CLAUSE 11.—(Outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, etc.)

HC Deb 05 July 1934 vol 291 cc2088-135

4.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert "or trade union."

Mr. SKELTON

I wonder if I might make a suggestion? I do not know whether, in Committee, we might discuss the whole four Amendments on the Paper together, although, of course, if necessary, a separate Division could be taken on each one.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR

I understood from the Under-Secretary that he was going to accept the first Amendment. Could we not dispose of that, and then get on with the other Amendments?

Mr. BUCHANAN

As I understand that the Under-Secretary is going to accept this Amendment, I will not prolong the proceedings except to say that I am glad the Government are accepting it. I do not think that anyone would wish to penalise a man who makes his trade union his friendly society, and, in so far as the Minister already accepts the trade union as a society for health insurance purposes, I cannot see any point for leaving it out here.

M P. MACLEAN

In this Amendment an effort is made to correct an anomaly, namely, that workers who have made a certain class of friendly society their benefit society shall have a portion of their benefit disregarded, while others who have made another class of society their friendly society are to have the whole of their benefit assessed by the public assistance committees.

Mr. BUCHANAN

It does not touch approved societies. It touches trade unions pure and simple. The reason we do not say "approved societies" is because one or two trade unions, for their own convenience, are not approved societies, and which, if we used those words, would be left out. It is right that they should be covered, and I use the term "trade union" because it covers every union which, in its wisdom, pays sickness benefit apart from State benefit.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON

With a desire for brevity equal to that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I will not "ay more than a few words. On the Committee stage I found that various investigations into a rather obscure region were necessary. Those investigations have convinced us that it is well to add trade unions, for the reason that there are a considerable number of trade unions which do pay sickness benefit, but which have not organised themselves as definite friendly societies. Those Members who were on the Committee will recollect that, generally, my object in dealing with this was to keep the Poor Law of England and Scotland more or less in line in the matter, so that where there was an Amendment it should be common to the two countries. Technically, I believe, the words "trade union" seem to break that rule, but in fact administratively I find there is a gap which is more easily covered in England. I am informed that, though it is impossible under the words of the Act, administratively it is the case that in some cases sick pay from a trade union is disregarded under the friendly society rule. I will not detain the Committee to give the reasons why, from an administrative point of view, it is not so easy in Scotland; but we think it better to lay down definitely that this shall include trade unions, for the reason that the administrative control of the central department over a local authority in some respects in Scotland is different. That is why we accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end, to insert: and (d) any maternity benefit.

Mr. SKELTON

Will the hon. Member accept my proposal to have a general Debate on the three Amendments?

Mr. MACLEAN

I will deal with the three Amendments together, and, if they are not going to be accepted, will take three Divisions. The Amendments in our names are for the purpose of disregarding in the assessment of Poor Law relief any maternity benefit; any weekly payment by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation; and any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and any other income by virtue of the provisions of that Act, or from any charity for the blind. With regard to maternity benefit, we consider that the Assistance Board under the Unemployment Act makes a disregard where the husband and wife have been working and each has qualified for what one might call a double maternity benefit. One of these is disregarded. We consider that in those circumstances we ought at least to make some disregard where there is only one maternity benefit, because any Member of this House who takes a live interest in his constituency—and I am certain that all Members do—will realise that in a great many cases where maternity benefit is being paid, the bulk of that benefit is paid away in fees to a doctor or in expenses to a nurse, and that the family derive no financial benefit. In a very large number of cases no individual, including the mother and the newly-born child, benefit from the actual payment of the maternity benefit. The entire sum, and sometimes more, goes in payment of the necessary expenses due to the birth of the child.

We consider, therefore, that where this happens, a public assistance committee ought not to take into consideration the amount that is paid for maternity benefit where that sum has to be expended in the necessary expenses of their birth. There is justification for the Minister accepting, if not the disregard of the whole of the maternity benefit, at least a portion of it. We believe that we are on sound ground in that we have already agreed to disregard a certain amount of sick and other benefit coming into the house, and as this is a benefit where, in many cases, very little or none of the benefit can be looked upon as being expended in the ordinary necessary expenses of the household, but purely for the purpose for which that money is granted as a benefit, we trust that the Minister will consider, in some way at any rate, disregarding, if not all, at least some portion of the benefit.

The next Amendment relates to the disregarding of any weekly payment by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation. Not only on this Bill, but also when the Unemployment Bill was before the House, we were told that the main reason why the Government agreed to disregard a certain proportion of the benefits which were being paid to disabled ex-service men was that they had been wounded while serving their country in the late War. Because of the service they had given to the country, the Government felt justified in disregarding a certain amount, up to £1, of any wounds or disability pension which the ex-service men were taking from the Ministry of Pensions. We submit that it is not merely when fighting in wars abroad that service is being given to the country. It is now recognised by various Acts which have been passed, not merely by this Government but by previous Governments, that the working classes of this country who are producing and distributing wealth, are also engaged in the service of their country, and if one of these individuals who is working either in a mine or shipyard, or following any other occupation, no matter what it may be, is injured in the course of his employment and unable to follow his occupation for a period of time, and receives on account of his injuries, compensation up to a certain sum, then we contend that that individual is just as much entitled to receive consideration on the part of the Government, and have a certain amount of his pension disregarded, as in the case of the ex-service man who was wounded when fighting in the Great War. Consequently, we add that particular class of individual to those whom we desire to see having part, at least, of the sum he receives, disregarded when being assessed by a public assistance committee.

The last point to which I wish to address myself is that in the third Amendment which proposes to disregard any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and any other income by virtue of the provisions of "that Act, or from any charity for the blind. I submit that on this question, whatever one's views may be about the other two categories included in the two previous Amendments, at least there must be general sympathy from every part of the Committee. We ask that blind persons, even if there may be only a few, who find themselves compelled from time to time to seek assistance from a public assistance committee, if they are in receipt of a blind person's pension or some charitable donation, either weekly or at periods which are not consecutive, shall have the amount of assistance which they are thus receiving disregarded in the same way as the ex-service man who has up to £1 of his wounds or disability pension disregarded for assessment for public benefit. As a matter of fact, some of these ex-service men are in receipt of pensions because, through shock or explosion, they have lost their sight. The House and the Government are agreeing to disregard up to £1 of the pension in such cases, and we consider that there ought to be, in the same way, some disregard of the amount received by the ordinary blind person, who may have been born blind, or may have become blind as a result of his employment or of sickness or shock suffered otherwise than in war.

The Minister has accepted the previous Amendment, as we hoped he would, because the Bill as it was first drafted shut out one class of friendly society, and made possible a rather remarkable anomaly where one individual had made his trade union his friendly society, while another individual, living close beside him, had joined one of the ordinary friendly societies. In the one case the amount was disregarded, and in the other case it was not. The Minister, in settling that point, has removed what would have been a harsh anomaly affecting a number of people in working-class areas. I suggest that, if he does not accept, either wholly or in part, the three Amendments which we are now discussing, he will again find that anomalies will arise, which those who suffer from them will consider to be harsh and unjustifiable, owing to the fact that, while others are in receipt of a higher rate of public assistance because amounts which they receive in respect of certain things from which they suffer are disregarded, they, who suffer just as much but from different causes, are not haying any of the sums that they receive on account of their suffering disregarded by the public assistance committee. I trust, therefore, that the Government will give very serious consideration to this matter, and will agree to disregard at least some portion of the sums received by people in the three categories I have mentioned.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

I understand that, before I came into the Chair, it was arranged that the three Amendments of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) should be discussed together, the hon. Member having the right, if he so desires, to take Divisions on them separately.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN

I desire to support the appeal which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has made in connection with his three Amendments. Up to now the Under-Secretary and the other Ministers who have been assisting him have met us in a fairly friendly and reasonable manner on a number of Amendments which we have moved, and I may add that, if the same spirit of reason and concession were shown by all sections of the Government, there might be an argument for continuing to have a National Government instead of a party Government. With regard to maternity benefit, I do not think that any Member of the House would attempt to argue that the hon. Member's Amendment is in any way unreasonable. The maternity grant of 40s. is given, generally speaking, to a class of people who have very poor incomes, and at that time there are medical fees to be paid and, as a rule, the expense of nurses and outside help, and a great deal more money is required to keep even a working-class home running at that period than at any ordinary period. Anyone who comes in contact with working-class life will know that in many such homes people not only fail to meet their expenses at that time, but have to run into debt, and, therefore, I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to see if it is possible to disregard the whole of the maternity benefit, in order to give a little ray of sunshine, comfort and assurance to the woman and to the home at that very difficult period.

