HC Deb 15 November 1932 vol 270 cc1070-80

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

Commander COCHRANE

I wish to ask a question as to the duration of the Bill. A good deal has been said about this being a temporary Measure, but that is not made clear in this Clause. It is provided that this Measure is to continue in force as long as the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930 remains in force and no longer. The Act of 1930, if not renewed, expires at the end of June next year but it would be very undesirable that this Measure should be dragged at the heels of the 1930 Act, if that Act is renewed. Can the Minister, therefore, give the Committee an assurance that it is not his intention to renew the 1930 Act?

Sir H. BETTERTON

My hon. and gallant Friend asks me to give an absolute assurance as to what will happen during next Session. I can only tell him what are my intentions and hopes. As has been said, over and over again, it is my intention to bring in a comprehensive Bill during the coming Session. The present position is that the Act of 1930 comes to an end on 30th June next year. The Anomalies Act comes to an end on 30th June next year. This Measure will also come to an end on 30th June next year. All these Measures have been deliberately framed to expire at the same time. The new Bill, presumably, will incorporate the whole or the greater part of the existing legislation, but whether any part of the 1930 Act remains, or whether it is wholly repealed, depends, of course, on the form of the new Bill. I cannot say anything more than that.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. LAWSON

We have now come to the final stage of a Bill which has held the attention of the House four days. That is a rather extraordinary circumstance in the case of the average Bill. This Bill was supposed to be simple but it has turned out to be very complicated. It was supposed to give all-round satisfaction but it does not seem to have given any satisfaction at all. The Minister of Labour has added to his own troubles by not having the Law Officers of the Crown here from an early stage in the proceedings on the Bill. Questions have been put from time to time as to the attitude of the Minister in respect to the soldiers' disablement pensions and compensation. We had the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon giving us what seemed to be a legal interpretation of the various Clauses of the Bill and as to how they were likely to operate so far as the local authorities were concerned. To-night the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) has asked the same question that has been asked repeatedly during the whole of the four days, and the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) gave an interpretation which, it seems, turns out to be no interpretation at all; and this evening we were given an explanation which was long and involved. I submit that it would have been far better if we could have had the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown set down so that we could read it and understand exactly what the Bill means.

When I heard the Parliamentary Secretary explain what was meant by the 50 per cent. I got the expression this evening that these rules were going to stereotype the operations of the administration through the country, but even now what is the position? We are told that the public assistance committees must exclude 50 per cent. of the disablement pensions and compensation. The right hon. Gentleman said that above that there is to be discretion but no committee must make a rule that it will exclude 75 per cent. of the pension or compensation. That would be illegal.

Sir H. BETTERTON

That is the existing law.

Mr. LAWSON

You exclude 75 per cent. now, but what is to be done is that every case is to be taken on its merits and that the public assistance committees can actually, if they wish, exclude 75 per cent. of practically all disabled soldiers' and compensation cases. I want to put this important point to the Minister. While certain committees have made no definite rule, they have decided on the merits of these cases and it has become so much a practice that it is understood in certain areas that they do exclude 75 per cent. and sometimes 100 per cent. in actual practice. Will the practice of areas of that kind be disturbed by these new regulations? I do not think that it is the right hon. Gentleman's wish that it should be so. I hope that it is not going to be the practice in future. It is my conviction that, over the whole range, the Government will not spend any money over this Bill. The Memorandum to the Financial Resolution said that it would cost the Exchequer about £1,000,000. I wonder what that is based upon. The basis of that calculation has been left alone throughout these Debates. Hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House are going to the country to say that the Labour party voted against a Bill which will give £1,000,000. I am casting no reflection on the Minister, but when hon. Members have had a little experience of Ministry of Labour actuarial calculations, they will discover that they never had any basis and that the actuary is usually wrong. I should like to find a time when he is really right. He is really asked to do miracles, for there is no basis on which to work. The tendency to stereotype public assistance committees which are actually allowing more than the Bill allows will, in the long run, cost the country nothing, and will probably result in a saving when the whole story is told. I wish to put a point to the Parliamentary Secretary. When he was speaking on the Financial Resolution on the 9th November, he referred to the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, arid said: I have not had time to give that report the full consideration that it deserves, but the impression I have gained from reading it through is that on most of the subjects it deals with its authors have begged the question, that on a great number of important points the facts they produce are inaccurate, and consequently that the conclusions they draw are misleading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 462, Vol. 270.] Is it not a fact that the minority members of the Commission had the same figures from the statistical experts of the Ministry of Labour as the rest of the Commission, and also the same memoranda and the same facts, and drew their own conclusions? I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman on what grounds he made that statement. I really think that in this case his zeal has outrun his judgment. It is not very often that happens with him when he is on his feet, but here his zeal and, if I may say so, his prejudice, rather got beyond him. Those members served on the Commission for two years, they gave their services like the rest of the members, and they exercised their best judgment, and I really think they deserve better of the representative of the Ministry of Health. They are entitled to some sort of apology for the statement he made. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will have something to say on that point at a later stage of the proceedings, but if not I shall certainly take the opportunity to go into this point at greater length when this matter again comes up for discussion.

