HC Deb 29 November 1937 vol 329 cc1837-50

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for obtaining statistical information with respect to the population of Great Britain and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred with the approval of the Treasury by the Minister of Health, the Registrar-General, the Department of Health for Scotland, or the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Scotland in connection with the performance of their respective functions under the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir K. Wood.]

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I had not intended to make a speech at this stage of the Bill, but the speech to which we listened at the close of the previous Debate compels me to take this course, because a number of questions were asked from all parts of the House, and I think there is scarcely anyone in the House who would not agree with me when I say that hardly ever has there been an answer given from that Box more hopelessly inadequate, Let me deal first with the question that I put, and which was repeated by one of my hon. Friends. We pointed out that there are a large number of questions that the registrar is going to put to the person who registers the birth or death of a relative, and in a large number of cases they will not know the answer to the questions. My hon. Friend thought that, so far as he and I were concerned, we would not be prepared, without looking into the matter, to give the particulars of all the brothers and sisters of our wives. The great bulk of the working people will be quite unable to supply this information when asked. What will happen then? The hon. Gentleman made this idiotic answer. He said we could be sure the Government would do what was reasonable in the matter. A more hopeless answer it would he difficult to find. What the hon. Gentleman really meant was that as long as the Government got their Bill through tonight they did not care what happened. If the person who goes to register says: "I do not know," what is the registrar to do? Is he to put down the answer "I do not know," or is he to send the applicant home and tell him to bring the information next day? The hon. Gentleman gives no answer, and the Government cannot give any answer. They have not thought out an answer.

My hon. Friend also asked whether the Minister would consider putting down the precise questions which it was proposed the registrar should put to the person. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the House could rest assured that his right hon. Friend would consider the point. That really is an absurd answer. The obvious intention of the question was to ascertain whether the Government would be willing to substitute for the existing Schedule a clear unambiguous list of questions that were to be asked. That is a question which demands an answer "Yes" or "No." It is not a question which can be shuffled out of by a promise to consider it. The hon. Gentleman repeated the prevarication which the right hon. Gentleman had made with regard to a question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite. There is no question that certain of these questions have been included in the Australian and New Zealand schemes. The question asked was, are the questions which can be framed under this Schedule included in the Australian and New Zealand schemes? It may be that the right hon. Gentleman never said they were, and I am not suggesting that he did, but the House was under the impression that that was the answer he gave; and if it is not true that all the questions are included then the analogy with Australia and New Zealand falls to the ground, because, as the hon. Member for Oxford University pointed out, there are certain questions here which are unexceptionable and others which are objectionable, and if the only ones in the Australian and New Zealand scheme are those which are unexceptionable, then the argument that some of them appear there have nothing to do with our objections to the Bill.

Further, I would draw attention to the absurd pretence that because a thing exists in the census that is a justification for putting it forward in the entirely different circumstances which are involved in this Bill. The cross-questioning of someone who comes to register a birth or a death is entirely different from the writing down of census information by a householder. The householder puts down the information in the census after considering all the facts, and there is no cross-examination. Here we have not an impersonal writing down by the householder but a definitely personal interrogation by the registrars, and very likely cross-examination. To say that it becomes an impersonal affair by the time it reaches the Registrar-General misses the point altogether. The point is that while still in the hands of the registrar it is a personal investigation. We have been told that the information is to be secret, but there is no Clause in the Bill which carries out the statement in the Financial Memorandum about the information being treated confidentially, though perhaps it may be implied. The statement that we can get all the information in the census is no argument of obtaining it under this Bill. If the information can be obtained through the census that is the right way of obtaining it, even though we do not have another census for another three years. In the census we get widespread information. By this Bill we get information only about the comparatively small number of people who register births or deaths in the years between now and the census. We want proper information obtained in a proper way and with proper safeguards, and this Bill does not ensure that, and, further, gives the Minister of Health far too wide a latitude. In our opinion on this side, and in the opinion of large sections of the House, the Bill ought not to be allowed to go forward in its present form.

11.35 p.m.