As regards compensation, the hon. Gentleman may not find himself able to disregard the whole of the compensation coming into the home, because there is a divergence of opinion on all local authorities, even those where working-class people are in control, as to the amount of compensation that should be disregarded; but I think it would be reasonable to expect that, as the hon. Member for Govan has argued in connection with War Pensions, at least 50 per cent. of the compensation should be disregarded, as is done under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think we might reasonably ask the Government to make that concession without their considering our demand too extreme. It might be argued that there are different types of cases, but we know that in a large number of cases special expenditure is necessary at such a time. Many men are very badly injured, and have to have special treatment; and, after all, the compensation is given as a right, as a sort of solatium to the man because he has been injured in the course of his employment. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to see if it is not possible to disregard at least 50 per cent. of such compensation, as is the case under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Blind persons are in a different category altogether. The ordinary blind man or woman who receives a pension of 10s. a week has that amount supplemented by various local authorities. In Glasgow, I think, it is made up to £1, and in a large number of areas it is made up to 15s. a week. One knows that there are many items of extra expenditure in the home of a blind person, such as payments to boys and girls for running messages and payments for conducting the blind person through the streets, which have to be incurred because the blind person is denied that greatest gift to man, the power of sight. The total number of cases is not tremendously large, and I think that, apart from party ideas, any man or woman in this House would be prepared, as regards the maternity grant and the blind person, to concede anything in reason. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to this question of blind persons, and see whether it is not possible to accept the Amendment. Already £1 a week is disregarded in the case of an ordinary able-bodied person with all his faculties, and it must be realised that the blind person is certainly in a much worse plight. On these general grounds I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to grant what the hon. Member for Govan has asked, because I think it is extremely reasonable.

4.27 p.m.

Commander COCHRANE

Both the hon. Members who have spoken have been more emphatic in their remarks with regard to blind persons than on either of the other points raised by these Amendments. I recognise to the full the purpose that they have in view, but I suggest to the Committee that to accept this proposal would be to proceed on wrong lines. Hon. Members will recollect that at the present time, when anyone who is in receipt of a blind person's pension reaches the age at which he might receive the old age pension, he becomes in fact worse off than he was before, owing to what appears to be a defect in the Act. That is a case which clearly calls for a revision of the Act, and I believe that the only satisfactory way to deal with this problem of blind poor persons is to take them off the Poor Law and deal with them in a special class, as blind persons, by a special pension scheme. If, however, the present proposal of the hon. Member were to be adopted, it would have the effect of anchoring blind persons more firmly to the Poor Law, and obviously, when a new Measure was brought in, it would be said that, since special exemption was given to blind persons already under the Poor Law, it would be unnecessary to do anything else, For that reason I feel that I cannot support this present Amendment, although I am in whole-hearted sympathy with the idea that blind people should receive from the State whatever is necessary to enable them to maintain themselves in reasonable comfort.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) has started on the same lines on which the Under-Secretary made himself famous when the Bill was before the Committee. Whenever the hon. Gentleman opposed any of our Amendments, he informed the Committee that, if he were to accept the Amendment, it would not have the effect that the Movers of it desired. That is tantamount to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire. Evidently he is an apt pupil of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is about time that he was setting up house for himself, instead of following in the footsteps of the Under-Secretary. He says that he would have supported the Amendment if we were going to treat blind persons in a special class outside the Poor Law, but we have not the choice. If there were a choice here, it would be a different matter, but we have no choice; there is no alternative method. No one knows better than the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire that the Government are eternally telling us that they have not time to bring in any fresh legislation, and, as his suggestion would mean fresh legislation, it would simply mean putting the matter off. We desire all the Scottish Members of the House, in particular, to face up to this problem and support us, because, when we are talking with them apart from our official capacity, they always support us on all these proposals that we are bringing forward. They sympathise with the blind, but it is not sympathy that we want. Here is an opportunity for Scottish Members, irrespective of their political point of view, to put their sympathy into practice.

I hope the Under-Secretary is not going to resist the Amendment, but if he does, and we are forced to divide, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends will not go into the Lobby against us. We are far too generous about this idea of saving the time of the House, The House never saves any time of ours, and we get no concession. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made an appeal to-day for common courtesy from the Lord President of the Council, but he got no concession whatever. I hope Scottish Members will stand up for Scotland against all comers. The man in the street who does not know the politicians in here would not believe that we have to stand here on every occasion when this question arises and appeal on behalf of the mothers of the poor. Here is something which the Scottish Office could easily do without them damaging their reputation. It would enhance their reputation if they accepted these Amendments and played the part that they would like to play, though it calls for a little courage.

I do not like this idea that is trotted out every time we bring something out, that it has to be in line with England. Why should it be in line with England? Do you think we are going to follow the English? Evidently, because we have had certain concessions in Scottish Bills which were not in line with English Bills, the Secretary of State has got into trouble with the Cabinet. I think it is very wrong. The Scottish Office ought to stand on their dignity. We shall have to get a fair do, and we are not getting a fair do. The Under-Secretary again to-day resisted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), because it would not conform to what is going on in England. The thing is ridiculous. We are not going to be trailed at the heels of England. This is a Scottish Measure, and we ought to get what we can prove is compatible with what is right and just for Scotland irrespective of England. We have nothing to do with England. We are a distinct race, We have a distinct code of laws. We have our own Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State is a Cabinet in himself. [Interruption.] There are some Members who have been here for some time. One of them got a knighthood for being secretary to Sir Hamar Greenwood, and he is behaving like a jackass.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

If you say so, Sir, I will. The Secretary of State is a Cabinet in himself. He is the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Fisheries—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entitled to argue that the fact that these Amendments, if accepted, would not conform to the law of England is not a reason why they should not be accepted for Scotland, but he is now developing his argument into the exact constitutional position of Scotland.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

I only wanted to show hon. Members, whom it was your duty, Sir, to keep in order, that there is nothing outrageous in what I was saying. It is not I. I have to deal with the material that is at my hands—this Committee—and to give them a little information. If I had an intelligent audience I should not need to come under your lash. That is my misfortune. We have no right to be trammelled by what England has done or is going to do. It is what Scotland is going to do that we are discussing, and the effect that this is going to have on the Scottish people. I resent the Under-Secretary resisting my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. SKELTON

I think the hon. Member is rather anticipating the remarks that I am going to make. It seems rather unnecessary to assume my argument in advance.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

The House will judge whether my statement is correct or not. The hon. Gentleman said that the difficulty was that, while this worked out of England, that was not to say that it would work out in Scotland.

Mr. SKELTON

The hon. Member is extending my words beyond my meaning. I will deal with it in my reply.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Our next Amendment deals with maternity. The Bill will affect the very poorest in the country, who have no one to look after their interests except us. There are philanthropic organisations and missionaries and people who do work of that kind who can speak of the awful state of poverty and degradation. They try to ease the burden, but they do not touch the fringes of it. Charity does not touch the fringes of the problem. In this glorious age of abundance of everything that man requires to lead an intelligent and happy life, the death rate from maternity, particularly among this class, is as severe to-day as it was 50 years ago. It is true that we have made great headway and that the death-rate has been reduced among that class of the community who have been able to have the benefit of the application of science at childbirth, but among the section of the community with whom we are now dealing the death-rate is as savage, cruel, callous and prevalent as it was 50 years ago. The Secretary of State for Scotland is the Minister of Health for Scotland, and he is responsible in this matter. The office of Secretary of State for Scotland is the highest honour that Scotland can confer on one of its sons, but along with that high honour comes great responsibility. I say to him in his presence and in the presence of his officers that the responsibility in this matter is his. We have come forward to offer the Secretary of State for Scotland a way whereby he may be able to mitigate the terrible tragedy which is being enacted in our midst. We ask him to give us this concession and then we will not divide the Committee, but I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), that unless we are given the concessions dealt with in the Amendments we shall divide the Committee on three separate occasions.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID

I cannot help thinking that there must be some misunderstanding about these Amendments. Everybody on both sides of the Committee is fully agreed that in the case of maternity the family or the woman requires for the time being more than the normal weekly amount which would be payable if she were in ordinary health. With regard to the provision contained in the second Amendment, I have some difficulty in framing in my mind a case in which such circumstances could arise. Everybody in the industrial sphere now goes to Part II of the Unemployment Scheme, and I have some difficulty in seeing how a man drawing workmen's compensation can fall under the Poor Law at all. There may be a few cases.

Mr. McGOVERN

We are dealing with people who have gone on to the Poor Law, who may not be able-bodied, who, therefore, are in a different category altogether, and who will be dealt with if the family income justifies it.

Mr. REID

I agree that there is a point there. I would remind the hon. Member that these people receive sick pay of 5s. at least over and above the normal amount. I think every body will agree that blind persons must have more than the normal income of the ordinary pauper in possession of his full faculties. These Amendments have been drawn up on the assumption that there exists in Scotland to-day a hard and fast uniform scale which will be applied by the authority to every person irrespective of whether he is blind or not and to every woman whether it be at the time of childbirth or otherwise. If there were any evidence that local authorities in Scotland apply a hard and fast scale irrespective of circumstances, I should be inclined to support these Amendments, because it would plainly be a wrong method of administering the law. On the other hand—whether it be observed in all areas I do not know—the law is that the relieving authority has to consider the whole circumstances of every applicant. Nine out of 10 cases are so similar in their circumstances that what is in effect a fiat rate is applied to them. When they come to the tenth case, the woman at the time of childbirth and the blind person and so on, it is the duty of the authority to apply a different measure than they would apply to the ordinary person. If there were any evidence—and I have never heard of it—that in any area everybody is treated alike, whether blind or not, whether there are special circumstances or whether it is at the time of childbirth or not, there might have been a case for these Amendments. If, as I believe, local authorities make allowances for cases of childbirth and for poor people the position is already met. Surely, hon. Members opposite do not mean that a woman at the time of childbirth shall get the normal rate and then the addition which the local authority makes to the normal rate in respect of the circumstances of childbirth, and over and above that the maternity benefit. That, in effect, would mean that the special circumstances were taken into account twice over, and I am sure that nobody would put such a case.

