Commons Sitting of 11 November 1937

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for the figures of employment and unemployment for the mining areas of Adwick-le-Street and Bentley, respectively, to be separated from those of the town of Doncaster?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The statistics of unemployment regularly compiled by my Department necessarily relate to Employment Exchange areas. There is no separate Employment Exchange at Adwick-le-Street or Bentley, which are both served by the Doncaster Employment Exchange. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to do as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour the reason for the increase in the numbers of unemployed recorded in the present week; and whether there is any likelihood of a further increase during the winter months?
    Mr. Brown: The increase in unemployment between 13th September and 18th October is accounted for almost entirely by increases in industries which are usually subject to a seasonal decline in employment at this time of the year. As the hon. Member knows, the total in October was about 166,400 lower than in October of last year. In the normal course the seasonal decline is accentuated in November and in the early months of the year, but I cannot say how far this tendency will be counterbalanced by other factors in the coming winter months.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a good job for the Front Bench that the figures came out a fortnight too late for the King's Speech?

    BENEFIT AND ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Labour whether he has completed his promised inquiry into the alleged unfair reductions of the Unemployment Assistance Board's allowances to certain applicants residing in Adwick-le-Street, Doncaster; and with what result?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am informed that the Unemployment Assistance Board have had several reports on the position in Adwick-le-Street since last July. These reports disclose no unusual features, but, if the hon. Member has any specific cases in mind and will furnish particulars, the Board will be happy to inquire into them.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he has given consideration to the requests made by the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the North Staffordshire Trades Council that unemployed benefit and allowances should be increased, and to the fact that almost all the evidence submitted to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee was in favour of increasing benefits according to the Committee's 1935 report, and to page 5, item 13, and page 28, item 67, of the Statutory Committee's 1935 report, and the increased cost of living; and, in view of the evidence, will he carry out the requests by an increase in benefits and allowances?
    Mr. Brown: I am afraid I can add nothing to recent statements on this subject.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the overwhelming evidence of feeling in the country and the large number of resolutions that are being passed by city councils and others closely in touch with the people in the districts, will the Minister offer some hope with regard to this matter?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot add anything to my answer.
    Mr. Smith: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. F. Andersonasked the Minister of Labour whether the whole of the blind pension payable to a wife or dependant

    1809
    of an unemployed person will be taken into account in assessing the means of the household?
    Mr. Brown: In no circumstances is any part of a blind pension treated as available for the support of any person other than the recipient. So far as the Unemployment Assistance Board is required to meet the needs of a blind person a pension of which that person is in receipt must necessarily be taken into account, but, in assessing the needs, consideration is given to any special expenses to which the blindness gives rise.
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will repay the cost of medical certificates which must be supplied in claims for nourishment allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. Brown: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that there is no invariable practice of requiring a medical certificate as a condition of increasing an allowance for the purpose of providing extra nourishment. Where, however, a doctor certifies that his patient is in need of extra or special food as distinct from medicine or drugs the Board's allowance is usually adjusted to meet any extra outlay by the applicant in obtaining such food. The furnishing of the certificate is regarded as part of the medical service rendered by the doctor, any payment for which falls outside the Board's powers by reason of Section 38 (4) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it not possible for special consideration to be given to these types of cases, seeing that the people are advised to get these certificates in order to get the extra nourishment required, and that in some cases they cannot afford to pay the cost of the certificates?
    Mr. Brown: There is some misunderstanding. This is not a general requirement, but it is occasionally necessary to establish the need.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better to raise the scales generally than to give this extra nourishment?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will realise that 230,000 persons did have increases over their previous allowances.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state, as on the last convenient date, the number of unemployed persons in receipt of statutory benefit who are also receiving supplementary allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    M. Brown: In the week ended 15th October, 1937, allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board were paid to 2,863 persons in supplementation of payments of unemployment benefit.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: In how many cases were there reductions?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship imposed upon unemployed persons because of the increase that has taken place in the cost of living, he will consult with the Unemployment Assistance Board as to the need to revise the provisions of the existing regulations with regard to the reduction of allowances?
    Mr. Stephenasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the rise in the cost of living since the unemployment assistance scales were fixed; and how far the cost-of-living index will be allowed to rise before he will take steps for the revision of the present scales of allowances?
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the resolution from the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers asking for increases of the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale owing to the increased cost of living; and has he any statement to make?
    Mr. Brown: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. Short) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 21st October last to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Unemployment Assistance Board to the fact that the cost of living has been and is imposing hardship generally, and that the provision which they are making is only for dealing with particular cases?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has given notice that he intends to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there has been a rise in the cost of living?
    Mr. Stephen: May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of associations and trade unions in this country are circularising Members of all parties with regard to the immediate need of an increase to meet the increased cost of living; and will he, instead of waiting to make prolonged inquiries, deal immediately with this matter?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may be allowed to quote to the House the last paragraph of a letter which I sent to the Trades Union Council on 11th October last:
    "The Regulations represent a standard which must remain constant in spite of minor fluctuations in the cost of living figure. Clearly, however, there might be such a change in that figure—upwards or downwards —as to make it necessary for the Board to propose an alteration in their Regulations. That point has not yet been reached. But I can assure the Council that the matter will be kept under the most careful observation and that there will be no delay in acting if and when it appears that the time for action has arrived."
    Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. I put a specific question to the Minister, to which he has given no reply. He said that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) was raising the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. May I not have an answer to my question now? Is it not the case that the increased cost of living is imposing a burden of a general character, and that the provision made by the Unemployment Assistance Board only deals with particular cases; and will he draw the attention of the Board to the fact that the trouble is general?
    Mr. Brown: In the answer which I gave to him I intended no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), but I thought it was only courteous to the hon. Member who had already given notice to allow him to develop the matter in his own way.
    Mr. Daggerasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the
    1812
    protests that have been sent to him by and on behalf of the men engaged at the Vivian colliery, Abertillery, who were refused allowances by the local office of the Unemployment Assistance Board upon the ground that the wages received by them for a few weeks' employment previous to the period for which application for such allowances was made were sufficient for their maintenance; and what action, in view of the changing circumstances due to the increased cost of living, does he propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. Brown: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that 279 applications for allowances were received from men at the Vivian Colliery who were idle between 16th and 23rd October. The majority of these men had their ordinary wages on 22nd October, so no allowances were paid on that day, but on the following Friday all the men except 47 received allowances. In these 47 cases it was held that they were not in need. I would remind the hon. Member that it was open to any of these applicants who was dissatisfied to exercise his statutory right of appeal, but none did so.
    Mr. Daggar: Is the Minister aware that these refusals were made without any investigation into the need of the applicants?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member has any definite evidence on that point I shall be pleased to receive it. I find it hard to credit the statement.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed persons in the county of Durham who have suffered reductions since the standstill allowances were departed from, and the average amount of cut per person per week?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that information precisely in the form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but on 17th September in the Unemployment Assistance Board's Administrative District of Durham—which includes Sunderland— there were 456 applicants receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the Standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings. The average reduction in these cases is estimated to have been under 2s. per week.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cuts which have been indicted are causing serious inconvenience to people and are lowering a standard of living which was already too low?
    Mr. Brown: I do not agree with that view. The hon. Member must understand that in the same area where these 456 reductions have been made there have been 10,200 increases.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not notorious that the previous Commissioner was cutting these people's allowances down to the bone before these cuts began to operate?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the 10,200 increases meet the need.
    Mr. Gallacher: How is it that the Minister can always deal with the increases but never with the reductions?
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour why the average reduction suffered by unemployed in Greenock under the standstill arrangements is 3s. per week, while the corresponding reduction suffered by unemployed in Leith is only 2s. per week?
    Mr. Brown: This difference is due to fact that the margin between assessments under the standstill practice and under the regulations was wider in Greenock than in Leith when the process of adjustment began. The hon. Member will have observed in my reply just now to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) that the reductions in that area also were less than 2s.
    Mr. Gibson: Does that mean that the previous assessment in Greenock was more generous than that in Leith?
    Mr. Brown: It means that the hon. Member must make up his own mind as between the local administrations in Greenock and Edinburgh which he knows well.
    Mr. Stephenasked the Minister of Labour, how many men have had their allowance from the Unemployment Assistance Board reduced from 17s. to 15s. per week under the revised regulations; and whether he will take steps to see that the former scale is restored, in view of the great hardships being imposed upon these men?
    Mr. Brown: As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 28th October, the total number of reductions on 17th September last, otherwise than on account of personal earnings, was approximately 18,000, but I regret that information is not available to show in how many of these cases the applicant's allowance was reduced from 17s. to 15s. It is provided by the Regulations that the rate of 15s. is subject to adjustment by way of increase or reduction to meet the circumstances of the particular case, and I have no reason to think that the Unemployment Assistance Board have failed or will fail to pay allowances at more than 15s. in cases where the circumstances warrant.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Glasgow the Unemployment Assistance Board reported on the basis that in practically all cases 17s. a week in the case of men had to be reduced to 15s., and will he let them understand that that is not the case?
    31. Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Labour how many persons have suffered reductions by the application of the regulations in South-west Durham; and the total amount of such reductions?
    Mr. Brown: In the Unemployment Assistance Board's administrative areas of Crook and Bishop Auckland, which cover the greater part of South-west Durham, there were on 17th September last 83 applicants receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of the Standstill arrangements otherwise than on account of personal earnings. The average reduction in these cases is estimated to have been under 2s. a week.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have received reductions under the regulations in South-west Durham; and the total amount of such reductions?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Sexton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these ex-service men who have been reduced think it a very inopportune time, especially as we have been celebrating Armistice day, for heroes to suffer this reduction?
    Mr. Brown: No, I cannot accept the word "many." I have pointed out that the total for all the areas and for all classes was 83, and the hon. Member may be interested to know that in the same area there were increases in 1,050 cases.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. May I point out that it is becoming more and more impossible to give attention to you, Sir, because of the behaviour of Members opposite?
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Does not the Minister realise that those persons who have received increases have obviously been below subsistence level before and that is why they have been increased?
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not a fact that in that area the previous Commissioner reduced the people by about £300,000 a year, and is not that proof of the criticism that we made at the time, that the people were living far under the means standard?
    Mr. Brown: The last regulations were a fair settlement of this difficult problem.

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of his visit to South Wales and other Special Areas during the Recess, he has developed any new plans for dealing with the situation in those areas as it now exists, and particularly if he has any proposals to deal with the problem of the unemployed men who are over 45 years of age?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir, but as I have already stated, I have not yet completed my inquiries into these problems. In regard to the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I gave on 4th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Procter).
    Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that on his visit to South Wales the right hon. Gentleman gave interviews to the Press which raised the hopes of these men, will he inform the House when we shall have plans for dealing with this situation?
    Mr. Brown: I have visited seven of the Ministry of Labour divisions, I have two more to visit—which I hope to do shortly —and then I propose to survey all the evidence put before me. As the hon. Member knows, these tours are administrative.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the surplus of labour in South Wales and other areas, who is responsible for plans to meet the situation? This is going to be a very serious matter.
    Mr. Brown: That is a matter for debate.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that in several semi-depressed areas, there are thousands of men over 45 who are out of work and who never expect to get back to work?
    Mr. Brown: In one or two areas, including Yorkshire, I have myself called attention to difficulties of that kind.
    Mr. Lawson: Is anybody in the Government responsible for plans?
    Mr. Brown: The measure of success we have recently obtained is a very remarkable tribute to the activities of the Government.
    Mr. T. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman paid any attention to the position in those mining districts in Yorkshire, and will he intimate to the area officers there that there is room for more benevolent treatment than has been given in the past?
    Mr. Brown: I get regularly a list of areas in which there has been little or no improvement, and I am happy to say that the list becomes shorter every time it is revised.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Labour the amount of direct employment provided in each of the main groups of Special Areas as a result of financial assistance from the Special Areas Fund?
    Mr. Brown: It is not possible to give details of the amount of employment provided in the Special Areas as the result of assistance from the Special Areas Fund. I would remind the hon. Member that the purpose of the Special Areas Acts is not to provide direct employment, but to stimulate the economic recovery of the areas and thus to improve the employment prospects.

    ELDERLY WORKERS.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to say what has been the result of his appeal to employers to engage unemployed persons who are over 50 years of age; and will he try to get a statement from the employers of how many they have engaged during the last three months?
    Mr. E. Brown: The employment of persons over 50 years of age is one of the subjects under discussion in the inquiries in which I am still engaged, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) on 28th October.
    Mr. Tinker: If I put down a question in a fortnight's time, will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to answer it?
    Mr. Brown: I think not so soon.

    SANDWICHMEN, GLASGOW.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has completed his inquiries regarding the employment of sandwichmen during the recent municipal elections in Glasgow at 4s. per day; and whether he has now any statement to make?
    Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I am informed that: vacancies were notified for boys aged 16 to 18 years, at a wage of 4s. a day, to carry sandwich boards. It was not mentioned that the vacancies were in connection with the municipal elections. The vacancies were not pressed on applicants, but six boys volunteered to accept them. No suggestion was made by the exchange that refusal of the vacancies would entail loss of benefit.
    Mir. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that the majority of these sandwichmen were employed for the Progressive party in Glasgow and were married men; that on their own statement they were informed at the Employment Exchange that they must take this employment or forfeit their unemployment allowances; and will he ascertain who were the real employers of these men?
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept either of those two statements. I have made the closest investigation into this matter, and I am informed that this was an order from
    1818
    an advertising agency. As to the suggestion made in the previous question about the men, I can find no ground for it. The facts are as stated in the answer.
    Mr. Davidson: In view of the necessity of having the facts of this case made clear to the House, I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    INSURANCE BOOKS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of employers who were prosecuted during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date for failure to stamp and also for unlawful detention of unemployment insurance books; and will he also give, separately, for the same period the number of persons prosecuted for affixing previously used stamps to unemployment books?
    Mr. E. Brown: During the 12 months ended 30th June, 1937, 1,642 employers were prosecuted for failure to stamp unemployment books of their employes, and 442 employers were prosecuted for unlawful detention of unemployment books. The number of persons prosecuted during the same period for affixing previously used stamps to unemployment books was 74.
    Mr. Day: Will the Minister consider introducing amending legislation to make the penalties heavier in these cases?

    TRAINING, SUNDERLAND.
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to open a non-residential training centre in Sunderland?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have this under consideration.
    Mr. Storey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when be will be able to come to a decision?
    Mr. Brown: I will let the hon. Member know.

    TRANSFERENCE (NORTHUMBERLAND).
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons aged 16 years and upwards that have been transferred from Northumberland county and county boroughs to other areas each year since 1932?
    Mr. E. Brown: I will, if I may, circulate a table giving the available figures.
    Following is the table:
    Separate figures for juveniles of 16 years and over are not available. The table

    Year.

    Men.

    Women.

    Boys.

    Girls.

    Totals.

    1932

    744

    188

    7

    157

    1,096

    1933

    596

    317

    9

    159

    1,081

    1934

    513

    264

    16

    161

    954

    1935

    1,524

    555

    91

    179

    2,349

    1936

    2,391

    712

    249

    259

    3,611

    1937 (January to September)

    1,502

    518

    130

    169

    2,319

    Totals

    7,270

    2,554

    502

    1,084

    11,410

    SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered, permanent and temporary, unemployed at the Employment Exchanges of South Wales for 1935, 1936, and to date, respectively;
    (2) the number of unemployed persons registered at the Maesteg, Pontycymmer, Ogmore Vale, Aberkenfig, and Bridgend Employment Exchanges for 1935, 1936, and to date, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am having the figures extracted and will circulate statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they are available.

    HALDON INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRE.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Alfred Marsh was sent to the Haldon training centre after an interview with officers of the Warwick Employment Exchange, in spite of the fact that he had undergone two operations for a serious internal complaint, was still receiving attention from his doctor, and had been declared unfit to enter a training centre though fit for light work where he could receive the regular medical attention he has had for some years; that pressure was brought to bear upon Marsh by a threat that his allowance might be stopped if he did not agree to enter the training centre; and that he was discharged from the centre by the doctor as unfit within a few days and had to be taken directly to hospital; and what steps he intends to take to make a repetition of such incidents impossible?
    Mr. E. Brown: Mr. Marsh was interviewed at the Warwick Branch Employ-
    1820
    below shows the number of men and women over i8, and boys and girls of 14 to 18 transferred by the Department from Northumberland county and county boroughs each year since 1932 to the end of September of this year:
    ment Office by an officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board on 11th May in the presence of the branch manager. The advantages of training were put before him, but no pressure was brought to bear, and no threat was made of the stoppage of his allowance. Mr. Marsh voluntarily applied for training. The medical officer who examined him was aware of Mr. Marsh's hernia, and certified him as fit for admission to a residential centre for training in light manual labour. He was admitted to the Haldon Instructional Centre on 10th June. After arrival, he complained of stomach pains, and was examined on 12th June by the centre medical officer, who recommended discontinuance of training. He was accordingly discharged, and returned to Warwick on the same day, where he entered hospital. All possible precautions are taken to prevent the admission to centres of persons who are not fit for training. While I regret that the efforts to provide training in this case proved abortive, I am satisfied that the precautions taken are effective, as indeed is shown by the history of this case. The hon. Member will appreciate, I am sure, that if the admission of cases of this kind were prohibited in all circumstances the effect would be to withhold the benefits of the training scheme from a whole class of applicants, many of whom would derive advantage from it.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, that this Mr. Marsh says in a letter which I have in my possession that it was pointed out to him that if he did not accept training, it would affect his allowances, and will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal attention to

    1821
    further facts that I have in my possession in order that the training centres may not be brought into bad repute by cases of this kind?
    Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to do that, but I make very careful inquiries in these cases, and I am informed that that was not the case. However, I shall be glad to investigate any case brought before me by the hon. Member.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Major Carverasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the official announcement on 13th September that there were 20,097 agricultural workers between 14 and 64 years of age reported as unemployed, he can state the exact sub-division of these figures by counties?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am having the figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they are available.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the 20, 000 agricultural workers included private gardeners?
    Mr. Brown: They were registered on 13th September and, of course, are spread throughout the whole register.
    Mr. Lunn: In view of the figures given in this question, is it not clear that the real reason why the farmers cannot get agricultural labour is that they will not pay fair and reasonable wages?
    Mr. Brown: Obviously I could not debate that at Question Time.

  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Minister of Labour when he expects to present the report of the Departmental Committee of inquiry into the question of annual holidays with pay?
  Mr. E. Brown: The Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Amulree, which is inquiring into this matter, has some important evidence still to hear, and will, I am sure, report to me at the earliest possible date.
  Mr. Riley: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that we shall have the report of the Committee by next spring?
  Mr. Brown: I understand that the closing date for the ordinary evidence has been fixed at 17th November. I believe that supplementary evidence can be heard on 1st December from the Trades Union Congress and the Ministry of Labour on specific points. Then I understand that the hearing of evidence will be completed.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Minister of Labour to what extent annual holidays with pay obtain throughout German industry and the average duration of such annual holidays?
  Mr. Brown: Regulations issued in Germany under the Regulation of Labour Act of 1934 provide for annual holidays with pay for workers employed in industrial undertakings covered by those regulations, and I understand that provision for paid holidays is also generally made in the case of employes in other industrial undertakings. I am not in possession of statistics which would enable me to state their average duration, but the available information indicates that, as a general rule, six working days' holiday are granted after one year's service, and that in the majority of cases the length of the holiday is gradually increased, according to length of service, up to a maximum of eight to 15 days.
  Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the International Labour Office have reported that the number of workers who now receive holidays with pay in Germany is double that in any other country, and that they also claim that the average duration of the holidays is longer?
  Mr. Brown: In a supplementary answer I cannot, of course, verify figures of that kind, but I would point out that the International Labour Office statistics are produced on the basis of facts reported by the Government of the day. The hon. Member will understand that the facts we report are those reported to us as a result of collective agreements. The evidence taken before the Amulree Committee already shows that in a large number of industries which have previously not had collective agreements, there are now holidays with pay.
  Sir Assheton Pownall: Is it not also the case that the pay in Germany is appreciably lower than in this country?
  Mr. Lunn: Is it not a fact that 22 other countries, not including our own, do give holidays with pay to their workers?
  Mr. Brown: There is a very large field in this country in which holidays with pay are now the rule. I am happy to say that in recent months, since the Committee has been sitting, the field has been growing.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give us returns of the countries giving holidays with pay —
  Sir A. Pownall: And the amount of wages.
  Mr. Smith:—andthe amount of wages, so that we may be informed of the position?
  Mr. Brown: I am not in a position to get statistics such as those of the International Labour Office, but only in respect of this country. The committee now sitting will have formulated the largest available body of information, and the nearest to accuracy that there is, as to the number of industries where this is in force.
  Mr. E. Smith: May I ask whether the workers in Germany —
  Mr. Speaker: I must remind hon. Members that there are other questions on the Paper.

  INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENTS.
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour what industries at the present time are giving consideration to the question of the best means of giving the force of law to agreements come to between employers and employed?
  Mr. E. Brown: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of industries in which this policy is under consideration.
  Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the Government contemplates legislation on this subject?
  Mr. Brown: That is another issue. Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the list when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the list:

  Pottery.

  Boot and Shoe Manufacture.

  Glove Making.

  Hosiery.

  Electrical Contracting. Asbestos.

  Cooperage.

  Furniture Removing.

  Lock, Latch and Key.

  Heating and Domestic Engineering.

  Quarrying.

  TRADE DISPUTE, BERMONDSEY.
  Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information on the dispute which recently occurred at Maxwell Laundries, Limited, Long Lane, Bermondsey, when a number of men were deprived of their employment for having joined a trade union; whether the management of the firm have met the conciliation officers from his Department; and whether he is taking action to protect the men's right of association?
  Mr. E. Brown: I am in communication with the company on this subject, and I do not think that it is desirable for me to make any comment on the position at this juncture.

  UNION BANK OF SCOTLAND (EMPLOYES).
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now report the result of his inquiries from the Scottish Bankers Association concerning the alleged victimisation of one of its members, Mr. A. I. McPherson, by the Union Bank of Scotland, Limited, for trade union activities; and whether he will cause investigation to be made into the attitude of the Scottish banks generally towards trade unionism?
  Mr. E. Brown: I have received this week from the Secretary of the Scottish Bankers' Association a copy of a pamphlet concerning the case to which the hon. Member refers and a copy of "The Scottish Banker," containing an article by Mr. McPherson, criticising the Union Bank. These were sent for my information, and no request was made for my intervention in the matter. As regards the second part of the question, no such investigation is contemplated.
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of the victimisation in this case as in many other directions at the present time, will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make an investigation into this and put an end to this victimisation?
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will send me information concerning his reasons for desiring an investigation, I shal be glad to consider it.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the principle of collective bargaining is for all classes of employment and has a widespread support in all sections of the House?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, and it has had it from the Government of the day, which has shown it in these recent years, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have no power in this matter; I can only exercise such friendly offices as I think may produce useful results.
  Mr. Maxton: Since this bank perform services for the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, will he take steps to inquire and see whether, as employers, they are giving the good conditions that are expected of those firms which are performing services for the Government?
  Mr. Brown: I have had no request at all from the union officers for any action on my part.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman not make inquiries into the attitude of this bank towards trade unionism? If so, he will find out that it is the same vicious attitude as is employed by Imperial Airways.
  Mr. Brown: I have already invited the hon. Member to provide me with his reasons for my doing that and told him that I shall be glad to consider them if he will put them before me.
  Mr. Stephen: In view of the fact—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that we have over 140 Questions on the Paper.
  Mr. Stephen: I desire to give notice— surely I am entitled to do this—that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  EMPLOYMENT (MINIMUM AGE).
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that a large number of governments have given their support to the revision of the two minimum age conventions at the 23rd International Labour Conference, the British Government will now ratify these revised conventions?
  Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. When the draft conventions were under consideration at the Conference referred to in the hon. Member's question, amendments proposed by the International Labour Office permitting the employment of children of not less than 14 years in beneficial employment were defeated. Ratification of the draft conventions would not, therefore, be in accordance with the Government's educational policy as embodied in the Education Act, 1936.

  TRANSPORT.

    SPEED LIMIT (CONVICTIONS, SWINDON).
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the total number of motorists convicted by the Swindon magistrates for exceeding 30 miles per hour; and what proportion of these had their licences suspended during 1936 and 1937?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): During 1936 the number of persons who were convicted by the Swindon magistrates of exceeding a speed limit of 30 miles per hour was 182, of whom two were disqualified from holding a driving licence. During the first nine months of this year the corresponding figures were 86 and none.
    Viscountess Astor: How often can a motorist have his licence suspended and still keep on?

    CAR PARKING, CENTRAL LONDON.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Home Secretary whether in those streets in Central London that are restricted in regard to waiting motor vehicles, the Chief Commissioner of Police will allow some relaxation of the rule in the case of motor cars of physicians and surgeons visiting nursing homes?
    Sir S. Hoare: I am advised that there is no power to authorise a relaxation of the regulations in favour of special classes of the community.

  LICENSED TRADE (STATE MANAGEMENT).
  Mr. Mathersasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the continued success of the Carlisle and district State management scheme, as disclosed by the latest report, he will consider the desirability of extending the scheme to other areas, especially those in which munitions are being produced and where convictions for drunkenness are showing large increases?
  Sir S. Hoare: The convictions for drunkenness in England and Wales which fell continuously from 79,000 in 1924 to 30,000 in 1932 have risen each year since 1932 to 44,525 in 1936. I know of no sufficient reason for connecting a rise which has been continuous since 1932 with the production of munitions. The scheme of State management could neither be extended nor abolished without legislation, and legislation on this subject is not contemplated at the present time.
  Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in carrying out the suggestion in the question he will be serving the cause of temperance and doing a piece of good business at the same time?

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. Cassellsasked the Home Secretary when the report by the Workmen's Compensation Committee, 1935, is likely to be available for Members of this House; and what action, if any, the Government intend to take with regard to improvement of the present Workmen's Compensation Acts?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that the Committee hope to present their report very shortly. As soon as it is received, the question of publication will be considered. As regards the latter part of the question, I am not in a position at present to make any statement.
  Mr. Cassells: In view of the many promises that we have received from the right hon. Gentleman's Department in
  1828
  connection with this matter, may I ask whether he is prepared to place any period of time on the approximate date when this important report will be received?
  Sir S. Hoare: I understand that the Committee is likely to report in the immediate future, and I can assure the hon. Member that there will not be any protracted delay.
  Mr. Cassells: In the light of that answer, may I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will press this Committee to bring their report in immediately?
  Sir S. Hoare: No, I do not think that it is necessary for me to put any pressure upon the Committee. The Committee is anxious to make its report at once, and I understand that only a short time will elapse before the report is made.
  Mr. Cassells: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment.

  SUNDAY TRADING (LONDON).
  Mr. Grovesasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the serious unrest among traders in London who are obeying the provisions of the Sunday Trading Restriction Act, 1936. but who are feeling the effects of the unfair competition of those shopkeepers who are breaking the law and have only been given nominal penalties when summoned by the London County Council, he will circularise magistrates with regard to the infliction of penalties such as to secure that the Act may not be brought into contempt as was the Sunday Observance Act, 1677, and also that further breaches of the law may not be occasioned?
  Sir S. Hoare: I understand that the penalties generally have been small, though in certain recent instances substantial fines were imposed. It would not be proper for me to offer any advice to magistrates as to the amount of the penalties which they should impose.
  Mr. Groves: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the continuance of this breakage of the law, there is to be a mass protest in South London on Sunday when 3,000 shopkeepers will keep open, not because they are law-breakers, but because they desire to call public attention to the lack of enforcement of

  1829
  an Act passed by this House; and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if this thing grows it will make a farce of the Sunday Trading Restriction Act?
  Sir S. Hoare: I was not aware of those facts, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving them to me. They raise a much wider issue than the question on the Paper, and perhaps he will put a question down.
  Mr. Groves: After next Sunday?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Prime Minister whether he will allow time for the discussion of the Motion appearing on the Order Paper relating to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of ex-service and disablement pensions?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): In the present state of public business, I regret that I am unable to provide a special opportunity for the discussion of this Motion. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) on 1st November.
  Mr. Kirby: is the Prime Minister aware that there are an increasing number of Members of the House and of the public outside who are growing steadily more anxious in regard to the position of disabled pensioners because of the increase in the cost of living and because, with the passage of years, they are unable to find employment? Furthermore, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are an ever increasing number of Members and of the public who are concerned about the large number of ex-service men who have applied for pensions and have been turned down and who, in the passage of years, find themselves in worse health and conditions?
  Mr. Lansbury: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, through the usual channels, an arrangement could be made whereby a Supply day could be sacrificed in the ordinary way so that the rest of the day could be devoted to the discussion of this Motion, because there are, as everybody knows, a considerable number
  1830
  of men whose cases ought to be dealt with? That has been done before through the usual channels, and if the right hon. Gentleman agrees it could be done again.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that this is a case for an arrangement through the usual channels because it is open to the Leader of the Opposition to put down any subject he likes for discussion on Supply. Of course, there are other opportunities for discussion if hon. Gentlemen desire them.
  Mr. Attlee: If the Government cannot at this time give time for this discussion, will they not themselves appoint a Select Committee to inquire into those numerous questions which are coming to Members in all parts of the House as to the disabilities suffered for a long period since the War by ex-service men who are not covered to-day by the Royal Warrant?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the time has come at present for the appointment of a Select Committee. I understand that there is an investigation proceeding by the British Legion, and it might be well to wait and see what they have to report.
  Mr. Lansbury: Has not the right hon. Gentleman rather misunderstood me? Perhaps I am wrong, but I am not aware that on a Supply day a Motion of this kind could be moved. We want the Motion discussed so that the Government may understand the amount of opinion there is in the House on all sides that this committee should be appointed.
  The Prime Minister: The Motion cannot be discussed, but the subject can be discussed on the salary of the Minister of Pensions.
  Mr. E. Smith: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to agree to receive a deputation consisting of representatives of all parties in the House so that they can lay the facts before him?
  Mr. De la Bère: Does it matter how it is done as long as it is done?
  Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inquiry by the British Legion would in no way affect the limits of the public indignation about the pensions question, and that it would not be fair to the unemployed or to the real opinion of this country to wait upon that inquiry?
  The Prime Minister: Before indignation is created in the public mind, it would be as well to have the facts, and the British Legion are in a particularly favourable position to get them.

  CLUBS BILL.
  Mr. R. Aclandasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the keen interest taken in the subject, he will arrange for a substantial interval of time to elapse between the publication and the Second Reading of the Bill amending the law in relation to clubs?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS.
  Mr. Denmanasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that local authorities differ widely in the efficiency of their administration of the laws and regulations relating to the employment of children and young persons; and whether he will have the facts fully investigated and take steps to stimulate the authorities that are found not adequately enforcing these protective provisions?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am not in possession of any such evidence as would justify me in instituting any general investigation as suggested. If, however, my hon. Friend is in a position to furnish me with information about any authorities which are not adequately enforcing the provision to which he refers, I shall be glad to make inquiry.

