§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYMy Lords, on that Motion I wish to submit to the consideration of the House whether it is wise, or, indeed, worth while to proceed with the Amendments which are being moved from many parts of the House, except the front bench opposite. It seems to me that there were two courses open to the House with regard to this measure. One was to reject it on Second Reading, either by a direct negative or by an Amendment which was equivalent to a direct negative. Your Lordships, very wisely I think, refused to negative this Bill. If I had moved the Amendment which would have most recommended itself to my mind I should have moved that this Bill be made the subject of a referendum to the country at large, because we know from the express announcement of the Prime Minister that it was no part of the programme on which the Government consulted the country at the last election. I think, therefore, that such a proposal could have been justified, and that the country was entitled to be consulted before so grave an operation was entered upon. But I reflected that the referendum was a new measure in this country, that there was no machinery to carry it out, though such machinery might easily be found, and that in any case so great an innovation on our constitutional practice should not be introduced in an indirect manner in the House of Lords. Well, your Lordships decided neither to adopt any rejecting Amendment nor to reject the Bill. Now the question I have to ask is this: Do you think it worth while, by inserting Amendments which are not likely to be accepted by the House of Commons, and which in any case cannot very considerably limit the operation of the principle, to share any part of the responsibility for this great measure? I for my part do not. I do not doubt that the Government have at their disposal plans and schemes of finance which they rightly do not com- 1074 municate to the public, at this time, and which will cover without injustice to other classes, and without compromising our means of national defence, all the cost of this vast operation. They may even possess means of limiting its future extension—means of which I am not aware, and which will prevent its increasing to the enormous amount to which it is likely to increase under the operation of electoral necessities.
This is a vast policy, it is not an ordinary Bill; and those who are willing to touch this Bill must be ready to undertake their shire of the responsibility. Some of us objected to the Bill on the ground that it was non-contributory. No Amendment making it contributory can be inserted by this House. Some of us objected to it on the ground that it was inopportune, that with everything falling and shrinking—revenue, commerce, all except unemployment, which already in the summer has reached dangerous proportions—it was not an opportune moment to add enormously to the burden of taxation. I know very well—I think it was expressed crudely by a Member in the other House—that there is a rough and ready policy at work which finds some not insignificant favour elsewhere, that the great object of all government now must be to make the rich poorer and the poor richer. It is easy to make the rich poorer, but there is a long interval between that and making the poor richer.
The surplus of income which I presume you propose now to devote to one helpless class in the community is a surplus income largely given in the payment of wages and in employment, both of which may shrink largely, if not nearly disappear, under the operation of this measure. But financial opportuneness is not a ground which this House can take in opposition to the other House, which has unanimously declared that it is financially opportune. That we may gather from their vote. The third ground on which some of us objected to it, or doubted with regard to it—because none of us, I think, either felt or expressed any objection to its benevolent aim—the third ground was this, that it compromised our means of national defence. We have to find 1075 men, we have to find ships, and soon, it appears, we shall have to find an aerial armament—all imposing a vast and increasing burden on the community. One of the greatest resources of Great Britain in all our wars, as everybody who has read history with even the most careless eye must know, has been the great reserve of national wealth which enabled us to wear out some of the greatest of our foes. That reserve of the national wealth this Bill proposes seriously to tap, because we are living under war taxation now, and this Bill must indefinitely increase that war taxation in the time of profound peace. But that, again, is a ground on which the House of Lords has no standing as against the other House. The other House that finds the funds, that provides the money, is the guardian of our national defence; and there is no resolution that I can see which could be brought within the limits of the privileges of this House which would enable us to put that consideration into the Bill, if indeed any practical form could be found of doing so. I say, then, that according to all the doubts which I have been able to ascertain with regard to this Bill on its Second Reading you can do nothing effectually, you can do no good, but you will assume some share of the responsibility that attaches to His Majesty's Government and the other House in this matter.
There is one Amendment, I confess, which I view with some sympathy, which is that of my noble friend on the cross benches (Earl Cromer). That is a limiting Amendment which is in the nature of a Second Reading Amendment, and which I think, if it wore practicable, might have some influence on the future. But I greatly doubt if it be practicable, and if it would be found binding when the limit of time had been arrived at. I do not myself think that the House of Commons for a moment would adopt that limit, and I do not suppose that this House is disposed to outer into serious conflict with the other House with regard to such a question as that.
May I put one point to my noble friend, and only one? It is this. If this old-age pension scheme is ever to be limited in its operations, if it is ever to 1076 be put a stop to, and put on a different or contributory footing, if in any sense it is to be reversed or amended, that, it seems to me, can only be one by the full action of Parliament after experience of the working in a certain definite time. If the country finds that it compromises its means of national defence-in such conjuncture as that portrayed in vivid colours by my noble friend the other day, it will retrace its steps without any limit of the kind which he seeks to impose. On the other hand, the limitation that he seeks to impose by the Amendment is one of a paper description which, though I admit it was adopted in the case of the Ballot Act by the other House by way of compromise, I do not think they would take as a limit to a financial Bill of their own. It is quite easy to imagine a position of affairs when the country will find itself unequal to the task of national defence, and may say that, great as this scheme of benevolence was, we were not able to afford it, and, while respecting existing beneficiaries, we were obliged to retrace our steps.