Finally, let me say this. [Interruption.] I make no apology for speaking at this time of night. It was understood clearly, through the usual channels, that we should start the Third Reading at 7.30 to-night, and that other business would be got through. If there has been delay it has come from the Members behind the Government. The point I want to make is that this Bill makes no difference to this fundamental fact, that we are treating the unemployed on the basis of the destitution test. You are applying the machinery and the spirit of the Poor Law to people for whom the Poor Law was never designed. I said 12 months ago, and I say it now, that the further we go along on these lines the worse we get. The use of Poor Law machinery and methods to deal with the unemployed has already created such trouble in the country that the Government have had to give us a new Bill and to start to explain and define where they said they would never explain or define. They have made a change in the Poor Law which would seem to be a small one, but Members supporting the Government have claimed that it is a fundamental change. So the Government find that the using of the Poor Law machinery and the basing of the work of the Poor Law upon the destitution test come back upon them like a boomerang threatening to destroy the Poor Law, which is already overdue for reform, and landing the Government into a quagmire as far as the unemployed are concerned.

11.30 p.m.

I have heard a speech or two tonight which have indicated to me that the hon. Members who delivered them do not understand in the slightest what the unemployed problem is in this country. When the term "waster" is used as it was to-night it shows to my mind a profound ignorance of the real position of affairs. I am afraid the Government are not free from that spirit. These men, in the 20th century, the finest types of our citizens, are to be arraigned, to be investigated, to be questioned; and I do not want the Government to think that when they quote investigations for Income Tax purposes as a parallel they really get away with it. They may get away with it in this House, but they will not get away with it in the country. If there is one thing certain, it is that from the very first there began to grow up a spirit of hostility in what are to me quite unexpected quarters, against the groping and investigating that goes on. A man who is subjected to investigation for purposes of Income Tax thinks himself a very much maltreated citizen, but he is a citizen. The man who is held up as an unemployed man and as a "transitional" man, is held in that position because he is treated as of an inferior type. [Interruption.] Oh, yes he is!

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is out of order, in discussing, on the Third Reading, the merits of the means test. It does not arise on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. LAWSON

I am very much obliged for your Ruling. I am still more obliged for your taking so long to think about it. [HON. MEMBERS "Order!"] I beg Mr. Speaker's pardon. I did not intend to be rude. The hostility to this Bill is caused by the Government treating the unemployed as a destitute type. Masses of the unemployed are being cast on to the local rates, as a certainty, and, generally speaking—

Mr. SPEAKER

If I took a long time in calling the hon. Member to order, that is no reason why he should go on being out of order when I have called his attention to it.

Mr. LAWSON

I thought that it was permissible to put the point, that the objection to this Bill is fundamental, so far as we are concerned, because it continues to treat the unemployed on the basis of destitution.

Mr. SPEAKER

That point was fully made in the Second Reading. The hon. Member can now only speak of what is actually in the Bill, which deals with one or two ways by which needs can be determined.

Mr. LAWSON

One objection that I want to make before I sit down is that the Bill does not deal as thoroughly as it might with the various classes with which it is supposed to deal. It leaves out of calculation and consideration the grievances that have been dealt with in connection with family income. The Parliamentary Secretary missed the point when he dealt with the question of family income. He thoroughly misunderstood the point that while young men find objection to contributing towards their family, their incomes are taken into consideration. There is no change, so far as the youngster is concerned, but there is, so far as the circumstances are concerned. This Bill affects some 1,200,000 people. The striking thing about the great bulk of them is that there is an ever-increasing number of them who are going beyond the 12 months of unemployment. We intend to risk any criticism outside, and to risk the propaganda that may be made against the attitude that we are taking, and to vote against the Bill, because we believe it does nothing to meet the needs of those who have been so hardly punished during the last 12 months. Instead of costing the Government money this Bill will save money, and the last stage of those men will be worse than their first.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I do not desire to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I should like to give the reasons why we oppose the Third Reading. The reason for bringing in the Bill at all is to try to do away with the discontent that there is throughout the length and breadth of the country, and in that respect it may have the desired effect, but in the long run, so far as we are concerned, it will not meet the issue. The Bill seeks to deal with ex-service men's disability pensions, workmen's compensation, and capital assets, but we do not believe that, taking the whole country, it will bring any advantage to the great mass of these people. When it is remembered that there are 1,100,000 people drawing transitional benefit, one sees that, if each were to receive the proportion that would be provided by the Bill, it would only amount to about 4d, per week, and, even if the number were much smaller, the concession would still be very meagre. We cannot accept the other figure of 1,000,000 which has been given. We view this Bill as a sham and a make-believe; we think that there is nothing really substantial in it. It does not give any concessions to these people as a whole. It is true that in some areas men will gain, but in others they will stand to lose.