  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Mr. Whiteasked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement as to the provision of air-raid shelters and other means of defence for the civilian against aircraft attack?
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Home Secretary the Government's policy with regard to the provision of public air-raid shelters?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Perhaps the hon. Members will await the statement which my right hon. Friend will make on the Second Reading of the Air Raid Precautions Bill.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Home Secretary whether plans have been completed for evacuating crowded areas during air raids?
  Dr. Haden Guestasked the Home Secretary what plans have been made for the evacuation of the civil population from congested areas, such as those in the East End of London near the docks, in the event of threatened air attack?
  Mr. Lloyd: The question of evacuation is under careful examination.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the seriousness of the international situation, is it a fact that the Government have as yet no plan or policy in regard to the evacuation of crowded areas in case of emergency, particularly in view of the fact that the organisation of a plan would take a long time?
  Mr. Lloyd: That assumption is not correct.
  Mr. Sandys: Have the local authorities been invited to co-operate in the preparation of plans of this kind?
  Mr. Lloyd: This matter will certainly come into their schemes.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the local authorities be asked to accept full responsibility for expenditure in regard to these plans?
  52. Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Home Secretary what Metropolitan boroughs have organised satisfactory air-raid precaution schemes?
  Mr. Lloyd: The position in the different Metropolitan boroughs varies. Most of them have done some preparatory work and a considerable number have made substantial progress.
  Sir N. Grattan-Doyleasked the Home Secretary what suggestions have been made to local authorities to stage a black-out of their areas as a test of their systems of air-raid precautions; and what authorities have put their plans to this test?
  Mr. Lloyd: No general proposals have so far been made that local authorities should conduct black-outs, though every encouragement is being given to local authorities to hold exercises as and when they are ready. In the present year advantage was taken of the Coast Defence

  1833
  Exercise in July to apply lighting restrictions over a wide area on the South Coast, and exercises at night involving measures of darkening have recently been organised in the area of the Nore Command and at Brighton.
  Dr. Guestasked the Home Secretary what numbers of first-aid stations for dealing with air-raid casualties it is proposed to set up in the area of the Metropolitan police district; whether each station will provide for treatment of wounded and gas cases, for cases affected by mustard gas or other vesicants, and for persons whose clothing alone is contaminated; and at what distances apart these stations will be placed.
  Mr. Lloyd: It has been recommended by the Home Office that first-aid posts should be so located as to ensure that in no case has any individual to travel a distance exceeding one mile. The number of first-aid posts in the area of the Metropolitan Police district cannot be given until the schemes prepared by the local authorities concerned have been submitted and approved. Each first-aid station will provide for the treatment of wounded and gas cases and for persons whose clothing alone is contaminated.
  Sir William Davison: Is the Under-Secretary aware that at the present moment there is an exhibition in the Kensington Town Hall where plans for this service are shown and methods of treatment very well demonstrated?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, and I propose to visit it to-morrow.
  Dr. Guestasked the Home Secretary what numbers of persons will be employed in the area of the Metropolitan Police district in a fully developed air raid precautions scheme, in each of the following capacities: dressers and nurses in firstaid stations, in casualty clearing hospitals and in base hospitals; members of decontamination squads; breakdown and rescue squads; road and engineering repair squads; stretcher-bearer squads; ambulance drivers and personnel; air raid wardens; gas detection officers; and normal and additional fire-fighting personnel?
  Mr. Lloyd: As the answer is long and includes a tabular statement, I will, with
  1834
  the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The scales for the provision of personnel recommended in air raid precautions publications for the following services are as shown in the table:

  Nature of service.

  Size of unit.

  Recommended provision per 100,000 population.

  First-aid parties (including stretcherbearers).

  4 persons per party.

  12–15 parties.

  Rescue parties

  6-8 persons per party.

  3-4 parties.

  Decontamination squads.

  6 persons per squad.

  6 squads.

  Air raid wardens, stationed at "posts."

  2 wardens per post.

  200 posts.

  These scales are now under further consideration in the light of practical experience so far gained.
  The provision of first-aid posts is recommended on a basis that no casualty would need to travel more than a mile to reach the nearest post. The number of persons required to staff a post is at present under review, but may amount to 50 or more, of whom a proportion only need be trained dressers. Nurses in the ordinary sense would not be employed in first-aid posts.
  The numbers of dressers and nurses in hospitals would depend on the number of beds, and no figures are available.
  No precise scales of provision of ambulance personnel or gas detection officers have yet been laid down.
  It is not contemplated that particular scales should be recommended for breakdown and repair parties for the numerous special services, such as roads, water, gas, electricity and so on. The scale of provision would in the first instance be left to the authority or undertaking controlling the service.
  The normal fire fighting personnel in the Metropolitan Police district number approximately 3,500; the number of auxiliary firemen who will be required cannot be estimated pending the submission of the emergency fire brigade schemes by the local fire brigade authorities in the district.
  As regards those personnel for whom scales of provision are quoted above, the actual numbers who will be employed will in any case not be known with accuracy until the air raid precaution schemes of the respective local authorities have been submitted and approved.

  HOLIDAY RESORTS (LICENSING RESTRICTIONS).
  Sir N. Grattan-Doyleasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the frequent complaints of hotel proprietors in Great Britain that they are under disabilities by comparison with their competitors abroad by reason of licensing restrictions, he will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question with a view to making home holiday resorts more attractive to visitors?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am aware that statements have been made to the effect indicated in the first part of the question, and I understand the suggestion to be that persons are deterred from visiting our holiday resorts by reason of the licensing restrictions in force. I am not clear on what evidence this suggestion is based, and I would point out that the Royal Commission on Licensing, by whom the position of hotels was specially examined, were not convinced that licensing restrictions had in fact acted to any substantial degree as a deterrent to visitors from abroad.
  Viscountess Astor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be better if hotel proprietors supplied better coffee, better food and more bathrooms?

  POLICEWOMEN (MOTOR CYCLES).
  Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that some county women police use motor cycles for the purpose of their duty; and whether it is proposed to supply motor cycles to the women police in the outskirts of the Metropolitan Police area?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am aware that policewomen use motor vehicles when on duty in one or two of the provincial forces, but the Commissioner of Police does not contemplate their use in the Metropolitan Police District.
  Mr. Day: Can the Minister say what success has attended their use?
  Sir S. Hoare: I could not do so without making further inquiries.

  LEAGUE OF GODLESS (CONFERENCE.).
  Commander Marsdenasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Central Council of the League of the Godless intend to hold a congress in London on 6th April, 1938; and what special instructions will be given to the police, in view of the riot and disturbance such a congress is likely to provoke?
  Captain Ramsayasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the League of Militant Godless, of Moscow, have recently announced their intention to hold a plenary conference in Great Britain in 1938; and whether he will limit the number of aliens permitted to enter the country for the purpose of attending this conference?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have seen statements in the Press that such a course is proposed, but I have no other information, and I hope that there is no foundation for these statements. Like most people in this country, I should strongly deplore the holding here of a congress of this character. While it would he contrary to our traditions of toleration to interfere with the holding of a conference because its objects were repugnant to general feeling, if any action were taken which is calculated so to inflame public opinion as to lead to breaches of the peace, it would, of course, be the duty of the police to take the necessary steps for the preservation of order. As regards foreign visitors, any undesirable aliens would in the ordinary course be excluded under the provisions of the Aliens Order.
  Mr. Thurtle: Will the Home Secretary, if and when he may he called upon to take action in this matter, bear in mind the long-established British tradition of toleration and freedom in regard to matters of religious belief, and will he also bear in mind that he is the Home Secretary of free England and not of Franco Spain?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have stated the position quite clearly in my answer.
  Mr. Crowder: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that no blasphemous posters will be allowed to be exhibited either in the hall or halls which may be engaged for the proceedings or on the hoardings?
  Sir S. Hoare: That is really a different question, and, if I may say so to my hon. Friend, it is a hypothetical question. I have no official information that this conference is going to take place, and I hope that it is not.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware— or will he make inquiries to find out— that this is a deliberate piece of anti-working-class propaganda, that there is not a word of truth in it, and that the Member responsible for it should have made the date 1st April, which would have been more in keeping with his character?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am very glad to have the hon. Member's assurance that the conference is not going to take place.
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in your judgment, it is in keeping with the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make such a reply. The Secretary of State has no information of any kind that such a conference is to be held, and yet he gets up and tries to suggest that I have some responsibility for some such conference, and that he is glad of my assurance that it is not going to be held. I consider that that is a deliberate support on the part of the Home Secretary for this anti-working-class attitude, and I demand the withdrawal of the statement. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Captain Ramsay.

  PROCESSIONS, FASCIST AND COMMUNIST.
  Captain Ramsayasked the Home Secretary whether he will give the House any information as to the number of processions in which Fascist contingents have taken part which have taken place this year, and the number of processions in which Communist contingents have taken part?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that there have
  1838
  been 110 processions by Fascist contingents and 61 processions by Communist contingents in the Metropolitan Police district during the current year. I regret that I have no information about areas outside the Metropolitan Police district.
  Captain Ramsay: Can my right hon. Friend inform me of any case of a refusal of consent?
  Sir S. Hoare: I should have to make inquiries.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that workers of all kinds in Bermondsey opposed the deliberately provocative demonstration of the Fascists?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am aware of the fact that public opinion generally strongly objects to these provocative processions, by whomsoever they are arranged.
  Captain Ramsayasked the Home Secretary whether he will inform the House as to the number of cases of assaults on or violent resistance to the police committed by the Communists and their sympathisers during any processions organised by Fascists, and the corresponding figures for assaults committed by members of the Fascist organisations during processions organised by Communists?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that during the period from 1st January, 1936, to 31st October, 1937, the number of cases of the kind referred to in the Metropolitan Police district were respectively 104 and two. I regret that I have no information as regards the remainder of the country.
  Mr. Gallacher: Arising out of that answer —
  Mr. Speaker: I have called on the next question.
  Mr. Gallacher: I have a right to put a supplementary question.
  Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members put so many supplementary questions it means that other Members will be prevented from putting their questions.
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. This question is deliberately directed against me and my associates, and surely I have a right to ask a supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: There are so many questions which affect the representatives of groups of people.
  Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. This question is deliberately directed against me and my associates. Surely, in ordinary justice, when a question is put down which is directed against a Member of the House he has a right to ask a supplementary question, and I wanted to ask a supplementary question.
  Viscountess Astor: So did I.

  FACTORY ACCIDENTS.
  Viscountess Astorasked the Home Secretary how many fatal and non-fatal accidents have happened to juveniles and adults working in factories during the present year 1937; and whether there has been an increase or a decrease over a corresponding period of 1936?
  Sir S. Hoare: During the period from 1st January to 31st October, 1937, 811 fatal and 157,842 non-fatal accidents were reported from premises under the Factory Acts. Similar figures for the first 10 months of 1936 were 742 fatal and 143,305 non-fatal. I regret that comparative figures for juveniles and adults separately are not available at present.
  Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cause of these accidents is long hours, particularly among juveniles, and is it not true that the Chief Inspector of Factories says that production is the main consideration and that safeguarding is left to the last; and will he not agree that the shortening of hours is the only way to deal with the situation?
  Sir S. Hoare: We have this question under very close consideration. I hope that the passage of the Factories Act and the increase in the number of the inspectorate will, in course of time, result in a substantial decrease in these figures.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Bill will be introduced in this House to-morrow which would assist him in this matter, and that we shall welcome the support of all hon. and right hon. Members.

  EDUCATION.

    DONCASTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
    Mr. Shortasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the approach of winter, the Board's inspectors have satisfied themselves that the heating installations at the Doncaster Grammar School are sufficient and calculated to obviate the students being sent home, as occurred last year?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Yes, Sir. The Board are informed that no boys had to be sent home last winter, and that the additional radiators which were installed the previous winter have been found satisfactory.

    MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what is the present position of local authorities in the matter of maintenance allowances for school children between the ages of 14 and 15 attending elementary schools; what powers do the local authorities at present exercise anywhere; are any grants towards the cost forthcoming from national funds; have any schemes of maintenance allowance been presented in the past two years; and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. Lindsay: The authority for the granting of maintenance allowances by local education authorities to children in public elementary schools is contained in Section 24 of the Education Act, 1921. At present 54 local education authorities have arrangements for the award of such allowances. These arrangements generally provide for the award of allowances to children over the age of 14 subject to an undertaking that the child will remain at school till the end of the term in which he becomes 15, or the completion of a four years' course. Eight of these authorities award allowances to children below the age of 14. Subject to the arrangements having been approved by the Board of Education, grant is payable by the Board to local education authorities at the rate of 50 per cent. on maintenance allowances which are awarded to pupils who have attained the school leaving age for the time being in force in the authority's area. During the

    1841
    last two years, four new schemes for the award of maintenance allowances to public elementary school children have been submitted by local education authorities. Of these, three were approved and one was not accepted for the purposes of grant by the Board.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Is it still the policy of the Board to give favourable consideration to representations for such allowances, and do I gather that the Board have not reversed their policy since the passing of the 1936 Act?
    Mr. Lindsay: They have not reversed it.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the Minister prepared to increase the maintenance grant, particularly in view of the increase in the cost of living?
    Mr. Lindsay: I think that inquiry comes under a separate question, but I think it would be possible to revise the scales if the selection were made carefully and were reasonable.
    Mr. Leachasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is now prepared to make good the losses in grants incurred by those local authorities which have, in strict conformity with the law, made grants to pupils in public elementary schools?
    Mr. Lindsay: It is presumed that the hon. Member refers to the provision in the Elementary Education Grant Regulations which excludes from recognition for grant expenditure by local education authorities on maintenance allowances paid to children while still under a legal obligation to attend school. My Noble Friend is not prepared to amend the regulation in question, and he cannot admit that the authorities who have incurred expenditure upon maintenance allowances which is expressly excluded from recognition for grant can be said to have incurred losses in grant.
    Mr. Leach: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the law allows educational authorities to do what they have been doing in this respect for the last 20 years, and that by an administrative order of his own Department they have been refused the right to grant? I want to know whether he proposes to reverse that policy?
    Mr. Lindsay: I do not agree with the original statement.

    SCHOOL MEALS.
    Mr. Leonardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will have an inquiry made into what is known as the Oslo breakfast which has had such beneficial results on the well-being of school children in Oslo, with a view to similar action being considered by educational authorities in this country?
    Mr. Lindsay: The Board have full information as to the Oslo breakfast, and the claims made for it have recently been considered by the Advisory Committee on Nutrition, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. While the value of the experiment is fully recognised, its adoption in this country would be open to certain practical objections, and it is doubtful whether this type of meal would satisfy English tastes. There are other equally good and convenient methods of supplementing the home diets of children who are found to be in need of additional nourishment.
    Mr. Leonard: In view of the fact that the Oslo breakfast is given to rich and poor alike and is responsible for reducing the mortality rate from 46 to 30 in five years, which figure compares with 98 in Glasgow, does the Minister not consider it is high time that a similar experiment were made in this country?
    Mr. Lindsay: I would point out to the hon. Member that while the Oslo breakfast is given to some 35 per cent. of the children in certain towns in Norway, there are school meals in this country given in the middle of the day, to a much larger number of children. It is not quite a fair comparison.
    Mr. Leonard: Are the results comparable with those of the Oslo breakfast?
    Mr. Lindsay: Yes, I think that the result of several million school meals, and milk, given in this country, is a marked improvement in the physique of the children.
    Mr. Davidson: Is it not a fact that these school meals are given to children to-day in this country only after they have been medically defined as suffering from malnutrition?
    Mr. Lindsay: That is not true.
    Mr. Davidson: Oh, yes it is. Ask the Scottish Secretary.

    ARMISTICE DAY SERVICE (INCIDENT).
    Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he had any statement to make about the incident which occurred this morning at the Armistice Day celebration in Whitehall?
    Sir S. Hoare: The man whose cries interrupted the Two Minutes' Silence at the Cenotaph this morning is a man named Stanley Storey, aged 43, who was responsible for a disturbance in the Gallery of this House on 27th January and was in Cane Hill Asylum from 4th February to 21st September, on which date he escaped and has since been at large. He fell forward through the ranks of the police, who thought he was fainting, then got up and dived between the Naval Contingent shouting some such words as "No more war: end this hypocrisy." He was immediately removed to a room in the Colonial Office, and Special Branch officers were sent for who identified him at once from his appearance. He said to them that he had thought of making this demonstration three days ago, but had no intention of making an attack upon the King or upon anyone else. No weapons of any kind were found upon him. The man was obviously suffering from delusions. He is at present in Fulham Infirmary under observation. No question of criminal proceedings is under consideration. The only question is whether application should be made to the magistrates for his re-certification as a lunatic. This must depend on the result of observation.
    Mr. Davidson: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report in to-day's "Star" which states that the crowd surrounding this man cried, "Kill him, kill him," and will he not deprecate such outbursts?

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Major Dower(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries whether he has any statement to make in view of the grave situation in the agricultural areas caused by the further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Since 16th October, 43 cases of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in the eastern and south-eastern counties of England, from Lincolnshire in the north to East Sussex in the south. The occurence of the disease at so many widely separated centres with no traceable evidence connecting them, and the fact that the type of disease appears to be very virulent in character, has created a situation which called for additional precautionary measures. A standstill Order has therefore been imposed over certain eastern and south-eastern counties of England, in order to minimise the danger of the westward spread of disease from the infected areas. Only two further outbreaks (and those in close proximity to existing cases) have been confirmed during the past 36 hours, and, while it is too early yet to form any definite conclusion as to whether the spread of the disease has been arrested, it is earnestly hoped that, with the continued co-operation of the farming community and local authorities, that result may be achieved. The House will be aware that during the past three months the disease has spread with great rapidity on the Continent. It is reported that during the six weeks ending 15th October there were 38,758 new outbreaks in France, and 1,129 Germany. In Belgium there were 4,090 outbreaks in September, and in Holland the number of communes affected on 31st October was 782.
    Major Dower: Is it the intention of the Government to carry on with their present policy of slaughtering infected animals, with compensation to the farmer, in the event of any further increase in the outbreaks of this disease?
    Mr. Morrison: That, of course, is a hypothetical question. In the meantime, it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the present policy.
    Mr. Thorne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that farmers should receive full compensation for the loss of their cattle?
    Mr. Morrison: The terms of compensation are fixed by Statute, and I have no power to alter them.
    Mr. De Chair: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to suppose that straw imported through the Harwich Ferry has had any effect in causing this outbreak?
    Mr. Morrison: There is an Order, made in 1925, which prohibits the bringing of animals into contact with any imported straw or packing material. I have made inquiries into the matter, and, as a result, I have no reason to suppose that any of the present infection arises from disobedience of that Order. If my hon. Friend, or any hon. Member, has any case to report where the Order is being transgressed, I will, of course, examine it.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Does not the widespread nature of this present infection suggest the possibility of it being spread through birds? Is that matter being considered, and would it not have a considerable effect on the measures to be taken?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The nature of this infection shows that it is undoubtedly a field infection, and it is supposed, from the evidence that has been collected, that it is imported into this country by migrant birds?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the loss to dairy farmers of their milk trade through compulsory slaughter of their cows, and, as he has no power to give compensation for such loss, will be consider taking power to compensate for such consequential loss of profits?
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the possibility of this disease being transported through the mud which is brought into this country on the wheels and chassis of motor cars?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that possibility has not been lost sight of, but, as I have said, the nature of this outbreak shows that it is a field infection rather than a road infection, and has not in fact been carried either by motor cars or by human feet.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week; and will he also be good enough to state the reasons for putting on the Paper the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and how far he proposes to go with business to-night?
The Prime Minister: The business for next week will be as follows:
1846
Monday: Second Reading of the Air-Raid Precautions Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Tuesday: Further consideration of the National Health Insurance (Juvenile Contributors and Young Persons) Bill, the Blind Persons Bill, and the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, if not already disposed of; and, if there is time, the Committee stage of the Scottish Housing Money Resolution.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Sea Fish Industry Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
With regard to this evening, we are moving to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule as a precautionary measure, in order to make certain of obtaining the first two Orders on the Paper and the necessary Money Resolutions. If there is time, we propose to take the third and fourth Orders, but there is no intention to ask the House to sit late.
Mr. Attlee: Am I right in understanding that the third and fourth Orders will not be taken after Eleven o'Clock?
The Prime Minister The Prime Minister indicated assent.
Mr. Attlee: In view of the importance of the Air Raid Precautions Bill, would it not be possible to give another half-day, say up to Eight o'Clock on Tuesday, so that we may have a full discussion on the Second Reading?
The Prime Minister: I am disposed to accede to that suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think up to 7.30 would be time enough.
Sir Percy Harris: Would the Prime Minister say what is the stage of the Blind Persons Bill that is to be taken on Tuesday?
The Prime Minister: The Committee stage.
Mr. E. J. Williams: Will the Committee stage of the Blind Persons Bill be taken on the Floor of the House?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided; Ayes, 262; Noes, 117.

Division No. 10.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Eastwood, J. F.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Eokersley, P. T.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Albery, Sir lrving

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

Ellis, Sir G.

Marsden, Commander A.

Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Elmley, Viscount

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Emery, . F.

Miller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Apsley, Lord

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Aske, Sir R. W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Mills, Sir F. (Leylon, E.)

Assheton, R.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Everard, W. L.

Mitchell, H. (Brenttord and Chiswisk)

Atholl, Duchess of

Findlay, Sir E.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Furness, S. N.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Balniel, Lord

Ganzoni, Sir J.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Gledhill, G.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Baxter, A. Beverley

Gluckstein, L. H.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Goldie, N. B.

Munro, P.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Gower, Sir R. V.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Bernays, R. H.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Granville, E. L.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.

Blair, Sir R.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Bossom, A. C.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Patrick, C. M.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Gridley, Sir, A. B.

Peake, O.

Brass, Sir W.

Grimston, R. V.

Peat, C. U.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Petherick, M.

Bull, B. B.

Harlington, Marquess of

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Harvey, Sir G.

Pilkington, R.

Burghley, Lord

Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Porritt, R. W.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Power, Sir J. C.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Procter, Major H. A.

Cary, R. A.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Higgs, W. F.

Ramsbotham, H.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Rankin, Sir R.

Channon, H.

Holmes, J. S.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

Hulbert, N. J.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Hutchinson, G. C.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Keeling, E. H.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Cox, H. B. T.

Kimball, L.

Salmon, Sir I.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Salt, E. W.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Latham, Sir P.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Cross, R. H.

Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)

Samuel, M. R. A.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Sandys, E. D.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lees-Jones, J.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Savory, Sir Servington

Davison, Sir W. H.

Levy, T.

Scott, Lord William

Dawson, Sir P.

Lewis, O.

Selley, H. R.

De Chair, S. S.

Lindsay, K. M.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

De la Bère, R.

Lipson, D. L.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Doland, G. F.

Lloyd, G. W.

Simmonds, O. E.

Donner, P. W.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Loftus, P. C.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Dower, Major A. V. G.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Duggan, H. J.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Maonamara, Capt. J. R. J

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Dunglass, Lord

Magnay, T.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Touche, G. C.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Spens, W. P.

Train, Sir J.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W m'ld)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Turton, R. H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Storey, S.

Wakefield, W. W.

Wise, A. R.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Sutcliffe, H.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Tate, Mavis C.

Warrender, Sir V.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Watt, G. S. H.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Titchfield. Marquess of

Wells, S. R.

Captain Hope and Captain

Dugdale.

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Groves, T. E.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

Parkinson, J. A.

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)

Hardie, Agnes

Ridley, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Riley, B.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hayday, A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

Banfield, J. W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Barr, J.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Batey, J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Bellenger, F. J.

Hicks, E. G.

Sexton, T. M.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Shinwell, E.

Benson, G.

Hopkin, D.

Short, A.

Bevan, A.

Jagger, J.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Jenkins, Sir W. (Heath)

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Burke, W. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Cape, T.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Cassells, T.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Stephen, C.

Cluse, W. S.

Kirby, B. V.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Cove, W. G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Lathan, G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Daggar, G.

Lawson, J. J.

Thorne, W.

Dalton, H.

Leash, W.

Thurtle, E.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Lee, F.

Tinker, J. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Leonard, W.

Viant, S. P.

Day, H.

Logan, D. G.

Walkden, A. G.

Dobbie, W.

Lunn, W.

Walker, J.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Watson, W. McL.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

McGhee, H. G.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Gallacher, W.

McGovern, J.

Welsh, J. C.

Gardner, B. W.

MacLaren, A.

Westwood, J.

Garro Jones, G. M.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

White, H. Graham

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mander, G. le M.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Marshall, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Maxton, J.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Milner, Major J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Grenfell, D. R.

Montague, F.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Muff, G.

Mr. Mothers and Mr. Charleton.

Question put, and agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED.
  DOGS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to amend the Dogs Act, 1871," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Sir George Jones, Sir Cooper Rawson, Major Procter, Mr. Radford, and Mr. Lovat-Fraser; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd December, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Commander
  1850
  Bower, Miss Ward, and Mr. Charles Wood; and had appointed in substitution; Mr. Crossley, Captain Peter Macdonald, and Mr. Pickthorn.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Captain Sir William Brass and Captain Peter Macdonald; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Robert Gower and Miss Ward.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Bill): The Attorney-General, Mr. Bromfield, Sir

  1851
  George Davies, Major Dower, Mr. Erskine Hill, Mr. Ernest Evans, Mr. Grant-Ferris, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Latham, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Muff, Mr. Silverman, Mr. Simpson, the Solictor-General, Commander Sir Archibald Southby, Mr. Spens, Mr. Henry Strauss, Sir John Wardlaw-Milne and Sir' John Withers.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Bill): Rear-Admiral Beamish, Sir Reginald Blair, Sir Herbert Cayzer, Mr. Rostron Duckworth, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Richard Law, Mr. Leckie, Dr. Leech, Mr. Mitchell, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Orr-Ewing, Mr. Ross Taylor, Sir Alexander West Russell, and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  ENGLAND AND WALES·

  Public Elementary Schools maintained by Local Education Authorities.

  Pupils who left for reasons other than Further Education on or after attaining the age of exemption. 1936–37.

  —

  Number of leavers.

  Number in Column (2) aged 15 and over.

  Percentage of Column (3) to Column (2).

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  England

  …

  …

  …

  529,271

  24,423

  4·6

  Wales

  …

  …

  …

  34,895

  4,871

  14·0

  England and Wales

  …

  …

  …

  564,166

  29,294

  5·2

  Gateshead C.B.

  …

  …

  …

  2,118

  122

  5·8

  Merthyr Tydfil C.

  …

  …

  …

  939

  276

  129·4

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne C.B.

  …

  …

  …

  4,421

  207

  4·7

  South Shields C.B

  …

  …

  …

  2,147

  395

  18·4

  Sunderland C.B.

  …

  …

  …

  3,437

  293

  8·5

  Tynemouth C.B.

  …

  …

  …

  1,073

  71

  6·6

  West Hartlepool C.B.

  …

  …

  …

  1,249

  80

  6·4

  Durham C.C.

  …

  …

  …

  12,328

  737

  6·0

  Durham B.

  …

  …

  …

  294

  28

  9·5

  Hartlepool B.

  …

  …

  …

  367

  27

  7·4

  Jarrow B.

  …

  …

  …

  807

  134

  16·6

  Felling U.D.

  …

  …

  …

  475

  10

  2·1

  Hebburn U.D.

  …

  …

  …

  447

  4

  0·9

  Wallsend B.

  …

  …

  …

  874

  20

  2·3

  Whitehaven B.

  …

  …

  …

  363

  40

  11·0

  Workington B.

  …

  …

  …

  326

  203

  62·3

  Monmouth C.C.

  …

  …

  …

  3,690

  449

  112·2

  Abertillery U.D.

  …

  …

  …

  482

  47

  9·8

  Ebbw Vale U.D.

  …

  …

  …

  490

  61

  12·4

  Glamorgan C.C.

  …

  …

  …

  5,367

  428

  8·0

  Port Talbot B.

  …

  …

  …

  607

  17

  2·8

  Aberdare U.D.

  …

  …

  …

  797

  251

  31·5

  Mountain Ash U.D.

  …

  …

  …

  727

  149

  20·5

  Pontypridd U.D.

  …

  …

  …

  794

  278

  35·0

  Rhondda U.D.

  …

  …

  …

  2,237

  502

  22·4

  Pembroke B.