May I say in passing that I do not consider as altogether justified the lurid colours in which the noble Lord painted he general situation? But I do share us views to this extent, that the situation would become quite as alarming as he described it if we were found to be weak or unequal to the task of the responsibility of the armaments that encumber us. That would be a dangerous moment, and that may be a dangerous moment if our finances are unequal to be demand. I have nothing further to say. I have delivered my soul, and have washed my hands free so far as I can from any responsibility for this vast measure of policy, which must rest in the responsibility of His Majesty's Government alone. I do not doubt that they welcome and rejoice in that responsibility with the means and information at their disposal. But we have not those means. We have not, in my judgment, any adequate means or practically or largely improving this Bill as a measure, and yet we are about, by tinkering with it, to assume a share 1077 of the responsibility which, in my judgment, we should be most reluctant to take on our shoulders.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)My Lords, before the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Cromer) is considered, I shall ask your Lordships' leave in accordance with precedent to make a very few observations on the occasion of this Committee entering on these Amendments. I need not dwell on the nature and extent of the privilege always claimed by the House of Commons which is embodied in the well-known Resolution of 1678—a Resolution which has been repeatedly affirmed by the action of the other House and is now a part of the Constitution. I wish merely to refer to the particular application of that Resolution and of the privilege to these Amendments. This is a Bill which orignated with a financial Resolution in the House of Commons, and was throughout treated in the House of Commons as a part of the Budget of the year, and it is in the strictest possible sense a money Bill. It is a Bill which deals almost entirely with the application of public money to a specified purpose. I believe it will appear that the House of Commons will regard as an interference with their privileges any Amendments which in substance either increase or diminish the charge or which affect the conditions upon which the money is to be spent. It may be, of course, that the House of Commons may take a different view from the view which I take, but it is my duty, I think, to tell your Lordships that, in my belief, that House will take that view, for I know, and we all know, how jealous they are of any encroachment upon their privilege. There is one part of the Bill, that relating to machinery, on which no doubt, there may be a different opinion. It stands somewhat apart from the clauses relating to the application of the money, and I 1078 do not think that Amendments relating to machinery would be treated as coming within the privilege. But as regards the Amendment which is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, I think it is my duty, in accordance with precedent, to state to your Lordships that, in my opinion, that Amendment will be certainly regarded as a violation of their privileges by the House of Commons.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I am sure the House will not take amiss the friendly warning, if I may so call it, given to us by the noble and learned Lord; and I entertain so much respect for his high authority that I hesitate very much to suggest anything to your Lordships which might seem not in accordance with his advice. But the matter is a very grave one for this House. We have to think, not only of the privilege of the House of Commons, but of the rights of the House of Lords. And I must say that there seems to me to be a tendency to restrict those rights in a manner dangerous to the public interest. These restrictions are particularly dangerous at the present time because, owing to the arrangements under which business is conducted in the House of Commons, it happens again and again that important measures pass through that House without discussion of some of their most important clauses. It comes then to this, that you may have a Bill of first-rate importance, of which a large part is not discussed in the House of Commons, because no room is left for that discussion under the guillotine arrangements now so much in vogue, and which is not discussed in the House of Lords because we are brought up short by a reference to the privilege of the House of Commons. That seems to me to disclose a very serious danger.
Now this question of House of Commons privilege has been not unfrequently discussed in this House. We have the right—I believe that is not contested—to reject a Money Bill altogether, but there seems to be a very considerable difference of opinion as to the extent to which we are free to deal with Amendments to a Money Bill, particularly if it is not a Money Bill pure and simple, but one of those Bills which, dealing with financial questions, also involve 1079 important legislative issues. The noble and learned Lord told us a moment ago that this was a Money Bill in the strictest sense of the word, because it was introduced after a Resolution passed by the House of Commons. I shall be able, I think, to show presently that there have been other Bills introduced in an exactly similar manner under cover of an exactly similar resolution which the House of Lords has been allowed to amend.
I am tempted, and I am afraid I shall have to ask the patience of the House while I cite one or two authorities in support of my view. The matter is so important and is one that cannot be hurriedly passed over. I shall endeavour to show to your Lordships that there has been in the past a reasonable interpretation of the rule of privilege as well as an unreasonable interpretation of that rule, under which it is sought to deny to this House all opportunity of dealing with Bills of this class. So far as I am able to gather from the precedents to which I have referred, it has been on previous occasions' admitted that this House did not encroach on the privilege of the other House if its Amendments were distinctly within the scope and intention of the Bill under discussion, and, in support of that view, I should like to cite to your Lordships the following cases. One of them arose as long age as the year 1838, and I find that Mr. Speaker Abercromby used these words. Dealing with the Lords' Amendments to the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, he said—
As the Bill was one of a very peculiar character, affecting not only the proprietors of the land, but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and, as the principle of rating was necessarily incidental to such a measure, he considered that, if the privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case, they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be on all grounds advisable.He then gave this remarkable advice to the House—He thought the privileges of this House would be best secured by being not too far pressed.That was the view of the Speaker, and, upon that, Lord John Russell made the following comment—He hoped, therefore, that the House would enter upon the consideration of these Amend- 1080 ments, which were doubtless framed with the view rather of forwarding the objects of the Bill than otherwise.I find that the subject arose again in the year 1847, when somewhat similar language was used, which I will not trouble your Lordships by reading, and again, in the year 1849 in connection with another Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill. Upon that occasion Lord John Russell said this—I own it appears to me that, so long as the House of Lords confine themselves to amending the Poor Law, with a view to effect better legislation on the subject of a legal provision for the poor, and not for the sake of increasing the amount of rates, or with the especial view of imposing a tax upon the subject, it is not expedient that we should assert our privileges in that respect. With regard to legislation in reference to the condition of the poor, it must be acknowledged by all to be a subject of very great importance, and one concerning which both Houses of Parliament should be entitled to give an opinion. I think legislation is likely to proceed more harmoniously between, the two Houses of Parliament if we do not assert our privileges on an occasion of this kind.I cannot conceive language more exactly fitted to the circumstances through which we are passing at the present time. Lord John Russell went on—I believe that the Amendments have been, introduced by the House of Lords with a view to amend, in their opinion, the law relating the poor in Ireland. That I conceive to be a subject upon which they are fairly entitled to give an opinion, and respecting which they have a right to propose such Amendments as they think would conduce to the better management of the poor in Ireland.Those are, no doubt, comparatively remote cases, and I wish to mention one or two of more recent date.I come to the Free Education Bill of 1891. That Bill, like the Bill upon the Table, was a Money Bill in the sense that it began with a Resolution in the House of Commons. The Resolution with which the Free Education Bill of 1891 began was really word for word the same as the Resolution upon which this Bill is framed. The two Resolutions are in precisely similar terms. The House of Lords amended the Free Education Bill of 1891, and some of the Amendments were accepted by the House of Commons. With others the House did not agree, and the Speaker advised the House not to accept them. The House of Lords did not accept that decision of the Speaker without demur, 1081 for I find that the late Lord Salisbury drew attention to the matter in this House and made a very remarkable statement. Lord Salisbury said—