Mr. McGOVERN

Deal with the special rate.

Mr. REID

I understand that it is the duty of the local authority in a case where a person has a special need, as in the case of a blind person, to give more by way of relief than would be given to an ordinary able-bodied man. I do not know whether all authorities do that, but they certainly ought to do so.

Mr. McGOVERN

Some of them do that. Take the Glasgow Public Assistance Authority. They do not give any increase during the period of maternity, and I think it would be true to say that they disregard the 40s.

Mr. REID

They assess the extra need owing to the circumstances of childbirth at 40s. That is their assumption. It may be a right assumption or a wrong one.

Mr. MACLEAN

The woman does not get that sum; it goes to the doctor and the nurse.

Mr. REID

No doubt. The whole point seems to be that for a certain period there is an additional need in the family because the doctor and others have to be paid, and it is for the public assistance authority to fix the additional need for the period. I understand from the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that in his area the public authority take the view that the additional need should be fixed at 40s., and that 40s. in effect comes into the family in addition to the normal Poor Law allowance.

Mr. McGOVERN

The hon. Member is getting it all wrong. I want to make sure that he is not putting up a case of his own and knocking it down again. We are dealing with realities. In Glasgow they give, in most cases, 2s. a week to the woman for the whole period of maternity and during that period she receives 40s. maternity grant. It is true that they also give an extra 2s. in respect of a child under 12 months.

Mr. REID

Let us suppose that for the period before childbirth occurs the amount goes up to 22s. and that after the birth of the child it will probably go up to 24s. In addition to that sum coming into the family there is also the sum of 40s., and the local authority take the view that the sum of 40s. is to meet additional expense incurred during the relatively short period of childbirth. If that is to be disregarded and if the local authority agree that the right sum is 40s., is it the intention, if the Amendment be carried, that 80s. should come into the family?

Mr. MACLEAN

No. I am sorry the hon. Member has got himself into difficulties because of the way in which the three Amendments are being moved. We wish the 40s. to be compulsorily disregarded because at the present time, although that money normally goes to the family, it is not actually paying for anything which the woman requires during the period, since the bulk of it, if not all of it, and sometimes more, is required to meet doctors' and nurses' fees. That is our point. The point the hon. Member is making is that the particular sum of 40s. is an additional income. We point out that it is not an additional income. It is set aside for additional expenditure in the household during that particular period. The hon. Member was regular in his attendance when the Bill was before the Standing Committee, and he will remember that the Under-Secretary made an admission that in spite of the fact that a provision in the Health Act of Scotland had been on the Statute Book for 10 years imposing a compulsory disregard on the part of local authorities of the 40s., many local authorities had refused to operate it thereby breaking the law. When we brought the case before the Scottish Office, it refused to put the law into operation and compel those recalcitrant local authorities to carry out the law of Scotland as it had been passed by this House. We want the Amendment made in this Poor Law Bill so that the local authorities will be compelled to act upon it and not leave it to voluntary agencies as is the case at present.

Mr. REID

I agree that in the case to which the hon. Member refers there was some question of disregard of the law, but it is news to me that anybody should disregard not only the law, but humanity as positively to reduce the income of a poor woman at the time of childbirth. If the hon. Member wants to make certain that no addition to the 20s. which normally comes into the family shall be diminished at the time the 40s. is recovered, I doubt if there is a single area in Scotland where that has ever been disregarded at any time. It is extremely unlikely, certainly I have not heard of it. I am confining myself to finding out what is meant by the Amend- ment. The 20s. allowance is coming in every week and then for a certain time an additional 40s. comes in. I take it that the Amendment means that the 20s. allowance shall go on week by week and that the 40s. allowance shall be disregarded.

Mr. MACLEAN

It means that the amount that is being paid in public assistance to the family continues to be paid, but where the woman is confined the 40s. received as maternity benefit is earmarked for the payment of expenses and ought not to be taken into consideration by the public assistance authorities in assessing the needs of the family for the succeeding weeks, and that there shall not be any reduction of the 20s. allowance.

Mr. REID

I have not heard of any cases where there have been substantial reductions of the ordinary weekly grant following on the receipt of the 40s.

Mr. MACLEAN

While there may not be, looking at the matter generally, what may be considered large reductions, it is certainly the fact that some authorities take into consideration the 40s. paid for a certain period and calculate it for the purpose of disallowing a small sum of 1s. or 2s. a week off the other weekly allowance. They say with respect to the 40s. "This is an additional sum coming in. Your assessment has been 20s. a week, but you are now getting an additional sum. Therefore, your needs are less and we shall reduce the amount that you receive by 1s. or 2s. a week." That is what we want to avoid.

Mr. REID

It is important to get the matter put right. I would sum up my views in this way, that if there are cases in which there have been substantial reductions of the weekly payments, following on the receipt of the 40s. allowance, then there is a case either for this Amendment or at least for some alteration in administration. But I have not heard of such cases, and I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us from the experience of the Department whether they know of any cases where there have been substantial reductions of the ordinary normal weekly income by reason of the receipt of the 40s., that is, the 40s. being counted as income instead of being regarded as a sum appropriated for a special purpose, as I think it ought to be. If so, there is a case for such an Amendment. But if such cases are practically non-existent, then the Amendment is not required. Somewhat similar considerations apply to the other two Amendments. If the first Amendment is unnecessary, then a fortiori the other Amendments are unnecessary. I should like to have a statement from the Under-Secretary of the experience of the Department as to the administration of public authorities with regard to lowering the amount of relief.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

We are now dealing with Poor Law cases. Let us bear in mind that we are trying to bring the Poor Law somewhat into line with the provisions of the Unemployment Act. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid) has given some thought and time to the question of unemployment insurance, and he knows that under the unemployment transitional payment scheme the Poor Law authority are the assessing authority until the new law operates. Under that law, to show that the Government themselves realise that the 40s. allowance has been taken into account and that they thought there was a danger of that being done again, under the Unemployment Bill they exempted the 40s. Before the Government took action of that kind they must have been faced with two considerations, either that that was being done or that there was a possibility of its being done.

Mr. SKELTON

Surely there is a much simpler explanation, although it may not be the right one. In the Unemployment Act administration is to be under one unit for the whole country, and therefore it is highly desirable that you should have things in black and white to prevent local alteration. The point is that each locality shall assess things on its own lines and therefore there is nothing like the same necessity for a rigid rule.

Mr. BUCHANAN

The point that arises is that the Government found that the Poor Law authorities were taking the 40s. into account.

Mr. SKELTON

There is nothing in the Unemployment Act to justify the proposition just laid down by the hon. Member.

Mr. BUCHANAN

In my opinion there is. I go further and say that in Scot- land now certain authorities have taken into account the allowance for maternity benefit in respect of certain people who are on transitional payment. We are now dealing with two classes, the residue left who are not covered by the Unemployment Act, the residue of the able-bodied, and we are also dealing with what we call the sick poor. I apply this argument to all the three Amendments and not merely to the question of maternity benefit. The residue left is estimated at 10 per cent. in Glasgow, and I think that figure will not be far wrong for the whole of Scotland. The man who is in insurance gets compulsorily two things, exemption in respect of maternity benefit and exemption in respect of 50 per cent. of workmen's compensation. What of the case of a mart who decides that he will take a risk and will not remain unemployed and he spends what funds he has, perhaps £100 or £200, in starting a business? He is doing something which every Member of this House is constantly applauding. What is there wrong in the man doing that? But when he has done it and he finds that he has lost his £100 or £200, and is broke, he is treated differently from the man who is in unemployment insurance, and who may have been unemployed for five or six years. Is there any justice in that? My complaint is that a man under the Unemployment Act may have been unemployed for six or seven years and he gets a 50 per cent. exemption for workmen's compensation and also exemption in respect of the £2 for maternity benefit, but the man who goes to America or elsewhere overseas, at the behest of the Government, the man who has more than £4 18s. a week, and the man who starts a little business of his own, get none of these benefits.

Mr. SKELTON

It is not true that he does not get any of these benefits. The Poor Law authority have an option to grant them.