  …

  …

  …

  184

  48

  26·1

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BLIND PERSONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4·5 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Sir KingsleyWood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  There are about 78,000 registered blind persons in England, Wales and Scotland, arid of these nearly 57,000 are aged 50 or over, and there are over 8,000 blind persons between the ages of 40 and 50. I do not think that the number of blind persons is increasing in this country. It is true, of course, that the total number of registered blind persons has shown increases year by year, but I think this can be well ascribed not to an increased incidence of blindness but rather to more complete registration, longer life and greater inducements to blind people to register to-day in order to obtain the substantial improvements which are now happily available to them if they become registered as blind persons. I am also glad to say that in consequence of the increased knowledge of the causes of blindness which operate at birth and in the earlier years of life, and of the steps to be taken to prevent blindness, the age at which blindness occurs is becoming steadily and progressively later.
  There has been a substantial fall in the numbers of blind children. In the case of blind children between the ages of 5 and 16 the numbers have fallen since 1925 from 3,104 to 1,916, a decrease of over 38 per cent. This satisfactory advance is shown by particulars of the persons who registered as blind persons for the first time during the year which ended on 31st March last. Only 2.95 per cent. of the 8,700 new cases were under the age of 16 and some 89 per cent. were over the age of 40. That is an advance which we would all desire, and we would all like to see still further progress in that important direction. Despite that advance and notwithstanding the fortitude and cheerfulness with which blindness is borne, we cannot but recognise that it is a great and terrible handicap, more particularly to the great majority of blind people over 40 years of age. I say that because I think the House will agree that it is not normally practicable to train a blind person, after he has attained the
  1898
  age of 40, in a new form of employment. In a letter to the Press quite recently, the Secretary-General of the National Institute for the Blind, Mr. Eagar, says:
  "The Blind Persons Act of 1920 fixed 50 as the pensionable age for blind persons and those pensions have been a boon to many thousands. It has been found in practice, however, that under present-day conditions of industrial competition very few persons who lose their sight after the age of 40 can be trained in any gainful occupation, and voluntary organisations and agencies of the blind themselves have for years been asking that 40 rather than 50 should be recognised as the threshold of unemployability."
  There is also the strong recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind which, I dare say the House knows, has done such valuable work for so many years. There are very many able people on that Committee and they have spent very many years in aiding blind people. Lord Blanesburgh is chairman, and from time to time there have been members like Sir Ian Fraser, Mr. Ben Purse, Mr. Evans, Mr. Owen and other people whose names are quite well known. In 1929 the Advisory Committee first made a recommendation on this matter, and in their Report made in 1935 they say:
  "The opinion was expressed in paragraph 9 of the 1929 Report that a reduction of the age from 50 to 40 for the receipt of an old age pension in the case of blind persons would be justified, and we consider that this holds good to-day with even greater force."
  They go on to say:
  "It is estimated that more than 5,000 persons between 40 and 50 years of age, most of whom are unemployed and by reason of age untrainable for any employment, would thus be benefited, and the grant of the blind old age pension to these persons would help the State to share with the local authorities the cost of providing an adequate system of domiciliary assistance to all unemployable blind persons."
  Therefore, I think there is very strong support for the first and important Clause of this Bill, which would in effect carry out the request that has been so constantly made by the organisations of blind persons themselves and by the Advisory Committee; and I think it will secure to a section of the population whose need is great a regular source of income which will, I hope, at any rate free them from some of their anxieties and help to mitigate some of their incapacities.
  There is another important proposal in the Bill and I think it will be generally

  1899
  welcomed. Prior to the passing of the Local Government Act, 1929, county or county borough councils could, if they chose, give financial assistance to blind persons under the Blind Persons Act, thus preventing them from becoming destitute. If, however, they became destitute, it was incumbent on the guardians to grant them relief. Under the Local Government Act, 1929, as the House knows, the guardians were superseded by the councils of counties and county boroughs, and, under Section 5 of that Act, those councils were given the option of making a declaration that assistance to blind persons would be given under the Blind Persons Act, and not under the Poor Law. That option has been exercised by 23 county councils and 47 county borough councils, 70 out of the total of 146 local authorities who administer the Act in England and Wales, although it may be said that most of the other counties do, in fact, grant this form of assistance under the Blind Persons Act. I believe it will be the general opinion of this House that the time has now come when local authorities should be in line, and that those who have not adopted this course should now be put in the same position as those who have already bound themselves to grant domiciliary assistance to blind persons exclusively under the powers of the Blind Persons Act.
  A Clause will be found in the Bill which gives effect to this, and which also requires that, in assessing the needs of a blind person the council shall take into account the needs of any dependants who are members of his household. So far as the local authorities are concerned, it will, of course, rest with them, as at present, what allowance they make to blind persons m the light of their knowledge of local circumstances and needs. The new obligation upon local authorities, to take into account the needs of any members of the blind person's household who are dependent upon him will ensure, I hope, that the blind person will receive the full benefit of any assistance given. I think there is another matter which I can add in support of this proposal, and that is that it will also avoid the necessity of two forms of assistance to members of the same household—assistance under the Blind Persons Act, and assistance under the Poor Law, which are administered by different committees of the local authorities.
  1900
  There is another matter which has been of some difficulty, so far as local authorities are concerned, with which, no doubt, a number of Members of this House will be familiar. Difficulties have, from time to time, arisen in determining which council shall bear the cost of assistance granted to a blind person who moves from one district to another. This is a matter upon which we have naturally consulted the authorities. I will give an instance of the difficulty of determining chargeability. It may arise in connection with young blind persons who move from a county, in order to be trained in the workshop of a county borough, and, on completion of the training, settle in the county borough itself. A Clause in the Bill provides that the life of the blind person is divided into periods of five years, starting from the date on which any assistance is provided by a local authority in England or Wales. If in any such five-year period the blind person has lived for 12 or more consecutive months within the area of one local authority, the cost of assistance granted to him in the succeeding period of five years is charged on that particular authority. On the other hand, where the blind person has lived for 12 or more consecutive months in the areas of more than one local authority, the cost of assistance granted to him in the succeeding five years is charged to the local authority in whose area he last lived for 12 successive months or more in the definitive period. We hope, arid I am sure the local authorities hope, that the scheme, which is for their advantage, will work smoothly. If difficulties do arise, it is provided that they shall be determined by the Minister.
  Clause 2 (1, a) empowers a local authority to pay or contribute towards the payment of the funeral expenses of a blind person. That Clause has been inserted at the suggestion of local authorities who have represented that since as the law now stands, such expenditure can be incurred only under the Poor Law powers, administrative difficulties may otherwise arise when blind persons are dealt with exclusively under the Blind Persons Act. This provision is inserted to deal with such a contingency.
  Questions have been put to me about the position of voluntary organisations, and whether they would be affected in any

  1901
  way by the provisions of this Measure. I would like to testify, from a knowledge now of some years, that the State and the local authorities and the voluntary agencies each have, as I believe, their special part to play, in co-operation with each other, in services for the welfare of the blind, and I think most people will agree that that has been a successful partnership. I hope that the voluntary agencies will be able to go on with their good work. I believe that if it ceased it would deprive the blind of very many benefits. Most local authorities employ voluntary agencies to carry out one or more of the services for which they are responsible, and I have no doubt that they do so because they are satisfied that those services are best carried out in that way in the interests of blind persons themselves. A great deal of the work done for the blind all over the world has been due to the initiative and work of voluntary agencies.
  I was looking the other day at a fine piece of work by a voluntary agency in this country, which I am sure will commend itself to the House, for increasing the provision of books for the blind. I saw that a well known literary man after a visit to the National Institute for the Blind said, "The reader of Braille has two advantages over the readers of letterpress; his choice of books is limited and on cold nights be can read under the bedclothes." Lovers of books will no doubt appreciate the latter advantage, but I rather doubt the first. It is very costly indeed to produce books in Braille, but I am glad to note that an increasing number are being produced. Last year 25,000 bound volumes in Braille and over 17,000 pamphlets were produced. To my mind one of the most satisfactory things is that this wonderful source of pleasure and education for the blind has been produced and made largely by the blind people themselves. For those, of course, who cannot read in that way, a great deal has been done in connection with the "Moon" type of book, which has been of great value; and one of the most interesting developments, I suppose, is the increasing number of talking books for those who cannot read in the form of gramophone records. I can only say in this connection—and I am sure the blind would say it themselves if they spoke here to-day—how much the blind owe to the British Broadcasting Corporation for
  1902
  the fine services they provide, which, I am sure, have opened up new fields for blind persons.
  This Bill will, of course, in no way check or retard the marked progress in welfare services for the blind in preventive work, in the amelioration of their conditions, and in the provision, to which I know they attach so much importance, for opportunities for occupation and industry. I am sure everybody in the House will want these efforts to continue, so as to give blind people as many contacts as possible with life and the world. I think no better service can be rendered to many blind people than to provide them with training and employment. It says much for the adaptability of the blind that many of them can fill, and are filling to-day, positions, not only of responsibility, but such as require considerable technical and mechanical skill and aptitude. It certainly can be said that the blind have contributed many able members to the various professions, and have also supplied many skilful and industrious craftsmen to trade and industry.
  I would also like to make this observation Notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill, and what is already on the Statute Book. I am sure we shall not overlook, in connection with all our legislative efforts, the importance of the prevention of blindness. T had the opportunity a little while ago to call the attention of local authorities to the recommendations contained in the valuable and comprehensive report on the prevention of blindness by the Standing Committee of the Union of County Associations for the Blind, and, undoubtedly, the measures taken, through the public health and social medical services, for the prevention of infantile blindness and the preservation of the sight of school children, are having an increasing effect in restricting the number of persons becoming blind in early life. H anyone questions the money spent on these services, I say it is one of the best forms of expenditure in the world. The local authorities possess wide powers in this connection, and from October last, when the Public Health Act, 1936, came into operation, the formal consent of the Ministry of Health to arrangements for treatment has no longer been necessary. I want that to be fully understood, because it was the intention of this House when the Measure was passed.
  I also want to emphasise once again not

  1903
  only to this House, but to local authorities and those interested in this work, the importance of home visiting and home teaching in connection with the work of the blind. Efficient visiting helps to ensure the discovery of cases of blindness, and of the extent of individual needs and the provision and teaching of reading and pastime occupations, which are so necessary and desirable to-day. I feel that we particularly want to see the blind trained in the early years of their affliction; later years, unfortunately, often make this quite impossible. I would finally commend the work of the certificated home teachers. That is undoubtedly most valuable work, and I am glad to know that there are to-day some 450 home teachers employed by the local authorities and voluntary organisations. Therefore, I want the House to feel that, although this Bill is being introduced to-day as a contribution to help our friends, the blind people, it is very necessary to emphasise that this other work must go on. It is in the work of prevention especially for the younger generation, that, I believe, in the end the greatest value can be secured.
  Blind people to-day do not ask for pity, but all will agree that they have an overwhelming right to receive a helping hand whenever it is practicable for us to give it, and it is in the hope that these proposals will diminish some of the hardships which they bear so manfully and cheerfully, that I present them to the House, assured that they will receive support from every hon. Member.
  4·32 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman follows me in this House he has a formula which he invariable uses—" The House has listened to a characteristic speech from the right hon. Gentleman." It never conveys much to me, but, no doubt, to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, it is pregnant with meaning. The right hon. Gentleman himself has made a characteristic speech this afternoon. I know no Minister who can put his goods in the shop window to better advantage than the right hon. Gentleman. He is a sort of political Woolworths. The goods are not ever worth very much, but they look good in the shop window, and they are very attractive. I am not saying that
  1904
  what the right hon. Gentleman introduces into this House is cheap and nasty. He is so clever that his proposals are always cheap and nice, but cheap certainly. The greater part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been concerned not with the Bill itself, but with general observations about the welfare of the blind, and I am not surprised that he should have relegated the Bill, the Second Reading of which he is moving, to the second place in his speech.
  I agree with him that the blind seek no pity. The blind want no charity, they do not even ask for sympathy, but they have a fundamental demand for justice. The blind—and I know very many of them—bear themselves always with extraordinary fortitude, courage and cheerfulness, and their desire is to be regarded as normal. There is a moral obligation upon the community to do what it can to enable them, as far as is practicable, to lead normal lives. The problem that we have before us to-day is not a very large one. We have about 76,000 registered blind persons in Great Britain. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not courteous to our sightless citizens to re and them as aged at 50, or, as under this Bill, aged at 40, and I also suggest—and I wish he had taken a broader sweep of his responsibilities in this matter—that it would be far better to take the blind out of the Old Age Pensions Acts altogether and deal with them as a problem, and not let the man or woman who is 40 now, middle aged, be regarded as an old age person. In 1920, in the principal Act, the age for receipt of ordinary pensions of the blind was reduced from 70 to 50 years of age. To-day pretty nearly three-quarters of the blind are ever 50. The recognition by Parliament of the need for special treatment of the aged was, in my view, the recognition of a very vital principle. That principle is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman to-day in his proposal to reduce the age at which the pension shall be received to 40.
  We must keep this Bill in its right perspective. It is not the major Bill which the right hon. Gentleman would like to persuade the House it is. It will result— and I am very grateful for it—in bringing into pension in England and Wales about 7,000 people between 40 and 50. It will involve the State in a maximum

  1905
  of expenditure of about £160,000 per year. I say that it is good that the age should be reduced from 50 to 40, and the right hon. Gentleman made the best of his case by quoting from the report of the Advisory Committee. But why 40? Why not 35? Why not 30? Why not the age at which a blind child is handed over by the local education authority to a hard and difficult world? The right hon. Gentleman has told us—and we are all very glad that it should be so—that magnificent work has been done among young people, and that there is a very substantial decline in blindness among children, and to extend it to the age of 18 would be a relatively small expenditure on the part of the State, for, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, the incidence of blindness increases with age. There are now, between 16 and 40 years of age, only 9,500 blind people, and the cost would be small.
  This House has accepted the principle that under the Poor Law, under the Unemployment Assistance Board, the first 7s. 6d. of health insurance benefit should not be taken into account. It is agreed that the first pound of a disabled exservice man's pension should not be taken into account. That principle, in my view, is right, and for this reason. In the case of the ex-service man, disabled in the Great War, the pension that he receives is what the State regards as necessary to bring him up to normality. It is as much a part of himself as every vein in his body. It is a payment made, not out of charity, not even because of sympathy, but in order to restore that person, as far as possible, to a normal condition of life, and it ought to be as untouchable as his own private honour. If that be so with regard to those who suffered in the Great War, it ought to be equally so regarding those people upon whom the dreadful affliction of blindness has fallen. A boy or girl at 18 who embarks on life, whatever the local education authority may have done for them, is still handicapped and ought to be able to receive this somewhat meagre pension, the value which the State places on the loss of sight, of 10s. a week. I am sorry, as I have said, that the right hon. Gentleman did not take a broader view of his opportunities. I am not sure that I can persuade the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the age to 18, but I leave the thought in his mind.
  1906
  Then we are faced with another problem. I am not so sure that very many of the 7,000 persons between 40 and 50 are, in fact, going to be any better off because of this Bill. I think we shall find that it is small in extent, and is a subtle way in which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to subsidise local authorities, for they will take into account, in the provision that they make for the blind, the 10s. pension. It is a complaint of blind pensioners over 50 years of age to-day that they do not enjoy their pension. The local authority makes provision for maintenance, but the 10s. is taken away from the amount that the blind people would otherwise have received. If the principles I have enunciated are right, that where there is physical defect which the State turns into money and calls it a pension, that pension ought not to be taken into account by the local authorities. I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have made that perfectly clear. I am not one of those who wish to increase the financial obligations of local authorities, but the sum is so small that it seems to me reasonable to ask that legislation should make it impossible for the local authority to take away from the pensioner the pension which the State has given him because of his affliction. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has done something to take the blind away from the Poor Law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has been dealing with this matter for a very long time, and I have been for 20 years doing everything I could to get everybody away from the Poor Law. I dislike the treatment that is meted out to people who have to come under the harrow of the Poor Law, and I dislike especially the contact with the Poor Law of those suffering from serious physical defect for which they are not responsible.
  The Bill does two main things. It reduces the pensionable age from 50 to 40, and to that extent it will assist the local authorities. The pensioners will be little better off. However, I accept this recognition that a blind person of 40 is entitled to some consideration from the State. In the second place, the Bill does something to take people away from the Poor Law. In the Committee stage I may have other questions to raise, although the drafting of the sub-title of

  1907
  the Bill will rather cramp me. There is, however, the Motion "that the Clause stand part," and I may have something to say then. I should like to draw attention to Clause 2, where there is a re-draft of Section 2 of the Act of 1920. The words: "where in combination or otherwise," referring to the local authorities, are left out of the Bill. I should like to know whether, in some way that is not recognisable by the layman, there is some deep motive behind the exclusion of these words.
  Mr. Graham White: The words are in Clause 2 (1).
  Mr. Greenwood: In the principal Act the words are "whether in combination or otherwise," and they are not included in the redraft. I should like to know whether in the event of certain schemes which the right hon. Gentleman has approved having to be modified because of the new obligations he has put in Clause 2, those schemes will have to be re-submitted, because out of Section 2 of the principal Act there has gone the reference to the approval of the Minister. I have long suspected the right hon. Gentleman of always trying to wriggle out of his responsibilities. I am not satisfied that that is sound policy.
  I do not want to say anything on the eider aspect of the subject, since the right hon. Gentleman spent the greater part of his speech talking irrelevantly about things which are not in the Bill. He spoke of the importance of training, the importance of steps necessary for the prevention of blindness, and the wide powers which have been conferred on local authorities. I should like to know what he means to do about these matters. He says now in this Bill that the approval of the Minister is not necessary, but after the speech he has made to-day if the blind community are to rely upon it, it will require a little initiative from the right hon. Gentleman to make the schemes now in existence far more effective. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the schemes submitted under the Act of 1920 were not all equally good. I do not put it any worse than that. It is certainly true that there are certain authorities who are not doing as much in fulfilling their obligations to their blind people as other authorities. The responsibility rests upon the right hon. Gentleman to deal with that
  1908
  problem. The schemes now are haphazard. I regard some of them as highly unsatisfactory, and some of them will have to be amended by the new duties which the right hon. Gentleman is imposing under Clause 2 with regard to taking blind people out of the Poor Law.
  I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have undertaken the larger problem of establishing proper regional authorities for the welfare of the blind. When you are dealing in Great Britain with 76,000 people, the average size of the local authority is such that too few of these people will come in their charge for them to be able to provide a full and adequate service. The fewer the people you have to deal with the larger the administering authority should be, and although one would not like the authorities too large, I am of opinion that from the view of efficiency the larger authorities are necessary. I will not refer to the delicate question of the block grant, except to say that I never agreed with the block grant, and I was never beaten in argument on it but only in numbers. Where you are dealing with a special problem there is something to be said for a percentage grant, but I think this country would honour itself if it restored the 75 per cent. Exchequer grant to local authorities for the welfare of the blind. The sum would be negligible, but the happiness that would be brought to our blind comrades would be inestimable, because hard-hit local authorities would be able to fulfil their responsibilities in a way that they have not been fulfilled before.
  We shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We can only regret that it does not show a broader and nobler vision. It will be difficult for us, according to the terms of the sub-title of the Bill, to make substantial Amendments. We accept the Measure for what it is worth, which is not much, in the hope that in the very near future the right hon. Gentleman will introduce a charter for the blind which will bring to the blind a new happiness and a new dignity and will serve to enhance the dignity of our people.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. White: I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that the observations of the Minister of Health were not wholly devoted to the proposals in the Bill, and

  1909
  that the wider aspects of the whole duty of sighted people to those who are afflicted with blindness do not find a place in the Bill. I share the general regret that the Bill is not of wider scope and calculated to bring us nearer to the time when Parliament and the people of the country will finally discharge their whole duty to the blind. I have an abiding memory of a deputation from non-sighted people which was received in May this year by the Minister of Health. I was led, as a result of that deputation, to believe that there is no one who can appreciate the feelings of the blind and can state their case with such ability, earnestness and purpose as the blind people themselves. Anyone present on that occasion could not but be struck by the strength of the case, which was put with simple dignity. I find myself regretting that we have not associated with us to-day some former colleagues who, overcoming their physical difficulties, have risen to positions where they have been able to make substantial and important contributions to our deliberations. We have a lively and grateful recollection of Sir Ian Fraser, and we also remember that: in former Parliaments Mr. Fred Martin, with courage and ability, took part on equal terms with the rest of us in considering questions brought before the House.
  In the "Times" to-day I notice a letter from Sir Ian Fraser welcoming this Bill as a small and kindly contribution towards the needs and necessities of the blind. The question that I am asking myself, and perhaps hon. Members in all parts of the House are asking themselves the same question, is whether Parliament at this stage is going to be content, or ought to be content, with a small and kindly contribution towards the major problem of our duty towards the blind. As Sir Ian Fraser says;
  "It is a substantial step towards the civilian disability pension for blindness which it is my hope will one day he granted."
  That, as I understand it, is the proposition which the right hon. Member for Wakefield left to the kindly memory of the Minister, and I would associate myself and my friends with it in the hope that it is an advance towards a civilian disability pension for the blind. This is not a step which should be insuperable for Parliament; I can see no reason why it should be impossible. If it is I should
  1910
  like to know the reason. We are not dealing with enormous costs. If this is beyond the compass of the British Parliament, then we are in a much worse state than can possibly be imagined. We sometimes fail in perspective. We are dealing with a few hundred thousand pounds which would enable Parliament to perform a duty to the blind which everyone would see done with a great deal of satisfaction. I do not think the financial reason is sufficient for holding back. In recent times we have passed, almost without comment, increases of expenditure of £1,000,000 to the Unemployment Assistance Board, not for any benefits to its clients, but simply for it to perform services and carry out its administration, although the number of payments it is making are less than half what they were when the board came into operation. There should be a general review of our services to get a proper perspective and devote some of the money to far better advantage.
  I would invite the House to discharge a duty which is almost a matter of conscience towards those who are unfortunately blind. Ought we not really to finish this job and discharge our whole responsibility? I realise that no sighted person can enter into the feelings of the blind completely; it is not humanly possible. But one of the most painful feelings and experience is the sensation that they are dependent upon others. The fact that they are blind places a further disability on all members of their household which may be ill-placed to carry the burden. That feeling does not begin at the age of 40; it is just as likely to be there at the age of 18. That is a point which we must bear in mind. I think the dictates of common sense and our feelings indicate that we should go further than is proposed in the Bill.
  I should like to associate myself with the right hon. Member for Wakefield and ask for a further explanation with regard to the modification in Clause 2. I understand that this Clause does not repeal Section II of the principal Act, and if that is the case, our anxiety and uncertainty in the matter may be displaced, but it strikes me as curious that the words "whether in combination or otherwise" have been omitted from Clause 2. It is most important that there should be the widest measure of co-operation between various authorities. In Scotland some 21 authorities have

  1911
  combined and made a satisfactory scheme, which I understand is working very well. It seems to me quite unreasonable to expect a small authority to make provision for the training and wellbeing of blind persons in their area, and it is obviously to the advantage of everybody that we should have the largest authority possible making proper provision which it can well do, and cooperating with small authorities for carrying out this duty. I hope we shall hear that it is the intention of the Minister to encourage that process.
  In Clause 3 the Parliamentary draftsman with great skill has drawn up a Clause which, no doubt, is clear to lawyers, but which leads to a good deal of thought on the part of a layman. I take it that this is a simplification of the present method, but I think there is a good deal to be said for the argument put forward by many non-sighted friends, that it would be far better and simpler if any liability arising under the law from blindness should reside permanently with the authority of the area in which the blind person was living during the 12 months in which he became blind. That would be a simplification, and would be a method which would deal more fairly between authority and authority than the arrangements which exist at the present time. Local authorities, like Bolton and Liverpool, because they are well in advance in their preparations for helping the blind in hospitals and by training, have attracted to their areas large numbers of blind persons from adjoining territories. There is nothing in the air or the occupations of Bolton and Liverpool which lead to a greater incidence of blindness. I have read this Clause with such intelligence as I have, and am not satisfied that it is a better or simpler plan than the one I am advocating.
  Like hon. Members above the Gangway my friends and I are glad that the Bill has been introduced. We regret that the Minister has not introduced a wider and bolder Measure, because that is what I think the House would wish him to do. It is, I know, most ungracious to look a gift horse in the mouth—a thing which I am at all times most reluctant to do— and if I do so on this occasion with such particularity, it is because I am convinced that the Minister only wants to be
  1912
  assured that hon. Members in all parts of the House are behind him. to bring in a Bill which would meet the desires and wishes of the whole House and make the Measure a much more substantial and better step than is proposed in this Bill.
  5·9 p.m.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: I do not wish to spend much time in recording the great satisfaction which any medical man must feel at the general agreement in the House on a Measure which is proposed as a small step towards improving the lot of those for whom we all have so much sympathy. But there is this to be said, and I think it should be said on the last point put forward by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). He is a specialist in this particular matter, and the worst of a specialist is that he naturally emphasises one thing to the exclusion of others. If there is to be any extension of the Measure later on, I should warmly endorse it. I should equally wish to draw attention to the fact, that whereas provision has been made for the blind, first, in giving pensions at 70, then dropping the age to 50 and now to 40, no special provision has been made for the deaf. Yet the deaf are almost as tragic as the blind—perhaps more tragic in one way. When you see a blind person your heart is moved, but when you see a deaf person who looks like an ordinary person he is considered dull and surly because of his deafness. There is not the same sympathy. I hope those who are asking for an extension of this Bill will not be deaf to the needs of the deaf. It is only natural, when we are extending a measure of assistance for one particular infirmity, to suggest that in the case of other afflictions some considerations should also be paid.
  But when we are doing that should we not go further as regards the system. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) referred to the system of pensions for ex-service men. It occurs to me, and it must occur to the House, that to extend pensions on a flat level according to age, quite regardless of disabilities one way or another, is not a scientific way to meet the needs of the occasion. We have 20 years' experience now of the system of dealing with exservice men, to whom help is given according to their degree of disability assessed in a most remarkably accurate way by a body of experts in the Pensions

  1913
  Ministry. I believe that in the same way you can assess the needs more or less of the blind and give them similar help whether they are 70 years of age, 60, 50, 40, and even down to 18 years of age. Surely that suggestion must have been made before, and I am a little surprised that use has not been made of it, since it would be a more scientific way of assessing the needs of blind persons. However, I fear that it would not be possible to amend the Measure in that way within the financial commitments of the Bill.
  I wish now to pass to one of the most elementary and essential considerations which we must have in mind in dealing with this Bill, that is, the prevention of the trouble. The Minister gave us the welcome news that the number of cases of blindness of children between the ages of five and to years has been reduced by about one-third of what it was 12 years ago. That is largely due to the measures that have been taken to cope with ophthalmia of the newly-born. Hon. Members know that it has been possible to take those measures because of the fact that the horrible convention of concealing venereal disease has been abolished, with the result that proper treatment has been given for the prevention of it, and that has led to a reduction in the number of appalling tragedies of little infants being born practically blind and becoming blind during the first few days of their life.
  To what has that been due? Mainly to the operations of the British Social Hygiene Council, a body which was originally set up by the present Prime Minister, and which is now largely supported by local authorities giving subventions to it. I would like to take this opportunity to urge that when we are pouring forth money and taking measures, although slight ones, to cause some amelioration in the position, a good deal more than is being clone at present ought to be done for the prevention of the trouble. Many local authorities sub- scribe to the British Social Hygiene Council, but many neglect their duties and do not. There are many possibilities of extending the operations of this organisation, which has already done such magnificent work during the past 12 years. The bigger local authorities, in particular, are able to have their own organisation and officials to pursue this
  1914
  work, but the smaller authorities throughout the country, especially those which are in financial or other difficulties, ought to give further support to the British Social Hygiene Council so that it can pursue the work.
  There is another measure of prevention which I wish to impress upon the House. Last year the Midwifery Act was passed, and now, as a result of an increase in personnel an improvement of training, under the supervision and with the skilled assistance of the midwives of the country, we have a very fine midwifery service which I hope, within the next few years, will be improved almost to perfection. I hope that the result of these measures and activities will be a diminution in the provision that is necessary for blind persons from the age of 40 upwards, which will enable us to make provision for blind persons from the age of 18 upwards. I hope we shall be able to use the money that may be saved as a result of a smaller number of persons becoming blind in future years for the purpose of making suitable arrangements to provide for those whose need is greater than the need of the generality.
  In conclusion, while always wishing to further provisions for helping those who are disabled in one way or another, I wish to impress upon such people—if it be necessary—and upon those authorities and persons who wish to support them, the prime necessity of the people so assisted, helping themselves, for by making a proper use of the assistance given to them, they can treble its value. The blind as a whole are not backward in making full use of their own powers, but it should be emphasised that the assistance given by this Bill should not he regarded simply as so much dole measured out; rather, it should be considered as assistance which, with their own help, will enable them to triumph over their disabilities, as many of them do so splendidly at present. I am glad to support this Measure, which is a further useful contribution to assist the blind.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Lansbury: I wish to join in the chorus of approval of this Bill, as far as it goes, and also to congratulate the Minister upon being such an excellent showman of any goods that he has to display. This afternoon, however, he has given us some remarks on the general

  1915
  question of the treatment of the blind and has not said very much about the Bill, of what might have been in it or the reason it is not in it. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the sort of Bill that ought to have been brought forward to-day, and he has taken very good care not to say anything about it.
  I wish to say a few words about the assessment of disability. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) stated that he was very much in favour of the system laid down for ex-service men, but my experience is that that is not a good system for the persons concerned. I do not think physical disability can be assessed in the sort of pseudoscientific manner in which doctors and others try to do it. I have suffered from a disability which, if I had had to earn my living in the ordinary way, would have been a great hindrance to me. Sometimes that disability it much worse than it is at other times, but if I had had to exist on assistance based upon such a system of assessment, I am sure it would often have failed to satisfy my needs. I hope hon. Members will dismiss from their minds that sort of method of dealing with the blind.
  I would like to refer briefly to the deaf. All of us wish to assist those who are helpless, no matter what may be the cause, and I think this country can take some credit to itself for the fact that during the last 30 or 40 years a great advance has been made in treating people who are mentally or physically disabled, whether they be children or adults. The manner in which at least some education authorities are dealing with blind or deaf children is indeed wonderful. I am carried away in admiration when I go to a London County Council school for deaf children, or when I see the treatment that is given to the blind.
  The right hon. Gentleman took pains to tell us of the good work and great services done by the voluntary organisations. I think there is nobody on this side of the House who would belittle the work that has been, and still is being, done by voluntary organisations. I understand that all the Braille books that are being produced, and the records that are being made so that books can be read to the blind, are the result of private efforts.
  1916
  But every social service that we have created has grown Cut of philanthropic efforts, and it has grown out of them because of the widening sense of social responsibility and the fact that private philanthrophy, however good people may be, has never been able really to fill the bill. I think that in this respect the Minister has not lived up to the record of the Government. The unemployed have been made very largely a national charge, and I am sure that within a very few years the whole of the able bodied will have been taken entirely away from the Poor Law. Theoretically that has been done.
  I think the mistake which the Minister has made has been in bringing forward this small Bill rather than in taking the charge of dealing with the blind altogether away from the local authorities. The small deputation of representatives of blind persons which I took to the right hon. Gentleman a few months ago made the point—-which was also made by my right hon. Friend—that this money will, to a large extent, go to the local authorities, and at the time they felt that the Government, in lowering the age, as they are doing now, ought not to do it in such a manner as to relieve the local authorities, as it were, of that amount of expenditure which they are now obliged to make. I hope that soon, instead of leaving it to the whim of local authorities to fix one standard in one district and another standard in some other district, we shall have a national organisation, administered, if you please, through local authorities or area authorities, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). What I am pleading for is that we should have some uniformity, not a uniformity that is dependent upon the opinions of different local authorities, but a uniformity that will be rational and paid for nationally.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to theMinistry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Is the right hon. Gentleman advocating that the State should assume all the obligations towards blind persons?
  Mr. Lansbury: That is my fundamental object—that the State should take over the entire cost of assisting the blind. There is nothing to be said against it. I am very heterodox on this question of local and national expenditure. The

