on both sides of the House their aspect of the case? There might then have been fair argument, and so we would have been enabled to form a conclusion and to give a vote upon the matter. I think it is not only in regard to this matter of invested property, but also in the matter of earnings that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a mistake. I believe a case could be put up, and if so, it is far better surely that the matter should be decided after discussion than on a mere technicality as it is now being discussed! We have been prevented by the rules of the House from dealing with a very important matter. Appeals have been made by hon. Members opposite that this matter should be reopened on the Report stage. I believe it is impossible to reopen it on the Report stage. I believe that if the Chancellor had been somewhat less rigid in making use of the forms of the House that the discussion of this matter might have been carried on in a more effective and more useful way to all concerned. I do not wish to blame the right hon. Gentle man for what he has not done, but I would suggest to him that there may be a little justification for some of us who, for example, agreed with the right hon. Gentleman before the General Election in regard to the increasing of armaments, and, like him, denounced—before the election—the building of cruisers, and who will continue denouncing it, that instead of making money which is thereby used for unproductive expenditure available for matters of social reform like this, it should be diverted to a new competition in armaments.

Mr. J. JONES

We have just listened to a speech by a Daniel come to judgment, who has concluded his speech by a com- plaint about a previous Daniel who has not come to judgment! He referred to armaments. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to get up in this House and to say that if other countries are not prepared to reduce their armaments we must voluntarily agree not to defend ourselves?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think the hon. Member will be in order in taking that line.

Mr. JONES

But the hon. Gentleman has just said it.

Mr. PRINGLE

No, no. I think my hon. Friend is under a misunderstanding. I did not refer to the reduction of armaments. I was referring to the increase of armaments, which the Chancellor was in agreement with me about at one time, and upon which we are now disagreed.

Mr. JONES

I am not so clever as a lawyer, but I can understand their implications when they make speeches in this House. We are members of the Labour party, and I happen to be one of the members of the party who does not believe in pacifism until everybody becomes a pacifist.

Mr. TURNER

I do!

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Gentleman is out of order in raising that matter on this Bill. He is misinterpreting the statements made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). That hon. Gentleman referred to expenditure in a certain direction, which he said might have been utilised for the expenditure likely to be incurred in this Bill.

Mr. JONES

That expenditure is not our responsibility. We are the victims of circumstances. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do. We cannot control our own destiny always. We are largely controlled by what other people do. If the hon. Member believes that we can do what we like he is making a big mistake. To come to the question of old age pensions. I happen to have been a, Member of an Old Age Pensions Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked in the part of the discussion which has taken place that it was not recorded against applicants when they went out to dinner or tea on a Sunday with their friends or relatives—that that was not entered against them in their application for a pension. I can disillusion the hon. Gentleman on that point, because we have had circulars issued to our old people informing them that every source of income is taken into account. If friends invite the old people to spend a week-end, or if the son-in-law or the daughter-in-law asked them to pay a week-end visit and give them food, it is all recorded against them and I have known cases in which even Christmas Boxes have been counted against these old people. Hon. Members above the Gangway may quibble about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not done but can the hon. Member for Penistone justify the restrictions which the Liberal Government placed upon these pensions. I would remind the hon. Member that many of those restrictions have already been removed by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon Members above the Gangway made all these restrictions because they alleged that they wanted thrift, and yet the first thing they did was to place restrictions on thrift and now they get up here and with their tongues in their cheeks talk to us, who are not here to ask favours but to fight for principles, in this way. If you are now turning the other cheek to the smiter let the blood be upon your own head.

Having gone through 24 years of work as a local administrator I know what we have had up against us. Successive Governments, Liberal, Conservative and Coalition—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Labour!"] No, not Labour, because we have never had a majority, and you have had big majorities. Successive Governments have had the control of the country, and now you are coming along in sackcloth and ashes and saying "Please, Sir, it was not me." We know the baby is only a small one, but I think we have a right to tell you that we have had enough of your gammon. You may be able to win Lewes, but you cannot win the Dockyard constituencies or the industrial areas of the country. If you really want these restrictions removed we want you to go the whole hog, but when we come and ask for more money to do this then hon. Members below the Gangway are not prepared to go the whole hog. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Snowdon?"] After all, he is higher over your heads than Snowdon. I want, it to be realised that what you are putting forward to-day is simply political camouflage and you do not mean a word of it. The national exchequer has not got the necessary money at the present time, and we have made a start at any rate with what hon. Members below the Gangway promised and did not fulfil. Every proposal we make now as a Government in office though not in power the Members of the Liberal party try to stop them, and yet they come here with tears in their voice talking about what we have not done, and all we ask is why did you not do it when you were in office?