It appears to me the claim set up in the reasons sent by the House of Commons is an excessive claim, and much in advance of any that has been made before, and I do not think the decision of the Speaker is tenable. … I think, in assenting to this Amendment, we ought to indicate that, though we do so for the sake of the Bill being passed, we cannot consent to the doctrine stated in the reasons sent up by the House of Commons being made a precedent hereafter, that anything which may indirectly lead to an increase in the public charge is outside the competence of this House.Lord Salisbury then moved, and the House accepted, the following Resolution—That this House, in agreeing to the said Amendment, makes no admission in respect of any deduction which may be made from the reasons offered by the House of Commons, and does not consent that the said reasons should hereafter be drawn into a precedent.That shows that this House guarded itself against accepting what I ventured to call just now the extreme interpretation of the privilege of the House of Commons.I am afraid that I must trouble your Lordships with one more case. It is a case of recent date that appears to me to go even further in support of the view that I have ventured to maintain. In 1906, when we sent down the Education Bill of that year to the House of Commons with a very large number of Amendments, a Member of the House of Commons suggested that the whole of those Amendments were an encroachment on the privilege of the House and should therefore be rejected en bloc. I want your Lordships to consider what was said on that by the present Speaker of the House of Commons. He said—
The hon. Member asks me to rule that all the Amendments are infringements of the privileges of this House. In asking me to do that I think he is asking me to press the position which this House has taken up on questions of privilege far beyond the rule which has hitherto obtained. If the argument of the hon. Member were pressed to its logical conclusion it would prevent the House of Lords from dealing with any question which affected the Army, or the Navy, or the Civil service, or with any object whatever for which any grant is voted by this House. I do not think that that is the intention of the Resolution which he cited, and it certainly has not been, up to the present time the practice of this House to press its privileges so far. 1082 Therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that the hon. Member has asked me to lay down a rule which has never hitherto been adopted by this House, for which he himself said he was unable to find any direct precedent, and for that reason I cannot accede to the view he has put forward.Well, my Lords, these cases seem to me to show that it has been again and again conceded that this House is within its rights when it amends a Bill which, although in a sense a Money Bill, deals with matters which are not mere financial matters, but go a great deal beyond mere question of finance. I will go further and say that it is the duty of this House, if it considers that a Bill coming from the House of Commons is capable of useful amendment and that the Amendments are not inconsistent with the general scope and effect of the Bill, to suggest those Amendments even if they touch the border of privilege and leave to the House of Commons the responsibility of rejecting them.The matter is one of very great difficulty and delicacy, because it involves the relations of the two Houses of Parliament. I am almost disposed to think that it is a matter that deserves to be thoroughly inquired into with a view to the establishment of some rules more distinct than any which can be gathered from the text-books; but in the meanwhile I humbly suggest that the opinion expressed by Mr. Speaker Abercromby that the privilege of the House of Commons can be best secured by not pressing it too hard, is a reasonable and statesmanlike view. For that reason I trust that your Lordships will not be deterred from discussing the Amendment of my noble friend on the cross benches, or, indeed, any of the Amendments on the Paper, merely because we are to be told that this is a money Bill and that, therefore, the House of Lords has not a right to lay a ringer upon any one of its provisions.
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYMy Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of entering into a general controversy on the subject of privilege, and I do not find anything in what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with which I can specifically disagree. But I wish, in the first place, to point 1083 out that the discussion is in one sense inopportune. No one has ever doubted for a moment the right of this House to discuss at any length all the provisions of any Bill, whether a money Bill or otherwise. The House of Commons his repeatedly adopted suggestions intended to promote the general object of a Bill, without considering whether they were or were not an infringement of their privileges. The question, therefore, would only arise after Amendments had been made by your Lordships, and when the Bill as amended was presented to the House of Commons for its assent. Another proposition has also been repeatedly pointed out in the House of Commons. That is that, even assuming, in the strictest sense, that it is an invasion of privilege, an Amendment moved by your Lordships might, nevertheless, be such an improvement to the Bill that the House of Commons were quite prepared to accept it and make it part of the Bill. Those two propositions appear to me to show that a discussion at present makes it inopportune to determine what should or should not be the course of proceeding with regard to Amendments. I may say, in passing, that the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, if he will forgive me for saying so, assumed a contradictory position. If these Amendments, such as they are, are rejected by the House of Commons as not being within the competence of this House to insert, where is the responsibility for the Bill hereafter when that which we have suggested in the way of Amendment has been rejected by the House of Commons? It appears to me that that is an argument which defeats itself. The only mode in which we could be supposed to be responsible for the consequences of this Bill would be by the adoption on the part of the House of Commons of any of our Amendments.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI did not say that all the Amendments were against the privilege of the House of Commons.
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYThen that restricts my observations to the particular Amendments to which the noble Earl did refer. No responsibility 1084 on our part can be involved if our Amendments are rejected, but it seems to me that it is our duty to try and make the Bill, if it is to pass, as good as it can be made. Apart from the merely technical question of privilege, there are cases which might be quoted which show that other questions arise. I remember that on one occasion, when the House of Commons had passed a provision appointing certain agents in Jamaica to hold office for three years, this House altered the period to five years, thereby adding another two years salary; and that Amendment was accepted. But the technical question is not just now before us. Nothing could be more true or more absolutely pertinent to the position than what the noble Earl Lord Rosebery said when he spoke of the vast change in public policy involved in this Bill, and is it to be said that this House alone is to be silent in such a case? I should be very sorry, indeed, if any technical rules of privilege prevented the fullest and amplest discussion of the various provisions of this Bill. If it ever were true that we ought to assert the right of discussion, at all events, it is certainly true at a time when some of the most important provisions of this Bill have been passed over without discussion at all, at the instance of the Ministry for the time being. It appears to me that it is time for us to assert our right of discussion, and that one of our institutions, at all events, should insist upon the right of free discussion, and not be entirely controlled by the Ministry for the time being.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)My Lords, I have indeed very little to add to what has been said by my noble and learned friend. He said with perfect truth that we are not the guardians of the privileges of the House of Commons, but in saying what he did he acted according to many precedents in drawing attention to certain Amendments on the Paper which, in his opinion and in the opinion of others, might, if adopted by this House, be regarded by the House of Commons as a breach of privilege.
That has happened before. The noble and learned Lord opposite will very well 1085 remember what happened on the Voluntary Schools Bill in 1897. On that occasion an Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Spencer, the effect of which would undoubtedly have been somewhat to diminish the charge under the Bill; and the noble and learned Lord opposite, then upon the Woolsack, drew attention to the fact that this proposed Amendment was in contravention of the famous Resolution of the House of Commons. He considered it his duty, with, I think, the general agreement of the House, to call attention to the fact. That is what my noble and learned friend behind me has done on this occasion. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, adduced various precedents of varying age, and also, if I may say so, of varying value. I do not think that he added much to the strength of his position by alluding to the Motion which was made by Mr. Paul, the Member for Northampton, in respect to the Education Bill of 1906, or to the observations which at that time fell from Mr. Speaker. Mr. Paul's contention was that because the Bill in certain repects dealt with money it should in no way be touched or amended by your Lordships; that is to say, that, supposing your Lordships had inserted an Amendment that one of the managers should be a woman, it would be a breach of privilege of the House of Commons. I think it would be generally agreed that that was straining the theory of privilege beyond anything that has ever been attempted before, and the hon. Member himself fully admitted that that was the case.