Mr. BUCHANAN

By Statute one man may get them under unemployment insurance, but it is left to the good will or the bad will of a particular local authority to say whether the other man is to get the benefits. The Government have taken a certain view of this question in connection with unemployment insurance, but we have here a stronger case than under the Unemployment Act. Under that Act there is a National Board to regulate matters, but in these other cases it is left to the option of a good or a bad local authority. We have been told that local authorities cannot disregard these matters just as they like. I differ from that statement. We have Glasgow carrying out what the hon. Member says and Lanark refusing to do it. In my division we have the law being carried out but across in Rutherglen they do not do it. We have the maternity allowance of £2 being disregarded in Glasgow and just a short distance away, in Rutherglen, they take a reverse decision. Can anyone defend that? It cannot be justified that in certain cases the authorities are compelled to disregard these sums while in others it is left optional. It ought not to be left to the good nature or the bad nature of a local authority whether they shall penalise the man who has shown initiative and courage, but has been unsuccessful.

The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) raised a point in regard to the blind persons. He is not a new Member, and, if I may say so with respect, he is not the least intelligent of Members. He knows Parliamentary procedure. We have opportunities now and again to do desirable things. We have an opportunity in respect of the blind. Goodness knows when we shall have an opportunity of reviewing the position again.

Commander COCHRANE

I was not arguing with regard to Parliamentary convenience. My argument was addressed to the point that if you deal with this matter through the Poor Law then it will be said that the matter has been dealt with and there will be much less chance of dealing with it on a pension basis, as we should like to see.

Mr. SKELTON

May I say, that so far as that matter is concerned it is already dealt with on a pension basis.

Mr. BUCHANAN

That pension basis should be raised so as to save him being a charge on the Poor Law.

Mr. SKELTON

In the great majority of cases the claims for the blind are so framed as to exclude them from going on the Poor Law.

Mr. BUCHANAN

That is true in certain cases, but there is a residue of cases which are not covered. Why leave them out? We have now an opportunity of dealing with the blind and we think that the 10s. ought to be exempt. A blind person should be treated as if that 10s. was not there at all. All we are asking is that a blind person shall be 10s. better off than if he were not blind. That is not asking too much as some compensation for this terrible lack of every human joy. The only argument against our proposal is that local authorities are in the main doing these things and that it should be left to their discretion. No hon. Member has argued against the proposal, not even the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk, who has a capacity for meeting every argument. He does not say that we are asking too much. All he says is that any adjustment should be left to the local authority. There may have been some force in that argument in the old days when local authorities were much more separated than they are to-day. At the moment there is no difference between Glasgow and Lanarkshire, transport has made us practically the same community, the cheapness of travel has eliminated all the old small groups. Our experience leads us to ask for these concessions.

It has been said that local authorities do not do these things. They do; that is our case. In some cases they went so far as to defy the law, and to the credit of the Under-Secretary he made them act up to the law. Our demand is that there shall be no difference between Dundee and Glasgow, or between Greenock and Edinburgh, or between a village in the north and a city in the south, but that all shall be treated alike in respect of three matters—namely, that the 40s. maternity benefit should be exempt, the blind person should be exempt, and workmen's compensation should be exempt. If it is impossible to exempt all workmen's compensation, then we suggest that it should be 50 per cent., as it is under the Unemployment Act. We ask that in these matters the whole of Scotland shall be treated alike, and that there shall be no difference in the treatment of able-bodied unemployed chargeable to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and able-bodied unemployed who, through no fault of their own, are chargeable to the Poor Law. There is no ground for any distinction, and we trust that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, who have exercised common sense and tact, will accept in principle the three Amendments we have indicated.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT

I should like to say a word in support of the plea just entered by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), or at any rate with the greater part of it. I agree that one's view of these disregards must be largely determined by the view one takes of the provisions of the Unemployment Act. Some of us thought that there ought to be no distinction between different classes of the able-bodied unemployed, that the whole of the able-bodied unemployed should be brought under the same jurisdiction — namely, the Unemployment Assistance Board. That was not accepted. In his speech on the Second Reading Sir Henry Betterton did not endeavour to draw any moral distinction between one class of able-bodied unemployed and another, those who were within the Bill and those who were outside, he drew a line on grounds of administrative convenience. He used the word "frontier," and said that you must have a frontier somewhere, if you were going to have a Measure of the scope of the Unemployment Bill. The exclusion of a number of able-bodied unemployed from the scope of the Unemployment Act was simply due to reasons of administrative convenience. That being so, are there any grounds why there should not be the same disregards in each case, why the same disregards should not be inserted in this Bill as were inserted in the Unemployment Act?

A rather extraordinary argument was advanced by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Reid), that we need not lay down these disregards because local authorities could be trusted to take special temporary needs into account and increase the determination accordingly. That argument could be used with equal validity against any disregards whatsoever, whether those in the Unemployment Act or the disregards in this Bill. The hon. Member could have used the same speech in regard to an Amendment on Clause 1.

Mr. J. REID

Surely it depends on what has happened in the past? One knows that local authorities have taken different views about other disregards, but I am unaware that local authorities have had any substantial difference of opinion amongst themselves about this particular matter, and it is on that line that the Amendment seems to be rather unnecessary.

Mr. FOOT

If local authorities can be trusted in one direction they can be trusted in another. The argument of the hon. Member was that local authorities had a discretion and could be trusted to exercise that discretion, as they have done in the case of maternity benefit, and that it would be the same in the case of disability pensions, or any of the other disregards under this Bill or the Unemployment Act. It is precisely because we believe there is a great disparity and that some local authorities are not to be trusted in these matters that we have had to insert the disregards in this Bill and in the Unemployment Act. It was for this reason also that there had to be rushed through the House an emergency Measure in order to impose certain disregards on local authorities, because of the indignation which was aroused in all parts of the country owing to the operation of the means test.

Mr. SKELTON

What compulsory disregards were imposed on local authorities then? I am not sure to what the hon. Member refers.

Mr. FOOT

I think the Title of the Bill was Transitional Payments (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

Mr. SKELTON

All the provisions of that Measure in regard to local authorities are optional only.

Mr. FOOT

I know that we imposed a disregard with regard to transitional payments. We found that it was impossible to trust local authorities because they were too harsh, and a Bill had to be rushed through the House. In connection with the transitional class and the means test applied to them we found that it was necessary to give directions to local authorities, and there is no reason why we should not give directions in this case; there is no reason why we should not give the same directions for the Poor Law as we have thought fit to give in the Unemployment Act. The hon. Member for Stirling, referring to workmen's compensation, said that there would be few cases of people coming under the Poor Law, he was doubtful whether there would be any, who would be drawing workmen's compensation. I do not entirely agree with him. I agree that there will not be many cases of people drawing workmen's compensation because they will be persons in insurable employment, but one of the conditions which has to be satisfied before a man comes under Part II of the Unemployment Act is that he is capable of and available for work. If the disability in respect of which he is receiving workmen's compensation is substantial, surely it will be rather difficult for him to get within that last condition and come within Part II of the Unemployment Act. There may not be many cases, but I suggest that there will be a certain number of people drawing Poor Law relief who will be in receipt of workmen's compensation. I do not think there is any justification for giving more under the Poor Law then under Part II of the Unemployment Act, and I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that only a few persons are likely to be affected, whether it is not possible to give a concession to these few people and disregard half the workmen's compensation, as is done under Part II of the Unemployment Act.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON

The Committee will agree that we have had an interesting Debate. I am glad that the Bill has been re-committed because it has enabled me to make a concession with regard to the trade unions, and it also enables me to be able to reconsider the question with regard to the blind without having to ride off on a technical objection, which is the last thing I desire to do. A great deal has been said on all these points. I do not think that any of the arguments put forward in support of these alterations have not been in the minds of the Government during our reconsideration of the matter. Let me deal first with the general proposition underlying the arguments of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The hon. Member for Gorbals says that these three proposals should be accepted, because otherwise, with the Unemployment Bill recently passed, the treatment for one set of able-bodied persons would be different from that for another set. If that be so, it is a result of the Bill which the House has already approved. It would be hopeless to try in particular instances to counteract a decision that the House has come to in the matter, namely, that the great bulk of able-bodied should be under the Unemployment Assistance Board. Even if we tried to equalise the position of the two categories, with regard to what should be disregarded, we could never overcome the fact that public assistance will be given in accordance with the view of the local authorities in the different areas, whereas in the other case it will be given under the Unemployment Assistance Board.

But, generally, I could not accept the proposition that we are to make this Bill an opportunity of running counter to the principles which have been adopted in another Bill. I say that, not to ride off from or to avert discussion of the merits of the proposal. I do not think my hon. Friend helped his case very much by referring to the 7s. 6d. That was a case in which the disregard was actually in a Statute. Despite the statutory provision my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself found ourselves faced with the fact that there were cases in Scotland in which what was written clearly in the Statute was not regarded. Let me come to the third proposition, with which I cannot agree. I am glad that certain hon. Members have been kind enough to refer to the fact that the Government, through myself, have made certain concessions and showed a certain amount of tact, because here is a case in which we cannot give a concession. I hope that those who are interested will feel that, although I am refusing this concession, I have tried to apply as impartial a judgment to the matter as I did in the case where I gave concessions.