  1917
  money has to come from somewhere, and, in my judgment, it is better that it should come from the whole body of citizens, than from this place or that place, with each authority applying a different standard. [An HON. MEMBER: "And some applying no standard."] Some have no standard at all, but, thank goodness, they are very few. There is, however, a great difference between what a man may be able to get, say, in West Ham—and I only use this as an illustration—and what he may be able to get in the County of London. I would like to have all those differences swept away. I would like the Government to undertake the whole cost of dealing with the blind and make it a national charge.
  I would also like to see the fine work which has been started in the provision of books and records subsidised, if not entirely taken over by the Government. If I were Minister of Health I would try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money required for taking over that great work. One of the most terrible drawbacks suffered by the blind person is the inability to read as we are able to read The cost of having books printed in Braille is very high, and the provision of records is also very costly. I hope that at a future time, when the present Parliamentary Secretary is in the Minister's place, he will round off the piece of work represented by this Bill, in the manner which I have suggested. As regards Clause 3, I think it is an anachronism that it should be necessary to go over all this wretched settlement business in order to find out where a man belongs to, and so forth. I think all local authorities should undertake to care for these people wherever they come from without worrying about whether it will be possible to make a claim against some other district or not. Usually, local authorities spend more money in finding out where the people come from, in order to make claims, than they get out of the claims—and I speak on this matter with some experience and knowledge.
  I was glad to hear the Minister's reference to Members of this House. One of my earliest recollections is that of hearing Henry Fawcett, the blind Postmaster-General. Years ago, there was not a man to whom I listened with greater pleasure. He had conquered his disability and become one of the most brilliant Members of this House. I am glad to have had a
  1918
  hand in at least two efforts on behalf of the blind. One was a Motion which was moved either by myself, or by my friend Frank Smith of the London County Council, which resulted in ophthalmia neonatorum being made a notifiable disease. I believe the mere necessity of notification has had a great deal to do with reducing the number of blind people in this country. As to the other effort to which I refer, I hope that Government offices generally will follow the example which we set at the Office of Works when we employed a blind girl as a shorthand typist. It was marvellous how that girl did the work, and it showed the great benefit of training in the case of young persons who are blind. I am referring particularly to the shorthand because we do not wish young people who are blind to grow up with the feeling that they must take any sort of job. We want them to feel that anything is open to them, if the necessary facilities are placed at their disposal and are made use of by them.
  It would be absurd for us to dream of opposing this Bill, but we would like to amend it. We would like it to be made broader on the lines which I have indicated, and I stress the point which has already been made that in this as in so many other cases prevention should be our real aim. The Bill represents another step along the road. Years ago when some of us expounded the doctrine of the prevention of destitution and of pain many people laughed at us, but the work which was then started is going on, and it is now accepted as an axiom in our social services that it is much better to deal with disease and destitution by way of prevention than to wait until it is necessary to deal with the effects of those evils. As I say, this is a step in that direction, and I wish I could say that our country was doing the same thing in regard to a much greater evil, namely, war.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Allan Chapman: There was one point in the eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just concluded which struck me, and that was his reference to the question of the blind being made a national charge. I do not know that I go the whole way with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have a feeling that there is another side of the case from that which he presented but it is, possibly, a question for investigation and one which ought to be borne in

  1919
  mind. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the "Showmanship" of the Minister of Health. We have heard a great deal about that, and my personal opinion is that it has been grossly unfair. After all, the main duty cf the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and his friends is to oppose. The right hon. Gentleman I thought in his reference to my right hon. Friend and Woolworths was a little beside the point. When he made that remark I thought the right hon. Gentleman himself was in the penny bazaar. A little later on, he rose to Marks and Spencers, but he did not stay there very long.
  The representatives of the blind people who visited this House yesterday paid an eloquent tribute to the sympathy and understanding of my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I think it would be a great pity if they were to get the idea that we regarded this Bill as a poor Bill. I do not agree with that view at all. I think the Bill is a very beautiful legislative child, if not quite as large as some of us would like. While many of us wished to see a larger Measure, do net let us overlook the fact that the Bill has some important points to recommend it. The blind people themselves were most emphatic in saying that they desired it to go through, and that there were great advantages in it. I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their criticisms of my right hon. Friend have overlooked one important factor. It is that although my right hon. Friend would no doubt like to get at the purse for this purpose, he does not control the pursestrings. He has to press his demand with all the vigour he can on an adamantine Treasury. I regret that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary who is a Scotsman, and who recently defended the threepenny piece so eloquently is not on the Front Bench at present, otherwise we might appeal to him and soften his heart so that he would listen to the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to loosen those purse strings a little for this just cause.
  I am sure that this House always welcomes any Measure for improving the lot of the blind, and that any Measure of
  1920
  that kind would be regarded as definitely non-party. Let us also remember that major Bills dealing with the care of the blind are not frequent. I think I am correct in saying that the last major Measure of this kind was introduced 17 years ago. That is a long time, and I think hon. Members in all parts of the House are glad at the prospect of passing the present Bill. Those who have taken part in this discussion have all been enthusiastic for the excellent cause which we are espousing, and perhaps our enthusiasm has carried us away to some extent. It is true that we would like to see a rather more comprehensive Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would have the whole House behind him if he represented to the Treasury that, whatever criticisms the House might be disposed to make of other expenditure, when it came to dealing with the needs of blind persons, that was one subject on which the House would not insist upon economy. I think it has been made clear in all parts of the House that the sympathy of hon. Members generally is emphatically with the Minister in anything he can do to enlarge the scope of measures taken for the assistance of the blind, and if we cannot do much more with the actual proposals now before us, I hope the Minister will be emboldened by the reception with which this Bill has met, to consider future legislation for the benefit of the blind.
  I gather from conversations which I have had with blind persons recently that they were expecting something a little larger in scope than this Bill, but we were careful when we were discussing matters with them yesterday not to raise their hopes unduly by suggesting that it would be possible to go much further than this Bill at the present time. I would earnestly plead, however, with my right hon. Friend, and I know my words will not fall idly, to consider the fact that he would carry the House with him in any proposals to extend the scope of this legislation. I say, frankly, that I find myself to some extent in agreement with what has been said from the benches opposite on the question of age. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield asked why the age of 40 should be specified. There he made a point which I had on my own notes, and which I am sure is on the notes of other hon. Members who propose to take part in this Debate.

  1921
  The Minister quoted a letter from the Secretary of the National Institute for the Blind which spoke of a man being "on the threshold of unemployability" at the age of 40. I think a man is on the threshold of unemployability, whatever his age may be, at the point where his special, more juvenile, education ceases and if it has failed to make him employable. It is not possible to say that the age of 40 is the "threshold of unemployability" in the case of all people who are afflicted by blindness. I will not press that point further because other hon. Members have, in more eloquent words than I could command, given the reasons why that age should not be regarded as a static figure.
  But there is one other important point to which I would direct the Minister's attention, and that is the definition of blindness dealt with in Clause 5. Some of the blind institutions in Scotland have been making representations on this among a great many other matters. Most of the other matters really involve Committee points, but on the definition of blindness, I would like to read an extract from a letter from the Secretaries of the Royal Blind Asylum and School, Edinburgh;
  "… it would be an unfortunate result if the definition of Blind contained in the Blind Persons Bill is repeated in this Bill and practically given permanency. The Directors feel that this definition of Blindness is the basis of legislative and charitable work for the Blind and that an effort should be made to frame a more definite and workable definition. They suggest that some of the leading Organisations for the Blind and the Ophthalmological Society he consulted."
  I think that is important, because we find children in our blind schools who are blind for purposes of education, but when they pass from that stage they do not qualify as blind persons. I think the Minister will have an admirable case for setting up a committee of experts, both lay and medical, to go into this question and try to evolve some scientific definition of blindness.
  The figures which the Minister gave us on the subject of the decrease in blindness were I thought the most hopeful I have heard for a very long time and do credit to the interest of his Ministry. They will inspire blind people by the knowledge that the generation that is coming on will be given a better chance than they were given. One of the reasons why we
  1922
  might have made that age limit lower than 40 is the fact, as the Minister pointed out in his speech, that the incidence of blindness is not increasing and that any apparent increase has been clue to more willing registration. I think I am correct in saying that, as far as Scotland is concerned, there is a definite improvement arid that the number of blind people is going down year by year, thank God; and we hope it will continue to do so. We can and we must assist that process by passing legislation through this House to prevent blindness, to cure it, and to make absolutely certain that the necessary steps are taken as early as possible, because had we been able to get this age limit down below 40, for instance, the financial charge would have been, as it is, a diminishing charge in the future. One believes that the means of prevention that will be brought forward will make blindness decrease and so hasten the charge as a diminishing one. I am certain that, had we had a chance of getting at the Treasury, we could have persuaded them on this, and that the amount involved would not be so very large.
  May I, in conclusion on this point of the prevention of blindness, ask for the sympathy of the House in a small matter? I hope, in the course of a week or two to introduce, with the permission of the House under the Ten-Minute Rule, a private Member's Bill to deal with the treatment and prevention of blindness in Scotland, and I sincerely trust the House will give me its sympathy and will encourage the Scottish Office to aid me in getting a Second Reading of that Bill. I want to finish, as a I started, by congratulating my right hon. Friend on having brought forward this Bill and by urging him not to be misled by hon. Members opposite, because, after all, it is their duty to oppose, though in their heart of hearts they are extremely pleased that this Blind Persons Bill has been brought forward, and I am sure welcome it most heartily.
  5·48 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen: I wish to say a few words in support of the appeal that has been made to the Minister to make his Bill a little bit broader. On behalf of my hon. Friends here and myself, I want to say how much we regret the slow progress that is made with regard to this matter of social reform. In every branch we

  1923
  seem to be able to get only a little bit at a time, and I think it is very much to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not show a little more of the courage, with regard to this particular Measure, that he has displayed on many occasions. I have been looking at the Financial Resolution, and I notice that it is so drawn as to make impossible an Amendment in the Bill with regard to the reduction of the age below 40. I wonder whether it is not one of the first signs that the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday with regard to the drafting of Financial Resolutions is not going to be observed. As a Member of the Committee, I wanted something much more drastic than most other Members on that Committee with regard to this matter, but I think, at least on a Measure like this, the Minister should have given the House an opportunity of saying something with regard to the age that should be inserted in the Bill.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway made a most admirable examination of the Bill and its defects, and I was very glad indeed to hear him lay down the principle that he thinks ought to be observed with regard to assistance in these cases, namely, that the assistance should be such as to put persons receiving it into a position of normality with others. There was one interesting point that he made in that connection, when he drew attention to the 7s. 6d. of the National Health Insurance and how it was laid down that that 75. 6d. was not to be taken into account in connection with assistance provided under the Poor Law, and I should like to take that as an illustration of what might happen here with regard to the treatment of the blind. There is always the tendency on the part of local authorities to take this assistance into account where it should not be so taken, and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway would persuade his Labour colleagues on the Glasgow Town Council not to take it into account as they are doing at the present time. For example, people with the 7s. 6d. are having their claim for clothing refused or, if granted, granted only on a credit basis, and having to pay Is. a week from the 7s. 6d. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle so admirably to-day that I hope his colleagues in Glasgow will take full
  1924
  account of it and will agree with him that it would be dishonourable to act in that way and take those sums into account.
  It appears to me that the Minister would have the full consent of the House if he were prepared to alter the Bill in order to make the age 18, and I would suggest, in view of the unanimous opinion of the House, that he should withdraw his Financial Resolution and deal with the matter once and for all in respect of these people. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Chapman) was just as critical of the Bill as anybody else, though I admired the way in which, in the end, he congratulated the Minister after he had, as it were, hit him all over previously. I think that that hon. Member from the Minister's own side of the House may be taken as illustrative of what is practically the unanimous feeling in the House on this subject. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need have any fear in going to the Treasury. It would be a great opportunity for him. A distinguished predecessor of his, namely, my colleague the late John Wheatley, in somewhat similar circumstances, came into conflict with the Treasury in connection with his Housing Bill, and showed his courage and his manliness in getting his Bill through, in spite of all the Treasury remonstrances. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take a leaf out of his predecessor's book and do justice to the blind people, even though it might mean a little bit of conflict with the Treasury.
  I also want to support what was said by the hon. Member who preceded me with regard to the definition of a blind person, and I think the Minister might give us the assurance that he will go into this question in order to get some improvement on the present position. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will, I am sure, have had the same experience as myself of people coming to them who, to all intents and purposes, are blind, but who are not able to come under the definition of blindness. They cannot get a job, and they are in a worse position than those who are able to get certified as blind people. They are in an absolutely hopeless position, and I believe that it is necessary for this House to do something in order to deal with the difficulties of those cases. One was mentioned, and I had a similar case, of a. person who had been accepted by an

  1925
  education authority as a blind person, and then, on coming out into the world afterwards, being told that after all, lie was not able to come under the definition of blindness laid down in the Blind Persons Act. I think that such a state of matters is intolerable.
  The case of the deaf was menitoned, and I have the utmost sympathy with them and wish that something were done for I hem, as there are Members who on previous occasions have brought cases before the House and nothing has been clone. I want to add, however, to the case of the blind the case of the cripples. Throughout the country there are cripples certified as incurable, and they are in an even worse position than the blind. When they get out of a chair they are unable to move about. If they go outside, they need someone to take them about, and there is nothing for them but the Poor Law. I wish the Minister would give us some assurance, when he is replying, that something will be done in the way of legislation to give the cripples in the community an allowance, as is the case with regard to the blind. I think the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was very sound when he said that the case of these people should be taken out of the scope of the old age pension idea altogether and put on the basis of their disability, which puts them into such a difficult position as compared with other members of the community; and then their old age pension rights should come to them in the same way as to normal people. This disability is something apart from their age, and I commend their case to the Minister of Health. There has been social reform for one section and another, and there are these incurable cripples who never seem to get any concession whatsoever. I therefore trust that the Government will do something for these people. I am sure the House would be unanimous in supporting me in my appeal on their behalf, and I hope that we shall get a promise of legislation which will bring them some hope.
  6.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. James Reid): I intervene at this point in the Debate only in order to make a few observations on the problem so far as it affects Scotland, and on the parts of the Bill which are specially directed to
  1926
  Scotland. The problem is almost identical in the two countries, and the existing practice does not differ in many respects. I do not intend to encroach upon the province of my hon. Friend who will reply to the Debate by dealing with general topics. I would like, however, to say that it seems to me unnecessary to belittle the provisions of this Bill merely because you happen to think it might have gone further. For example, I understand that at present there are approximately 4,800 blind people in Scotland who are drawing pensions, and it is estimated that the result of passing this Bill will be to increase the number by a further 1,000. That is not inconsiderable in comparison with the number of those who suffer from this disability.
  Mr. George Griffiths: What would be the figure if the age were reduced to 18?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that the total number of registered blind people in Scotland is about 8,000, but I have not the precise figure. I will try to get it. Passing to the special case of Scotland, Clause 2 does not make a great difference so far as the blind person himself is concerned, because at present almost all the authorities deal with the blind persons, not under the Poor Law, but under the special powers in the Blind Persons Act. Clause 2 regularises the position for the blind person himself, but it makes a material and salutary change in that it takes away from the Poor Law the question of granting assistance to the blind person's dependants. It is not only unbusinesslike, but unfair that the dependants of a blind person should be required to have resort to the Poor Law. That unfortunate position is being removed by the Bill. A word was said about the scales which different local authorities apply. There does not seem to be much difficulty in that matter in Scotland because we are not troubled, as apparently certain authorities are in England, by the problem of migration of blind persons from one area to another. There is no substantial problem of that character, and for that reason Clause 3 is not made applicable to Scotland. There is no demand from the local authorities for its application. The only case in which there need be any contribution from one authority to another with regard to a person living in another area is where a blind person

  1927
  has gone into one of the cities to attend a workshop or place of training. Special provision is made for that in Clause 4.
  Only one detailed criticism has been made with regard to the administration of the Bill in Scotland, and it was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. A. Chapman) and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). It related to the definition of blindness. In Scotland there was a good deal of difficulty at one time because there was no standardised method of determining whether a person was blind within the meaning of the Act. Some years ago the Department consulted the various ophthalmic surgeons concerned. They combined in making representations as to what was the best method of testing a blind person. That method has now been adopted and there is a universal test operating for the whole of Scotland under much more satisfactory conditions than previously applied. It has been operating for a considerable time. In every area except one, where there does not happen to be available more than one ophthalmic surgeon, the test is carried out by surgeons acting in pairs in regional clinics. Accordingly, people now have the best advice in the best surroundings, and, as far as I know, nobody has disputed the character or sufficiency of the test. Therefore, we have in Scotland gone a long way to meet the criticism of both lion Members; in fact, I think we may say we have forestalled criticism of that kind. The test has been operating since 1931.
  Mr. Stephen: I am under the impression that I had a case in 1935.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have not the least doubt that the hon. Member has had cases of constituents who have failed the test, but there must always be border-line cases of people whose eyesight is far from good and who do not pass the test for blindness.
  Mr. A. Chapman: Does that scheme apply to the whole of Scotland?
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There are, I think, five, but certainly four, regional clinics. The furthest north is at Inverness, but I presume that it covers the whole of the northern area. Certainly Edinburgh, Glasgow and the
  1928
  large cities are covered by clinics. With regard to the question by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) about the number of blind persons in Scotland, I regret that the figure is not for the moment available.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. Green: The discussion, which has been very interesting, must have been gratifying to the Minister, for the criticism has been directed practically to one point, and that has been shared equally by Members on both sides. The Bill, it seems to me, will put the Minister to the test as to how far he will go down to posterity as a Minister of courage when he realises that a course of action is being pressed upon him which every section of the House would hasten to support. I am afraid, however, that the Minister may go down to posterity as one who started out to do well but who rarely accomplished it, and as a man whose Bills were generally in the right direction but were invariably described in all parts of the House as not going nearly far enough. While the criticism has been in one direction to-night there was an exception when the hon. Member below the Gangway attempted to take away the halo from the Minister which, by universal consent, has been bestowed upon him for being the most famous salesman and showman the House has yet produced. I felt sorry for the Minister when I heard that criticism because I am of opinion that if the Minister's Bills could be bought at his own valuation and sold at their market value somebody would go bankrupt. I was reminded when the Minister was introducing the Bill of the salesman who recently won a prize in an international contest for salesmanship because he succeeded in selling a book entitled "Aids to the Development of Self-Confidence" to one of the two dictators whose names are often on our lips.
  It seems to me amazing, that a Bill that has so many good points, and that must obviously commend itself universally inside and outside the House, should stop short at the point where most people feel that it ought to go on. I had the honour of serving for many years on the London County Council, and I believe that they are doing one of the biggest jobs any local authority is doing in connection with the welfare of the blind. I took the opportunity of having a chat

  1929
  with some of those responsible for the work to ascertain their views on this Bill. As one might have expected, the first comment that they made was the one that has been made so frequently to-day, namely, why should the Bill stop at 40? Is it on account of the poverty of the country? We cannot believe that. Or is it on account of the undesirable character of those who are under 40? I cannot think that can be so. What is the real reason? In this House we deal too frequently with big problems in piece-meal fashion and I am not sure that it is to our credit. I look forward to the time when Minister will be bold enough to look at a problem in all its aspects, and, when it does not offer insuperable difficulties, to settle it in a broad statesmanlike way. In this case the Government have recognised that, for reasons of expediency, the old age pension level of 70 years of age must be reduced in the case of the blind. The age level was 50, and it is now to be made 40, but surely every reason which can be advanced for lowering the age from 50 to 40 would apply equally to lowering the age below 40. There are many between 30 and 40 who are untrainable, and yet they are left out of consideration.
  We have asked what are the numbers involved between the ages of 18 and 40, and I was surprised that the Solicitor-General for Scotland was not able to answer that question. I gather from the twelfth report of the Advisory Committee on the Blind, which was presented to the Minister, that the number of blind persons in England and Wales between 16 and 40 years of age was 9,500 during the years 1934–37 and if that is so the problem is not so big or so insoluble as some might have imagined, and I make this appeal—backed by what the London County Council people say— that the Minister should even now consider whether it is not possible to deal with this problem in the way in which 90 people out of 100 would like to see it dealt with. There is a further point which the London County Council have raised which I am sure is in the minds of all hon. Members. We all agree— even the Minister must believe it at the back of his mind, although it may not be politic for him to say it—that 10s. a week is not enough to keep anyone. I know that the Minister believes that in his heart. If that he true in the case of people who have their sight, it must
  1930
  be much more true in the case of the sightless. The committee dealing at County Hall with the welfare of the blind feel that 10s. is not adequate in the light of the cost of living.
  The Minister has to-day introduced a Bill, as he has on many occasions, with the principles of which no one can quarrel; there can be no violent opposition to it and no votes against it; and yet we feel a sense of supreme dissatisfaction that the Minister has not taken advantage of the opportunities which have presented themselves to him. There may be reasons, which I think the House ought to be made acquainted with, why the lowering of the age below 40 cannot be seriously considered. It is not statesmanship to bring the age down to 40 this year, and in 18 months' time to bring in another Bill to reduce it to 30. If the problem is a real one, and that is admitted, and there is the wherewithal to deal with it, the House has a right to know whether there is any convincing reason why it should not be dealt with. If the Minister were to yield to the pressure which is being put upon him from every side of the House he would go home to-night a much more satisfied man, and his reputation would be more lasting than it will be with his name attached to the Bill in its present form, which, as Sir Ian Fraser described it in the "Times," is a very kindly but a very tiny attempt to deal with the problem.
  6.20 p.m.
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: I should like to join in offering a word of thanks to the Minister for this Bill and for what he has done. I also want to underline what the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said. It is not often that I tread the same path as the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not like the position in the case of the blind and old age pensions. The old age pension is given for the infirmity of old age, and this is a pension for the infirmity of blindness. The age limit has been brought down to 40, because it has been discovered that at the age of 40 the majority of the blind are indigent and unemployable. I do not see any reason why the age should not be brought down to 18 for those who are indigent and unemployable, though not for all. I think the blind have a natural pride in their self-reliance, and to remove from them any urge to

  1931
  make themselves self-reliant, so far as they can do so, would be a criminal attack upon their natural pride; but as regards the indigent and unemployable among them, from the time they leave the care of the education authorities they should come within the scope of this Bill.
  I should like to explain to the Minister why this question has some local importance in certain areas. I sit for Birkenhead, West, and in Birkenhead the position does not obtain at all, but the case is different across the river in Liverpool. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Shute) asked me particularly to bring up this point because, unfortunately, he cannot be here having a constituency engagement this afternoon. In Liverpool the number of the unemployable and indigent blind is very large. The blind population there is out of proportion to the rest of the country. Liverpool started workshops for the blind started working for the blind, before other places, and all the blind from North Wales and from surrounding counties have gravitated there and a large number have settled there. There are 1,900 blind people in Liverpool, and I believe 600 indigent and unemployable through no fault of their own. That does present some considerable difficulty for Liverpool, and if we took into the Bill those between 18 and 40 it would undoubtedly be fairer for the local authority.
  I am sorry that the matter of workshops for the blind has not been brought into this Bill, especially as there are cases of men from a county and men from a borough, side by side, working at different wages. That is a question which will have to be considered before long. At the same time I hope the Minister will do all he can to encourage the provision of guide dogs for the blind, which is an interesting local matter to us in Birkenhead and district. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done, but I do feel that these points are worthy of his attention.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Messer: The Minister has gained something of a reputation in the country as a wit. I do not know whether the significance of the date when this Bill is to come into operation, 1st April, has dawned on him. It is regarded by those
  1932
  who are interested in the blind as really being an all fools' Bill. The blind have been led to expect something more than they are getting here. As a matter of fact, there are very few of the blind who will benefit. It must not be assumed that because the Treasury are going to spend £160,000 in the first year the blind are to receive an additional £160,000. All that is happening is that there will be a big transfer of financial liability from local authorities to the State. We can agree to that principle, because the State ought to play a bigger part in seeing that the blind are treated in a more uniform way; but we regret that the Bill makes no attempt to deal with the anomalies in the treatment of the blind which exist in various parts of the country.
  The blind are able to get assistance under four heads. First, there is what is known as domiciliary assistance. That is granted to unemployable blind people under schemes run by county councils or county borough councils. Many of us have been pressing for a Measure which will not be so permissive as this and will insist upon local authorities undertaking their responsibilities. In North Wales there are some nine authorities who have no scheme at all. Some authorities pay as little as 10s. as domiciliary assistance, and others 15s., and one can find neighbouring counties which pay 25s. a week and 27s. 6d. respectively. Such anomalies ought not to exist; the blind should betreated on a more uniform basis.
  The unemployable blind come under schemes set up by county councils or county borough councils, but there is toomuch "may" about the matter and not enough "must." In the Act of 1920 it was laid down that the blind could be dealt with under that Act and not by way of poor relief, but the authorities were left to do it if they liked and many of them did not like. There is this improvement about this Bill, that it is now definitely laid down that the blind must be treated under the Blind Persons Act and not by way of poor relief. It is unfair to pour wholesale condemnation on a Measure without pointing out its benefits, and one definite advance which I am pleased to see is that for the first time it is recognised that the dependants of the poor shall receive assistance under the Blind Persons Act and not under the Poor Law. If it has been revealed that there are local authorities which cannot

  1933
  be trusted to administer legislation in the spirit in which it was passed, surely we should now realise that anomalies will continue so long as any provisions of this Bill remain permissive.
  Blind people can also draw public money as augmentation of income." In the majority of cases blind people, even if they have been trained, are not able to earn enough to keep themselves, and local authorities are empowered to augment their incomes. As a consequence, there is the strange anomaly that, in one part of the country, an unemployable blind person gets 27s., or a blind couple 45s. per week, while another person may be going to work and getting less than an unemployable blind person. I craw the Minister's attention to that anomaly, which is not fair in two ways. It is unfair that a person working should get less than one who is not working, and unfair that when an employable blind person loses work he is not classed as unemployable and entitled to come under the unemployment assistance scheme, but is paid unemployment insurance benefit. The next sources of public funds from which the blind can draw are pensions and public assistance. Under the Bill, public assistance is now ruled out, and I am very pleased to see that. In regard to pensions, which is the main purpose of the Bill, a local authority has to draw up a scheme to make up the income of a blind person to a certain maximum. What will happen is that where a county council has a scheme it will take into consideration the 10s. that the blind person will get under the Bill, and will reduce it under the scheme which it has made. It is fairly clear, therefore, that the Bill goes but a very little distance in improving the position of the blind.
  There is one very interesting point in the Bill. It is laid clown that there is to be no household means test, and I commend that point to the Minister. It is only fair to point out that local authorities have not been rising to their responsibility, because there are cases now in which local authorities have, in drawing up schemes for blind persons, insisted upon a household means test. I have in my hand a letter from the Minister of Health in which he refers to the point that there should not be a household means test. Some steps should be taken
  1934
  to see that the purposes of the Act of 1920 are not defeated. It is unfair if one local authority draws up a scheme making the income of a blind person up to 27s. 6d. a week with no regard to the income of the home while a neighbouring authority draws up a scheme taking into account the income from other members of the home. I have been a member of a blind persons' sub-committee for some years and have played some part in introducing one of the finest schemes in the country. If the information is of any value to hon. Members opposite, I would mention that the authority is not a Labour authority. Blindness is not a question of party politics or one in which there is any line of demarcation where the expedients of party policy should separate us. I want to make my position plain. I find among Members of the Tory party as deep a sympathy for the blind as I find in anybody else.
  Mr. Gallacher: We have not as much money.
  Mr. Messer: Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the Bill does not go as far as many of us would like. I am sure that he does not lack sympathy and that if he had his way he would be only too glad to call together hon. Members who are interested in this question so that we might present to him our ideas and he could frame a Bill accordingly; but we know that he is not master in the Department which he controls. This is a great and important human question. It is clear that these blind people have to be maintained. Why should we not treat them in the best way? If public funds are to be spent on their maintenance, why do we not do it decently? Why do we say that they are not to receive an old age pension until 40 years of age? I have heard of people being told that they are too old at 40 my family think I am too old, although I am not much more than 40. To speak of old age pensions at 40 is a contradiction in terms, because people are not old at 40.
  What we require is a blind persons' pensions scheme under which machinery can be erected for dealing with every aspect of the problem of blindness. Why are we so dependent upon the machinery of charitable assistance? Why cannot we insist that this work be done by the local

  1935
  authorities? In the greater London area are four main charities for the blind; the Greater London Fund for the Blind, the Middlesex Association for the Teaching and Training of the Blind, the Workshops for the Blind and the National Institute for the Blind, and each of them is in some way an agent for the county authorities. To give some idea of the complication of the machinery which results from that position let me mention that the County Council of Middlesex are the authority for dealing with the blind in that area. They delegate their authority to their education committee. The education committee set up a blind persons committee, who farm it out to the Middlesex Association for the Blind. The Middlesex Association for the Blind erect a case committee to deal with the cases. If a member of the county council wants to know anything about the blind he has to go through a maze to get at them, and if he wants to do anything he finds it most difficult because of the red tape with which he is faced. There must be overlapping when there are so many people dealing with one question. We do not farm out public health to well-disposed persons, or relegate other important public work to indiscriminate and irresponsible charitable societies. A public responsibility ought to be dealt with by a public authority.
  Something has been said about the interpretation of blindness. There is a need for the interpretation of unemployability." I have in mind the case of a blind man who has trained as a basket worker. Being rather musically inclined, he bought a piano and went out into the streets where he earned more money than he would have earned at basket-making. He was, therefore, not entitled to any grant. When the weather became bad and work fell off, he was given an opportunity of going to work again, and he got an augmentation of his income. He met with an accident, as a result of which the index finger of one hand was injured, which made him so slow at basket-making that even with his augmentation of income he was getting less money than an unemployed person. He went to the Medical Association, which suggested that he was unemployable. So, because the definition is so loose, he cannot get work because he is incapable and he cannot get a grant under the unemployable scheme.
  1936
  This is the sort of instance which shows that the Bill does not tackle the problem in the way that it should.
  There is one place in the Bill where "may" ought to be "must." The Bill states that a local authority "may" supplement the funeral costs of a blind person when a blind person is dead. We might say that they must do so in this case. Why do we not make it obligatory on every local authority? If they cannot keep a blind person decently when he is alive let us make sure that they bury him decently, but rather than spend money on wreaths I would give blind persons a chance to smell the flowers before they died. I think there is an overwhelming case for a bigger Measure, but the Minister is not the master in this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "He should be condemned."] I am not going to condemn him. I believe he would be prepared to go much further. I am going to ask the House to give him that support which will justify those who are preventing him from going further in lessening their opposition.
  There is no greater handicap in life than blindness, which means to be deprived of that sense which gives us our sense of beauty, to be dependent upon other people for the very steps we take, to be unable by our own senses to obtain the things which we must get second-hand and to he in an attitude of mind that must make us introspective, and, as a consequence, not too happy. The whole of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy of blindness lift it above other considerations. I hope that the Minister will give us hope that in the Bill he will reduce the age, and that if he cannot go any further in this Bill he will at some time later give us something more worth while, so that the blind shall be under the education authority until 16 or 18 years of age, and then under the public health committees when they are untrainable and unemployable. If we do nothing but bring a little of that light figuratively which the blind are denied literally, we shall have accomplished something by being Members of the Mother of Parliaments.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Goldie: As I was listening to the Debate I could not help feeling how right the Psalmist was when he said:

  1937
  "How pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity."
  That unity has been created by those eminently characteristic speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health who approached the matter from different points of view. This is a Bill which must be sent upstairs for examination in Committee. By so doing we shall express not only our sympathy but the sympathy of every Member in this House with the tragic facts of blindness. I rise only because it appears that my own constituency is the most heavily rated in England with regard to blind welfare. I am informed by the district Society for the Blind that in Warrington the expenditure amounts to fivepence in the pound, and that £7,000 per annum is expended for 180 blind persons. Those figures show that my constituency is doing its duty in this respect.
  I agree with some of the criticisms which have been made by hon. Members on the other side. It seems to me that to endeavour to deal with physical disability by way of pensions is not facing the issue. With regard to the reduction of the age from 40 to 18, I ask myself: "Why, logically, can we stop at 18?" Why should we not face once and for all the fact that blindness is, in the widest sense of the word, a matter for national concern and that every blind person has a definite right to be kept by the State from the earliest moment of his blindness?
  Perhaps I may be allowed to describe an incident which will explain what I mean. It arose some years ago in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen), who spoke earlier. I see that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) also is present. It shows the way in which a local authority really rises to its responsibilities. A poor working woman went into the Poor Law institution at Birkenhead to be confined. By a mistake of one of the staff, a poison bottle found its way among the ordinary bottles in the cupboard by the bedside in the ward where the woman was, and, when the confinement became imminent, the young assistant, poor girl, placed a bottle of nitric acid by mistake where there should have been a bottle containing fluid to be used for bathing the baby's eves immediately after birth. The
  1938
  child was born, the young probationer picked up a fountain pen filler, dipped it into what she thought was the proper spirit, and burnt the child's eyes out with nitric acid within ten minutes of birth. Some of us had to consider the case, and I put it to Members of this House, if any 12 of them were forming the jury to try that case, what damages could they possibly give to compensate that child for what happened to it ten minutes after birth?
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield very properly put forward the question of abnormality, and that is the argument used by every counsel who knows his job in every personal injury case that is ever argued. What you want to do is to restore the man to the condition in which he was before he was injured. But how is it possible to do that in the case of blindness? The only thing that it is possible to do is what was done by the kindliness and good feeling of the Corporation of Birkenhead in that case. We arranged for the child to be taken to what is known as a sunshine babies' home, and to be trained in due course, if I remember rightly, as a typist, and ultimately a definite undertaking was given that the corporation were responsible for her until such time as she became eligible for a blind person's pension.
  It seems to me that this Bill only touches the fringe of a great problem. I personally welcome it from the bottom of my heart, as I would anything that we can do to help and alleviate the lot of the blind. I do not care so much about the financial side, whether it is going to cost the local authority a little less or a little more; the great thing, as far as I can see, that the Bill is going to do, is to give absolute security to the blind person who gets his pension, and for that reason and for many others I welcome it. Sooner or later, however, we must, with all respect to the deaf people, the crippled, and so on, face up to the fact that, when the darkness of blindness falls, life is to all intents and purposes banished, one might almost say in the circumstances. Sooner or later we shall have to face the fact that, when that awful disability comes upon a human being, from that moment, irrespective of whether the person is 14, 40, 50 or 80, the State or the local authority—I care not which—should take

  1939
  over full responsibility. In sending this Bill to a Committee upstairs, where the Clauses which are controversial, as they must be, from the financial point of view, will be closely examined, the House of Commons will at any rate be doing its duty by the pluckiest and bravest section of the community.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: I shall be anxious to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say in reply to the speeches that have been made on this Bill from all quarters of the House, particularly with regard to the questions of reducing the age limit and increasing the amount of the pension. Last night, Members of Parliament were asked to attend a meeting upstairs to meet the representatives of the blind. Considering the nature of the Parliamentary occasion, there was a very good attendance, and all those Members who were present, a number of whom have spoken here to-day, were sympathetic towards the case that was advanced by the blind people themselves. We have been informed that the expenditure entailed by a reduction of the age from 40 to 18 would be less than that now provided for in the Bill, namely, £160,000. If that be the case—and I think the Parliamentary Secretary might tell us whether he has any estimate of the amount—it is so trivial a sum that he ought not to say that it shall not be done.
  We have heard some remarkable speeches on the Bill to-day. It cannot he contended that, while the nation is proposing to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on rearmament, we cannot spend a few thousand pounds in putting right something that every Member of the House concedes is wrong. It would necessitate an Amendment of the Financial Resolution, but we have not yet passed that stage. I welcome what the Prime Minister said two days ago with reference to the Financial Resolutions that will come before the House from time to time in the future, but even now it is not too late for the Minister, if he so desires, to right what every Member in the House concedes is a wrong. It is 17 years since blind persons' problems came before this House: it may be many years before they will be considered again; and to allow this splendid opportunity to pass, and to leave blind persons with a grievance that can be easily righted, is not
  1940
  creditable to legislators in this country. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, to face up to the considered judgment of Members of Parliament. We know that the £160,000 provided for in the Bill will not in any sense mean an addition to blind persons as such; it will mainly go in relief of the local authorities. It is estimated that the number of persons affected will be, I think, 77 per cent. of the blind persons in this country, so that the number—
  Mr. Messer: I must correct my hon. Friend. The number of unemployable blind persons in the country is 77·3 per cent., but the majority of these come under an unemployable scheme, and, consequently, they will not receive a penny piece.
  Mr. Williams: That really amplifies what I was saying. In addition to that, I gather that the balance of 23 per cent. would be under 40 years of age. Obviously, the expenditure necessary to meet the requirements of the 23 per cent. would be substantially less than £160,000. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will face up to the facts of this matter, and that, even at this late stage, it will be possible for him to bring down the age limit and increase the amount to be paid to these unfortunate people. Nothing but the State facing up to this problem can remove all the very many anomalies that have been cited this afternoon, and I sincerely trust that the Minister of Health will face up to the only method by which those anomalies can be removed, that is to say, by making the problem a national problem, bringing it under national control, removing all these anomalies, and, if I may say so without speaking in any derogatory way of large numbers of well-meaning people, taking it out of the hands of busybodies who sometimes interfere in dealing with the infirmities of very unfortunate people.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. F. O. Roberts: I recollect that on the occasion, now 17 years ago, when the last Blind Persons Bill was introduced, I was privileged to take part in the discussion which led to the adoption of that Measure, and, therefore, it is with a sense of personal satisfaction that I take some little part in the discussion to-day. As was the case in 1920, this is, fortunately, one of those occasions which give Members of the House of. Commons

  1941
  the welcome opportunity of uniting in a good cause. I am satisfied that any kind of Measure having as its objective better provision for blind persons would not fail to make its appeal to Members of the House, for they have a great sense of justice and fair play. But, whatever has been the intention of the House and the scope of the Measures which have been introduced, and whatever is the scope of the Measure which is introduced to-day, each time the nation, through its representatives, seems to have fallen somewhat short of achieving a really big object; and even in passing this Bill to-day we shall fail in achieving the ultimate object so far as the blind are concerned, just as we have failed in the past.
  I must express my pleasure at the introduction of the Bill, but that pleasure can only be measured by the size of the Bill itself. I can imagine that the Minister himself would have been much more joyous in his attitude towards the introduction of the Bill if he had had the chance of introducing a much bigger Measure than the one which is entrusted to him to-day. Therefore, we must say that we are not completely satisfied with the proposal he is making, nor can we regard it as a very tangible step towards that complete scheme of reform which we are hoping to see introduced some day to help the blind people of this country. As has been said in so many quarters of the House, Members are quite ready to welcome a much bigger scheme than that which has been introduced to-day, and in passing I would express the hope that we shall not have to wait so long before we have another opportunity of expressing our opinion.
  We cannot well oppose this proposal, because, as far as it goes, one can regard it as good. I believe, too, that I am correct in saying that it has been accepted by the blind community. But they do riot hesitate to express their view, just as emphatically as it has been expressed across the Floor of the House to-day, that they would have been much more satisfied if the Minister had made himself responsible for a much bolder Measure than the one we are now discussing. The expression of the view that the Measure does riot go far enough, particularly when it comes from the representatives of the great blind community in this country, is one to which some heed must be paid.
  1942
  I want to join with those who have already spoken in expressing regret that the commencing pensionable age is to be 40 years. Various figures have been quoted this afternoon as to the numbers of the unemployable blind. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to answer the points which have been raised, to give to the House, for its satisfaction at all events, some kind of reliable information in regard to these figures. So far as my information goes, there are something over 40,000 blind persons of 16 years of age or over who come within the classification of being unemployable. I believe there are very strong reasons for urging that the pensions should be payable at i8 years of age, thus joining up with the completion of education which is given to the blind. Am I right in suggesting that the increased cost necessary to meet this would not be very large—£250,000 as against the £160,000 which is put in the Bill? If that figure is correct, surely it is not enough to make the marginal difference for making the age as quoted in the Bill and not going to the point which might be more readily accepted by all Members. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is really too late for any alteration to be made in regard to the reduction of the age at which the pensions may be payable? Clause 2 appears to me to make proposals which are very welcome. If carried out in the spirit as well as the letter the results which may follow will, I think, be exceedingly satisfactory; and I hope local authorities will avail themselves of any opportunity which comes their way to prosecute successfully all endeavours to aid the blind. I hope they will not be simply content to receive the financial benefit which comes from the method of paying pensions to-day.
  Another point which I would like to mention is that of those who are partially sighted. To me that is one of the most difficult phases of blindness or partial blindness to-day, and I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see that some kind of machinery is brought into operation which will not only recognise the difficulties of dealing with the partially sighted or the partially blind, but see that their condition is not overlooked in the multitude of other things which have got to be tackled so far as the blind are concerned. If we do not satisfactorily

  1943
  deal with this side of the problem, then I think the problem of the blind person becomes much greater as the years go by. It may be difficult, but I am satisfied it is not incapable of being solved if the right measures are adopted. I would like to make a further appeal—and I join with those who have already expressed it —that everything possible shall be done by way of preventing and curing. The importance of this point has been emphasised time and again; and although there is only one particular point which we are considering in this Bill—the lowering of the age for the receipt of pensions as such—I believe in mentioning these other things, for they will be an indication of the mind of the House in trying to see that everything possible is done to secure fair treatment for the blind. Neither should we overlook the importance of education and vocational training in association with the other objects to which I have just referred.
  I would like, also, to make a reference to the workshops which have been mentioned. I think it is sufficient to say that everyone desires that if the blind people go to work they should have the best conditions possible under which to perform the task which they are asked to do. Their conditions should be as ideal as it is possible for anyone to make them, and I would strongly urge that this should be done. I would join with the Minister, if I may, in paying tribute to those who have been responsible for bringing these elements into the life of the blind people which have contributed so much towards their greater happiness and comfort. One of the particular things mentioned was the provision of books. I would also join with those who have expressed the view that there should not be so much difficulty in getting these things for the comfort and happiness of the blind as is found at the present moment, and that the State should accept a further measure of responsibility. I believe that would secure full endorsement by all Members of this House. I believe it is to the great credit of the nation that the care of the blind now is more definitely regarded as a public duty and a public service. I say this without casting any reflection on efforts which have been put forward in other ways. I want to see an end of the haphazard handling of the questions
  1944
  affecting the blind, of the various problems which are associated with them. On the other hand, there would be generous recognition that much good work for the blind has been achieved. It appears to be well established that the position in relation to them has now changed for the better since they came into more direct contact with national and local government and development.
  Under the provisions of this Measure, small as they may be, I look for an advancement in the programme towards the greater assistance of the blind, and for improvements in that direction to be more rapidly developed and carried forward. The welfare of the blind should be regarded as a real and complete public service. But in order to secure this, further co-ordination plans should be introduced and worked in the best possible way. In passing, I would like to express my own view and hope that some day a responsible authority will take in hand what may prove a somewhat formidable task—an investigation into all forms of service for the blind with the view of creating a more ordered plan. The advance made by this Bill should begin a bigger effort to make the blind feel more independent security. To some degree the blind must be dependent, but fuller direct service by the State and local authorities will place the blind on a far higher and better status. It would tend to give them a more abundant recognition of citizenship alongside those who are sighted and more normal, and, I am certain, would lead them to enjoy a more normal life.
  There is one specific question I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is in relation to the receipt of a double pension up to the age of 70. I understand that a pension under the Blind Persons Act does riot debar a person from receiving at the same time a pension under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. A question was addressed to the Minister on 5th November, 1936. by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). He asked the Minister of Health
  "whether he intends, in legislating for improvements in respect of pensions payable to blind persons, to remedy the hardship which is involved in the discontinuance of the old age and blind pension at the age of 70, thus reducing the income of a widow in this position from £1 to 10s. per week?"

  1945
  The Minister replied,
  "regret that I cannot at this stage make any statement anticipating the legislation which has been promised on this subject."
  In reply to a further question he said,
  "I am aware of this matter and shall be prepared to consider it.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1936; col. 226, Vol. 317.]
  I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister whether he can tell us whether that consideration has been given to this very important point, and whether, although he has not been able to include it in the provisions of the present Bill, at some near date we may expect him to introduce a reforming proposal in regard to what seems a rather serious anomaly so far as blind persons are concerned.
  My last one or two observations are these: Mingling with blind folks, one is always brought home to an understanding of their general attitude of forbearance, of fortitude and of patience. To-day you have been witnessing a further renewal of the remembrance of those who were blinded in war service; a sacred trust has been accepted carrying with it an obligation which the nation, I am certain, will never fail to recognise. Can we from this House not lead the nation to the acceptance of an equal obligation so far as the civilian blind are concerned? That, I believe, is the ultimate object at which we are aiming. This Bill, though a small one, I regard as a step in that particular direction. I hope we shall keep on working and fighting until the plan is completed. I hope the pressure which the House has been showing to-day in insisting that the Minister shall change his ideas will be effective, and that he will recognise the significance of the pleas which have been made, and that this ordered plan will not be too long delayed in its production.
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. Bernays: I think that my right hon. Friend has no reason to be dissatisfied with the reception which has been accorded to this Measure to-day. It is true the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) called ray right hon. Friend a political Woolworths because he had so many things in his shop window. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield comes to read his speech he may be disposed to elevate my right hon. Friend from Woolworths as far as the
  1946
  bargain basement of Selfridges. At any rate, I believe that the goods that my right hon. Friend has to offer will be gratefully appreciated by the blind themselves.
  Now I propose to try to answer some of the questions which have been put to me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield appeared to think that there was something sinister in the omission from the Bill of the word "combination" that appeared in the principal Acts. There is nothing sinister in that at all. The words "in combination with any other council" in the 1920 Act have been rendered unnecessary by the Local Government Act, 1933, which enabled local authorities to combine for any purpose. He also asked me how many local authorities, in fact, have combined for the purposes of the administration of the Blind Persons Act. As far as we know there is one—a combination between the councils of Newcastle and Gateshead and the Northumberland County Council. That was made under Section 91 of the Local Government Act.
  Mr. Westwood: Do I understand that that statement does not apply to the situation in Scotland?
  Mr. Bernays: Yes. Of course, the local authority have full powers to make these combinations if they so desire. Then a point was raised by the right hon. Member for Wakefield and also the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) with regard to the fact that these pensions were called old age pensions, and he appeared to regard that as casting some reflection on the blind. They are, of course, only old age pensions in a technical sense, and do not occasion among the blind any of the feeling of the kind suggested.
  I come to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He raised the question, why should not the State bear the whole responsibility for the blind? That was also suggested by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams). The answer is that such a 100 per cent. responsibility would be contrary to the whole method which has been followed from the Poor Law of 1603 down to the present day. After all, it has been a partnership between the State, local authorities, and voluntary agencies. That was the whole scheme of the Blind Per-

  1947
  sons Act, 1920. In the working of that Act certain hardships have been discovered. The first was that it was not normally practicable to train a blind person after he had attained the age of 40 in a new form of employment, so it is the State that is coming forward with additional assistance. The State is assisting in other ways as well. I should mention, in particular, the assistance that the local authorities are receiving from the State under the block grant. Hitherto grants had been received on a capitation basis in respect of the blind. The position now is that, in calculating the amount of the block grant, account is taken of the actual expenditure of the local authorities and a proportion of any increase is met by an increase in the block grant; so I do not think it can be said that the State is not assuming a greater obligation than before.
  I come to another point made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who suggested that under the Bill the blind would not be better off. They argued that the only benefit would go to local authorities. The point was also made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), in his most moving speech. Clearly, part of the benefit may go to the local authority. That was recognised by the Committee on the Welfare of the Blind, when they recommended the reduction in the qualifying age for the old age pension, but it is not true to say that the blind will not benefit. Those who do not receive assistance from local authorities, and those who live in districts where rates of augmentation are low, will receive a valuable addition to their income. There are also a substantial number of blind persons who have not been willing to apply to local authorities for assistance. They prefer to struggle along on their own resources, rather than to apply for what they regard, and what is in fact in some areas, Poor Law assistance. They will not feel that reluctance now, because under this Bill the relief will be administered under the Blind Persons Act, and will not attach in any way the stigma of Poor Law relief, if any stigma still remains.
  The point was also made that there was not more uniformity in relief by
  1948
  local authorities. On this question, we cannot go merely by scales. You have to take into account the method of assessment of need. Rent and the cost of living, and other considerations of that kind, do vary in different areas, and surely one of the advantages of local administration is that you can take into account local need. I have made particular inquiries from the Department, and we have no evidence that an inadequate amount of assistance to the blind is being given anywhere. On the point made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham, in connection with some cases he put before us, I would only say that if there are any cases in which the local authorities are not acting within the terms of the Act, my right hon. Friend will he only too glad to make a thorough investigation.
  I come to the most crucial point of all, the point on which most criticism has centred, as to why pensions should be given at 40, and not 30 or 20, or, as the right hon. Member for Wakefield said, 18. We have chosen 40 because experience shows that it is very difficult in normal circumstances to train a blind man or woman for a trade after that age. I was asked two questions on this—first, how many blind persons are there in fact below the age of 40? The answer is 12,000. I was also asked what the cost would be of giving pensions at 18. The cost would be £250,000, but I do not think, although that is not a trivial sum, that that is the chief reason. It is not chiefly a question of expenditure. To lower the age below 40 would be to impair, to some extent, the incentive of the blind persons to earn a livelihood. I cannot believe that that would be in the interest of the blind persons themselves. Everyone, I think, who has had contact with blind people must have been impressed by the eagerness and the courage with which, once they have mastered a trade, they are anxious to pursue it so that they need not be a burden on anyone. In every activity of life their one desire is to show that in spite of their disabilities they can be useful citizens. That brings me to the further point that to give a pension at: 18 would, I suggest, remove much of the justification for the great sums now being spent by local authorities and voluntary agencies on the support of workshops in order to help blind people to become useful citizens.
  Mr. Maxton: Why should it?
  Mr. Bernays: I was asked whether at this late hour we would not agree to reduce the age below 40. I can only say that my right hon. Friend can hold out no hope. I was also asked a question with regard to double pensions. That is a very complicated question, and I shall not be expected to go into it at any length. I will only say that we do not contemplate any alteration in the existing law. We believe it would be a serous breach in the whole system of contributory pensions, and one which the Government feel they could not commit. I come to another point, raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield when he suggested that the 10s. pension ought not to be taken into account by the local authorities. I think that what that argument really means is: Why have a means test at all? Of course, arguments in favour of a means test for blind persons arc the same as those for a means test for any other persons that we cannot, as we believe on this side, shovel out public money without any inquiry as to whether the person to whom you are giving it is really in need of it. As a matter of fact, this proposal was actually made in a private Member's Bill, introduced in 1928, and it was opposed by the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind, who declared that, apart from the very heavy additional expenditure which would be thrown on local authorities, they were convinced that it would rob the blind of all incentive, and generally undermine their morale.
  Whatever criticism may be made against this Bill, I do suggest to the House that it will help to lighten the load of disability which the blind have to carry through life. No class in the community inspires more sympathy or a greater desire to lend a helping hand. The tap of the blind man's stick has only to be heard in the street for everyone around to do what he can to help. It is in that spirit that the Government, finding certain gaps in the Blind Persons Act, have brought forward this Bill.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the wife of a blind man will now be obliged to seek public assistance?
  Mr. Bernays: Under the Bill their position is the same.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  1950
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.— [Captain Dugdale.]

  BLIND PERSONS [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to lower from fifty years to forty years the age which blind persons must have attained in order to be entitled to old age pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, and to amend the law with respect to the provision of assistance in relation to such persons by local authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any increase of expenditure on account of such pensions which may be occasioned by lowering to forty years the age which blind persons must have attained in order to be entitled to such pensions."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JUVENILE CONTRIBUTORS AND YOUNG PERSONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.30 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The object of this Bill, which concerns about 1,000,000 boys and girls, is to fill the gap which at present exists in the public provisions for their medical care and attention between the time of their leaving school and their coming under the provisions of the National Health Insurance Scheme by virtue of insurable employment after the age of 16. The House will agree that this is the vital and critical time when such care and attention are certainly needed, and this provision links up the school medical service with the service provided as medical benefit under National Health Insurance. The number of boys and girls who will immediately be affected by this provision is, as I have said, estimated at 1,000,000, but I should say that the number will fall with the raising of the school leaving age, and as a result of the fall in the birth rate during the past 15 years. But

  1951
  whatever the numbers may be, I hope that this proposal will be regarded as at important protection for this important section of the community, and will dc something to ensure their happiness and efficiency.
  The medical service under the Bill will be of the same comprehensive character as that given to our existing insured population. It will be a full general practitioner service and will, of course, include the supply of all necessary medicines. The cost of providing the benefit is to be met, as in the case of the National Health Insurance Scheme, by means of a weekly contribution divided equally between the young worker and his employer, together with a fixed contribution from the Exchequer. The contribution will be at the rate of 4d. a week and, as in the main scheme, the proportion of the cost of benefit and administration payable by the State will be one-seventh in the case of boys and onefifth in the case of girls. Contributions will be paid in the usual manner by means of stamps on cards which will be issued and collected by the approved societies, while the services of the insurance committees will also be used for the provision of medical benefits in just the same way as for present insured persons. As under the main scheme, contributions will not be payable during periods of unemployment, or sickness or while the boy or girl is not available for work, as, for example, when they, as they may, return to school. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are associated with the work of approved societies will agree with me that, as far as cash benefits for juveniles are concerned, there has been no substantial request for them and that they would necessitate the ordinary combined weekly contributions from boys and girls. If that were proposed, it would involve considerable inroads into their weekly earnings.
  Provision is made for enabling the new entrants to become members of the approved societies, and this will have important consequences, as anyone who is concerned with the administration of National Health Insurance will know. This will enable them to obtain the full advantages of the main scheme when they become insured under that scheme on reaching the age of 16. It is antici-
  1952
  pated, as I have good reason to know, that all but a very small percentage of these boys and girls will join the societies, and I believe that they have been fairly active already in that respect. For those who do not do so within the time allowed after taking up employment, it is provided that their contributions shall be paid into a special fund to be known as the Juvenile Deposit Contributors' Fund, out of which the cost of their medical benefit will be paid. The solvency of this fund will be guaranteed by the Reserve Suspense Fund of the main scheme. The title of the young people concerned to medical benefit, having been acquired when the boy or girl first takes up insurable employment after leaving school, continues until the age of 16½, or until the title to full insurance is acquired by reason of insurable employment after the age of i6, whichever happens first. I would add, because perhaps sometimes it is misunderstood, that the title of these young people to medical benefit will not be dependent upon the amount of their individual contributions.
  An important provision of the Bill is that for linking up the insurance medical service with the school medical service— the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) will appreciate this fact from his experience when he was in my position—by arrangements under which any insurance doctor who desires to refer to the school medical record of a young patient will he able to obtain confidentially such particulars and information as he requires for purposes in relation to the medical supervision that will be provided. I attach considerable importance to that provision.
  The financial arrangements will be sufficient to cover the whole cost of medical benefits, including the administration expenses of the approved societies and insurance committees, and a small margin of contribution will be available, as I will explain later, and may be used for a matter in which I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) is interested. It will be available to provide these young people with earlier dental treatment. The period with which we are dealing in respect of boys and girls of this age is one in which the ravages of dental decay may sometimes be rapid, and much can be done by preserving teeth and the replace-

  1953
  ment of some by dentures. Provision of this kind not only means much to the individual concerned, but also to the general health of the community. Much is being done to-day by public authorities in connection with their maternity and child welfare schemes and by the school medical services and the Dental Board, and this provision will undoubtedly assist them in their efforts, and perhaps will bring a greater realisation of the importance of dental health to the community. Under the Bill, young people will join societies at the age of about 14½ instead of 16, and under existing regulations they would become entitled to dental benefit at the age of about 17 instead of 18½.
  I confess that I would like to see this gap in the provision of dental treatment for our young people completely filled, but I am afraid that it will not be possible as long as dental benefit is not included among the statutory benefits of National Health Insurance. But under this Measure it will be possible to make a good step forward towards filling the gap. I heard it said in the debate on my former Bill that I introduced Bills that did not go far enough, and the retort I would make is that it is better to introduce Bills and make some provision than to have no Bill at all. The gap, by reason of the earlier date for joining approved societies, will be shortened from 4½ years on the average to about three years. The hon. Gentleman who is chairman of the Dental Board will be glad to know also that I am considering the possibility of going a step further still by amending the Regulations so as to give title one year earlier for this class of member.
  Sir Francis Acland: Will that provision come in a Clause?
  Sir K. Wood: I shall be able to do it under my Regulations.
  Sir F. Acland: In the Regulations under the powers of the Bill?
  Sir K. Wood: Certainly. The result of this would be that there would ordinarily he an interval of less than two years between leaving school and acquiring a title to dental benefit under National Health Insurance.
  Mr. Logan: Would the regulation apply to those affected by the present Bill or to all?
  Sir K. Wood: No, it will apply to young people under this provision. I am considering whether this can be done, and I have invited the views of the approved societies on the proposal. Some further discussion will be necessary before I can arrive at a final decision. Medical benefit will be given immediately a boy or girl becomes a juvenile contributor, and will continue whether or not they remain continuously employed. There is also this further point, which I think will be of value to them, namely, the period of juvenile membership of an approved society will also be counted towards the qualifying period for treatment, additional benefits, such as dental and ophthalmic benefits, when the juvenile contributor becomes an ordinary insured person. It will be of considerable value to the contributor. The rate of payment to doctors for their attendance upon these young people has recently been considered by an independent Court of Inquiry, in conjunction with the wider question of the doctor's capitation fee, who made an award that the rate should remain at the present figure of 9s. a year for each person on a doctor's list, and that this rate should apply also to the new juvenile contributors.
  I will be as modest about this Measure as I was about the last, and I present the Bill to the House as another health Measure, which will remove a deficiency in our health services, and I am sure that it will be welcomed in all parts of the House, at any rate as another step forward. When the provision in this Bill has been made and approved by the House, as I feel sure it will be, we can then legitimately claim that the great body of industrial workers and other wage earners of the country are provided with medical care and attention from the cradle to the grave. Such provision begins with the maternity and child welfare work of the local authorities, covering the years up to the age of beginning to attend school. It is continued under the school medical service, and when this Bill becomes law it will be followed without any break by the insurance medical service to which the worker is entitled not only during his working life but after he receives his old age pension at 65, until his death. This Measure gives to the younger section of the community not only many immediate benefits but, as all associated with approved societies know,

  1955
  further opportunities of participating in the considerable benefits of the national health insurance scheme. It will also bring the day much nearer when I hope it will be possible to do very much more. For all these reasons, I present the Bill to the House and commend it to my colleagues for their hearty endorsement and approval.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has said that benefits are provided from the cradle to the grave, but that will not apply to those who have been State insured persons who become voluntary contributors, when they are 65.
  Sir K. Wood: I think so, but I will have that matter further examined.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Greenwood: I rise for the second time to-day to say again that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman has much cry but little wool. The right hon. Gentleman is an adept in introducing a small Bill which looks good on the surface but is little in fact. I think that is true of this Bill. I have said many times that it was very desirable that we should close the gap between the school-leaving age and entry into national health insurance. It is part of the policy of my party to ensure that there shall be continuous supervision of the health of the person, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, from the cradle to the grave. It is unfortunate as we develop our school medical service and then bring the young people into industrial life that during two years of the adolescent life of the boy or girl there is no kind of collective supervision over them. The right hon. Gentleman has done something not to abolish but to shorten that gap. I want it to be completely abolished, and the Bill goes some little way in that direction.
  The Bill gives the young worker in industry medical benefit. It enables the worker of 16 who normally would be beginning to pay his stamps to enjoy benefits earlier than he otherwise would have done. I admit that there is something to be said for the Bill, small though it may be, because it does that, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill should be noncontributory from the point of view of the juveniles who are brought under it, and that cash benefits should also be pay-
  1956
  able between the ages of 14 and 16. It is not customary for the children of the well-to-do to go to work at the age of 14. When the children of insured persons go to work at the earliest possible opportunity it is because of family need.
  Sir F. Fremantle: What about going into the Navy?
  Mr. Greenwood: I leave that to the hon. Gentleman. That does not appear to be in the Bill. The vast majority of working-class children enter industry because they must. If the hon. Member likes to bring in the Navy, he may do so, but the fact remains that the vast majority of children do not go into the Navy but into industrial life, because the parents need such earnings as can be brought into the family at the end of the week. Juvenile labour is shamefully exploited in this country. Nobody is likely to deny that, yet the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that these children, driven into the labour market by family need, are to contribute a sum which is not a matter which Members of this House would consider to be much, namely, 2d. per week. It would have been a little more generous on the part of the right hon. Gentleman if, instead of compelling the young person to pay his 2d. and the employer 2d., he had put the whole 4d. on to the employer. He knows perfectly well that there is a precedent in the National Health Insurance Acts for that procedure. There is a provision whereby employers pay the whole of the contribution in respect of low-wage earners. No one will contend that juvenile workers just having left school will receive high wages. It would have been an indication of the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity if he had provided, as in the case of other low-wage earners, that the contributions should be paid by the employers, who are so willing to exploit juvenile labour and after a year or two leave them derelict on the labour market. A trifle of 2d. per week is not a large contribution to be expected from the employer. These young people between 14 and i6 would not be at work if the family could afford to do without what they can earn.
  That brings me to my second point. The right hon. Gentleman has made great play with the fact that he is giving medical benefits. I am glad that he is doing that. The fact that these children