On the other hand, it seemed to me that in the observations which he made the noble Marquess opposite took a line in the other direction, which, so far as I can understand, this House has not previously attempted to take. I understood him to say that, although an Amendment affected the charges either in the way of increase or diminution, as long as it was within the scope and purpose of the Bill it ought not to be considered a breach of privilege. I ask the noble Marquess whether the House of Commons would not consider it to be outside the province of this House to double or halve the charges connected with a Bill. It could not be said that to do that would be foreign to the whole scope and purpose 1086 of the Bill, but I think it must be generally agreed that that would be regarded by the other House as a very distinct breach of privilege.
The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down said that this was a great change of public policy, and the House of Lords ought not to be debarred from considering it. There I fully agree with him, but I do not think that because a change of policy is important a breach of privilege becomes more venial. The other House might be prepared in a particular case to waive their privileges, or might not consider the matter of sufficient importance to call for the assertion of them; but it certainly would not be on account of the magnitude of the interests involved that that course would be taken. The object of my noble friend was, as I think the object of us all ought to be, to avoid anything in the nature of a collision of opinion between the two Houses if it can be reasonably avoided. My noble friend simply uttered a warning, as I think he was not only entitled but bound to do in the position which he holds.
§ *EARL CROMER moved to amend Clause 1 (right to receive old-age pension) by inserting at the beginning the words: "until the 31st day of December, 1915." He said he was unable to respond to the appeal which Lord Rosebery had made to him. His noble friend's argument appeared to be that their Lordships would be less responsible for this measure if they did not attempt to amend it than if they did amend it. Personally he would feel much less responsible if he had done his best to amend the Bill than if he had taken no step in that direction. The Bill, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House had remarked on a former occasion, was not a long one, but it was one of very great importance. It was scarcely an exaggeration to say that not only every clause, but every line of each clause bristled with difficulties. The Bill had been in their Lordships' hands for little more than a week, and he submitted that that was far too short a time for the proper study of a matter of such importance.
§
He wished to draw attention to the very great difficulties under which private Members of their Lordships' House
1087
laboured in dealing with a question of this sort. They could, indeed, through the medium of the reports, necessarily abridged, which were published of the proceedings in the other House, gain some imperfect knowledge of the arguments advanced for and against the various provisions contained in the Bill, but they could not apply themselves seriously to the work of amendment until the Bill, in the form in which it finally left the other House, was in their hands. Then some of their Lordships would, he had no doubt, like to consult the many authorities outside the House who had made a special study of the questions with which the Bill dealt. Finally, when any individual Member had made up his mind as to the nature of the Amendment he would like to propose, he generally had to get it put into proper form by some one versed in the somewhat abstruse science of drafting. A month or six weeks would not have been too long for the study of this question before the Committee stage was taken. In the course of the last few days he had received a great many letters on the subject of the Bill. He would like to read an extract from one of them. It was from a working man. In the course of a somewhat lengthy letter he wrote—
I can assure you that there are some even among working men who endorse your views, and I exceedingly regret that greater opportunities for discussion were not allowed. I heartily wish you success in your Amendment. The limited experience it would impose would, I am sure, be sufficient to convince even ardent supporters of the measure of the grave mistake they are so cheerfully making.
Many suggestions had been made to him by persons whose opinions were entitled to respect, as to how the Bill could be amended, and he had not the least doubt that if time were available for further discussion some very useful Amendments in detail might be made without in any way striking a blow at the principle of the Bill. All Amendments of this nature, however, required careful consideration before they were brought forward, and the time for adequate consideration had not been given to them. He need hardly say that he was far from blaming any individuals for that state of things. He was aware that they owed it to the unfailing courtesy displayed by the
1088
noble Earl the Leader of the House that a few days' grace had been accorded to them, and that the Committee Stage was adjourned from last Thursday till that day.
§ The system was at fault, and he must say that anything more unsatisfactory than the practical working of the legislative machinery of this country at present could scarcely be conceived. In the first stage of any important legislation there was generally what would seem to be almost a plethora of talk. Then they rushed from the extreme of procrastination to the other extreme of precipitation. The guillotine was ruthlessly applied and the measure reached their Lordships' House without any adequate discussion having taken place in the other House on some of its most important provisions. In the House of Lords they were, fortunately, free from the operation of any guillotine, but he submitted that a moral pressure was put upon them which produced a very similar effect. They were hustled into precipitate legislation, and thus became in some degree responsible for measures which all were fully aware might be greatly improved if time for improvement had been allowed. So fully convinced was he of the unwisdom of haste in dealing with the Bill before them, that it was with great reluctance that he abandoned a proposal which at one time he had thought of submitting to their Lordships to the effect that the Committee stage should be adjourned till the Autumn Session. He was aware that the adoption of that course would have postponed by a few months the passing of the Bill, but that would not have been too high a price to pay for eventually producing a measure which would have been well-considered, instead of one which bore throughout the stamp of undue haste and want of foresight. He trusted their Lordships would pardon him for this digression. He had wished, however, to enter a further protest, in addition to those which had frequently been made on former occasions, against the legislative procedure now in vogue.
§ Of the two Amendments to the clause standing in his name the second was merely a natural consequence of the first, and he would deal with them together. 1089 Under the Bill as it now stood, not only every person now living, but everyone born hereafter would, on attaining the age of seventy years, be entitled to receive a pension if he or she fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Act. His proposal was that the obligation to five pensions on attaining the age of seventy under the conditions of the Bill should expire on 31st December, 1915, but that no person in receipt of a pension under the Act on that date should be deprived of his pension by the expiry of the Act. He need hardly say that this did not mean that the system of granting old-age pensions would cease and determine in 1915. Far from it. All that the Amendment provided was that at some time prior to the close of 1915 the subject must again come before Parliament, with a view to the introduction of a new and probably more complete system based on the experience which by that time would have been gained.
§ The Amendment was not conceived in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. It was in no sense what was generally called a wrecking Amendment. On the occasion of the Second Reading, he spoke somewhat strongly against the Bill as a whole, on the ground that no adequate provision was made for the heavy expenditure which would be incurred. But he had never in the least doubted the desirability of making better provision than now existed for the aged poor, and, moreover, even if this were not the case, he would consider that now that the principle had been affirmed by both Houses of Parliament, it was far too late to call it in question. Nor did the Amendment contain any covert attack on a non-contributory system. Whatever might be said for and against that system, the Bill was based upon the principle that a non-contributory system was to be recognised by the law of this country. He therefore wished to say that he accepted that principle loyally. But this did not imply the absolute negation of some sort of contributory scheme for all time.