First of all with regard to blind persons. The Committee perhaps has not kept fully in view the law with regard to blind persons. There has been in operation since 1920 the Blind Persons Act, which gives a pension of 10s. at the age of 50 to persons who are certified to be blind for the purposes of the Act. But that is not the whole of the Act. Another provision is that local authorities have the duty of framing schemes for the welfare of the blind. That is the part of the Act that is important in our discussions to-day. Under that provision every local authority in Scotland has to frame a scheme. When the Local Government Act of 1929 came into operation there was a provision whereby such schemes and such assistance would be taken out of the Poor Law and put into other categories of assistance. All local authorities in Scotland, with the exception of two, have now taken the scheme for the welfare of the blind out of the Poor Law altogether. If I were a blind person and needed public assistance, whether I was under or over 50, I could go, not to the public assistance committee, but to the Blind Persons Act scheme, and there I would get assistance. I would find that one of the provisions of the scheme was that the amount of the assistance that I would get would be more than the public assistance. In most cases the figure exceeds amounts of public assistance by 5s. a week. Therefore, in the case of every authority except two provision has been made whereby assistance to destitute blind people is not given by way of the public assistance committee but is given under the Blind Persons Act, so carrying out a principle which was in the mind of the House when it passed the Local Government Act, 1929.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM

Is that payment disregarded by the public assistance committee?

Mr. SKELTON

It is a greater payment than a person would get who went to the public assistance committee.

Mr. GRAHAM

Take the case of a father of a family who has become qualified under the Blind Persons Act. He will get a blind person's pension only if he is wholly incapable of work. That is the decision of the Department. But suppose he has a son who is idle and is no longer entitled to standard benefit, but is an applicant for transitional payment. Will not the pension payable to the father be taken into account by the local authority in assessing the amount of the payment to the father?

Mr. SKELTON

What I am talking of is the method of giving assistance to persons who are blind within the meaning of the Blind Persons Act. It is a very complicated topic and I cannot deal with it unless I am free from interruption. In the case of every local authority in Scotland there is a scheme under that Act which provides for assistance to be given to blind persons who are destitute. That is quite apart from their coming to the pensionable age. It is a method by which the welfare of the blind is carried out. In every one of these schemes, except two, the assistance given to destitute blind persons is not given as what is called public assistance. The blind persons do not go on the poor roll at all. Assistance is given to them under a special scheme framed by the local authority and approved by the Scottish Office. The advantage there is that they are not put on the Poor Vote and are not among the paupers. The Poor Law to that extent has been broken up. But these schemes do not say that the assistance under the blind persons scheme should be the same as the blind persons would get from the public assistance Committee. The average excess which they get is 5s. a week. So that under the present law the advantage is that assistance to blind people is not under the Poor Law at all.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Do these schemes cover all the blind? We know from experience that a large number of blind are chargeable to the Poor Law.

Mr. SKELTON

I am dealing with the third Amendment, which seeks to insert the words, "Any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920," and it asks that it be disregarded. There are, of course, people whose eyes are affected, but—

Mr. BUCHANAN

I must put my experience against that of the Under-Secretary. My experience is that in Glasgow a fair number of people who are definitely blind are chargeable to the Poor Law.

Mr. SKELTON

To get the advantages of the Blind Persons Act, which is referred to in the Amendment, the persons with affected eyes have to pass a test. They have to be certified as blind for the purposes of the Act. I am referring only to people under that Act. My hon. Friend states a fact of which I am well aware, that it does seem to some of us that the test applied for defective eyesight to bring a person within the compass of the Blind Persons Act is a very strict one. I am constantly questioned as to whether a particular person ought not to be under the Blind Persons Act although the oculist states that he is not blind enough. The main people that the Amendment can affect are the people under the Blind Persons Act, and it is about them that I am speaking.

Mr. MACLEAN

The Amendment is not confined to persons under the Blind Persons Act. It refers also to those who have an income, "from any charity for the blind."

Mr. SKELTON

For the present I am dealing with the first part of the Amendment, which relates to the Blind Persons Act. That is the main thing. In the great majority of cases these persons are not under the Poor Law at all.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

We agree with everything the Under-Secretary says, that the blind person gets 5s. a week more, and it is that 5s. that we want to safeguard. It is when that 5s. comes into the home that it comes under the means test, and we want that 5s. to be disregarded for the purposes of the means test.

Mr. SKELTON

That is the point with which I am trying to deal, if my hon. Friends would only have a little patience with me and if they would not think that I am trying to get round the problem. I have said three times already that wherever there is a scheme such as I have described, the destitute blind person does not come before the public assistance authority at all.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

But his income does and that is what we are concerned with.

Mr. MACLEAN

The blind person who is receiving a pension may not be the person who is receiving relief, but he may be a member of the family and his pension or the amount which he is receiving from some charity in respect of his blindness, would be taken into account by the public assistance authority in assessing the income of the head of the family who was under public assistance.

Mr. SKELTON

I have tried to deal with that point, but, not unnaturally I suppose, there has been a certain amount of intervention on the part of hon. Members opposite and my progress along the path of explaining this very complicated matter has been necessarily disturbed.

Mr. MILNE

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point—

Mr. SKELTON

I have hardly reached it yet.

Mr. MILNE

I merely wished to ask what is the position with regard to the excepted districts of which he spoke.

Mr. SKELTON

May I deal with one thing at a time? Will those who are interested in this matter please keep in mind that the law has already decided to keep blind persons who come within the meaning of the Act outside the ambit of the public assistance committee, and the way in which that has been done is to say to the blind person, "We will give you not through the public assistance committee but by other machinery, not merely the amount which you would have got if we allowed you to remain under public assistance, but an extra sum." In the majority of cases that extra sum is 5s.

Mr. MACLEAN

But not in all.

Mr. SKELTON

Where these schemes are in operation, the blind person never goes under the Poor Law.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

But his income in the home does.

Mr. SKELTON

I am dealing first with the blind person himself. Now let me take his family. Take the case of the blind man with a dependent family, still recalling the fact that where the family is dependent they do not themselves apply for relief. They apply through the father or the head of the house. When he proceeds to apply for relief, he is told "You do not come under poor relief; we have a scheme for blind persons." That is equally true, whether the man is applying on his own behalf or on behalf of dependants. What happens under these schemes is that if in addition to the blind man himself, there are dependant children—

Mr. McGOVERN

The person who applies on behalf of dependent children is the father, whether he is blind or not. The application can only be from him.

Mr. SKELTON

But that is exactly what I have said. I do not know why hon. Members appear to be so suspicious of what I say.

Mr. McGOVERN

No, I am not suspicious.

Mr. SKELTON

I am trying to explain how this man comes into a different region of assistance, and it is a point which has never been, so far as I know, put fully in the House of Commons since the passing of the 1929 Act. I am asking hon. Members to consider the case of the blind father with dependent children, holding in mind firmly all the time that where there is a scheme such as I have described, the man, whether he is applying for himself or for his dependent children, does not go to the Poor Law but to the scheme. The dependent children are not separate entities for the purposes of relief. They are represented by him and in every area where there is a scheme such as I have described, and that is in every area except two, the relief given to the destitute blind father and the dependent children would not be the amount that they would get if they were under poor relief, but 5s. more. That applies equally, whether it is relief only for the blind man himself or whether it is for the blind man with dependent children. The dependent children are, so to speak, part of the man himself for the purposes of relief, and the blind man is relieved, not by the Poor Law authority but by the machinery of these schemes under the Blind Persons Act. That deals with the main question, namely, the question of the persons who come under that Act, and it would be a retrograde step so far as that Act is concerned to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) asked me about the two areas which are still technically under the Poor Law.

Mr. MILNE

The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that in two districts no schemes were in force.

Mr. SKELTON

I think I have stated the hon. Member's question correctly. There is no reason why these districts should not be named, but I would prefer not to name them at present. The fact is that there are two counties in Scotland under whose schemes, blind persons although given certain additional benefits, have not been separated from the Poor Law. I propose to take the matter up with these two authorities. It is only a technical matter and I propose to ask them to come into line with the rest of Scotland and to make their schemes separate from the Poor Law. The point as to any other income I think I have dealt with by implication in what I have said already, and there is also the point as to income from any charity for the blind. I do not want to lay down by statute that any amount of income given to a needy blind person by a charity is to be excepted. I do not think that would be sound, and I do not think that there would be any failure to disregard a certain proportion of that amount. In fact the Amendment in that respect would be of very small avail. The number of persons who are so blind as to be in receipt of charity and yet not blind enough to come within the provisions of the Blind Persons Act is very small, and I do not propose to legislate specially about them.

Then, in regard to the question of the disregard of workmen's compensation payments, I must recall to the Committee that the law in Scotland at present is, that it is optional on local authorities to disregard a part of workmen's compensation payments. This point has been touched upon by more than one hon. Member and most forcibly of all by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said that we must not leave these things to the option of the local authorities. I cannot accept that view. The ultimate deduction from the arguments put forward by hon. Members is that in these modern days, with improved facilities for transport and so forth, there is no need to have separate authorities for Poor Law purposes at all, and that the tendencies of modern life will lead us some day to have the Poor Law managed not by localities but by the nation.