  1957
  are at work is an indication that there is need of new financial resources in the family, but when the juvenile between 14 and 16 is out of work and his meagre wages have gone, there is need for a cash benefit if he be sick. I do not believe that the provision that is made in the National Health Insurance Act for cash benefits is adequate, and to deny the young worker who is now being compulsorily brought into insurance the right to a cash benefit to aid his family when he happens to be ill seems to me to be very short-sighted on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I have spoken on more than one occasion against the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and especially since the establishment of the Unemployment Assistance Board, but, niggardly though the provision may be under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, young people between 14 and 16, who are asked to provide 2d. per week as their contribution, get a cash benefit. They get that cash benefit, it is true, if the father is out of work, but there is this recognition that if the juvenile is out of work there is a cash benefit. I should have thought that having introduced this Measure the right hon. Gentleman might have been guided by the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
  What he is giving to these young persons by way of medical benefits is negligible. He is drawing from them and their employers £800,000 per year. He is rather boastful about the fact that it will cost him £120,000 in the first year, but he referred with greater pride to the fact that that amount will fall to about £90,000 a year during the next five years. If we wish to bridge the gap during the period of adolescence it must be with something a little more generous than that provided by the right hon. Gentleman. He has admitted that this Bill does not close the gap but only shortens it. We have spent in this country on maternity benefit, maternity and child welfare services and our school medical services scores of millions of pounds, and we have established a system of National Health Insurance, imperfect in its way, but still a system that has been a great boon to masses of people, and yet there is this hiatus of two years with regard to these young people. The right hon. Gentleman might have been a little bolder—as he might have been in the Bill for blind persons' pensions—and have provided a
  1958
  continuous health service from the cradle to the grave. I am sorry he has not done that.
  I repeat what I said on the previous Bill. We shall not vote against the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill, for what it is worth, we accept. Like the previous Bill, it is impossible for us to amend it in the way we should like, because the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the Title so carefully that we can do very little with it. We shall accept the Second Reading, and if we can devise ways and means of improving it in Committee we shall do so, although the right hon. Gentleman has the whip hand there. If I have to say it for the second time, I should like to have seen the right hon. Gentleman a little more vigorous than his stature.
  8.1 p.m.
  Sir F. Acland: Hon. Members, I suppose, will deal with this Bill after their nature. For my part I welcome it. I say as specifically as I can that the Minister is not insincere—that is rather a strong adjective—because the Bill does not go further. It does not do everything, but it does something which is of extraordinary value. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that he has extensions in mind, and on certain very important matters an extension by regulation. That seems to me to be important for the young people who are now coming out of school in my county, of 14 and 15 years of age, who may perhaps come into my gardens. They are becoming very much more intelligent and keen and interested in everything in the future coming out of senior schools instead of the unreorganised parish school. I say that young fellows and girls of that kind will not feel there is any stigma upon them by being asked to pay their twopence alongside my two-pence. I think they will feel rather more pleased to be paying their share than if it was all found by me or by the State. My experience is that boys and girls of this age very rightly pay the larger part of their wages to their parents for their food and keep, but they are left with far more pocket money to spend than ever before. They will feel when this twopence is being deducted almost grownup, at any rate, in the matter of statutory benefits to which they are entitled, that they are young citizens. I believe they will be prouder in paying this two-

  1959
  pence than they would be if it was all provided by somebody else. At any rate, I know the people in my county, and I do not quarrel with hon. Members above the Gangway when they say that their acquaintances feel a tremendous grievance in being called upon to pay this twopence, when they are asked to be contributory citizens instead of eleemosynary citizens in these matters.
  I was glad to hear the Minister say that the very serious gap, particularly as regards dental treatment, is to be reduced from the difference between 2½ years from i6 years of age to 2½ years from 14 plus, whatever the time a boy or girl is going to get employment. The right hon. Gentleman was in the right way when he hoped that it would be possible to shorten the gap still more in the matter of dental benefit by regulation, and I am sure the Minister means to do a thing when he says so. I hope he will have all the success in the world in the negotiations with the approved societies on the matter. As Chairman of the Dental Board of the United Kingdom I say that the gap in the dental treatment is a very serious one indeed. We have nothing like the number of school dental officers there should be, and it is no encouragement to local authorities to provide an adequate supply of school dental officers if we are certain that after a boy or girl has been launched from school there is going to be a period of 4½ years before any public body will be able to come along and help them to have their teeth looked after. That is not encouraging, and it is a serious gap, particularly when you are dealing with adolescents who are passing through changes in their development every six months, and who are often poisoned by bad teeth. Scientists are now discovering that a good deal of ill-health is due to bad teeth, and when a person is suffering from ill-health they are told to have all their teeth out. They have them out, but it does not quite effect a cure. Although it prevents more poison passing into the blood stream, yet there has been a good deal of poison passing all the time from the bad teeth, and you cannot eradicate all the effects of this poison in that way. Therefore, any movement towards closing this gap we welcome with both hands.
  It has always been a favourite theory of mine, knowing that the dental benefits
  1960
  were only voluntary, that when approved societies could see an improvement in health of their members from having dental treatment, they would be the first to try to make it not only a compulsory thing like ordinary health benefit, but would be inclined to make it begin as soon as it possibly could. At present they have not much chance of realising that. When it can only begin at 18½ years of age there is not a very great deal of health improvement by getting things right at that stage or later, but the earlier it can start I am certain the more approved societies will realise that teeth health underlies a great deal of other health, and if they can get their members to be right dentally and kept right dentally, they will soon see that a member who is dentally sound is less likely to be ill during the rest of his life than one who is dentally deficient.
  Mr. Cove: It may be due to bad nutrition.
  Sir F. Acland: I am quite ready to debate the question of nutrition at the proper moment, but I do not see that I am called to deal with it on this Bill. It is not those who are insufficiently fed but those who are unwisely fed whose teeth go wrong. It is in those families where there is always a sweet bit of cake or a biscuit on the table that the teeth go wrong. In those families where there is no such thing, where the food is of a different character, the chances are much better.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: You are wide of the mark this time.
  Sir F. Acland: I am sorry, but it is my business to know. I agree that bad nutrition of the mother has perfectly disastrous effects on the dentition of the child, from which it cannot recover except by constant care and attention. I welcome the Bill not as closing the gap, but as shortening the gap. I do not find fault because this contribution has come from a short person. I do not find fault because we do not do everything at once. I suggest that it ought to be apparent to approved societies that the shorter you can make the gap the more value the Bill is going to be. If you can give dental treatment early, and therefore secure a larger measure of health and less claims on their funds arising from bad health

  1961
  the better for the approved societies. That is the suggestion which I confidently make. We know many grown-ups who say that they enjoy bad health—and they appear as if they did. You have only to look in their mouths to know that if their teeth had been put right early they would be in perfect health and would enjoy life instead of enjoying bad health. As an instalment, a thoroughly useful instalment, I am glad the Bill has been brought in.
  8.1:4 p.m.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: It is so many years since I spoke in the House that I am almost tempted to ask hon. Members for their indulgence as I did on an occasion many years ago. This is the second instalment of a series of Bills which the Minister of Health is introducing this Session, and may I take this opportunity of congratulating him upon being so very successful, the most successful of all Ministers, in dealing with the Treasury in regard to Bills of a social character? I am sure that the sympathy of all hon. Members went to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who was Minister of Health in the Labour administration. The right hon. Gentleman must have found it extremely difficult to say anything against this Bill, and in circumstances of great difficulty, I think he did very well. The fact is that the National Government are introducing so much social legislation that, if they go on in this way for many years, there will be very little left in the future for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do. The Government seem to be doing this in a quiet, insidious way, and before many years have passed the whole gamut of the social sphere will have been captured by them, as it were, and there will not be a great deal left for a Labour administration to do.
  I think this is a particularly useful little Bill. It brings in a class of person at an age when it is most important that they should have their health looked after, and I have no doubt that it brings them in at a time when very many children, especially in the poorer classes, arc prevented on many occasions from consulting the medical opinion to which they are entitled and which they ought to get in the same way as the children of the rich. As a doctor who once had a very busy practice, which I have given
  1962
  up for some time now, I feel sure that very many honest, poor, working-class people in this country deliberately refrain from getting medical attention for their children at those ages because they cannot afford to pay for it. That happens at the very time when the utmost care, precaution, and preventive medicine are necessary. From that point of view I am very sorry that there is no provision in the Bill dealing with dental and optical benefits. I understand that this could be dealt with by regulation at a later stage, but I think it is rather a weakness in the Bill, as it stands, that that provision does not commence from the beginning. The years between 14 and 16 are very important for young people of both sexes. It is at that time that they leave school, where they have been accustomed to a certain amount of regulation and preventive examination of teeth and eyes, and they will rather miss the regularity of inspections to which they have been accustomed. I trust that it may be possible for the Minister yet to incorporate a more thorough provision for that inspection.
  A feature of the Bill which, I think, is very good, is that the medical attendant is to be allowed to have the school medical record of the child. That will certainly be a great help to him and will, as it were, give him another eye. No doubt those records are confidential, but I hope that a complete medical record of the child's life up to the time that he or she leaves school will be allowed, in order that the medical attendant may have the opportunity of combining his experience with the experience gained by the school medical officer.
  I am told that the panel practitioners in this country are a little disappointed at their remuneration under this Bill. The sum is to be 9s. per head per insured person, a figure which is certainly not extravagant. If it be remembered that the 9s. per head is the figure that has been adopted for some years for medical attention to adults, no one, I think, will say that 9s. is excessive, and some may say that it is not reasonable, for looking after children who require far more attention, probably a more thorough inspection, and more frequent visiting, and who are far more important people, as a class of life, to the community than those people who are at later ages. Additional to that is the fact that under this scheme

  1963
  the medical practitioner will have to keep very careful records. The extent of clerical work which medical practitioners have to do in connection with their work is hardly realised. A very substantial proportion of time which they ought to give to prevention and cure has to be given to clerical work.
  This is a good Bill. I foresee a time, before this Government or a similar National Government leaves office, when the whole life of a person from childhood to adulthood will be covered. Let me say candidly that I am rather sorry about that. I am rather an individualist, I belong to the old school, and I believe in personal contact between each person and the medical man. But I am afraid I am behind the times. The whole tendency of the State is to embrace people in its arms, or tentacles, from the cradle to the grave. According to all the tendencies, it has to be done even by a Conservative administration, for this is largely, in its elements, a Conservative administration. If the Government go on at the rate at which they are going now, I am very much afraid that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will have very little to do when they come into office.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Logan: I wish to make a few observations on this Bill. I listened with interest to the Minister enunciating his policy in regard to the gap, but I am unable to understand the optimism of those who think that dental benefit is to be brought in by regulations. Anybody who has knowledge of National Health Insurance must be aware of the fact that the valuation of the approved societies is based on the solvency of the societies and this particular class of insurance introduces a relatively unknown population, which must be brought under the Act at 16 years of age. It is nonsensical to speak of boys or girls being able to get dental benefits earlier than at 14½ or 16½. They will get them if they are fortunate enough to be in an approved society which is solvent, but when the majority of approved societies throughout the country is not solvent, optimism must go and disillusionment must come to every parent. I understand the gilding of a pill in order to make it acceptable to a child, but when we are getting, as we are to-day, a present from the National Government, it is well
  1964
  to understand what it is that we are getting. Let us not have a false perspective placed before the country. The National Health Insurance Act is complex enough without making it more complicated, and the simpler we can make it to the simple people outside, and to the simple Members of the National Government, the better it will be for everybody concerned. I have to be careful not to make too many eulogies on this Bill, because the last time I eulogised the Government it was all over the hoardings at the elections in the Scotland Division and the Exchange Division of Liverpool. Therefore I must be careful that I do not give too much praise to the Minister on this occasion.
  The Bill is said to be for the purpose of bridging the gap which now exists after the school-leaving age. I take it that at the end of the school term in which a child reaches the age of 14, if that child gets the necessary permission, he will be able to go into the industrial field, and then he will become not an insured person but a juvenile contributor. I notice that the term "juvenile contributor" is printed in the Memorandum in inverted commas. It carries a special meaning. It does not carry with it the full qualification of an insured person. The boy or girl does not reach the status of an insured person until later when he or she has entered the real scheme. The Bill, which I hope will become an Act, is, we are told, to give certain benefits, but I am at a loss to understand what is meant by these words:
  "The Bill accordingly provides that any boy or girl who after reaching school-leaving age but before the age of 16 becomes employed within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Act shall immediately become entitled as a 'juvenile contributor' to medical benefit, etc.".
  What is the meaning of the word "employed" in this connection? Under the amending Act of 1924, which is the present National Health Insurance Act, employment carries with it certain obligations. In this Bill the obligations of employment are not dealt with. If a boy aged, say, 14 years and three months is employed, he can become a member of an approved society, and if he afterwards falls out of work then, for the purpose of this Measure, he is insured and insurable until the age of 16½.That, to my mind, involves preferential treatment. He is to receive medical benefit, and I am not objecting to that. But the qualification in

  1965
  regard to the waiting period will entitle these young people to additional benefits when they get into an approved society. That means that the person having once joined, can, at the end of the waiting period, qualify and have benefit in respect of the two years waiting period, an advantage which is not given to those who join the approved society at the age of 16. That appears to be a discrepancy, and I wish to know by what system of actuarial calculation it is possible to say that a person who will contribute 2d. per week for this period is entitled to get these additional benefits.
  I submit, however, that the term "additional benefit" is a misnomer, and that there are no additional benefits which can be given unless the parents of the children concerned take jolly good care at the commencement to see that the children get into societies which are already paying such additional benefits. If this House is the sounding-board of the nation, I hope my advice given here will reach all fathers and mothers when I tell them not to rush their children into any society at all, merely for the sake of getting them into a society, but to see that their children join good societies until the State undertakes the duty which every right-thinking man hopes it will undertake and assumes responsibility for the whole system of national insurance. I get my livelihood from insurance, but I think the system on which we are working to-day is the wrong system in the interests of the nation. It ought to be taken out of the hands of the societies altogether. The inequality of benefits in different parts of the country is a curse, and we shall never be able to get the full benefit of all the health services until the State takes over the whole system as regards both adults and juveniles.
  What is to happen under this Bill if the young person falls out of employment? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that important matter, because it is a matter with which I have to deal when I am making up accounts and preparing audits and going through all the rest of the insurance paraphernalia which is necessary in order that we should know where we stand. I give every benefit in my society that can be given under the Act. We are giving them out week after week, but there are many societies which are not giving
  1966
  them, for the simple reason that casual labour and non-continuous employment make them impossible. The conditions of employment in casual occupations like those of dockers and seamen make it impossible for such societies to give any of these benefits, an they will not be able to give them for the next 50 years under existing conditions. But those are the benefits which are set out in this Bill to be given to these boys and girls in the course of a couple of years. Boys or girls who go into casual occupations will never get any of those benefits under present arrangements.
  How, then, is it proposed to give young people the additional benefits which are considered so essential for their health? Everybody knows that every child, with proper attention, can be made an asset to the nation, and that no boy or girl can be of much use in any occupation unless he or she has plenty of vitality. Children require special attention, and dental and optical examinations and treatment will prove very expensive. It is very important that children entering on the industrial field should have their teeth, sight and hearing properly looked after at the commencement. Unless they are put right at once in those respects they have little chance afterwards. But that does not appear to be provided for in the Bill, and it is not provided for in the National Health Insurance Act because under that Act, with all the millions at their disposal, the societies are not able to give benefits such as are pourtrayed here. I do not want any illusion to be created about this Measure. I do not want it to be thought that we are now going to give optical and other treatment to these juveniles, because we are not going to do anything of the kind.
  Suppose a boy or a girl falls out of employment. Under the 1924 Act no one can be a member of an approved society unless he or she is employed, and it naturally follows that no matter what arrangements you are making under this Bill to carry along a child up to 16½ years of age, if he is not employed, he cannot become insured under National Health Insurance. It is quite possible that a boy or girl will not be working at 16½ years of age and yet will be qualified under this Bill to receive all the benefits of medical attendance up to 16½. How is the old Act of 1924 to be amended

  1967
  so that an unemployed person can be taken on and continued under National Health Insurance although unemployed, which is contradictory to the Act itself? I should like to know if that problem can be answered. I want to know, Can we take into National Health Insurance any boy or girl at 16 who is not employed? If the favour is going to be given to the boy or girl who comes in unemployed under this Bill, then it will be logical to take in the unemployed person under the National Health Insurance Act, and that is a proposition that will not bear examination, because that Act is based on an actuarial standard, and no actuarial standard would stand the unemployed being allowed to get any benefits under the National Health Insurance Act, which is on a contributory basis.
  Turning to another matter, I have no objection to the remuneration of the medical body. If there was ever a body of people in the world that deserved remuneration for the great work that they do, not only in private life, but in hospitals, of which I have seen a lot, that body is the medical profession, and I do not begrudge the fact that under this Bill, according to my computation, they are receiving a sum of about £450,000 at least, if 1,000,000 is the true number of people that w ill come under the Bill. But is there not another point? The medical man certainly takes an account and puts it down, and sometimes it would be better if he wrote more legibly. I think most doctors must have been versed in Greek hieroglyphics, because their writing is abominable, and they do not seem to be able to understand how to write. When you get a doctor's note, you can get it made up to any prescription, because it may mean almost anything.
  The Minister has been very subtle tonight in his statements. He has a wonderfully benign manner of expressing things, and he is very suave in dealing with things. He mentioned about doctors, but he did not mention anything about the administration or about the society that has got to administer the Act. There are many who are engaged and getting their livelihood in societies—clerks and such like—and while we want to give benefits to some, I would like to know, in regard to the staffs engaged in many of these
  1968
  societies, what the amount for administration will be. By regulations, I am told, you are going to deal with dental benefit. Would it not be better if, without talking of regulations, we were able to know what the man on the job is to get for carrying out the work of National Health Insurance?
  There is another important point, which I hope the Minister will be able to understand, because it is a subtle point. I do not wish to be in any way insulting, but the point is very deep. I want to know whether this Bill means that a person must pay 26 weeks' contributions after 16 years of age to qualify for cash benefit. The important point to be borne in mind is that this Bill is giving only medical benefit, but the essential point in regard to the home will be, When shall we be entitled to receive cash benefit? Under the 1924 Act, after 26 weeks' contributions are paid, then at a reduced rate the boy or girl is able to get cash benefit along with other benefits, but under this Bill there is no indication of how long he or she must be in before getting cash benefit. If you are unemployed, you cannot get cash benefit, and I want to know whether there are going to be franks, during the period of unemployment, to link you up. I want to know whether, when a boy is unemployed, although he is now registered under this Bill as a member, there will be registration at an Employment Exchange. Will the franks for registration be brought along as they are brought along to-day, or can there be a gap without any registration whatever? I want to know how that link is to be made up, not only that societies may know that a boy is looking for work, but also to see that a boy will not lose the benefits under the Act, and that, from the point of view of continuity, that relationship from 14½ to 16½ years of age will entitle him, by proper registration at some responsible place, to get the full benefits to which he is entitled.
  It must be understood that unless there is going to be a proper linking up, the benefits can be lost to a boy. Seeing that you are going to give him the advantage, in regard to additional benefit, of at least two years in the waiting period— because the earlier the age of joining enables him to qualify about two years earlier—I say that, just as an adult has to register at an Employment Exchange, so should a boy who is unemployed, if

  1969
  he is to get the full value of those two years, have a link with the society and the Employment Exchange so that he may get the additional benefit. I should think you have got about as far as you could possibly go, considering the proposition placed before the country, in regard to dental benefits. I hope the Minister will make plain to the nation that they cannot get these benefits unless the child is in a society that has funds at its disposal; otherwise the parents, if they go into the back-alley societies, can never get any benefit whatever out of them, and the sooner that is made known to everybody the better.
  There is one other matter which I should like the Minister to take into consideration. You have made, in regard to the school-leaving age, a proposition that a boy or girl can go from school to employment and get the benefit of those two years. I want to see that extended. I want to see the best benefit under the Bill given to every boy and girl. I do not want the funds of the societies to be built up, for they should be devoted to the purpose for which they were contributed, namely, for the benefit of the health of those who join. That being so. I would like to know how it is proposed to deal with the boy or girl who does not leave school so early. The Bill gives two years additional benefit to the boy or girl who leaves school and rushes out to employment. It there to be any franking for those who remain two years at school? Will you not give the benefit to the child of 16 who goes into the field of life after leaving the secondary school, while you give the poor breadwinner who had to leave school a chance of getting qualifications earlier? Many parents sacrifice themselves and do without the extra two years earnings of the child in order that the child may have a better chance at a secondary school. What provision is being made in the Bill to see that the new qualifying period is given to such a child? The children of the nation, whether they are poor industrial workers who go out to work early, or whether they are kept by their parents at school in the hope than: they will have a better chance in life, are worthy of consideration at our hands.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Denman: The hon. Member who last addressed the House has put to the Minister a series of searching questions,
  1970
  and we shall await with interest the answers to them. He made one point specially which, I hope, will receive wide publicity, that is, the importance of children joining the best societies if they are to obtain the full benefits of this Bill. Clearly the additional benefits will be paid by only a relatively small number of approved societies. I am one of those who regard the dental benefit as of the greatest importance for the children of this age. I rejoiced to hear the Minister state that he is able to do a little better than the Bill announces it will be able to do, and shorten the gap by one year. According to the Memorandum to the Bill, the gap was shortened but very little. In shortening it further the Minister has undoubtedly met a real need. Like other hon. Members on all sides of the House, I look forward to the time when the gap will be completely abolished.
  We all welcome the Bill as a distinct step forward, for it means that a part of the gap in our medical services is being filled. Every time we have a Bill to fill one of these gaps it emphasises the gaps that remain. Even after this Bill becomes an Act, what a medley our medical services for child welfare will be! We begin with the inadequate and fragmentary service for children before they enter school. We then go on with a completely different set of doctors while the children are at school. It is true that they are inspected at intervals, and that they receive a certain amount of treatment, but to maintain that the school medical service provides an adequate medical treatment for childhood is an impossible idea. Then they come under panel doctors, and will probably be examined by factory doctors. Throughout this process the children are objects of interest to a different set of doctors at each stage. Medical opinion is practically unanimous that the most effective medical supervision is that of the family doctor. He knows the child from the early years upwards, knows the particular family idiosyncracies and the weaknesses to which every child is liable, of which a new doctor will know nothing.
  Instead of having a family doctor responsible for the health of the breadwinner, his wife and children, we have this extraordinary medley of medical supervision from the earliest years until the child is well embarked on life. It is outside the scope of the Bill to deal with that big problem, but the fact that we

  1971
  are remedying a little bit of the trouble throws into relief the amount of ground that has still to be covered. I look forward to the time when my right hon. Friend or his successor will be able to tackle this problem of the treatment of child health from the earliest years as a big question, and will give us a service that will ensure us a far better standard of health, the absence of a C.3 population, and a childhood physically fit and able to enter upon the tasks of manhood and womanhood in a far more satisfactory manner than hitherto.
  8.53 p.m.
  Viscountess Astor: I want to congratulate the Minister on many things that he has done. Naturally this Bill is a step in advance but what I think should be the first consideration of this House is a survey of a problem which has alarmed every responsible person in it. It is no good the Minister bringing in these patchwork Bills. They are better than nothing, but what we want, and what the nation will demand soon, is to know what we are going to do about the fact that 50 per cent. of our recruits are turned down for ill-health and 16 per cent. of our children in elementary schools are physically deficient. Nothing adequate is being done about it, although we are spending an enormous sum on medicine. When an hon. Member asks what we are doing about the school medical services, I would point out that we are spending £4,500,000 on them, including the special schools. We spend £3,700,000 a year on tuberculosis, £836,000 on venereal disease, over £2,000,000 for special schools, £9·000,000 on the insane and £7,000,000 on mental defectives. Those are colossal figures, and we are not really getting better in the way we should do.
  I am getting weary of saying, when everybody talks about getting fit, that we should get to the bottom of it and see how we can prevent ill-health instead of adopting this bottle system of curing people. The Minister of Health, in a very able speech, has deplored that we are becoming a bottle-minded nation. He said that in the last 12 years the cost of prescriptions had increased from £1,750,000 to £2,250,000. He was quite right in saying that we are a bottle-minded nation, but will not this Measure just mean more bottles? I shall not say
  1972
  a word against the medical profession. because I think some of the most splendid men in the country belong to it—and some of the worst scallywags; there are some of the best arid the worst —but I do not believe in looking to medical men for health. We go to medical men in cases of ill-health. If hon. Members want to see good health let them consult the people who have beaten the doctors at their own game; let them go to the Margaret Macmillan Centre in Deptford and see what she has done.
  It is madness for us to go on as we are. There is a terrific problem before us. We have a falling birth rate. Ministers talk about the tragedy of the falling birth rate. Well, the Government cannot do anything about that. There are 599·000 children born in this country each year. Of those, 25,000 are born dead, and 57,700 die before they are two years old. Why do not we get to work to see whether we cannot save those 57,000 children, who were presumably born fairly healthy but died before they were two years old? We should see also whether we cannot do something about that 16 per cent. of our children who, when they enter the elementary schools, are found to have physical defects which many of them had not got at the time of their birth.
  I would remind the Minister that we have a chance under this Prime Minister, because he is a man who does understand these things. He understands local government; nobody in the world has done more for health than he has with his Poor Law reform. He has a great record behind him. I wish he would go to the country and say, "We have got to stop patching up." The last thing we did was to patch up recruits who were in a low state physically. It was found that if they were fed well and looked after they would soon be all right. With our nursery schools we have shown the improvement we can make in children when they have proper food, proper sleep and good environment. I remember a child whose legs were so very much bent as a result of rickets that the doctors wanted to break the legs and send the child to an orthopaedic hospital. We said, "Give it to us for one year." We had the child one year, and now that child's legs are straight—much straighter than the legs of many hon. Members of this House.
  Mr. Logan: You could not stop the Prime Minister having gout.
  Viscountess Astor: He did not get it when he was two years old. This problem of the children really does alarm me. If we look after the children from the age of two to five we can cure them of rickets, which are the root of a great many other diseases, and we can make them half an inch taller than other children and 5 lb. heavier. It is amazing what we could do—but we are not doing it. We are getting research. Almost every time I look in a newspaper I see that somebody is "researching" about health. Why do they not use common sense? We are becoming medically-minded and medically-ridden. I would not mind if the medical men gave us health, but they do not. This Measure means more bottles. While we ought to welcome this Bill, I want the House to say that we must face up to this problem of ill-health and physical unfitness. Other countries are doing it, and doing it with a vengeance. We cannot do it in the way they do it, and I do not believe we can do everything all at once—I am not in a hurry about it. If this Bill passes there will be £500,000 more a year—
  Mr. Bernays: £130,000.
  Viscountess Astor: Ifyou gave me that £130,000 a year, and part of the £4,500,000 you are spending on medical benefits [An HON. MEMBER: "You would go on holiday!"] No, I should not go on holiday. This is nothing to laugh about. I can be as cheeky as you like when I want to be, but I want to deal with this matter seriously. We have a falling birth rate and 57,000 children dying before they are two years of age, and we go on patching things up in this way. We must have a system of prevention instead of having to remedy so many ills. We heard the other day of the enormous increase in mental disease cases. It is terrific.
  Mr. Duncan: In London this year there has been a decrease.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): Now that other hon. Members seem to be joining in this discussion, I must ask the Noble Lady to look at the title of the Bill.
  Viscountess Astor: As it is a Measure dealing with health, I thought it was a good time to talk about health.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid the Noble Lady must do so with some reference to the proposals which are contained in the Bill.
  Viscountess Astor: I was aware that I was going a little outside the scope of the Bill, but I thought it was such a wonderful chance to get in a little propaganda about good health, and to remind the Minister that although we welcome this Measure as being better than nothing it is still going to leave us a bottle-ridden nation. I am hoping that sooner or later the Minister will tackle the subject—indeed, the Government as a whole ought to tackle it, because it concerns not only the Ministry of Health but the Board of Education and other Departments. There ought to be some coordination between the Departments, and they ought to face up to this terrific question. As I have said, 50 per cent. of our recruits are turned down on account of ill-health, and i6 per cent. of those who go to our schools to get education are not in a fit condition to learn. I am sorry that I have been out of order, but I feel very strongly on this subject, and this was a great chance. There are other questions, but other questions will wait, and the children cannot wait. If once we let them get past the time when we can deal with their small diseases they will be ruined for life.
  9·3 P.m.
  Dr. Haden Guest: The Minister has told us that the Bill will bring in a million young people of 14 to 15 years of age. That is a very small number in comparison with the total of those who are dependent upon insured persons and who, under a Bill which would recommend itself more to this side of the House, could also be brought in. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) riddled the Bill with some very good shots, pointing out some very large gaps in the drafting of it, and I think the Minister will find some difficulty in replying to him. The speeches of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) have also subjected the Bill to very severe criticism. Like the Noble Lady,

  1975
  we on this side welcome the Bill for what it is worth, but I think that the Minister trumpeted too much about it, claimed too much for it. He made out that it was a good deal better than it is. If he had confined himself to saying that it is a small Measure of administrative and practical importance it would have been a fairer statement. To claim that it is an important advance is far removed from the facts, especially regarding the number of persons to be treated.
  No doubt the Minister has the facts at his disposal. Estimated on the calculations of the 1926 Royal Commission on National Health Insurance with regard to the number of dependants, there are now approximately 18,168,780 dependants of the 35,000,000 insured persons. That means, if this method of treatment and medical provision is to be continued, that that very large number of people ought to be brought within the scope of National Health Insurance. That would prevent the gaps and deficiencies which will defeat the Minister's aims. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division said, young people brought into insurance under this scheme will not receive dental benefit. There are very few approved societies who can give it. If the Minister can invent some way of giving them dental benefit no one will be better pleased than ourselves, but how will he do it? It is no good to promise dental benefit to persons in two years' time, because these young people want it when they are entering into employment.
  I have some figures of the proportion of people who need dental treatment when they leave school, taken from the Report of the borough of Cambridge, relating to 1934. No doubt the figures are about the same at the present time. In that year, 784 children between 13 and 14 years of age were examined and were found to have a total of 2,929 permanent carious teeth. That is a fair proportion of the large number of carious teeth in the mouths of children at the school-leaving age. If you apply that proportion to the total of 1,000,000 who, the Minister said, would be brought into insurance under the scheme you have a large figure of the number of carious teeth which will require treatment. If they are not treated in the years between 14 and 16—the Minister
  1976
  said there would be a delay of two years —there will be permanent damage to their health. There is not the slightest doubt about that, because one of the most important things for young people of that age is that their teeth should be kept in proper order to prevent all kinds of septic conditions arising and to enable their digestion to function properly. Good teeth are one of the conditions of health. The Minister knows the enormous benefit which has accrued to children since school medical and dental services were instituted. They have produced almost a revolution.
  To reinforce my opinion I will quote the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance of 1926, which said:
  "The general effect of this evidence is to emphasise the value to health of timely continued and effective dental treatment. The need for making the benefit generally available on uniform lines and the adequacy of the number of qualified dentists to deal with the whole insured population."
  Then they go on to say:
  "The evidence leaves no doubt in our minds that any system of public medical service cannot be regarded as complete until it includes the provision of adequate dental treatment in generally available form."
  That report was made with regard to adults. The argument is TO times more forcible with regard to children and young persons. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me.
  You, therefore, have an apparently irrefutable case for the provision of dental treatment for young persons. How will it be done? I should be very glad, speaking personally, to support any reasonable method of doing it, although I would very much rather that the Minister took his courage in both hands and provided a national health system to take in all the dependants of insured persons. It would be an excellent national economy which would provide medical superintendence of children by a doctor who knew them for a long period of their lives, and it would really begin to approximate to what the Minister somewhat grandiloquently said about this very small scheme—to caring for the insured population from the cradle to the grave. If he had made a little more provision for their dental treatment there might have been more to be said for it.
  If the Minister cannot do more than provide some kind of what the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division called