§
In the course of the debates which had taken place in this and the other House, it had been fully recognised by Members of His Majesty's Government that the plan embodied in the Bill was of a
1090
provisional, and not of a permanent nature. The Prime Minister, speaking in the other House on June 17th, distinctly said—
The Bill does not prejudice any action Parliament may see proper to take in the years to come"—
and he thought he was also right in stating that in a speech made to a meeting held in, London the Prime Minister said that the Government Bill would not prevent the enactment of a contributory measure hereafter. What he wanted to see was the essentially provisional character of the measure stamped upon the face of the Bill. If once a distinct promise was given, not only to the present but future generations, that all were to be entitled to a pension who fulfilled the conditions set forth in the Bill, it would, he conceived, be very difficult to do anything which would render the Government of the day open to the charge that the promise had been broken. He wanted, therefore, to limit the liability of the Government.
§ One of the main objections to a contributory scheme was that it would be a great many years before it would come into operation. Under the Amendment which he proposed this difficulty disappeared. To use a term which had been frequently employed in these debates, it enabled the transitionary period before a more thorough scheme could be devised, to be bridged over. He did not hesitate to say that he would like to see some sort of contributory scheme grafted on to the present measure. Neither was he at all convinced that such a process would be impossible, though he did not in the least say that he was prepared to bring forward a cut-and-dried scheme at present for effecting this object. But the Amendment did not pledge the Government to the adoption of a contributory scheme. On the contrary, it left the field quite clear. All it did, in effect, was to say—This is a temporary measure; we provide by this Bill for people who are already advanced in life, and we await the Report of the Poor Law Commission and the experience which will be gained by the practical working of this temporary measure, in order to reconsider the matter and bring forward some more thorough 1091 measure for dealing with the whole of this important question.
§ There could not be any doubt that the Bill as it stands would strike a very serious blow to the operations of the friendly societies. Under his Amendment the effect of this blow would be very much mitigated. There would still be a strong inducement to all persons under sixty-three years of age to make provision for themselves, with the result that thrift would not be discouraged.
§ After the discussion that had taken place he could hardly hope that His Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment, which had been brought forward after consultation with many who had devoted their lives to the consideration of this important question, and which would be very warmly received by the very numerous classes who viewed with much alarm the very sweeping nature of the scheme involved in the Bill. The date of 31st December, 1915, had been, mentioned because, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Viscount (Lord Wolverhampton) stated that probably Lord George Hamilton's Commission would report in the autumn, and that then it might take four or five years to frame a Bill for the reform of the administration of the Poor Law. He did not hold any strong opinion as to the date which should be mentioned the Amendment; but for purposes of discussion, he had given six years, or one more year than, the maximum period named by the noble Viscount.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 5, to insert at the beginning of the clause the words 'Until the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fifteen.'"—(Earl Cromer.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he did not quite see what advantage would accrue by the adoption, of this Amendment. The Amendment proceeded on the assumption that Parliament would, on the passing of the Bill, lose its power for so many years. But the Bill could not bind a succeeding Parliament as to the duration of the Act, and it could be repealed by any future Parliament whenever it thought fit so to do. Referring to the question of 1092 privilege as between the two Houses, he quite agreed that there were Amendments in regard to which the House of Commons wisely waived the question of privilege. It had been done in a great many cases. He reminded the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition that there was one precedent which he did not quote, and that, he thought, was the most recent of all. That was the precedent of the Voluntary Schools Bill of 1897 when Lord Halsbury, then Lord Chancellor, called attention to the position in which an Amendment moved by Lord Spencer stood. The noble and learned Lord said—
He called attention to the matter at once for the sake of saving time, for he thought the same question would arise on most, if not all, of the Amendments proposed to be moved.He thought that, so far as he could forecast the future, the same state of things would be repeated on this occasion. Lord Halsbury continued——The Bill was for the purpose of making certain grants-in-aid to voluntary schools. The rule—he called it a rule, for, although it was originally a protest and a Resolution of the other House, it had, as Sir Thomas May said in his book, been acted upon as a rule of Parliamentary procedure for some 300 years—was: 'That all aids and supplies and aids to His Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons and all Bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons, and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.Lord Halsbury then quoted Sir Thomas May's comment upon this, which was—It is upon this latter Resolution that all proceedings between the two Houses in matters of Supply are now founded.The noble and learned Lord continued—Upon this Parliament had acted ever since and in the circumstances he put it to the noble and learned Lord opposite whether he agreed with him in the construction to be put upon the words. He had no authority, although Speaker of the House, to decide questions of order. Had he that right, he should decide that the Amendment standing in the name of Earl Spencer was out of order, but he now only put it to the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord beside him whether it was possible, in the face of the authority he had quoted, to say that the Amendment was in order? If it were not in order then it would be hardly respectful to the House to discuss the matter and to come to a decision to which their Lordships could give no practical effect, because if 1093 the Amendment were passed it would, as a privileged Amendment, have to be again struck out of the Bill.That was exactly the position which His Majesty's Government took up with regard to the Amendment now moved by Earl Cromer. It was an Amendment which they certainly could not, and
EARL CROMERexplained that his second Amendment was consequential upon the one which their Lordships had just adopted.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 10, after the word 'pension,' to insert the words 'the person who is in receipt
§ should not, accept, because, in their opinion, it would be a violation of the privileges of the other House.
§ On Question, "That these words be here inserted,"
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 77; Not Contents, 45.