Sir ROBERT KAY

I have only once addressed this House, but I think it is desirable on this occasion that a protest should be made against the kind of speech which has just been addressed to this House. A great many of us are here for the first time—

Mr. J. JONES

And the last time.

Sir R. KAY

That remains to be seen. We are here for the first time with one intention above every other, and that is to redeem pledges which we have given to those who sent us here. We are not tied either as to whether our party may be pledged, but if we made a pledge we are in honour bound to fulfil it. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has just told us that we do not mean a word of it, but he certainly does not understand those about whom he speaks. Most of us in our constituencies did what the bulk of the Members of the Government did and that was to give a pledge to remove or increase the income limit with regard to Old Age Pensions and not deal with the matter in the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with it in this Bill. This Bill fails to give benefit to a great many who expected that they would receive the help promised, and which would have been theirs if the means limit had been removed or very much increased.

It is not in accordance with the facts to say that other parties, and the Liberal party in particular, would say one word to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer so wording his proposal as to give the benefit to those who are deprived by reason of the manner in which it has been worded. Why should benevolent recipients secure that which is denied to some of those who do a little casual work? Benevolent allowances are deducted in arriving at the means. If a man has 15s. a week from investments or gratuities it does not count when he comes to his Old Age Pension, but if a man earns 15s. in casual work his pension is reduced. I remember an instance that came under my notice some years ago, and it is an illustration of what happens. An old man was unable to work all the week, and in the winter time very little indeed, but he would do such small amount of garden work as was required to be done and at such times of the year as it was available, and he earned on an average at Trade Union Rates about 15s. per week. That person and those similarly situated who do work have to suffer. I hold in my hand a letter from an old man over 70 in my constituency who is in the same position doing part work in a garden, and he wants to know how he will affected. He has a young wife, and he cannot keep himself and his wife on 15s. or £1 per week. Is he, because he does this little bit of garden work, to be deprived of the pension? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to remove this disqualification, and I fear that the reason is to be found in the belief that in some way, this Bill will help workers in Trade Unions. I have advocated the removal of the means limit in my constituency, and I have advocated the removal of it up to the Income Tax limit, so that people with small earnings should get the full benefit of the Old Age pension. I do not advocate it with any idea of making political capital out of it, but in the interests of the old people for whom I should like to secure this additional benefit.

Major MOULTON

I should like to join in the protest just made, because I attach great importance to the fulfilment of pledges made at elections. I have heard what the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has said, but it does not in the least satisfy me. Am I to take it that hon. Members above the gangway are perfectly satisfied with the present Bill which does not do away with any inquisition and which, while giving some relief as to the means to be calculated for the purpose of Old Age pensions, excludes all earnings from that relief. Is there one of the Labour Members who would dare get up and say that he told his constituents that that would satisfy him? if not the "gammon" remains with them. Personally, I pledged myself to the abolition of the thrift limit, and I stand by it. Then we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer who gets up and is very kind to the old people. I seem to remember an old saying about the Greeks when they bring gifts, and I wonder what the old people will think when they are told that anything they may earn in the hope of providing little luxuries or necessities or anything which their wives may earn is to come off the pension. There is another thing to be remembered. I am not so certain that it is a good thing to discourage the old from working. All I can say is that my father died in harness doing a full day's work at 76. The worst thing for an old man probably is for him to feel that he has been put for ever on the shelf. Personally. I hope that when I can do no more work my life will come to an end. I have looked at this White Paper, but nowhere is there the slightest indication that the person who wrote it realised that if the wife, say, be 20 years younger than her husband so that there can be no objection to her working, her earnings will be counted towards reducing her husband's pension. I have not heard one word in justification of this either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from the Financial Secretary, and it is going to apply in a large number of cases. This Paper proceeds on the assumption that husbands and wives always become 70 simultaneously. Finally, I want to make a protest against the discrimination introduced for the first time by a Labour Government between earned and unearned income to the disadvantage of earned income.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Short Title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, (14th July), and to be printed. [Bill 202.]