  1977
  a bottle method of treatment, it is not much to come to the House about. If this is to be regarded as a first step in the extension of insurance treatment to the dependants—although technically, of course, these young persons would not be dependants—it might be an advance to be seriously welcomed; but in its present form it is not a very big thing. I hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to outline some method by which dental treatment can be given. I think I am justified in saying that I am speaking not only for myself but for every medical Member of the House. I think every medical man is agreed on this matter.
  9·13 p.m.
  Mr. Duncan: I have some hesitation in intervening in a Debate after so many doctors and insurance experts have been speaking. I am a simple layman trying to take a layman's interest in the matter. I thought it was a little ungracious of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) to belittle this Measure so much. The Minister did not blazon it forth as a major Measure. He was particularly modest— I thought he was too modest—in introducing it. It will benefit in some way or another 1,000,000 boys and girls in this country at a time when the benefit is most needed, and that is not nothing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield seemed to criticise the Minister for not including cash benefits, but I think the Minister was quite right. Cash benefits would make the contributions very much heavier. The general view of parents would be that they would rather their sons and daughters paid only 2d. per week and got medical benefit rather than a very much bigger contribution to get more benefit and cash benefits as well.
  With regard to the question of dental benefit, I listened with great care to what was said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), and, as far as I can understand, he seemed to have spotted one or two weaknesses in the Bill. As I understand it, if a boy or girl leaves school at the age of 14 or later, becomes employed, and is employed until the age of i6 plus and for some time after, he or she gets all the additional benefits of the Bill, including ophthalmic and dental benefit; but they do not become entitled to any of the benefits of the Bill if they leave school and
  1978
  do not become employed. The benefits do not start until the young person becomes employed, if I read the memorandum to the Bill aright. Again, if the young person falls out of employment before reaching the age of 16½, having been employed after leaving school, then he or she is continuously insured for medical benefit until the age of 16½ anyhow; but if they are out of work at the age of 16½, they have to start all over again when employment is obtained after the age of 16½. There are no running benefits after the age of 16½ as regards cash benefits, medical benefits or additional benefits, and none of the special measures taken for the highest class, namely, those who have been continuously employed, will inure to the boy or girl who gets out of employment.
  Mr. Logan: My point was that, although the lad, after being employed, is entitled to benefit up to the age of 16½, if he falls out of work at 15½ and is out of work for one year, he is still qualified for medical benefit, while riot being an insured person. He is getting preferential treatment. Whether the benefit is medical benefit or not is immaterial; you can get no benefit unless you are an insured worker under the Act. I was dealing with the gap, and asking how the Minister was going to bridge it.
  Mr. Duncan: I also was going to ask the Minister to explain exactly what happens to the boy if he falls out of work—how he gets back into insurance and into the scale of benefits after the age of 16 plus, and if and when he becomes eligible for additional benefits.
  Mr. Logan: I was wondering whether the machinery of the Employment Exchanges was going to be the connecting link for registration.
  Mr. Duncan: I must thank the hon. Member for helping me on this technical question. With regard to dental benefit itself, the Financial Memorandum says:
  "Provision will be made for this purpose by regulations under the principal Act."
  I should like to ask the Minister whether he could have these regulations published in draft form before we consider the Bill in Committee, so that we shall begin to understand it a little better than I, at any rate, can at the present moment on this rather technical point. In spite of these technical difficulties, I heartily welcome the Bill. It deals with medical benefit

  1979
  for boys and girls at a very critical age, when they are growing up and when there has been a gap for so long in medical benefit when medical benefit is really needed. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading without a Division, so that the parents of the country will be given a clear indication that the House of Commons is doing its best to help their children.
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie: We on this side welcome the Bill as an instalment, but only an instalment, of justice far too long delayed. I think it should have been introduced at the same time as young persons were included under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Minister tells us that the object of the Bill is to fill the gap between school and the age of 16, but really it does not fill the gap, because while at school a child is under the watchful eye of the medical officer and entitled to both dental and optical treatment, but this Bill provides neither. I happen to speak for an occupation that employs nearly a quarter of a million young persons between the ages of 14 and 15. The exact number of young persons between the ages of 14 and 15 employed in the distributive trades is 242,730. Why are they employed at this early age? Undoubtedly it is because of the need for additional income in the family. Poverty is the main cause of children being sent into the distributive trades at the age of 14. They are taken from school, where they are engaged for 28 hours a week, and are dumped into occupations where the hours are very long. That imposes a big strain on them, and the result is that their health becomes impaired. Van boys and errand boys are subject to the inclemency of the weather, and the sickness rate among them is very high. I want the Minister also to bear in mind the fact that employers are not all generous in paying wages to juveniles during sickness, so that the family is deprived of the boy's wage at a most critical time, namely, a time of sickness. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) said he thought it was right to exclude payment during that period, but we certainly think otherwise. The Bill fails to make provision for the payment of benefit during sickness, and I think that that is a very serious omission. I
  1980
  have already mentioned dental and optical treatment, which are not to be given until the age of 17.
  The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) mentioned that a large number of approved societies are unable to give additional benefits. Fortunately, I represent one that does, because it has a reserve of something like £750,000. But boys coming, for instance, from miners' homes are certainly at a disadvantage if they want to join an approved society, because they will not be able to get these additional benefits. If they had been at school instead of being dumped into industrial occupations, they would have had both dental and optical treatment, and, as previous speakers have mentioned, defective teeth are a wellknown cause of incapacity. Surely, therefore, dental treatment ought to be provided.
  Then, in view of the fact that the payment of the 4d. contribution under the Bill is to be divided between the employer and the employé, I would ask, why are these young people employed at that early age? They are employed because they are cheap, and, that being so, we think that the employers ought to pay the full amount, and that amount should be such as to make possible sickness benefit provision. The Government can be very free in granting huge subsidies to many cases less deserving than this. The Government has been boosting the "Keep Fit Campaign." Why not start by keeping the children fit? One slogan which I observed the other day, and I think it is a very good slogan, is "All the wise exercise." May I suggest to the Government that if they are wise they will exercise wisdom in being a little more generous in the provisions of this Bill. I think the Bill should provide, in addition to the medical benefit, payment of dental and optical treatment during sickness, the whole of the contribution to be paid by the employer and the Government's State contribution increased. Unless these provisions are made it will be far short of what we desire.
  9·27 p.m.
  Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I want to stress some points which, I think, make this Bill a very valuable effort. The ages at which it will become operative are between 14 and 16. Those are the ages

  1981
  when physical development occurs and nervous troubles become important, and it is at that period that persons really require far more watching than at any other periods in the life of a human being. It is high time to fill that gap because of the work which has been done in the last decade dealing with the psychology of the adolescent. It is quite new work. The Regius Professor of Physic at Oxford, a very famous nerve specialist, has recently said some things about the incidence of nervous diseases in this country. He said the amount of nervous disease was strikingly large, and many of those nervous disorders are begun in this very critical period. This age is very little understood, and its importance is becoming more and more widely recognised. There are many diseases and affections which are peculiarly liable to begin at this period. The adolescent is often put to physical exercises for which his frame is not fitted. One of the fears which I have personally of the physical recreation movement is that in many of these cases mischief may be done because it is quite obvious you ought to know of what the physical framework is capable before you put it to any physical strain.
  Let me give a concrete instance. A very skilled medical friend of mine practising in the country had a boy sent from Eton, a boy of very good family and of very fine promise. To his astonishment the boy had a very large heart. The first: examination revealed it. The father said to him, "I have brought him down here. I know you well, and I know that you are an excellent practitioner. I have not been able to get any proper attention paid to him at school." That boy had been forced to do many quite improper things in playing games much more vigorous that he was capable of, and by my friend's order he was kept on his back for a whole year before he could recover the proper size of heart that had been affected by that exercise. This kind of attention will prevent, I think, many terrible things like that happening.
  I think that another very important phase of this question is the optical benefit; many cases of disease and disability of the eyes seem to arise in this period. Far too little attention to-day is paid to the condition of children's eyes. The conditions of homework are of prime
  1982
  importance at 14. It is that kind of attention which I hope will be provided by this Measure. I am very glad that it is a contributory Bill. I think a contributory Bill will be far more successful with an independent people like ours. As a first effort I think it should receive nothing but encouragement. I do hope that there will be absolutely no opposition to this very valuable Bill.
  9·32 p.m.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: This is the second Bill that the Minister has introduced to-night. They are both little Bills. While they have not been opposed, it has been emphasised that there are defects in them. I think the Minister admitted on the last Bill that he could not come down to the age of 18 because of the Financial Resolution. I was hoping that he would, but I must not talk about that too long for I shall be out of order. What I do want to say is that I belong to a society. I have been in it for a good many years. It is a practical one, in the West Riding, and all the members of that society are miners. The miners carry a tremendously big incidence of sickness owing to the conditions under which they work. The society has only been able to pay sickness benefit and disablement benefit, and only the minimum amount. Never have they paid anything above 15s. and when members have drawn 26 weeks it has never paid anything beyond 7s. 6d. We have got a lot of boys between the ages of 14 and r6. When the Education Bill comes into operation in 1939, it is likely that any kind of employment in a pit by a boy who is the son of a miner will be beneficial employment, and he will go into the pit. When it comes to the boy going into a society—the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) sent it out to all the world—he must go into this kind of society or he will not get benefit. I do not blame him. That is the defect in this Bill. Dental treatment and the inspection of the eyes should have been merged into the Bill.
  The chief defect is that this is not a State medical service. I disagree entirely from the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little). This is the occasion on which the Minister of Health could have done one of the greatest things in Great Britain; he could have started a State medical service for everybody who requires it. Yon have a

  1983
  State medical service for every T.B. case in this country if they want it. During last year, 100,000 were inspected for T.B., and there were 64,000 notified, and every one of those could have inspection and treatment free. It is estimated that it costs at least 7£3 per week for each of these T.B. cases. I do not desire to continue on that point, but I will put one other point. The Noble Lady, who has gone out now, stated that we expended last year £436,000 on venereal disease. If people contract this painful disease— largely on their own account; it is no good blinking the fact—the Government say, "Come to the clinic, and we will pay every penny of the cost." There are two points. Now I will come to a third. There are 250,000 people in this country suffering from diabetes. When they are certified as suffering from diabetes, and the doctor says that they are to take insulin, the Government say that they are to buy their own, no matter what their financial position is. Is that fair? And it is one of the most costly drugs, especially for working men and women. I have asked the Minister repeatedly, why cannot State-insured persons' relatives have insulin free? They would live if they had it, but a lot of them do not have it and they die, because they cannot pay for it. A State medical service would take in those people. It is true that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to me that they can get it. The Minister nods his head.
  I have raised the question of one of my own constituents, a woman, who has to pay 14s. or 15s. a week for insulin, and could not get it from the public assistance committee because the man was getting £3 5s. a week, working seven shifts a week. Because there are only himself and his wife, she cannot get insulin free, yet, over and above the cost of the insulin, she has to have a different diet from his. If there was a State medical service granted to diabetics, the same as there is to T.B. and venereal disease cases, there would be something to be said for a Bill similar to this. I put my plea in here that this is only a small affair. There is nobody in the country who can make little things look big better than the Minister of Health. He brings a Bill here to the Box and says, "This is a great thing, there must
  1984
  be no opposition; it means the life of so-and-so." It means, I agree, medical benefits, but when the Minister tells us at the Box, "I am managing now from the cradle to the grave," I say that he is leaving out 250,000 people who are going to the grave. I appeal to him to do better than this. I ask him before he leaves that office to bring forward a State medical service, so that everybody will have a fair crack of the whip.
  9·41 p.m.
  Mr.Westwood: Every speaker, on either side of the House, has welcomed this Measure, but almost every speaker has claimed that it is an exceedingly short step to cover an extremely wide gap in services that we must provide if we are to make the health services truly national. I suggest also that the step we are taking to-night is long overdue. Twenty-five years ago the National Health Insurance Act was introduced. It has taken 25 years to introduce an amending Measure that will provide for medical services, through a family practitioner, to those between 14 and 16 years of age. We complain that whilst this Measure provides for a very limited medical service, the Minister knows that he was painting the lily when he seriously suggested that the additional benefits would go to the 1,000,000 persons, or to 50 per cent. of those 1,000,000, who are being brought within the scope of national insurace. He also knows that it is not always the best-administered approved society that can provide the best benefits. He knows from his own experience that many societies can pick and choose, within certain limits, so far as their memberships are concerned. Whereas there are some societies whose members can pay 50 contributions out of the 52 in the year, there are other societies restricted to heavy industries, whose contributions are restricted to an average of 45 weeks or less in the year. Therefore, it is difficult for those societies to provide the additional benefits which the Minister suggests will be available for the 1,000,000 new entrants into national insurance.
  We also complain that no provision is made for sickness benefit. It is a serious thing in the household of a working family if a boy starts to work at 14 or 15 years of age and then his earnings, through sickness, cease to go into the

  1985
  home. It is a hardship to have no financial provision to provide the extra food and nourishment which is required, apart from medicine, for restoring that boy or girl back to health and strength again. Therefore, one of our objections to the Bill is that while it provides only for some forms of medical benefit—not for all—it does not provide for any form of financial assistance in case of sickness. Much has been made of the fact that it is a contributory Measure, and the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir E. Graham-Little) and the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) made special reference to the fact that they were proud that this was a contributory Measure. I hope to convince them that they are on wrong lines before I finish dealing with this particular problem. The Bill is altogether too niggardly and inadequate in dealing with the problem with which we are faced, setting up a truly national health service. The Minister said that he is going to bring within the scope of this Measure 1,000,000 boys and girls, but it will leave out all the boys and girls, despite his reference to the school medical service between 5 and 15 years of age, in so far as the provision of the service of a family practitioner is concerned.
  We have been told that it links up the school medical service with benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts. It does nothing of the kind. It only links up a section of the youths and the children, and does not link up the school medical service with National Health Insurance. Again, I submit that I am proving my case that the Minister, in introducing the Bill, was painting the lily, and painting it with a vengeance. The Minister said that there is no substantial claim for juvenile financial benefit. Why? Working-class organisations have had far too limited a time to consider the proposals in the Bill. There has not been adequate time allowed for consideration by the trade union movement or the friendly society movement. I have known Bills introduced before which, after discussion, were withdrawn, and in a new Session obviously improved Bills were introduced. But there has not been adequate time to discuss the full provisions of the present Bill. The friendly society and the working-class
  1986
  movements generally would have welcomed financial provision for sickness benefit being made in the Bill which we are discussing. It would have been a better Bill if there had been provision made for statutory benefit, including treatment for visual defects and dental treatment, which have been dealt with by almost every speaker.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) raised one or two very important points, which, I trust, will be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies on the Debate. The Minister leaves the child that is attending school out of the provision for family medical attendance in the case of sickness, while providing for the child who has left school at 14 years of age, entered industry and ultimately become unemployed. Surely there can be no justification for that. Working-class parents must make great sacrifices if their children are to receive a secondary education from 14 to 17 years of age. In case of illness they are compelled to pay the fees of the medical man who is called in. That would not be quite so bad, if they always had the finances available with which to pay those fees. What actually happens is that the child is oftentimes sacrificed and the doctor is called in too late to give the aid, which, if it had been given earlier, might have saved unnecessary suffering. The very great weakness in the Bill is that provision is not being made for the family doctor for all children over 14 years of age.
  I have already dealt with the point made as to joining up with the best societies. Until the treatment of visual and dental defects is made a statutory benefit under the National Insurance Acts, you will never be able adequately, efficiently and effectively to deal with the problems of ill-health as they affect particularly that section of our population between 14 and 16 years of age, a point that was very ably and eloquently made by one of the representatives of the English Universities. The Consultative Council on Medical and Allied Services of the Scottish Board of Health, in a report published in 1920, stated:
  "We regard it as of primary importance that the organisation of the health service of the nation should be based upon the family as the normal unit, and on the family doctor as the normal medical attendant and guardian."

  1987
  The Minister, in producing his Bill, does not propose to take the family as the unit but merely to take those who are working, and, in refusing to do the obvious, the Government leave unprovided, with vital and disastrous consequences to health and happiness, the remaining units in the family. This truth was emphasised by Dr. Burgess, the Medical Officer of Health for Dundee, in the evidence he submitted to the Departmental Committee on Scottish Health Services, on which I had the honour to serve and try at least to make some useful recommendations to the Government, with a view to improving the health services of Scotland. On page 157, paragraph 478, of the report, we find that Dr. Burgess stated:
  "One of the most important criticisms of the organisation as it exists at present is that advice and treatment are not immediately accessible to every individual unless the payment of medical fees is a matter of little or no moment. This fact has been brought home to me on numerous occasions when visting in the district for purposes of housing. During the winter months particularly, one finds in numerous dwelling-houses children who are obviously ill and in need of medical attention. No doctor is in attendance, and the reason, admitted or obvious, is always connected with finance."
  Why at this time of day, if we are desperately anxious to improve the health of the nation, should the lack of finances be the guiding principle in a home as to whether they can call upon the best medical knowledge available within the district. It is a crime against the children when they have to be sacrificed because of the poverty of the parents in a land that is wealthy and has sufficient scientific knowledge at least to reduce to the very minimum the unnecessary suffering that occurs in our midst at the present time.
  To-day we are creating a problem by not dealing with the existing problem as it ought to be dealt with. We are also creating a problem associated with our hospitals. Let me quote from the Committee's report:
  "Apart from housing conditions, inability to provide medical treatment at home, for financial reasons creates a considerable demand on hospital accommodation. This cause of pressure on the hospitals is most apparent in large industrial centres."
  Yet we have a niggardly Bill of this kind merely to provide medical attention for children between 14 and 16, instead of the Government having the courage to bring in a Bill which would provide
  1988
  medical attendance for all and enable us to deal with this problem in the way we could deal with it if the Government had only the courage to face up to the problem. They have a glorious opportunity of co-ordinating, but not in a niggardly Bill of this kind, the medical services in the interests of the health of the people, but they bring in this puny Measure at a time when, to quote again the report:
  "Every member of the community should have access to the service of a medical practitioner, with medical attention at home normally to be provided through the family doctor."
  Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman introduces a Bill to continue the contributory system, which has been advocated to-night by the hon. Member for London University and the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), which has outworn its usefulness and ought to give way to a more progressive method of dealing with this problem. Let me again quote from the report, because we on these benches object to the contributory system as far as this Bill is concerned. There might have been an argument for the contributory system in the Bill if the Government had been providing financial benefits, but for those who have been brought within the scope of the Bill they are providing only medical benefit. Another section of the report says:
  "The chief argument for maintaining the contributory system is that it is now in operation, yielding a considerable contribution towards the financing of the scheme of medical benefit. On the venerable maxim (of doubtful validity) that 'an old tax is no tax' it may be thought unwise to sacrifice the substantial sum which is at present being borne without too obvious discontent. Mingled with this are arguments—to which it is unnecessary to attach undue weight—that the contributory system is a bracing influence "—
  that is the argument used by the hon. Member for London University—
  "in maintaining a spirit of sturdy independence."
  I wonder the House did not smile when that statement was made. I wonder that they did not doubly smile when the right hon. Member for North Cornwall suggested that it might make boys feel like men if they had to pay 2d. per week contribution in connection with National Health Insurance. The report proceeds;
  "It is unnecessary to discuss how far forebodings of demoralisation consequent on the extension of State activity have been justified in the result. it is sufficient to note that in

  1989
  the particular field with which we are concerned, the whole burden of the evidence placed before us points, over the period of the extension of health services, to an increased sense of personal pride and responsibility, exemplified, to take but one instance, in the greater parental care exercised over the health and cleanliness of the children. We believe that parental responsibility is developed not superseded by civic organisation."
  Later, that section of the report says:
  "The insurance principle becomes continuously less appropriate as the field covered is widened. It has pre-eminent merits as a device for raising money for purposes that are sectional; but when the whole, or substantially the whole, of the population are potential beneficiaries, the retention of the insurance system means the retention of a considerable amount of machinery to achieve an end that might be compassed more simply."
  We say that the more simple method would have been for the Government to have introduced a non-contributory scheme, not merely for the juveniles under discussion, but for the whole population. I hope the hon. Member for London University will not think that I am suggesting a full-time State service, but an extension of the existing panel system, free choice of doctor, the payment for purposes to meet the legitimate demands of those doctors being provided by the State, while the money sought for in the way of national contributions could be used effectively to improve old age pensions or to extend the financial benefits of families who to-day are insured —reforms which must be faced sooner or later by this House. Finally the minority report of the committee said:
  "We do not think that anyone would advocate the establishment or continuance of the contributory system at the present stage of development if we had a clean slate in the matter. It is a legacy from the past. On the other hand, we do not doubt that the arguments for cutting ourselves free from this legacy will operate with increased force in the future, and the abandonment of the contributory system. so far as concerns the medical side of insurance, will be found to be an ineluctable stage in the development of our health services."
  I admit that that was the minority report, signed by seven members of the committee; but the Government had the courage to accept the minority report in its application to the maternity services. was the principles contained in the minority report on maternity services—I had the honour of being one of the minority of four who signed that report— that was accepted by the Government in the Bill which they introduced to deal
  1990
  with the maternity services. If it was good for the Government to accept the minority report in its application to maternity services, it is equally good, when the minority in this case has reached seven instead of four, to accept that minority report in its application to medical services. It is equally true to say that the majority report stated that it was only a question of time until some Government would be compelled to face up to a non-contributory scheme for dealing with medical services in the interests of the general community.
  Whilst accepting the Measure before us, although we believe it to be niggardly and altogether inadequate for dealing with the problem, we shall put no obstacles in the way here or in Committee, but shall do our best to improve it. As a party we shall go forward with our agitation inside and outside the House for a health service that will be worthy of the scientific knowledge that is available for the people of this country, and the provision of a health service, under a Government that has the courage to deal with it, which will make our people more healthy and more fit than they are at the present time.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Bernays: The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) has quoted copiously from the report of the Committee on Scottish Health Services and has made great play on the question of employed children so far as health services are concerned. On page 278 of that report I see in paragraph 771 this recommendation:
  "The needs of employed children between 14 and 16 will be met by the Government's proposal to reduce the age of entry into National Health Insurance to school-leaving age."
  When the Government are carrying out that recommendation I think it is a little churlish to describe the Bill as niggardly and puny. On this occasion I have only one opposition to deal with, as the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), on behalf of the Liberal party, has given the Bill his enthusiastic support. I will try to answer the questions which have been put to me. I take the first question by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan). Apparently the hon. Member once said some nice things about the

  1991
  National Government and it appeared on posters. The hon. Member suggested that my right hon. Friend had something to do with it. At any rate, it shows what value my right hon. Friend attaches to the opinions of the hon. Member, who speaks with expert knowledge on these questions. He will not expect me after a few weeks study of these questions to rival his knowledge. He asked, what about the boy who stays at school? And another hon. Member suggested that he would have no medical treatment. That, of course, is not the case. A boy or girl who stays at school after 14 remains under the school medical service, but he cannot count the extra year at school as part of the waiting period for dental benefit.
  Mr. Logan: As long as the parents sacrifice for the extra period in school, is it not possible to incorporate that extra year and give additional benefit under the Bill?
  Mr. Bernays: We have gone carefully into this matter and I am afraid that I cannot give any promise upon that matter.
  Mr. Westwood: Is it seriously suggested that the school medical service provides for medical attendance on the child? Is it not the fact that they merely refer the child to the family doctor and that there is no provision for school medical inspection or for treatment or services by a medical practitioner?
  Mr. Bernays: We are not altering the present practice in this respect. The next question which the hon. Member put was: when does a boy receive cash benefits? He will receive them when he has paid 26 contributions after the age of 16. The 4d. contribution for juveniles contains no provision for the cost of a cash benefit. The hon. Member also asked me whether juveniles would have to prove unemployment. The answer is "No;" they will not have to prove unemployment by franks on their cards. This only applies after the age of 16. A juvenile gets his medical benefit up to 16½ years of age in all cases. He asked further: what is the position of a boy or girl who reaches the age of 16½ without getting any employment after the age of 16? It is true that if a boy or girl reaches 16½ years of age without getting any employment
  1992
  after the age of 16 he falls out of insurance and has to start again when he subsequently obtains employment. I have made some inquiries into this and am informed that such cases are, in fact, very rare.
  Mr. Logan: Will any amendment of the Act be required, because the 1924 Act lays it down definitely that no one can be a member of a society unless employed?
  Mr. Bernays: I will look into that matter. I have indicated what the position is under the Bill. I turn now to the speech made by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) who has left the House. Her speech was out of order and, therefore, if I attempted any reply I might get out of order, too.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: If a boy drops out of employment before 16 does he lose his medical benefits also?
  Mr. Bernays: No, but in any case I am told that the cases of unemployment between the ages of 14 and 16 are very small. The hon. Member for the Sutton Division referred to the importance of prevention rather than cure. I can assure her that we are alive to the importance of that consideration, and that is one of the reasons why we are introducing these Measures. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. J. A. Duncan) asked whether the draft regulations would be issued before the Bill was passed. That is not possible, but my right hon. Friend will on this occasion, as on all other occasions, consult the approved societies.
  I come now to the question of dental benefits. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) made great play on the fact that there is a hiatus of two years. That is true, but it is better than a hiatus of 4½ years. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say that both these Bills have fallen short, but at any rate the Opposition fell short even of the two Bills that we have introduced. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool as to how the dental benefits will be paid, the answer is that the juveniles will get dental benefits, when they become fully insured, out of the funds of the approved societies which they join, irrespective of the number of individual contributions. I understood

  1993
  the hon. Member to say that the majority of these approved societies have not surpluses sufficient for dental benefits.
  Mr. Logan: I did not say the majority had not, but many of them.
  Mr. Bernays: As I was surprised when the hon. Member made that point, I made some inquiries, and I discovered that the figures are as follow: 5,434 units out of a total of 6,125 do, in fact, provide dental benefits, that is to say, 80 per cent, of the approved societies or branches of approved societies in the country.
  Mr. Logan: Those figures need to be qualified by the statement that they do not pay total benefit, but reduced benefit only. I was referring to the total cost.
  Mr. Bernays: I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), whose argument may be summed up by the statement that he wants to have a complete pooling of existing surpluses. That, of course, would be entirely inconsistent with the retention of the approved society system. That system was deliberately adopted in 1912. I think it has justified itself by bringing in many self-governing bodies, and that on the whole their work has given general satisfaction. As this late hour I do not think I can be expected to defend the whole approved society system, but I will say that it has stood the test of time and that no Government has thought fit to change it. The hon. Member also raised the question of insulin, and on that point my answer is that if a doctor says that insulin is necessary, the dependants of insured persons can get the insulin free, provided their income is not above £250 a year.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: When does that provision come into operation? I have known of applications of people whose income has not been anything near £250 which have been refused.
  Mr. Bernays: If the hon. Member will send me all the details of those cases, I will look into them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will let him have them.
  Mr. Bernays: Other hon. Members have asked why cash benefits are not to be given. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk answered my right hon. Friend's
  1994
  statement that we had not had evidence of any real demand for them by saying that the Bill had not been considered long enough for such a demand to be made. I would point out that the Bill was presented on 29th June, and I think very much more time has been given to consideration of it than is given to the majority of Bills. There are objections both on principle and from the point of view of practical difficulties in providing cash benefits. The ordinary weekly contributions for full health and pensions insurance—1s. 8d. for a man and is. 2d. for a woman, shared by employer and worker—would represent, in our view, a very heavy charge against the average weekly wages paid to juveniles when they first take up employment. Moreover, health insurance benefits at the adult rate would be so high in proportion to the normal wage rates in the case of juveniles that they would obviously tend to encourage claims for benefit. In those circumstances it would almost pay to be ill, which would be completely contrary to the principle on which our national health insurance system is based.
  Mr. Westwood: Could not that point be met—since you are amending the National Health Insurance Act—by laying it down as a condition that not more than half or two-thirds of the wages should be paid in the way of financial benefit?
  Mr. Bernays: That raises a different point altogether.
  Mr. Westwood: It is facing the problem.
  Mr. Bernays: You would have to meet these objections by the provision of specially reduced rates of contributions and benefits, which would involve administrative difficulties of a very complex kind for the approved societies, and the financial and actuarial structure of the health insurance scheme would need to be reviewed, since the basis of that scheme rests on the assumption that insurance begins at 16. Surely the real need in all this is continuity of medical supervision and that is what we are providing under this Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield asked: Why have any contributions at all? That point was driven home by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk. It is argued that juveniles cannot afford even so small a sum as 2d. out of their

  1995
  meagre earnings, and should not therefore be asked to pay anything. If they do not pay, who is going to pay? There are only two parties who can pay—the State and the employers. For the State to shoulder the whole burden would cost £800,000 which is a very big sum. As regards the employers, apart from the argument that such a proposal would destroy the whole principle of contributory insurance, if the employers were asked to pay it would lay a very substantial burden upon industry. As I say, in any case it would cut across the principle of national health insurance.
  There is the further point that if it were proposed that it should be an entirely free service the question would arise by whom should it be administered. It would clearly not be for the approved societies, and it would be a matter for consideration whether it should not come as a post-school medical service, which could only be provided at very great cost. In conclusion, I deny the contention of the Opposition that this is a small Bill. It deals with 1,000,000 people, and it will do much to improve the health of the nation. The years between 14 and 16 are among the most critical years in the life of a boy or girl. To bring these boys and girls within the scope of national insurance is no mean reform. When the Bill becomes law and these boys and girls receive these new medical benefits, they will, I believe, have cause to bless this Parliament for they will find that with increased health will come increased happiness.
  Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the administrative query as to the amount which is to be allowed? It is, we are told, to be by regulation. Can he say what the amount will be?
  Mr. Bernays: I could not give any indication now. It is under discussion between my right hon. Friend and the approved societies.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: It is difficult to embark on a discussion at this hour, but I feel called upon to protest against some of the unhelpful criticisms of the Opposition. They seemed to imply that this was a niggardly Bill, a puny Measure, but it affects a whole million people, and I am sure that it needs no further words
  1996
  of mine to show that the Opposition have taken up a mistaken attitude.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.— [Captain Margesson.]