The right hon. Gentleman, when replying to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), was very skilful in his answer on the question of capital assets. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said that in his district they were at the present time exempting 7s. 6d. of each disability pension, and not taking into account anything below that amount, and the Minister was very skilful in his reply. He said that the position was legal now, and would be legal after the passing of the Bill; but he went on to say, in effect, that at present the public assistance authorities may take into account all income. The fact is that

Bradford is defying the law now in exempting the 7s. 6d., and other towns also are defying the law. All these towns are governed by Tory majorities, and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour dare not interfere with them. But, now that this Bill has been introduced, it will enable them to interfere with Bradford, and the Bradford public assistance committee will reduce their disability exemption of 7s. 6d. to the amount required by this Bill; and they will be doing so on the instructions of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour.

We say that this Bill gives no real concession at all, that it is at the best a sham and a make-believe. There is only one thing that can be said for it, and that is that, as compared with the two previous Measures that were brought in to deal with the unemployed—the one the Order-in-Council inflicting a reduction of benefit and establishing the means test, and the other the Measure introduced by the last Government—this Bill attacks the unemployed less brutally than either of those Measures did. That is the best that can be said for it. It is not a solution of the difficulty. We intend to vote against it because it is not even a partial solution of this great difficulty and we will take every step in opposition to every Bill that does not meet our wishes in respect to the abolition of the means test.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 41.

Division No. 365. AYES. [11.41 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bernays, Robert Caine, G. R. Hall-
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Albery, Irving James Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.) Christie, James Archibald
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Blaker, Sir Reginald Clarke, Frank
Apsley, Lord Blindell, James Clarry, Reginald George
Aske, Sir Robert William Borodale, Viscount Clayton, Dr. George C.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Bossom, A. C. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Atholl, Duchess of Boulton, W. W. Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Atkinson, Cyril Bower, Lieut-Com. Robert Tatton Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Conant, R. J. E.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Cooke, Douglas
Balniel, Lord Briant, Frank Cooper, A. Duff
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Broadbent, Colonel John Copeland, Ida
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y) Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Bateman, A. L. Burghiey, Lord Cranborne, Viscount
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Burnett, John George Cross, R. H.
Bean, Sir Arthur Shirley Cadogan, Hon, Edward Curry, A. C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Remer, John R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Dickie, John P. Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Doran, Edward Leckie, J. A. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Drewe, Cedric Lees-Jones, John Robinson, John Roland
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ropner, Colonel L.
Dunglass, Lord Lennox-Boyd, A, T. Rosbotham, S. T.
Eales, John Frederick Levy, Thomas Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Eastwood, John Francis Liddall, Waiter S. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Runge, Norah Cecil
Elmley, Viscount Loder, Captain J. de Vere Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Lyons, Abraham Montagu Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Mabane, William Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) McCorguodale, M. S. Salt, Edward W.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Fraser, Captain Ian McKeag, William Savery, Samuel Servington
Fremantle, Sir Francis McKie, John Hamilton Scone, Lord
Fuller, Captain A G. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman McLean, Major Alan Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Gledhill, Gilbert McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Glossop, C. W. H. Magnay, Thomas Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Gluckslein, Louis Halle Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Goff, Sir Park Manningharn-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Goldie, Noel B. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Smith-Carinaton, Neville W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Marsden, Commander Arthur Smithers, Waldron
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Martin, Thomas B. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Greene, William P. C. Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Soper, Richard
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Gritten, W. G. Howard Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Stevenson, James
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Milne, Charles Storey, Samuel
Gunston, Captain D. W. Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Stourton, Hon. John J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Moreing, Adrian C. Strauss, Edward A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Morgan, Robert H. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hanley, Dennis A. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Harris, Sir Percy Morrison, William Shephard Sutcliffe, Harold
Hartington, Marquess of Muirhead, Major A. J. Templeton, William P.
Hartland, George A. Munro, Patrick Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Thompson, Luke
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Thorp, Linton Theodore
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. O'Connor, Terence James Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P O'Donovan, Dr. William James Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Holdsworth, Herbert Oman, Sir Charles William C. Train, John
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) Palmer, Francis Noel Turton, Robert Hugh
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Pearson, William G. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Hornby, Frank Peat, Charles U. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Horsbrugh, Florence Penny, Sir George Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Howard, Tom Forrest Percy, Lord Eustace Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Perkins, Walter R. D. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Peters, Dr. Sidney John Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Petherick, M. Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n) Wells, Sydney Richard
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada Weymouth, Viscount
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Pike, Cecil F. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Procter, Major Henry Adam Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Jamieson, Douglas Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Womersley, Walter James
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Ramsden, E. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Ker, J. Campbell Rea, Walter Russell
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Reid. Capt. A. Cunningham- TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Kerr, Hamilton W. Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-
Reid, William Allan (Derby) Colonel Sir Lambert Ward.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) McEntee, Valentine L.
Attlee, Clement Richard Groves, Thomas E. McGovern, John
Banfield, John William Grundy, Thomas W. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Batey, Joseph Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton) Milner, Major James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George Hicks, Ernest George Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas. Jenkins, Sir William Tinker, John Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown) Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones Morgan (Caerphilly) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Daggar, George Kirkwood, David, Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhaughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Logan, David Gilbert
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lunn, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John,

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

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.