Sir K. Wood

I will gladly do my best to reassure the right hon. Gentleman if I can on the various questions he has raised and I hope, also, other Members of the House. He put the case of the difficulty which might arise when someone was unable to furnish the information for which he was asked by the registrar. If the Measure goes to the Statute Book, I shall have the responsibility of instructing the Registrar-General in these matters. I shall certainly instruct him that people who have to answer questions shall not be pressed, and that if they say "We do not know" or "We have not the necessary information in our possession," that, of course, would be an acceptable answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They will not be pressed to answer questions of which they have not the information. Some of the observations which have been made are based on a misconception of the position. Millions of questions have recently been put in the Census of this country, and millions of answers have been given. In all those cases, where a member of the public says "I do not know," the answer is accepted, but for every one of these cases there are thousands in which the information is given. I can, therefore, assure hon. Members, as it is my desire, that the public will not be unduly pressed in this matter, as they have not been on any other occasion.

I think the House will agree that the Parliamentary Secretary gave a fair and admirable reply when he said that when we came to the Committee stage of the Bill I would give my consideration to the suggestion that questions should be put into the Schedule, instead of indications of questions, as I would to other suggestions made in the course of the Second Reading Debate. That reply I confirm, but it would be most unreasonable to expect me at this stage to give a. definite reply on a matter which will, obviously, have to be dealt with on the Committee stage, and I hope that most hon. Members will be prepared to accept an assurance that I will consider whether it is possible for that to be done. No hon. Member in my position would give any other reply. I shall naturally have to consult my advisers.

I shall be very sorry indeed to have any difference with the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) on any question, particularly on the question of Australia and New Zealand. I hope he will look to-morrow at what I said on this subject and at the information given him in regard to those countries. On examining this question, and the reply which my hon. Friend has given, as well as the references given to the Statutes concerned, I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend and myself will be able mutually to satisfy one another in the matter—[Interruption]—let me complete this statement—and if it is necessary for any correction to be made, either on his part or mine, I am sure it will be made. So far as I am aware, the statement which I made, and which hon. Members will be able to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT, is correct. If I am wrong, I shall certainly correct it myself.

It has been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman went back on some of the arguments which were pressed on the Second Reading of the Bill when he once again urged that the census method would be the best. I would only say in reply that that is not the judgment of many people. When representatives of the Labour party went to the Registrar-General and asked for a good many of the particulars which are included in the Bill, they suggested two means of doing it. One was by means of the census and the other was by an addition to the information which is given to the registrars of births. This method is obviously convenient. If you had to have a census to-morrow, which you obviously could not do, the extent of a census in this country is such that you would not have the information available till some four or five years' time, at the very earliest. If it be agreed that this information is necessary, it is better to get it year by year, as we are doing under the registration system. It will be within manageable compass.

As to the question of secrecy, I desire again to assure the House that it is the intention, and I think it will be found in practice, that the utmost secrecy will be observed. But, so anxious am I, not only to satisfy the House, but to get general agreement on what I think is a necessary Bill, that I will consider again whether it is necessary or desirable to put in a definite Clause on the question of secrecy. I am advised that this Bill, just as does the Census Act, imposes secrecy on the registrars and all concerned in obtaining these particulars; but, if there is any addition that would still further safeguard the situation, I will gladly consider it, and, if it be desirable, propose its insertion to the House. On all these matters we are prepared to go a long way to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, as the House has given a Second Reading to the Bill, and I have given undertakings to consider the matter when we reach the Committee stage, I would ask that we be accorded the necessary confirmation of the Financial Resolution.

11.42 p.m.

Sir A. Southby

During the Second Reading Debate I put a specific question with regard to information being available in a court of law, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave me a most courteous reply. I understood from him that such information would be governed by the same rules which govern the Census, and would not be privileged. Obviously, the disclosure of such information might in certain circumstances be very disadvantageous to the person who gave it. Would the Minister consider whether it would be desirable or feasible to arrange that such information should be privileged, so that it could not be called for by any judge as evidence in a court of law?