Mr. McGOVERN

The corporate State.

Mr. SKELTON

That may be the case, but that day has not yet arrived, and I am not going to legislate on the assumption that it has arrived. This Bill does not suggest taking the administration out of the hands of the local authorities. When the Poor Law is being administered by the local authorities, then unless there are very strong grounds to the contrary—such as we see in the case of the first pound of disability pension—then, in our view, those disregards should be left optional. I ask the Committee to mark the disregards which exist. First there is the 7s. 6d., which was an old standing disregard, and which hon. Members opposite suggest has been itself disregarded. We have put that into the Poor Law in order that one avenue of excuse might be closed. Next there is the 5s. of friendly society benefit, a disregard which the poor in England already enjoyed. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) seemed to be very anxious in case I should be failing Scotland, in comparison with England, but I do not think he can object to bringing up the standard of these disregards in Scotland to what is has been for a long time in England. The other exception to the general rule that where you have local control, there should be local power to decide these matters is the question of the first pound of war pension. We have discussed that question in Committee, and I think very good reasons were given for accepting it.

Therefore with regard to the proposal that we should make it compulsory on local authorities to disregard workmen's compensation, I say that that would cut into the principle which I have just enunciated and I could not accept it. I would ask the Committee to allow the law to remain as it is at present, giving the local authorities power, if they so desire, to disregard part of the workmen's compensation payments. There remains the question of maternity benefit as to which certain different considerations arise. The Committee will observe that it has not been categorically stated by any hon. Member that any local authority fails to disregard maternity benefit, and my information and my experience go to show that we have not had a single case of appeal against inadequate relief on the ground of maternity benefit having been taken into consideration.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Because there is no use in it.

Mr. SKELTON

I think the hon. Member speaks too soon. What is the duty of the local authority? It is to assess need and, clearly, the days or weeks immediately surrounding the period of childbirth have a special need of their own.

Mr. BUCHANAN

But the hon. Gentleman said that there had been no appeals and I want to show that that is not a correct argument. People do not know that they are getting the 40s. until they actually get it from the approved society. That sum is paid when the child is born. If there is an appeal and the appeal is successful no back money is paid. The fact is, that under the law as it stands and under this Bill, there will be no use in appeal because you cannot enforce the payment of back money. There have been many cases in Glasgow where 30s. or £1 have been taken, and there is no use appealing, because there is no power to compel the payment of back money.

Mr. SKELTON

My further information is that, so far as we know, maternity benefit is generally disregarded, and I have no hesitation in saying from this place that it ought to be disregarded, because it meets a need. We think that it meets a need and that, therefore, the ordinary provision of the Scottish Poor Law, namely, that it is the job of the local authorities to assess need, covers the case of maternity benefit. I am satisfied that that is a sound view.

Mr. McGOVERN

I could not give a case offhand with details, but I had one case where a woman actually died, and on analysing the case it was found that 40s. maternity grant had been received from one of the Lanarkshire authorities, and a portion of it had been taken into consideration. The woman engaged an incompetent midwife in place of a medical man, because she had not the money to pay the medical man, and she died in consequence, and I say that that is a point that could be enlarged upon.

Mr. SKELTON

I think the Committee will realise that on this matter of maternity benefit our view is that it is the duty of the local authority, when faced with an application for public assistance, to assess the need, and nobody has ever maintained that the maternity benefit is greater than the need. We believe that it is the ordinary duty of the local authority to assess the need properly, and I do not propose, therefore, to put in a special provision with regard to this. I know that in saying that I may disappoint many of my hon. Friends, but in regard to these three Amendments I hope the Committee will realise that we have considered them very carefully, and throughout this Bill we have done our best to meet all reasonable suggestions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

This is reasonable.

Mr. SKELTON

As responsible for the Government, we must be the final judges as to what we accept or reject. I would ask hon. Members to take my statement in that spirit and not to suppose that, if we have shown some reason before, we have suddenly been deprived of that reason in considering these three Amendments.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. D. GRAHAM

I am sorry the Under-Secretary of State has taken the attitude that he has with regard to these three Amendments of ours. It is no good congratulating him on the reasonableness of his attitude in the Standing Committee, because we have passed that stage now.

Mr. SKELTON

I have shown it to-day already, because I have accepted an Amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

And a very important Amendment, but I think there is some misunderstanding of our point of view. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is correct in many of his arguments, but I suggest that from our experience we believe that we are correct in the statements which we have made, and we cannot understand why the first 5s. of sick pay from a friendly society, and the first 7s. 6d. of National Health Insurance money, and the first £1 of disability payment should be disregarded, and then when we come along with the question of maternity benefit, with which everyone who has spoken has expressed considerable sympathy, our arguments should not be accepted. Sympathy does not help a woman who is bearing children, who may find herself faced with the possibility of £2, due to be paid to her under the National Health Insurance Act, being looked upon by the local authority as being the income for that particular week. Sympathy is all right, expressed in words, but it is of very little value to a woman in such a case, and unfortunately there are many thousands of women in that position.

I know that the Under-Secretary was not expressing just his own point of view, but that he was putting to us the view of the Government, in refusing to accept these Amendments. I am sorry that that should be so, because I think that if we had had the opportunity of discussing with him our reasons for putting forward these Amendments before the present stage, it might have been possible for him to have induced the Government to give him power to accept them. The question of compensation has been very eloquently dealt with by my hon. Friends the Members for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and Govan (Mr. Maclean). They have dealt with it completely, and I do not want to occupy very much time so far as these three Amendments are concerned. I want merely to take the opportunity of expressing my dissatisfaction with the unfavourable answer given by the Government to what I believe to be our perfectly reasonable and moderate Amendments. My hon. Friend has pointed out that he would be willing to accept a compromise. So would we. We are not the kind of people who refuse to accept half a loaf if we cannot get a whole loaf. We want the whole loaf if we can get it, but in the meantime we will take a half loaf or even a bit of one.

There are thousands of men suffering from miners' nystagmus who are no longer able to find employment in their own occupation. They are comparatively young men, many of them married and with families. These men are not totally blind, but so blind that they are unable to follow their usual employment, but their employment is taken into consideration by the Poor Law authorities when assessing the amount of need. There are thousands of these people in Scotland alone, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend the wisdom, now that he has decided that he will not accept these Amendments, of paying some regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane)—a very good point, although it may not come in at this particular stage. The time has come when the point that he raised should be dealt with, if necessary, by an Act of Parliament, so as to put these blind people in a position in which they would be able to be preserved from any fear of their income being taken into consideration for Poor Law purposes. I think it was a reasonable suggestion, though I quite appreciate the reply given that it could not be taken into consideration here.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE

I have listened carefully to the speeches from all sides, and while the Under-Secretary of State was convincing in certain of his arguments against the adoption of these Amendments, I regret that, so far as the maternity Amendment is concerned, he entirely failed to convince me or the Committee that his attitude is either reasonable or convincing. If the cases about which we have heard in this House to-day are well established, it seems to me that the reason for giving statutory authority for disregarding maternity benefit is overwhelming. The hon. Gentleman has told us that we must trust the local authorities to do the right thing on the basis of need, but surely the basis of need applies equally in all these Amendments, and if you can trust the local authority in one case, you can in all the others.

Miss HORSBRUGH

Is there not a difference between disablement pension and the sum that comes in each week and this capital sum of 40s.? I am not taking one side or the other, but is there not a difference?

Mr. BUCHANAN

That confirms the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. WALLACE

I am obliged for the interruption, but I think the hon. Lady was confirming my point of view. The Under-Secretary based his whole case upon the ability of the local authority to assess need, and it seems to me, if that be the case, that it is difficult to account for the extraordinary examples given today where the 40s. maternity benefit has not been disregarded. If it be the case that statutory authority is essential in some cases, in spite of what my hon. Friend has just said, I really think that the Under-Secretary will be carrying out the prevailing sentiment of this Committee if he insists upon statutory authority being applied to disregard the 40s. so far as maternity benefit is concerned.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. MILNE

I had intended to support the Amendment in regard to blind persons and to vote against the Government, but after the lucid statement of the Under-Secretary of State, it has become manifest that there is no occasion for doing so.