1093| CONTENTS. | ||
| Marlborough, D. | Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Ellenborough, L. |
| Northumberland, D. | Estcourt, L. | |
| Rutland, D. | Churchill, V. [Teller.] | Faber, L. |
| Wellington, D. | Goschen, V. | Forester, L. |
| Hill, V. | Hindlip, L. | |
| Bath, M. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Hylton, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Killanin, L. | |
| Salisbury, M. | Knutsford, V. | Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) |
| St. Aldwyn, V. | Kinnaird, L. | |
| Lichfield, L. Bp. | Lamington, L. | |
| Carnwath, E. | Peterborough, L. Bp. | Lawrence, L. |
| Cawdor, E. | Leigh, L. | |
| Clarendon, E. | Abinger, L. | Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) |
| Cromer, E. | Addington, L. | Monckton, L. (V. Galway.) |
| Denbigh, E | Allerton, L. | Monk Bretton, L. |
| Eldon, E. | Ashbourne, L. | Muskerry, L. |
| Haddington, E. | Avebury, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Halsbury, E. | Basing, L. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Lovelace, E. | Biddulph, L. | |
| Malmesbury, E. | Borthwick, L. | St. Oswald, L. |
| Mar, E. | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Sanderson, L. |
| Mayo, E. | Brougham and Vaux, L. | Sinclair, L. |
| Morton, E. | Calthorpe, L. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| Mount Edgcombe, E. | Clonbrock, L. | |
| Orford, E. | Colchester, L. | Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.) |
| Plymouth, E. | Cottesloe, L. | |
| Powis, E. | De Mauley, L. | Willoughby de Broke, L. |
| Stamford, E. | Digby, L. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
| Verulam, E. | Ebury, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Morley of Blackburn, V. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | |
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Ridley, V. | Haversham, L. |
| Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.) | Wolverhampton, V. | Headley, L. |
| Hemphill, L. | ||
| Northampton, M. | Bangor, L. Bp. | Herschell, L. |
| Joicey, L. | ||
| Allendale, L. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) | |
| Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.) | Armitstead, L. | Lyveden, L. |
| Carrington, E. | Boston, L. | Macdonnell, L. |
| Chesterfield, E. | Clinton, L. | Marchamley, L. |
| Craven, E. | Colebrooke, L. | Ribblesdale, L. |
| Crewe, E. | Denman, L. [Teller.] | St. Davids, L. |
| Jersey, E. | Eversley, L. | Sandys, L. |
| Kimberley, E. | Farrer, L. | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Northbrook, E. | Fitzmaurice, L | Tenterden, L. |
| Russell, E. | Glantawe, L. | Welby, L. |
| Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.] | Wrottesley, L. | |
| Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) |
§ of a pension on the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and fifteen shall not be deprived of that pension by reason of the expiry of this Act.'"—(Earl Cromer.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved to insert three new subsections in 1095 Clause 1. The noble Duke expressed his confidence that their Lordships would extend to him the indulgence which was always given to one who, however practised a speaker, addressed their Lordships for the first time. He had put down the Amendment in the hope that it would elicit from the Government an explanation of how it was proposed to carry the Bill into effect. Machinery would have to be devised by which a sum, at the very lowest computation, of £150,000 a week would have to be distributed in pensions, ranging from the maximum of £13 a year to the minimum of £2 10s. a year, in all parts of the United Kingdom. At present the machinery in the Bill consisted of a Central Pensions Board, which was to have power to delegate its authority to any committee or individual. It seemed to him that the President of the Local Government Board for the time being would be the central pensions authority. The other machinery was the local pensions committee and the pensions officer. The last-named was a Treasury official, and upon him to a great extent would depend the success or failure of the Act. The Government had left it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Postmaster-General, and the President of the Local Government Board to devise schemes as to how this Act was to be carried into effect. They were taking a very great step in delegating what were really the functions of the Imperial Parliament to the Ministerial officials for the time being. Very many of the difficulties in putting the Territorial Forces Act into operation were due to the uncertainty of the Act itself, and to the fact that the country had to wait to see what the orders of the Army Council would be. In this Pensions Act they were dealing with a very large sum of money, and there was no information in the Bill itself as to how that money was to be brought down to the pockets of those whom Parliament intended to receive that money. He understood the agency to be employed would be the Post Office, but what authority would the Post Office require in disbursing these monies? What were the rules and regulations which would deal with the distribution of this large and increasing sum of money? The 1096 whole system of the machinery in the Bill was vague and loose. Those of their Lordships, who, like himself, had been connected with the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons would know how essential it was that Parliament should clearly and distinctly lay down the source by which money was to flow from the Treasury. That was the only way in which an effective control could be maintained. He did not pretend that in the face of the somewhat vague and faulty machinery in the Bill his Amendment would convert it into a satisfactory machinery; but he had adopted practically the same phraseology as was to be found in the Small Holdings Act. If his Amendment were accepted it would enable Parliament to be placed in receipt of the necessary accounts to enable a thorough and systematic audit to take place. At the present time there was no provision in the Bill for any audit at all.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 15, after subsection (3) to insert the following new subsections: '(4) For the purposes of this Act there shall be opened an account at the Bank of England called "The Old-Age Pensions Account," and there shall be paid to this account such money as may from time, to time be provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs and expenses incurred in Great Britain in the execution of this Act, and all other sums received in respect of old-age pensions under this Act, and directed by regulations under this Act to be paid into the Old-Age Pensions Account. (5) The costs and expenses incurred in Great Britain in the execution of this Act shall be paid by the Local Government Board subject to regulations to be made by the Treasury out of the money standing to that account. (6) At the end of every financial year, accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Old-Age Pensions Account shall be made up in such form and with such particulars as may be directed by the Treasury, and shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as public accounts in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may make, and shall be laid before Parliament together with his report thereon.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONexpressed his pleasure at hearing again the voice of the noble Duke, opposite to whom he had sat for many years in the other House. He regretted that the Government could not accept the Amendment. The regulations for the 1097 distribution of the money would be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. The schemes and the details of the schemes had been prepared and considered by the Treasury officials, to whom the finances of this country had been entrusted for so many years and with so much success. There were reasons, which the noble Duke would appreciate, why it would be most unwise to put a great deal of the machinery into an Act of Parliament, because it could not then be altered or amended without going through all the various stages of passing a Bill through both Houses of Parliament. The machinery for distribution would have to be carefully tested under the supervision of the Ministers of the Crown, and when the defects had been ascertained then those defects could be administratively altered without delay. It was desirable to avoid having separate Acts of Parliament for these Amendments in machinery. He could assure the noble Duke that his fears in the matter were groundless.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid their Lordships were indebted to the noble Duke for having called attention to the deficiency in the Bill in the most important matter to which he had alluded. What had been the answer of the noble Viscount? It was merely that regulations would be made and would be presented to Parliament. He was quite aware that it would be impossible to insert all the necessary regulations in an Act of Parliament. The noble Duke had explained that in the Small Holdings Act there were certain definite principles laid down with regard to the expenditure of money which it would be perfectly possible, mutatis mutandis, for His Majesty's Government to have embodied in this Bill. But that was not done. Would it not have been very much better, considering how long this matter had occupied the attention of the Government, and that they must have arrived at certain conclusions upon it by this time, that those regulations should have been laid before Parliament before they were asked to vote upon the matter, so that they might know exactly what they were doing? He thought, however, after what had been said that his noble friend 1098 would probably not desire to press the Amendment, although he had done a public service in moving it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ LORD AVEBURY moved the insertion of a new clause which, he said, raised the whole question as between a contributory and a non-contributory scheme. The price of an ounce of tobacco or a glass of beer a week when a man entered life would find the money. He had shown in the debate on Second Reading, and His Majesty's Government had not attempted to controvert it, that with a few exceptions our workmen could easily provide themselves with pensions. Some 250,000, indeed, had done so already. The Board of Trade had shown that German workmen had lower wages, longer hours, dearer food, and dearer clothes than our people. They could and did provide themselves with pensions, and yet they were told that Englishmen could not. The Government had stated that contributory pensions were impossible in England. They had given no reason, except that Mr. Chamberlain once said so. Mr. Chamberlain, however, said they were impossible because you could not bridge over the interval. But the Germans had bridged over the interval, and the Bill with their Amendments would do so. True charity would promote independence and encourage thrift. The Bill as it stood would increase dependence and discourage thrift. Thomas Tucker long ago said that husbandry (by which he meant thrift) was not an English virtue. They were doing their best to prevent its ever being so. They were penalising prudence, and subsidising self-indulgence. The advocates of a contributory scheme said to the workman, "if you will save something the State will double it." The Government said to the workmen: "if you spend your savings in beer and tobacco we will give you a pension; but if you are fool enough to put it by for old age we will do nothing for you." And yet the Government professed to be, and he knew really were, in favour of temperance. The expenses of the Bill would be enormous, but that was 1099 not, to his mind, the great objection. If their Lordships rejected the Amendment the Bill would seriously lower the character and independence of the people, but if they passed it they would really confer a boon on the working classes.