11.43 P.m.

Mr. K. Griffith

As the opposition originated from these benches, in a Motion in my name, perhaps I might say a word. We have had a very full Debate, and we on these benches are satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary has made every effort to reply to the many questions that have been put. We are unsatisfied because we are opposed to the general principle of the Bill, and obviously the battle must be carried on in the Committee stage, but we do not propose to take up any further time now.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

I rise for the purpose of making a third attempt to get an answer to a question which I put earlier, and which I, and I think many other Members, thought was reasonable. The Minister in his original speech laid great stress on the fact that information comparable with that required under the Bill had for seine time been obtained in other countries. I asked him if he could tell us of any single act that had been done in any one of those countries as a result of that information having been acquired. I put the question originally during the introductory part of his speech, and he could not answer it then. I do not complain of that. I repeated it later in the Debate, in order that the Parliamentary Secretary might answer it. He had all the afternoon to think about it; he had opportunities of consulting the officers of his Department; and he said, quite early in his speech, that he was going to answer the question; but, perhaps owing to the hurly-burly of the Debate, he did not do so. I think that it is a reasonable question, and that I am entitled to an answer: Has anything at all been done, in any of the countries that have collected this information, as a result of the information?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to oppose this Financial Resolution because I am of opinion that it would be £7,000 wasted. I could suggest a better way of spending the £7,000 from the point of view of the population of this country. If the money was spent on a campaign for the abolition of the means test, that would be doing something for the population instead of merely gathering statistics. I am opposed to £7,000 being wasted on statistics, and I am not satisfied with what has been said here in answer to certain questions. I and other hon. Members on this side understand much better than hon. Members on the other side how working men and women are harassed by questions. But not only are there the questions suggested here; orders can be placed on the Table for further questions. The Under-Secretary says that the House of Commons will not pass any questions that will be offensive to the mass of the people. I have heard hon. Members here talking about their concern for the British race. I would ask the Minister if it is not the case that the majority which passed and maintained the means test will pass anything that is offensive to the mass of the people. Has the Minister any experience of what working men and women have to go through when such investigations are made? The questions suggested here are similar to the class of questions that are asked by the means test officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] This is the gang that is interested in the British race. The Minister, in answer to a statement that poverty is responsible for the decline in population, has said that population has declined while wealth and prosperity have increased in the country. I ask the Minister if he will make an investigation, no matter what it costs, into the wealth of the population in relation to the debts of the population. Can he get up and tell us what increase there is in the debts per head of the population? I would ask the Minister to use his £7,000 to discover why those who have the least amount of wealth per head have the greatest amount of debts per head.

The Chairman

It may be as well if I tell the hon. Member that I should not be able to allow the Minister to answer that question.

Mr. Gallacher

I am asking the Minister whether he is prepared to use £7,000, and more than that if need be, to gain information that will be of value so far as understanding the problem of declining population is concerned. You will not ask him to answer because you know that he is—

The Chairman

Order! The hon. Member must certainly not impute any such knowledge or opinion to the occupant of the Chair about any hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher

I take note of the reprimand which you have administered to me, and I shall endeavour to be as courteous as hon. Members deserve that I should be; no more and no less. I am much concerned about this question of population because the main body of the population is composed of the working class. I ask the Minister whether this £7,000 will enable him to find out that the one all-important cause of the decline in population is the general insecurity that exists in this country among the mass of the working class and the small shop keepers and professional classes. Insecurity is the basic cause of the decline in population. If you used what little money you have to bring about a sense of security by removing the taxes upon many of the people, removing the means test, increasing the old age pensions—

The Chairman

The hon. Member's speech is now going beyond the terms of this Resolution. He must not discuss general questions and suggested reasons for decline in the population on this Resolution.

Mr. Gallacher

I will finish by drawing the attention of the Minister to the all-important question of insecurity, and suggest to him that if he applied £7,000,000 or more to this purpose, instead of £7,000, and established security for the people of the country there would be no trouble about the population.

11.54 p.m.