6.14 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE

I have listened with great interest and with a vast amount of elucidation to the discussion which has gone on with regard to these three Amendments, and the answer of the Under-Secretary of State upon two of the questions, namely, with regard to the matter of the blind and the matter of workmen's compensation, was, I think, convincing, and so far as those are concerned I should not feel at all inclined to differ from the attitude of the Government, but I confess that I hold an entirely different opinion with regard to the question of maternity benefit. Every person who has spoken, including the Under-Secretary himself, has given utterance to the view that maternity benefit ought to be disregarded. If that is the universal opinion of the Committee, I think that maternity benefit should be mentioned with the other things which at present stand in the Bill as things to be disregarded. I think all the more so because of the opinion to which the junior, but not inferior, Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has just given voice, namely, that this is a lump sum paid as distinct from a regular payment. It is much easier to disregard a lump sum payment which has been given in particular circumstances than the other payments which recur week by week. I rather gather, in listening to the arguments, that there was some difficulty in arriving at a proper form of phraseology. So far as I understand it, that arises from this consideration, that, since you give to the local authority the duty of assessing need, then, if you enjoin them to disregard something which is to be given for maternity benefit, you may still leave them in the position of having to assess the need which still exists and give this amount twice over. I am not much afraid of any such interpretation being given to the form of Amendment that has been proposed. I think that I would trust the local authorities sufficiently not to give twice over for maternity needs. From that point of view I think the Committee might very readily take the risk. If there is no opportunity for a review of the form of words now, there might be an opportunity in another place, but if there is any such risk—and I do not think there is much—I should be prepared to disregard it for the moment. At any rate, I would like to urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to meet the wishes of the Committee in this matter, and, indeed, to give expression to what is, I gather, the view of the Government themselves.

6.18 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH

When I interrupted the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace), it might have been thought that I was not in agreement with treating cases of maternity differently. I pointed out that it was a different thing entirely from an income which is drawn each week. The duty of the public assistance committee is to assess the need. The need in an ordinary case would not include the first 7s. 6d. of health insurance benefit and the other things, because they are an ordinary part of the income, and a definite statement ought to be put in the Bill that they are not to be included when assessing the need. As I pointed out when I interrupted, surely the case of maternity benefit is different. It is not a definite income. It is a capital sum given because of a particular thing that has happened to the family. It is not part of the means. I entirely agree with the other things coming in, because they ought to be included when assessing need, but I cannot think that the maternity benefit should be included in an ordinary scheme of assessing need. It is a definite sum given for a particular object, and because it is definite, I hope my hon. Friend will consider agreeing to the Amendment or to words which have the same effect, and provide that materity benefit is not included in the ordinary case when need is to be assessed, because it is a definite capital sum that should be disregarded.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON

We have had a very interesting Debate on this point. The situation is not to be taken, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), that there is some difference between my personal views and the views of the other Members of the Government. That is not the case, and I would not be standing at this Box if it were. I feel a real difficulty about this Amendment, and I do not think I can have stated it with great clearness to the Committee. In the general structure of the Poor Law of Scotland it is essentially the duty of the assessing authority not to take into account a sum which has no relation to the ordinary history of the family but is to be attributed to special circumstances and a special need, keeping in view all the time that the duty of the local authority is to assess the need and to give relief according to the need. If this 40s. represents a new special need, as indeed it does, it seems that the ordinary structure of the Poor Law of Scotland automatically deals with this amount. It represents only a temporary need. Besides that, there is the point that it is not income at all, but a special grant. If that is the situation and it meets a special need, why should we not say so in the Bill? The reason is that the duty of the local authority to meet the needs of the applicant is the fundamental principle of the Poor Law, and I am loath to put into this Bill a statement in a particular case of what they ought to do as a fundamental principle of their operations.

Mr. D. GRAHAM

They are compelled to do it with regard to the 5s. and the 7s. 6d.

Mr. SKELTON

That is not so. Nobody can say that the first 7s. 6d. of National Health benefit exactly represents any special need. I think it can be said with greater truth that it is income, but the maternity benefit represents a special need.

Mr. GRAHAM

I can agree with the hon. Member on his statement of the case, but our experience is that it is necessary to put into the Bill the intention of the Government. It is in order to avoid a repetition of what has happened in other cases that we are asking for maternity benefit to be put in.

Mr. SKELTON

My feeling on this proposal remains the same as it has been for some time. It may well be that very special care has to be taken if I am right in thinking that a special need arises from the birth of a child. If I am right in that, on general principles of the Poor Law the local authority ought to disregard the 40s., and if, on top of that, we put in a special provision telling them to do so, does that not perhaps involve their giving an extra 40s.? If you are going to wipe out all the income—[Interruption.] I must really ask my hon. Friend to allow me to address the Committee. If we say that this 40s. is to be disregarded, what follows? A very difficult question arises, but I said at the outset that I am not a stickler for consistency, nor for my own views, and the Committee can take it from me that I will give this master further consideration. I should prefer to deal with this in another place. The more one considers it the more new difficulties arise, I will give the Committee the assurance that I will consider this very fully and pay particular attention to the weighty pleas that have been put forward from all parts of the Committee. I do not think I shall be doing right, if certain questions which I still feel give rise to difficulties remain unsolved, to give way at this stage. I will, however, fully consider it before the Debate in another place.

6.27 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE

I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just stated, and I do not want to press him further, because I accept with the greatest confidence the assurance that the whole matter will be reconsidered before the review of this Bill in another place. I see the difficulties that might arise, to their possible embarrassment, from local authorities thinking they were entitled to assess this need twice. I accept the assurance that my hon. Friend will deal with this matter, and if he is satisfied that a form of words can be-found to get rid of the difficulty, I hope he will agree with the rest of the Committee and put it in the Bill.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN

Those who are associated in supporting these Amendments are rather disappointed with the Minister, although we ought to have expected that he would not have been able to accept any Amendments. His assurance that he is prepared to consider the matter and see what can be done in another place with regard to maternity benefit is not so satisfactory as it seems to be to some hon. Members. The Under-Secretary has been very definite in the attitude that he has adopted with regard to these three categories of beneficiaries. He has pointed out the position which the Government take up with regard to them, and in consequence of impressive and persuasive influence from his own side he has agreed in regard to maternity benefit to reconsider the matter, and, if he comes to a decision to make a concession, to have an Amendment moved in another place. We are now discussing a recommitted Bill and are in Committee, and as the Report stage is to follow, surely the hon. Gentleman can deal with it then, in this House. It is not as though we were now on the Report stage.

Mr. SKELTON

I did consider that point, but the Report stage is to follow immediately on these proceedings, and it would be difficult for my right hon. Friend and I to take the matter into consideration before that stage. We want to have more time to consider it.

Mr. MACLEAN

I accept the explanation given as to the almost insurmountable difficulties standing in the way of the Government dealing with the matter on the Report stage to-night; but there is this other matter. The Under-Secretary made the remarkable statement that if the 30s. of the maternity benefit were disregarded, the local authority when assessing the need could assess the additional need of the family at 30s., and in that case twice 30s. would be received by that family. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he will not get any public assistance committee in Scotland or in England to make such an assessment—not even in Aberdeen, generous as the Aberdonians are credited with being? Having first disregarded the amount that came in for maternity benefit, a public assistance committee would never dream of saying that an additional need had arisen, because they would have placed that particular special need without the bounds of the family. Consequently the hon. Gentleman's argument is rather illogical, in the sense that the special need which he thinks the public assistance committee would have to consider would already have been dealt with by the amount granted for maternity benefit, and there would be no occasion for the committee to consider any question of special need.

However, I want to point out to the hon. Member that we are not satisfied with his proposals. The persistence with which he has opposed each of these three Amendments does not, in spite of the pressure which has been put upon him from Members on his own side, make us as optimistic as to what we are likely to get in the way of a concession in another place as probably he expected us to be. We wanted some concession and we hoped to have it, but we have not got it. He has given a concession to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) which, I may point Out, is not a concession at all. He may have considered it to be a concession.

Mr. SKELTON

It was a very large concession. I did not discuss the matter fully, but a grant of sick pay not given by a friendly society but by a trade union would be excluded.

Mr. MACLEAN

I think if the hon. Member cares to re-read—

Sir A. SINCLAIR

Is it in order to discuss whether a previous Amendment was a concession or not?

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert)

The Committee, which is now engaged upon a somewhat intricate discussion of an offer made by the Government, which it would be a mistake to interrupt and moreover we cannot go back to discuss an Amendment which has been accepted by the Government and passed.

Mr. MACLEAN

I am not going back to discuss it, but surely we are in order in referring to things which have happened in the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not discuss over again an Amendment which has already been dealt with.

Mr. MACLEAN

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted to discuss it again. I was not intending to discuss it. I was merely referring to something that had been granted as a concession, and suggesting that it was not a concession but merely a correction of something which the draftsman of the Bill had omitted. There was no concession, and I must say quite frankly that we must divide on the three Amendments which we have put down, on the ground that, in view of the past attitude of the Government to this question of maternity benefit, we cannot have any hope that the Secretary of State will be brought round to our point of view, even with the time for reflection which he will have between now and the appearance of the Bill in another place.

6.37 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

It is with some reluctance that I intervene, and I do so not to discuss the merits of this proposal, which has been so fully discussed, but to make an appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, who showed such a remarkable spirit of conciliation in Committee upstairs, and has shown that he has broad sympathies during the Debate this afternoon. I ask him if he will not go one stage further. In the two speeches he made this afternoon he said one or two things which made me prickle a little. He said the ultimate responsibility for this Bill rested with the Government. That is a proposition which I absolutely deny. The ultimate responsibility rests with the House of Commons.