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, to insert the following new clause: '(1) A person born after the first day of January nineteen hundred and nine and a person who on that day is under sixty-five years of age shall not be entitled to a pension under this Act. (2) The Treasury may make regulations enabling persons not entitled to pensions under this Act to provide the like pensions for themselves, and shall cause tables to be constructed for that purpose in which interest shall be calculated at the rate of four per cent, per annum. (3) Where a person, who on the first day of January nineteen hundred and nine is above the age of forty-one and under the age of sixty-five desires to provide a pension for himself as aforesaid, but is unable to pay the full contribution that is required by the tables from a person of his age, the Treasury may pay for him so much of that contribution as exceeds the contribution that is required by the tables from a person of the age of forty-one.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the proposal of the noble Lord reopened the whole controversy about contributory schemes. The Amendment could not be accepted, because the decision of both Houses of Parliament and of the country had been given against a contributory scheme. The question, so far as the Government were concerned, was a chose jugee.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEYhoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment at this moment. If he did he would be reluctantly compelled to vote against it, not because there were not merits in the proposal, but because there had been no time properly to consider it, and because, though many people for many years had been endeavouring to arrive at a satisfactory contributory scheme, there was no great body of opinion behind any particular scheme of that kind.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNassociated himself with the appeal of the noble Viscount behind him, not so much for the reason his noble friend had given, but because the Amendment seemed to be a clear breach of privilege since it 1100 proposed a grant from the taxpayers for a purpose for which the House of Commons-had voted nothing at all. Although he could not see that the Amendment moved by the noble Earl on the cross benches, Lord Cromer, necessarily raised the question of privilege, yet this Amendment did raise it in so clear a way that he submitted it should be withdrawn.
§ LORD AVEBURY, while he did not understand how an Amendment that would effect a great saving to the Exchequer would be a breach of privilege, in deference to the noble Viscount's opinion, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2:
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved an Amendment to Clause 2 ("Statutory conditions for receipt of old-age pensions") which would add to the condition as to recipients of pensions having attained the age of seventy the words "as verified by certificates of birth or baptism, or, in the absence of such certificates, by census returns or other official documents." He apprehended that this Amendment would not come under the ban of privilege. If it were contended for a moment that it was improper for their Lordships to attempt to lay down how the age of seventy should be arrived at, then he thought the question of privilege would invade almost every measure which came before their Lordships' House. This was an Amendment which merely attempted to secure the fair administration of the Bill, if it became an Act, in a particular as to which at the moment there was no regulation at all. This particular provision of the Bill contained nothing but uncertainties. There was no method in it whatever. They could not doubt that, as the Bill stood, the door was open to a distribution which had not got solid foundations, and in which naturally the impulse of every man would be on the side of liberality, especially in the poorer districts. In Ireland there were the fewest records, and there was also a traditional open-handedness and a very wide and hearty appreciation of the depth of the public purse. He did 1101 not think his Amendment would in any way add difficulties to the scheme. In England there were registers of births going back to the year 1837. In Ireland the registers only went back to the year 1866. There were, however, marriage registers, and a married man who did not know the place of his birth would certainly remember the place of his marriage. There were also other official statistics. Every man who had served the Crown in any capacity had to state his age, and was officially accepted as being of a certain age. Those who had passed through the various forces of the Crown must number several millions, all of whose ages could be ascertained from the records. Where there were no other records, he relied on the Census Returns. He did not think it was asking too much to say that only cases which could be verified in this way should be dealt with by the Pensions Committee, and that where there was difficulty in verification of any kind the matter should be dealt with by a separate and special body. Many anomalies would arise unless some such provision were inserted. He thought it would be evident to their Lordships that this was a case in which some concession should be made.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 21, after the word 'seventy,' to insert the words 'as verified by certificates of birth or baptism, or in the absence of such certificates by census returns or other official documents."—(Viscount Midleton.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that the practice in the Colonies where pensions had been established was that the Court were not bound to require legal evidence in this matter. Of course people would endeavour to get pensions to which they were not entitled, but the pension officer was a representative of the Exchequer, and he could be trusted to be a very favourable watchdog for the Treasury. There might be unjustified generosity in the local pension committees, but there was an appeal to the Local Government Board. The Government had given attention to this point. They had not thrown this Bill upon the Table absolutely ignorant of all its difficulties, but they were confronting them and doing their best to conquer them.
§ LORD ATKINSONsuggested that Viscount Midleton's Amendment might fairly be accepted if the words "wherever practicable" were inserted after the word "verified." In many cases in Ireland there would be no official evidence available beyond the census returns, except in the case of men who had served the Crown. A great many of the parish priests, however, had kept registers which might be available, and he therefore suggested the insertion in the Amendment of words to include true copies of any register of births or marriages kept by a clergyman of any religious persuasion in connection with any office he might have held.
§
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
To insert, after the words 'as verified,' the words 'wherever practicable.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I hope that either with or without the Amendment His Majesty's Government will accept some such words as my noble friend has suggested. It is abundantly clear that, unless this clause is fortified in some way, the taxpayers of this country will be exposed to wholesale fraud. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill tells us that we need have no misgivings lest this difficulty should have been ignored by His Majesty's Government, and that these matters are to be provided for in rules and regulations. But we have to take all these things upon trust. I do not want to be told exactly what the letter of the rules and regulations is to be, but I want to know on what general lines it is intended to ascertain whether these claims are genuine or not. Upon whom, for example, is the burden of proof to lie? Has the claimant to prove to the satisfaction of the authority that he is seventy? I do not find that in the Bill as it stands, but unless there is some official evidence to support the pensioner's claim, the door is wide open to fraud. Something has been said as to evidence of age in the case of recruits. My noble friend and I well remember what took place in that matter. There was a great difficulty in getting recruits of full age, and many of them were 1103 entirely without the means of satisfying the War Office what their age was. Thereupon the military authorities invented the ingenious plan of directing the recruiting officers to be content with what used to be called the "physics equivalents" of the age of eighteen. We had no idea what those physical equivalents were, but we knew that a great number of youths of sixteen and seventeen and even younger were considered to possess those equivalents. In this case you have to produce the physical equivalents, not of eighteen, but of seventy. What are the physical equivalents of seventy? We know that a great many people resort to ingenious plans for making themselves appear younger than they really are, but I am afraid you will have a regular industry for the purpose of making people appear a great deal older than they are in order to obtain these pensions. The risk is a serious one, and I hope, in spite of what fell just now from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, that His Majesty's Government will accept some form of words, either that suggested by my noble friend behind me, or another form of words in order to make it clear that there really is to be full and adequate proof that the claimant has reached the age entitling him to be pensioned.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONpointed out that the Bill provided that the Treasury should make regulations for prescribing the manner in which claims to pensions might be made and the procedure to be followed to secure the fulfilment of the statutory conditions. But he had no objection to accepting the Amendment with the insertion of the words "wherever practicable" after the word "verified," as suggested by Lord Atkinson.