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JUVENILE CONTRIBUTORS AND YOUNG PERSONS) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69·
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purposes of· any Act of the present Session to amend the National Health Insurance Act, 1936 (hereafter referred to as "the principal Act"), it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the principal Act in respect of the —cost of, and the expenses of administering, benefits there-under, which may result from the extension of the right to medical benefit under the principal Act to such persons as may become employed (within the meaning of the principal Act) between the school-leaving age and the age of sixteen."—[hint's Recommendation signified.]—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, by increasing to four the number of puisne judges who may he appointed to be attached to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums equal to the amount of any increase which may be incurred by reason of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act. 1925, out of the said Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament, respectively."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  10.29 p.m.
  Major Milner: I desire to say a word or two on this Resolution. As I understand the position, the Government propose to appoint what are undoubtedly

  1997
  badly needed, namely, two additional judges for the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and we on this side take the view, which I think was expressed in the Division Lobby on Monday night, that the Government are adopting a wrong attitude in this matter. What is obviously required from every point of expediency is that two additional judges should be provided, but that they should be available, not only for the work of the Divorce Division, but for the general purposes of the King's Bench Division also. I speak more feelingly as a member of the lower branch of the profession, because in provincial towns, of which I have some experience, we have great difficulty in getting through the work which the circuit judges have to do in the time that is allotted to them. I was informed a night or two ago by a member of the Bar, who is also an hon. Member of this House, of the difficulty that has been experienced in the last week at Liverpool, where, in order to get through the work in the proper time, the judges were having to sit late; one night it was until 8.30. I will not say that the work was being rushed, but satisfaction was not being given to members of the Bar, the general public or those who had business at the Assize Court. I am also told on the authority of one of the hon. Members for Liverpool that the Assizes are not likely to be completed, although the courts arc sitting late, in the time that has been allotted.
  That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. It seemed to be not only the simplest, but the most obvious course, to appoint two judges of the King's Bench Division who could be allocated to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division when the necessities of that Division required it. That is the way in which the best practical results would be achieved, because, if it were done, the two judges could be allotted, or some appropriate reorganisation of the King's Bench Division, which is largely in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice, could take place. It would not be a serious or difficult matter as the learned Solicitor-General seemed to think would be the case. It would facilitate the whole business of the High Court of Justice and the position with regard to the assizes. In the provincial towns it would not be necessary to appoint commissioners, as is done at almost every assize now. I say nothing about the work done by the commis-
  1998
  sioners who are appointed to sit in place of His Majesty's judges, but, as a solicitor, I know that the system does not give satisfaction to litigants. Naturally, when the decision of the court given by a commissioner does not suit them, they think that it might have been different if it had been given by a judge. My hon. Friends on this side agree that the right course, the course we would support without question, would be the appointment of two additional judges to the King's Bench Division. I do not know that my hon. Friends desire to divide again, but they certainly take exception to the course proposed by the Government.
  10.33 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I hope that I may convince the hon. and gallant Member that, although what he has said is certainly deserving of attention, it does not really afford a ground for opposing this Money Resolution. As he will appreciate from what was said on the Second Reading, in the estimation of my Noble Friend the services of two judges are likely to be required, at any rate for some time to come, in order to deal with the existing arrears in the Divorce Court and the new work which may be expected as the result of the Act recently passed. Therefore, assuming that another procedure were adopted and two King's Bench judges appointed with the idea of dealing with these arrears and the new work, they would at once disappear from the King's Bench Division and from visiting the circuits, and their time would be fully occupied with the work which is to be expected.
  The basis of this Bill is the estimate, which we have done our best to make accurate, that the full-time services of two judges will be required to deal with the arrears in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. Should that anticipation prove to have been an overestimate of the amount of work, there is, of course, nothing in the statutory position to prevent a judge of the Probate, Admiralty and Divorce Division whose time is not fully occupied in that Division being lent, if that is the appropriate word, to the King's Bench Division for work in London, and so relieving the other judges on circuit. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that the considerations he has put before the House,

  1999
  although proper to be considered in connection with the question whether more King's Bench judges should be appointed, which under the existing position would require a Resolution and not a new Act of Parliament, really do not afford a reason for opposing this Measure—if we are right in our estimate that two new judges are required, and will be required for some time to come, solely for divorce work.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  10·37 P.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: Before the Bill leaves this House for another place I desire to enter one mere protest against this method of dealing with a situation which has been with us for some considerable time. In making that protest I also want to clear up one or two other matters which I had hoped to clear up during the Second Reading. The learned Attorney-General stated in his opening speech on Second Reading that the Peel Commission, of which I was a member, had not approved of the separation of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division into various bodies, giving Admiralty work, where it should be on the King's Bench side, to a commercial division, giving Probate work to the Chancery Division, and making divorce separate. I challenged that statement, and I referred to the words of the report. I was followed by the learned Solicitor-General who, quite unintentionally I am satisfied, stressed one sentence, and one sentence only, in that report to show that I was mistaken and the Attorney-General was right. I know that we can, of course, go only upon the words actually in the report, but on reading the report it is perfectly obvious that we on that Commission disagreed with what had been decided by the Hanworth Committee, and if the House will forgive me I will
  2000
  read one or two sentences from that report which will make it clear.
  The point we had to consider and advise upon was, what was the state of business in the King's Bench Division and what remedies could be suggested to get rid of any arrears? That naturally confined attention to the number of cases in the King's Bench Division and the number of judges, but as we went on we realised that the question of divorce was incidental to it. When. however, it came to the actual drawing up of the report my colleagues, differing from me, came to the conclusion—probably rightly, and I was wrong—that the question of separating divorce and giving it to the King's Bench side would not assist in clearing up the arrears on the King's Bench side; it would add to, and not lessen, the burden of the King's Bench Division.
  Therefore they said; "We cannot consider this matter. We must regard it as outside," but they regarded it as of so much importance and discussed it so often that they felt it incumbent to put it into the report. May I refer to one or two phrases which will make that clear? They first of all set out the history of that Division and pointed out, as I did the other day, that judges who sit in that Division and try divorce cases are not practised in divorce; that they are people who have had no experience of divorce; but of necessity, because Admiralty is joined with it, they must be specialists in Admiralty. This is the way they put it:
  "In fact, it is many years since the Probate and Divorce side of the Division produced a specialist in those subjects with sufficient general knowledge "—
  rather strong words to use—
  "to fit him for the trial of Admiralty as well, and as a result the Judges of the Division must be either men with special skill in Admiralty who have never in their professional careers become acquainted with such issues as arise in connection with divorce and probate matters…."
  That was our view in considering all the evidence. Another matter which I brought to the attention of the House before, and to which I got no reply from the Solicitor-General, nor did the Attorney-General refer to it, is the terrible monotony to a judge of sitting day after day, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday—from Monday to

  2001
  Friday—from half-past 10 to four o'clock, trying nothing but divorce. This is what they say:
  "Members of the Bar, well suited by experience for the trial of Admiralty cases, have had to decline the appointment, sometimes from reluctance to spend a great part of their lives in the laborious and in some respects distasteful task of trying divorce, and sometimes because they do not wish to be confined to those three matters and to be cut off from the general administration of the law."
  The hon. and gallant Member was quite right in saying that those judges should be asked to deal with the general administration of the law so that they might take a wider purview, that their experience might be all the greater and that they would not be confined to trying one particular subject day after day.
  Then the report, having run through the history says:
  "The proposals encountered much adverse criticism and had been put into effect, but we are satisfied, so far as the proposed transfer of Admiralty is concerned, that much of the criticism was due to misapprehension of the nature of the recommendations."
  Then the report cites Lord Wright, who was in favour of the Hanworth Committee's Report, and says:
  "It may well be that the ultimate solution of the difficulties and the anomalies "—
  just the very thing that my hon. Friends have been pointing out—
  "with which the High Court is now beset, lies in this direction "
  that we adopt the Hanworth Report so far as it went. Now comes their reason why they could not adopt it actually into this report:
  "The governing purpose of our Inquiry, however, is the greater dispatch of the King's Bench Division business. This proposed fusion of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division with the King's Bench would only effect a saving of judicial time equivalent to the amount of Probate referred to the Chancery Division."
  Then it goes on:
  "We cannot therefore "—
  What is the "therefore"? Because it is outside the purpose of the inquiry.
  "We cannot, therefore, recommend the proposed amalgamation. We must regard it as foreign to the immediate purpose of our inquiry."
  Therefore, I was right, even taking the actual words that they used, in saying that the Commission of which I was a member did not disagree with the previ-
  2002
  ous report. But there is one other significant passage in the report which refers directly to this Bill. The proposal was made to us to add to the Divorce judges, and this is what we said, unanimously:
  "Another suggestion was made to us that a fourth judge should be appointed to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and that the judges of that Division should all take turns in circuit work as far as possible; but, in view of its great difficulties, we are unable to recommend this proposal."
  So much for the report. It has been ignored to a very large extent. I know that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have said that it is still under consideration, and reference was made in the Gracious Speech from the Throne to the possibility of a further Bill coming forward; but I want to protest again on this occasion, the last, perhaps, on which it will be possible for me to do so, that this is not the right method of dealing with the situation. I know that this Bill has been produced by the Government. Two learned Members of this House, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, are not Members of the Cabinet, and, therefore, I do not suppose that they are responsible for the initiation of the Bill. The Bill has been initiated in the Cabinet, and I observed that, after the Bill had received its Second Reading, a Member of the Cabinet, the Lord Chancellor, speaking in the City of London the other day, used these words:
  "The public do not seem to realise the necessity for the appointment of these judges."
  I do not know where he got that from. There was not a single Member of the House on the last occasion that did not demand the appointment of more judges, and more than the two provided for in this Bill; but they demanded them for general work. There has been a continuous demand, but all that we have, even when two extra are to be provided for in legislation, is not that they are added permanently, but that they are added temporarily. Even now there is a vacancy on the King's Bench side, and all that has to happen is that the Government shall come to this House and ask this House to resolve that the vacancy shall be filled. The House has never refused the Government that request. Time and again I have heard it suggested that the other side might object, but I have never heard a single Member on the other side challenge the request. They are all

  2003
  anxious that justice should be administered and administered quickly. That, therefore, is the answer to that sentence of the Lord Chancellor's. His next sentence was:
  "Some Members of the House think that the panacea for all the ills is the making or creating of more judges."
  No Member in his senses has said so. We have said that there are many ills, and that they have to be put right, but one of the crying needs is the appointment of more judges, so as to save time. The third sentence he used was an astonishing one. He said:
  "They do not realise that the number who are fit to sit on the Bench is a very limited one."
  What right has anybody sitting on the Bench to say that those who are practising before him, who have gone through exactly the same experience, are not as good men as he? I was told in the Temple only to-night by an old and respected member of the Bar, that as long ago as 1900 he heard a judge of the Court of Appeal say to his father, who was one of the greatest judges who ever sat:
  "I agree there ought to be another judge appointed to the King's Bench Division, but there is no one fit to appoint."
  What has happened with regard to the judges from 1900 up till now—our Pickfords, our Atkins, our Hamiltons our Scruttons? There are quite as many fit to sit on the Bench as have ever been on the Bench before. Is it the view that is to be adopted by those in authority that they and they alone are the people to judge who is fit to sit on the Bench and that there are not people fit to take their places the moment the need arises? I only hope that if it is the Lord Chancellor's song that he will learn to sing another one rather than that of the Lord Chancellor in "Iolanthe": "The law is a true embodiment of everything that is excellent," he seems to say. "It has no single fault or flaw, and I, my Lords, embody the law." Do they realise that there are quite a number of men in this country fit to carry out these duties?
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. Silverman: I hesitate to detain the House more than a minute or two, but I do not want the opportunity to pass without endorsing, at any rate, a large part of the argument contained in the speech of the hon. and learned Member who has
  2004
  just sat down. It is quite true, as he said, that Members on this side will not object to, and will not oppose, any Measure which the Government care to introduce if it is designed to make justice or administer justice quickly—we entirely agree that it ought to be administered quickly but also say that it should be administered cheaply. I said on the Second Reading that I was not at all certain that the hon. arid learned Member's alternative proposal would take the administration of justice anything but a very short step along the way which he and I both think amendment and reform ought to go. But we are entirely at one in this, that of the possible methods that were open to the Government in order to meet the immediate deficiency which has prompted them to propose this legislation they have chosen the worst method that was open to them.
  I listened with very great interest to the speech that was made by the Solicitor-General, when he wound up the case for the Government on the Second Reading. I confess that I was not able entirely to follow him, or to appreciate the relevance of every argument which he used. He talked, for instance, about the difficulty of giving to county court registrars difficult questions relating to the custody of children. But really there are now committed to the adjudication not merely of qualified and experienced county court officials but to lay magistrates those very questions about the custody of children which the Solicitor-General advised the House were too difficult to be dealt with adequately by a county court registrar. It does not make any difference to the difficulty and the importance of questions about the custody of children whether the question comes before the court as part of divorce proceedings or in some other way. There is nothing whatever in the point that has been made.
  It was then said: "Oh! we are dealing with an immediate emergency. It has got nothing whatever to do with the new cases which will arise under the recently enacted legislation. It has got to do with the emergency that exists owing to the inability of the courts to deal with difficulties that arose under the law as it was." In order to deal with an immediate emergency of that kind what are we doing? We are asked to appoint two judges who will not be entitled to

  2005
  retire on pension for 15 years, in order that they may devote themselves exclusively to dealing with the immediate emergency as it now exists. If you think that the Opposition is going to be parsimonious about this, if you think the Opposition is going to refuse the cooperation necessary in order to see that justice is quickly administered, why do you think the Opposition propose to appoint two judges for 15 years, in order to deal with an immediate emergency, which, if you appoint the two judges, will not last for a month? This is the worst possible way of dealing with it. The Government have had an opportunity of appointing judges who can share in the general work of other divisions of the High Court besides this Division. It could easily have been done. I know points were made about administrative difficulties. They could quite readily have been adjusted, and you would have had the advantage of being able to use these two judges in clearing away arrears in other Divisions.
  Mr. Goldie: Is the hon. Member not aware that a judge, if his services can be spared, may go from the Divorce Division to the King's Bench, or vice versa?
  Mr. Silverman: I quite agree, and that is the objection to appointing two judges to deal with divorce. If the hon. and learned Member says there is no harm in appointing a judge exclusively for divorce, because then he need not exclusively devote himself to divorce, why say in the beginning that he is to be exclusively for divorce? It only reinforces the argument I was advancing, that it is the very worst possible way of doing it. I say again, what was said in the Second Reading Debate, that you are not going to deal with the emergency. The emergency you are contemplating exists now. It is bound to be added to as the new cases, founded on the new legislation, come forward, as they undoubtedly must. You are not going to contribute to a solution of the difficulty in the least, even from the point of view you yourselves contemplate. The opportunity ought to have been taken for taking the administration of justice to the doors of the people, cheaply and quickly; and the overwhelmingly easy way in which that could have been achieved was by so extending the jurisdiction of the county
  2006
  courts that they might deal with this class of case.
  I heard no argument in the Second Reading Debate which affected my view in the least, that the county court was eminently fitted to deal with cases of this kind, depending so much on knowledge and understanding of the conditions in poor districts and among poor people. Why should that opportunity have been missed? The point that has been made by speakers in every part of the House, both in the Second Reading Debate and, I understand, to-night, has been that, whenever the opportunity occurs, advantage ought to be taken of it to narrow down the gap that exists. The very poor get some kind of assistance in the administration of justice, the very rich can obtain justice without needing any such assistance, but the wide gulf between, middle-class people, are utterly unable to avail themselves of the advantage which the Legislature provides, by reason of the costliness of the machinery and processes involved. If you have the emergency, you could have dealt with it so easily by allowing the advantages of that social legislation to be reaped by all classes, and not merely by some. I hope that it is not too late to ask the Government to reconsider the matter even now, and not to let this opportunity go by, thereby establishing one more precedent and obstacle in their own path when the time comes, as inevitably it must come, when they or some other Government will be compelled to tackle the question in a broad and bold way, which is the only way in which it can satisfactorily be tackled.
  11.1 p.m.
  Major Milner: One ought not to let the opportunity pass of stressing the view that we on this side take in regard to the better facilities for citizens to hear their cases tried, and, particularly, the provision of an adequate number of judges. I have never yet heard it said on this side of the House, as was apparently suggested by the Lord Chancellor from what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) stated, that there ever had been any question raised on this side in regard to the provision of the appropriate means or moneys to pay any judges either in the High Court, County Court or elsewhere, who might properly be required for the administration of justice. On the contrary, it can

  2007
  truly be said that we would welcome increased facilities for speedy, efficient and economical justice. I have taken part in a number of Debates on County Court Bills and other Measures when these suggestions have been made, but that does not perhaps arise directly on the present issue. The learned Attorney-General stated, if I understood him aright, that the particular judges whose appointment we are discussing to-night are required to deal with cases—I was not quite clear whether it was the present arrears or the anticipated influx of new cases—in the Divorce Division.
  The Attorney-General: Both.
  Major Milner: I was not aware that two judges, at any rate, could occupy themselves full time, as the Attorney-General rather indicated, on present arrears for any very long period.
  The Attorney-General: That is why I said both.
  Major Milner: The hon. and learned Gentleman rests himself on two grounds —the existing arrears, which it is desirable should be cleared off, and the anticipated influx of cases. I do not think these are the only considerations, and I believe that I am correct in saying that, owing to the provisions of the Act, not a single case has yet been entered nor indeed can be entered until after 1st January of next year. It is right and proper no doubt for the Government to make adequate provision in that respect. I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what is to be the position after 1st January next if the anticipated influx of cases comes along on circuit. To-day it is extremely difficult, in the great majority of cases, for the judges going on circuit to get through their work in the time allocated to them. If there is to be an influx of cases in London there will be an influx of undefended cases in the country. How do the Government propose to deal with that eventuality? There are the Assizes in the City of Leeds in March and it is conceivable that there may be quite a number of cases under the new Act. Are the Government thinking at all of making any provision for that influx? Has it not occurred to them that people in the provinces require help in this matter just as much as people who come to London over litigation?
  2008
  I rather resent the suggestion, which was perhaps not intended but was latent in the Attorney-General's speech, that it was necessary to have judges to deal with cases in London alone. Presumably, there will be a great number of cases in the country. What do the Government propose to do in regard to that position? We are proposing to add to the already over-heavy burden of King's Bench judges on Assize. Would it not be far better to appoint additional judges of the King's Bench and to spread the work, whether it be in London or in the Provinces? The Attorney-General suggested that it was necessary to have specialists, more or less, in the Divorce Courts sitting in London. There, again, it is just as necessary that the King's Bench judges trying divorce cases on circuit should have at least an equal knowledge of divorce matters with those judges sitting in London. Why should the Provinces have to put up with ordinary King's Bench judges, while in London, according to what the Attorney-General said, although he may not have intended it, they are to have specialists?
  The Attorney-General: I did not say anything of the kind.
  Major Milner: If the Attorney-General will read his speech to-morrow I think he will agree that I am right. Our submission is that the judges should be the same in London and the country, and the proper, simple and obvious course is to appoint additional judges of the King's Bench Division to cope with the present arrears in the Divorce Division, the anticipated influx of cases in that Division and the anticipated influx of divorce cases on circuit. I have not seen the speech to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) referred, which was apparently made not in another place but at some public banquet. I am sure that the practising members of the legal profession, whether in the higher or the lower branch, would resent any suggestion that there are not men at the Bar to-day who are equally as capable of occupying the position of judge as any of those who occupy that position to-day. I speak with some experience of giving briefs to barristers. There are clients who want to brief, at enormous expense, one out of three or four well-known barristers who, at the moment, happen to be most in the public

  2009
  eye. But I say to them frankly that, unless their means are very exceptional, there are equally as good men, who will do at least as good a job, and will certainly devote more time to it, and give it more personal attention for one-third of the fee that one would have to pay to one of those barristers who, for the time, happen to be leaders of the Bar or happen to have been in some cause célèbre before the public.
  It is the same in regard to judges. I have from time to time been requested to make, or of my own volition have made, recommendations for County Court judges or High Court judges. The method of appointment of these judges is not satisfactory. I do not know on what principle judges of the High Court or judges of the County Court are appointed, but I deny that they are appointed on the grounds of efficiency alone; because we all know of instances in the High Court and the County Court where those particular grounds are conspicuous by their absence. I hope the Attorney-General will take this matter up with his Noble Friend, and point out the dissatisfaction that exists among a considerable body of opinion in this House, in both branches of the legal profession, with regard to the course proposed in this Bill, and generally, on the appointment of judges. We ought to be grateful that we have had this opportunity of indicating to the Attorney-General and to the Lord Chancellor what our feeling is. I have inquired from members of the Bar practising in different branches and in different positions, and each one to whom I have mentioned the mater has agreed that the sensible thing, which every member of the Bar would approve, would be the appointment of two additional judges to the King's Bench Division.
  I presume that the Bill will have to go through, but I must enter an emphatic protest against the procedure adopted. The powers-that-be must be given to understand that this sort of thing must not happen again, and that one consideration must be given to efficiency when judges are appointed, and that that consideration is the principal consideration in these matters. What I have said represents a considerable body of opinion in this House.
  11.11 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I welcome the assurance of more than one hon. Member opposite that they will not offer any opposition to any decision of the Government when they think it proper to suggest additional judges, but I find it a little difficult to reconcile this assurance with the fact that they divided against this Bill, which proposes to appoint two additional judges. As I see the Bill and as I commend it to the House, it was not a Bill dealing with the organisation and administration of the bench. On Third Reading we have to discuss what is in the Bill, and we have to consider it therefore in the light of the administration of justice as it is organised at the moment. Divorce cases are dealt with in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and there are arrears in that division at the moment and anticipated work which will require two extra judges in that division. That is the reason for the Bill. Hon. Members opposite think that the whole thing should be organised in a different way. That is a different matter and, of course, we shall pay attention to what has been said on the point.
  I am not going to join issue with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who was a member of the Commission, while I was not, as to what exactly was in the minds of members of the Commission. I can assure him that I have read what they said, and I think they definitely decided that the proposal which the hon. and learned Member thinks a good one would not conduce to the efficiency and expedition of the King's Bench Division. I will not pursue the argument with him, but I will invite him to look at page 94, paragraph 3, and he will at least appreciate what has led him to misinterpret what the members of that Commission meant. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and other hon. Members suggested that this would have been better done by appointing two King's Bench judges. I cannot accept that on the basis upon which we must discuss this Bill and our present organisation. Whether we are right or wrong, we believe that the work of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Divison will require two additional judges.
  All I can say at this stage and on this Bill is that under the existing statutory

  2011
  provisions for the King's Bench, if the state of the business in that Divison demands extra judges, it does not require a Bill. It would be quite inappropriate in this Bill. It would be possible for two extra judges to be appointed by Resolution. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) raised a number of matters regarding County Court judges and so on, which I recognise are matters of importance, but there again, while appreciating the expression which he has given of his views, I can only say that it would not be right to deal with these matters to any extent on the Third Reading of this Bill. Having drawn attention to the rather narrow scope of our discussion this evening, I hope that hon. Members will now give the Bill the Third Reading.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  CIVIL AVIATION (ACCIDENT, MR. GOVIND P. NAIR).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]
  11.17 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to call the attention of the House to the circumstances in which the late Mr. Nair met his death in attempting a transatlantic flight. May I say, in the first place, that I am grateful to the Minister for consenting, at somewhat short notice, to be here to reply? I wish to raise this matter in a manner which will not cause any pain to the relatives and friends of the late Mr. Nair; nor do I wish to impute blame to the Air Ministry in this matter, but merely to suggest that the rather confined regulations by which they are bound need strengthening. Mr. Nair left Croydon on 28th October, in a Miles Hawk single-engined aeroplane. He had the very ambitious object of making a double transatlantic flight. He proposed to fly from Dakar to Brazil, and then to return to this country via New York. He had accomplished less than 200 miles of this great project before he crashed at
  2012
  Rouen, and was killed. This man, who was attempting this double transatlantic flight, had had no experience whatsoever of flying outside England.
  Some time after May of this year, Mr. Nair went to an aerodrome at Reading, where he bought an aeroplane from Messrs. Phillips and Powys, a firm which is said to have behaved quite properly throughout in this matter. He went up in this machine with Mr. Hackett, who is the instructor of the firm in question. On landing after this flight, Mr. Hackett told Mr. Nair that he certainly could not fly the machine. In spite of this, Mr. Nair insisted on going up alone for a solo flight, and at once proved that Mr. Hackett was right by crashing, after which he spent three weeks in hospital. On coming out, he gave orders for the old machine to be repaired or for a new one to be built for him. Mr. Hackett again told him that he could not fly, and I understand, although I am subject to correction on this point, that Mr. Hackett communicated with the Air Ministry and asked them if they could do anything to take away the "A" licence which Mr. Nair possessed, or somehow stop him. Mr. Hackett found that the Air Ministry could do nothing. The Reading aerodrome authorities, who also appear to have behaved very properly, refused to allow Mr. Nair to fly the machine away from the aerodrome but he got a friend to fly it for him to Croydon.
  I now come to the Cinque Ports Aviation Company, Limited, with whom Mr. Nair at one time had business relations and, again, I am told that this company tried with the Air Ministry and with Croydon aerodrome to get Mr. Nair stopped from attempting this flight as they also knew that he must infallibly and inevitably crash if he undertook it.
  Apparently Croydon could do nothing about the matter except to stop him taking off with an overload of petrol. Everybody concerned with this matter knew that the flight must end fatally if it were attempted, and they made every representation they could to this end to the Air Ministry and to other authorities. But nobody it seems had any authority whatever to stop Mr. Nair from setting out on this flight. Quite apart from the question of the pilot, I feel that we have to consider the danger to other people and the danger to property. He might have

  2013
  crashed on a house at Croydon; he might have crashed on a road full of children coming out of school, or he might have set fire to some building. These questions have to be considered. I understand the Air Ministry have the power to suspend the certificate of air-worthiness under certain conditions, but I would ask if those powers cannot be extended to prevent a person who cannot fly from attempting such a flight as this. People who wish to drive motor cars have to learn and have to go about branded with the letter "L" and be passed out by an inspector. You could not leave this country for a cruise round the world unless you held a master's certificate. Yet a man can set out on an Atlantic flight although the people who know, say that he is quite unable to fly the machine.
  I hesitate to ask questions at this late hour, and I know that it may not be convenient to reply now, but I would like to ask how questions of insurance are affected in this matter and what are the conditions under which a man can obtain an "A" licence. I would particularly ask why Mr. Nair did obtain an "A" licence, although more than one inspector reported that he was quite unable to fly. I will leave the matter at that and I think public opinion in this country will want an answer to that perfectly plain and simple question—why a man who is not able to fly is yet able to leave the country on such an attempt as this which ended in disaster, as everyone knew it must?
  11.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air(Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The hon. and gallant Member yesterday asked me a Supplementary Question with regard to the provision for obtaining "A" licences. I wish to make it clear to the House and to anybody reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, that I was perfectly able and willing on that occasion to answer the Supplementary Question, but you, Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of a discretion, which I am not of course, questioning for a moment, decided that it was better to move on to the next question. To take the particular point which the hon. and gallant Member raised last about the test for the granting of licences, provision is made for a practical flying test and a technical examination. In that we are
  2014
  assisted, and have been assisted for a great many years, by the Royal Aero Club's inspectors. Then, there is a medical examination, carried out by an ordinary practitioner, but in accordance with standards laid down by an international convention. Finally, there must be evidence of three hours' solo flying during the last 12 months. With regard to the question of insurance, I am afraid I cannot answer that at the moment, but I am not quite certain offhand whether it really is a question which would come within our competence and responsibility.
  The case obviously cannot be considered merely by itself but must be considered in relation to general procedure. Mr. Nair had a correct "A" licence. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the analogy of a motor car. I will not pursue that analogy because analogies are apt to get confused. I thought of using it myself in support of my argument, but he got in first. The particular points are, first, the general suitability of the provisions for obtaining an "A" licence, and, secondly, whether special action should have been taken in the case of Mr. Nair. Mr. Nair obtained a licence some five years ago and in accordance with the provisions sufficient time had elapsed to require him to re-qualify with the full qualifications when he obtained, a second time, a licence this year, 1937.
  The question then arises as to whether the provisions for obtaining an "A" licence are sufficient. Undoubtedly there may be a good deal of division of opinion on that matter. Suffice it to say that these provisions have obtained in a great number of cases and for something exceeding 15 years, and I think that, on the whole, they have worked extremely well and adapted themselves to the general need of those particular pilots who wished to obtain them.
  Now comes the question of Mr. Nair's particular case. It is quite true that we were notified through what I would call unofficial sources. We had opinions expressed as to Mr. Nair's incompetence to fly this particular aeroplane. The hon. and gallant Member and the House would not expect me to disclose the particular sources of the unofficial information which we had. I cast no doubt at all in this case on the bona fides of the people who communicated with the Air Ministry on

  2015
  this matter, but I would ask the hon. and gallant Member and the House to consider the implications of assenting to the principle of the Air Ministry intervening and taking away or suspending a man's licence, duly granted, on unofficial representations. I think in cases where the bona fides are not as good as in this case an extension of that system might be very dangerous indeed. The Gorell Committee report said that the State had no peculiar responsibility to safeguard the life and limb of users of private aircraft except in so far as their activities were an actual or potential danger to the general public. It may be argued that anybody who goes up in an aircraft and is not fit to fly is a potential danger to the general public. But in this particular instance the hon. and gallant Member named the Atlantic flight. There the question of the certificate granted to a particular aircraft comes in. An aircraft that is granted a certificate of airworthiness has possibly certain
  2016
  restrictions, and there was no such certificate of airworthiness in this case for the performance of the Atlantic flight.
  I will now come to the general question of how much in respect of particular cases—and after all, the best organised regulations go wrong sometimes—one is to interfere with a system of regulations which has proved itself to be working on the whole very satisfactory for a great number of years. I certainly take note, without in any way giving any undertaking, of what the hon. and gallant Member has said and I feel that off-hand one must be convinced far more fully of the inadequacy of the present "A" licence conditions before one can consider the question of altering them substantially or questioning their adequacy by any possibility of temporary suspension or revision.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.