Sir K. Wood

Perhaps I might answer a few of the further questions which have been put. The money will be devoted in the main to the various expenses which arise out of this inquiry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who last spoke will take it from me that we think, as a result of the inquiry, it might even be possible to go into the major causes of the decline in the population, and by that means his object will be achieved. Perhaps it may be found that the reason which he has given is one of the causes of the decline in population, but this Resolution, we think, is a necessary preliminary, as it authorises the expenses. I will consider whether it is possible for anything further to be done in regard to the question of privilege. The present position, as my hon. Friend stated—and I know of no question which has arisen—is exactly the same as that under the census. One must remember that in this case it is not a matter of suppression. Even when one brings matters before the House he is entitled to say that this or that may happen, but of the many millions of questions answered in connection with the census, there has never been, as far as I am aware, any question of the disclosure of secrecy. But I will inquire what is actually the position. There is the observance of secrecy on the part of persons employed by the State as enumerators responsible for the census, and therefore I do not think that there is any ground for real apprehension as far as this Bill is concerned.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) asked if I could state the position in other countries, and I would remind him that their problems are different from ours. The problem in Australia and the remedies they have to seek deal very largely with migration and emigration. If my hon. Friend will refer to the speech made by the Prime Minister of Australia two or three weeks ago, he will find some comments and observations on this matter. I think that in Italy steps have been taken by way of marriage bonus and things of that kind. That is the information that I have at the present time, and I hope that the Committee will now agree to the Resolution. I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) for the observations he has made, and I will consider all the questions which have been raised in the Debate before we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 177; Noes, 97.

Division No. 30.] AYES. [11.57 p.m.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Granville E. L. Munro, P.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Gridley, Sir A. B. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Grimston, R. V. Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Aske, Sir R. W. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Perkins, W. R. D.
Atholl, Duchess of Guinness, T. L. E. B. Petherick, M.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Porritt, R. W.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Hambro, A. V. Procter, Major H. A.
Balniel, Lord Hannah, I. C. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Harbord, A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Bernays, R. H. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Ropner, Colonel L.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Burghley, Lord Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Rowlands, G.
Butcher, H. W. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Butler, R. A. Holmes, J. S. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Horsbrugh, Florence Russell, Sir Alexander
Cartland, J. R. H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Salmon, Sir I.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hutchinson, G. C. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Channon, H. Jarvis, Sir J. J. Scott, Lord William
Christie, J. A. Keeling, E. H. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Colfox, Major W P. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Colman, N. C. D. Kimball, L. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Latham, Sir P. Spens, W. P.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Cox, H. B. Trevor Leech, Dr. J. W. Storey, S.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Lees-Jones, J. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J
Cross, R. H. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)
Culverwell, C. T. Levy, T. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Davidson, Viscountess Liddall, W. S. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Lipson, D. L. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Thomas, J. P. L.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Dower, Major A. V. G. Loftus, P. C. Touche, G. C.
Drewe, C. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Turton, R. H.
Duggan, H. J. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Duncan, J. A. L. McKie, J. H. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Eastwood, J. F. Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Warrender, Sir V.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Magnay, T. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Emery, J, F. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Errington, E. Marsden, Commander A. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fildes, Sir H. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Wise, A. R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Furness, S. N. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Fyfe, D. P. M. Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick) Wragg, H.
Ganzoni, Sir J. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Gluckstein, L. H. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grant-Ferris, R. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Captain Arthur Hope and Captain
Dugdale.
NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Ede, J. C. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ammon, C. G. Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Harris, Sir P. A.
Banfield, J. W. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Barnes, A. J. Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Hayday, A.
Batey, J. Foot, D. M. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Gallacher, W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Bellenger, F. J. Garro Jones, G. M. Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Bevan, A. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Bromfield, W. Gibson, R. (Greenock) Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Hopkin, D.
Chater, D. Grenfell, D. R. Jagger, J.
Dalton, H. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Day, H. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Kelly, W. T.
Dobbie, W. Groves, T. E. Kirby, B. V.
Lathan, G. Noel-Baker, P. J. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Lawson, J. J. Paling, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Leach, W. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. Sorensen, R. W.
Leonard, W. Price, M. P. Stephen, C.
Lewis, O. Quibell, D. J. K. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Logan, D. G. Richards, R. (Wrexham) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Lunn, W. Ridley, G. Thurtle, E.
Macdonald, G. (Ince) Riley, B. Tinker, J. J.
McEntee, V. La T. Ritson, J. Watkins, F. C.
McGhee, H. G. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) Watson, W. McL.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Welsh, J. C.
Maxton, J. Rothschild, J. A. de Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Messer, F. Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Seely, Sir H. M. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Sexton, T. M. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Muff, G. Silkin, L.
Nathan, Colonel H. L. Silverman, S. S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.