Mr. SKELTON

The ultimate responsibility for the proposals which are put before the House rests with the Government.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

The hon. Gentleman went very much further. He said that we ought not to interfere too much with the Government and their responsibilities. He said that the hon. Member who is at present leading the Opposition had proposed an Amendment which it was proper to discuss, but that the ultimate responsibility of deciding whether it was to be accepted rested with the Government. That is the proposition which I deny, because it rests with this Committee in the first place, and ultimately with the House of Commons. Nor is it right that the decision on this Amendment, which has aroused such great interest in every part of the House, and has been received with sympathy by hon. Members of all parties, should be left to another place. Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot adopt the course of allowing this Amendment to be passed now. It is true that the Report stage will come on soon afterwards, but if the wording is not quite right it can be adjusted in another place. If the other place makes an Amendment to the Clause as amended, in accordance with the hon. Member's Amendment, we can discuss the Amendment made by the other place. My point is that the principle should be embodied in the Bill by the House of Commons. I urge the Under-Secretary to give us this one further concession.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON

I think I have already said that I am not anxious to be too insistent upon consistency, and I hope that my Parliamentary career will show that I am not afraid of taking a risk. I have honestly told the Committee that I do not think we can accept this Amendment at this stage without taking a risk, and, indeed, I am not sure that any form of words can be found which will not involve a legal risk, but I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we have been immensely impressed by the way—if I may say so without disrespect—in which the Committee has functioned on this matter. Authoritative representatives of every body of opinion in the Committee have urged us to take this step, and in view of what we have been asked to do I am going to accept this Amendment, but with the clear understanding that the words, which have only recently been framed, must be looked at very carefully in another place. Without committing myself to the precise form of words, the principle of the thing will be that the maternity benefit will not be taken into account by the local authority when assessing the relief to be given to the applicant. With the insertion of the form of words which I suggest at the moment, the Clause would read: A local authority in affording outdoor relief to or in respect of any woman shall disregard the whole of any maternity benefit, exclusive of any increase of such benefit by way of additional benefit, or of any second maternity benefit to which she may be entitled under the last-mentioned Act, and the corresponding need shall also be so disregarded in the assessment of need. By those words we take out the special grant which has been made and assume that the thing for which it is given has not happened. If the Committee will accept that suggestion, I will take the risk of those words, and hope that we may not have to alter them in another place, but we may have to do so.

The CHAIRMAN

There is some slight difficulty in dealing with the proposal of the hon. Member. If there were some slight pause in the proceedings we might be able to arrange what is to be done. I would remind the Committee that only one Clause is re-committed, and that only in respect of certain Amendments, and therefore we cannot now put in another Clause an entirely new Amendment. We can only amend an Amendment which is on the Order Paper.

Mr. SKELTON

I have been led along this thorny path of risk. I am going another step. On the clear understanding that there is something to be added to the words of the Amendment in order that it might be safe—but it must be done in another place—I am going to accept the hon. Member's Amendment. He knows, and the Committee know, that when the Bill goes to another place the principle of the Amendment will be saved, although the words may be changed.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN

I understand that the Amendment which is on the Paper in my name in regard to maternity benefit is accepted by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, on the understanding that when the Bill goes to another place words will be put in carrying the meaning which the Under-Secretary wished to convey in the Amendment which he read out. I am certain that my colleagues here and in all parts of the Committee will be appreciative of the manner in which the Under-Secretary has trod along that thorny path of compromise, and has overcome all the difficulties. I trust that the words will be such as to convey to the poor women all that we hope to convey.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

I should like to express my appreciation of the complete way in which the Under-Secretary has met the suggestion which we have made and the demand which has come from the whole Committee that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) should be inserted.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and supported by other hon. Members. I am not concerned whether the Amendment is moved by a Member of the Labour, Liberal or

Conservative parties, or of the Independent Labour party. I am not going to get to the stage of saying "You gave him something and did not give me anything." and I am sorry that that tone has been raised. I am always delighted when the hon. Gentleman gives us any concession, and I am prepared to make known on any platform in the country any concessions that are granted by the Government of the day, and to condemn the Government when I think they are doing the wrong thing. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman in connection with a statement which he made that blind persons had to go to a local committee apart from the public assistance authority. I took him up wrongly, and when I said that he was wrong it was myself who was wrong in not taking the statement in a proper manner. I apologise for that error.

Amendment agreed to.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end, to insert: and (d) any weekly payment by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 183.

Division No. 319.]	AYES.	[6.49 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Banfield, John William	Groves, Thomas E.	Maxton, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Owen, Major Goronwy
Buchanan, George	Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Cape, Thomas	Holdsworth, Herbert	Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Cove, William G.	Janner, Barnett	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jenkins, Sir William	Thorne, William James
Daggar, George	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Kirkwood, David	West, F. R.
Dobbie, William	Lawson, John James	White, Henry Graham
Edwards, Charles	Leonard, William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Lunn, William	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter	McEntee, Valentine L.	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McGovern, John
Greenwood, Ht. Hon. Arthur	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mainwaring, William Henry	Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Bernays, Robert	Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Bower, Commander Robert Tatton	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Albery, Irving James	Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Christie, James Archibald
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C (Berks., Newb'y)	Clarke, Frank
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.	Buchan, John	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Burnett, John George	Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Conant, R. J. E.
Cook, Thomas A.	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Cooke, Douglas	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Cooper, A. Duff	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Remer, John R.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell	Jamieson, Douglas	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Cranborne, Viscount	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Robinson, John Roland
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Ker, J. Campbell	Ropner, Colonel L.
Crooke, J. Smedley	Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Cross, R. H.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Salmon, Sir Isldore
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Davison, Sir William Henry	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Dawson, Sir Philip	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Loftus, Pierce C.	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Dickie, John P.	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.	Mabane, William	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Dugvale, Captain Thomas Lionel	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Duggan, Hubert John	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	McCorquodale, M. S.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Dunglass, Lord	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Somervell, Sir Donald
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	McLean, Major Sir Alan	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Elmley, Viscount	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Spens, William Patrick
Fox, Sir Gifford	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Fremantle, Sir Francis	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Milne, Charles	Strauss, Edward A.
Glossop, C. W. H.	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Goff, Sir Park	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Goldie, Noel B.	Moss, Captain H. J.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Summersby, Charles H.
Granville, Edgar	Munro, Patrick	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Train, John
Grimston, R. V.	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Tree, Ronald
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Nunn, William	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Guy, J. C. Morrison	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Hales, Harold K.	Orr Ewing, I. L.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Hartland, George A.	Patrick, Colin M.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Pearson, William G.	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Peat, Charles U.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Penny, Sir George	Withers, Sir John James
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Petherick, M.	Womersley, Sir Walter
Hornby, Frank	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Potter, John
Horsbrugh, Florence	Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Ramsden, Sir Eugene	Sir Frederick Thomson and
		Captain Austin Hudson.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end, to insert: and (d) any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and any other income

by virtue of the provisions of that Act, or from any charity for the blind."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 190.

Division No. 320.]	AYES.	[6.58 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McGovern, John
Banfield, John William	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mainwaring, William Henry
Buchanan, George	Groves, Thomas E.	Maxton, James
Cape, Thomas	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cove, William G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Thorne, William James
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David	West, F. R.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lawson, John James	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dobbie, William	Leonard, William	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Edwards, Charles	Lunn, William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter	McEntee, Valentine L,	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Aske, Sir Robert William	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Albery, Irving James	Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.	Bernays, Robert
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Pearson, William G.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Peat, Charles U.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hales, Harold K.	Penny, Sir George
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)	Petherick, M.
Buchan, John	Hartland, George A.	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Potter, John
Burnett, John George	Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Cautley, Sir Henry s.	Holdsworth, Herbert	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Hornby, Frank	Remer, John R.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Christie, James Archibald	Horsbrugh, Florence	Robinson, John Roland
Clarke, Frank	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Clarry, Reginald George	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey	James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.	Salmon, Sir Isldore
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Jamieson, Douglas	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Conant, R. J. E.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cook, Thomas A.	Ker, J. Campbell	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cooke, Douglas	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Cooper, A. Duff	Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Courtauld, Major John Sewell	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Cranborne, Viscount	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Somervell, Sir Donald
Crooke, J. Smedley	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Loftus, Pierce C.	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Cross, R. H.	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.	Mabane, William	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Dawson, Sir Philip	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Spens, William Patrick
Dickie, John P.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Duggan, Hubert John	McLean, Major Sir Alan	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Dunglass, Lord	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Summersby, Charles H.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Elmley, Viscount	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R,	Train, John
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Tree, Ronald
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Milne, Charles	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Fox, Sir Gifford	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)	White, Henry Graham
Fremantle, Sir Francis	Moss, Captain H. J.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Glossop, C. W. H.	Munro, Patrick	Withers, Sir John James
Goff, Sir Park	Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Goldie, Noel B.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Granville, Edgar	Nunn, William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grimston, R. V.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Orr Ewing, I. L.	and Sir Walter Womersley.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Patrick, Colin M.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) considered.