§ LORD ATKINSONinquired whether the noble Viscount would also accept his suggestion as to inserting words with regard to true copies of any register of births or marriages kept by a clergyman of any religious persuasion.
*VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTOMthought this would be introducing a religious element, and might give rise to a good deal of dispute. Moreover, he 1104 saw no necessity for the addition of those words. If the registers were official documents they would be got at. There would be no difficulty in the way of the pension committee or the pension officer asking for these documents.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsympathised with the view taken by the noble Viscount. The object of Lord Midleton's Amendment was to give a preference to the utmost extent to official documents, but if they specified in the Bill something which the noble and learned Lord had said was not official at all, would it not rather suggest that evidence could be taken which was not of the character indicated by Lord Midleton? He thought it would be better to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "wherever practicable," and confine themselves to that.
§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ LORD AVEBURY moved to amend Clause 2 so as to provide that a person applying for an old-age pension must "satisfy the local authority" as to his residential qualifications. He argued that this would throw the onus of proof upon the person applying for the pension and make it quite secure that he had to satisfy the pension authority. He hoped to have the support of Viscount St. Aldwyn, because in the debate on the Second Reading the noble Viscount distinctly laid it down that in his judgment the onus of proof should not rest with the pension authority as in the Bill, but on the applicant. He gathered that that was also the opinion of the Marquess of Lansdowne, and he hoped His Majesty's Government might accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 22, after the word 'must,' to insert the words 'satisfy the local pension committee that.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONpointed out that the Amendment assumed that the local pension committee was the 1105 solitary and final authority, whereas under Clause 7 the claim first of all went to the pension officer, then to the local pension committee, and possibly, on appeal, to the Local Government Board. Those three authorities had to be satisfied, and the Bill was drawn upon that basis.
§ LORD AVEBURYsaid the point he wished to raise was that the onus probandi should rest on the person applying. The word "local" was, however, not wanted, and he would delete it.
§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Consequential Amendment agreed to.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON moved an Amendment to add to subsection 2 that the twenty years residential qualification, should be subject to any exceptions provided by the regulations under the Act.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 25, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and subject to any exceptions provided by these regulations.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped their Lordships might have some statement as to what exceptions were intended. The noble Viscount proposed to amend the Bill so as to enable the pension authority to do what certainly it always must have intended to do—to make certain exceptions, which he hoped would not be very wide exceptions, to the provision of residence. He thought they ought to know precisely what was intended by the exceptions. Was it merely intended that, for example, persons in the Army and Navy abroad on this duty should be excepted from the term of residence, or was it intended to go very much wider than that and exempt persons who spent the whole, or nearly the whole, of the term abroad on their own private avocations, and pension them even if they had not really done any work in this country during the twenty years? He did not think the Government could intend to go as far as that, but meant to maintain the spirit of the residential qualification while allowing 1106 some reasonable exceptions in cases where those exceptions ought to be made.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONexplained that a legal objection had been taken. The Government themselves were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it was drawn, but the Law Officers of the Crown raised the doubt whether the provision was enough to enable regulations defining residence to include that which was not "residence" in the ordinary sense of the term. Personally he thought there would be no object in the provision unless it had that effect and he did not think the Amendment necessary. On the other hand very distinguished lawyers had taken the point, and it might be well to make it clear in order that people who were abroad in the Army, Navy, or merchant service might be duly protected. The intention of the Government was to prevent a dispute arising as to the true meaning of the section.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIt is quite clear that if this Amendment is adopted, a very considerable latitude of interpretation would be given to the authorities which they would not possess under the Bill as it now stands. I desire, in passing, to call the attention of the House to the fact that according to the rendering of the privilege doctrine to which we listened early in the evening this Amendment would appear to be an invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons, because it is intended to widen the scope of the clause and to throw an increased burden upon the Exchequer. But I gather that what is desired is that the Department that administers this Act is to have the right of ruling that the word "residence," which I have always understood was a legal expression with a very strict interpretation, is to be considered in a sense not at present known to the law. The matter, however, does seem to be rather a serious one, and I am very glad that my hon. friend beside me called the attention of the House to it.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNagain asked for some answer from the noble Viscount as to the exceptions which it was intended to make.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the question was as to how they were to define the word "residence." It was a very difficult word to define in regard to people who spent the great portion of their time abroad. There were a large number of cases—men in public works in the Colonies and in European countries, although practically their residence was in England. If they had a wife and children at home that would be their residence, but there was no reason why men should be deprived of their pensions, who had not homes in England, but had gone out from England to do work and then come back. The intention of the Government was that Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Irishmen should not be disqualified simply because they had not continuously resided in England during the twenty years. They would do great injury by raising legal points which might deprive some deserving people of their pensions. The Law Officers thought it was a desirable thing that the words in the Amendment should be put in.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the two Amendments which stood next upon the Order Paper in the hands of Lord Clinton and Lord Muskerry had the same object as that of the noble Viscount. They were agreed that certain exceptions ought to be made, but what the noble Viscount suggested to the House was that it should be within the power of the Government to dispense-entirely with residence or with anything corresponding to it, because the words were absolutely wide. Any exceptions which the pension authorities chose to lay down were to have the same force as if they were enacted in the Act. The noble Viscount who was in charge of the Bill asked them to trust the Government. He was making a very large demand upon their confidence, and although they had great respect for him and for those whom he represented they hardly thought he was quite fair to them. The exceptions ought to be defined so that the House should know what they were, and not be asked to give an absolutely blank cheque to the Government to make any exceptions they pleased to send up. It seemed hardly necessary to discuss the Bill at all.
§ VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONThe Government do not make the regulations, but the pension officer, the pension committee, and the Local Government Board.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYOf course, it is quite clear; they are going to be made by a Department of the Government.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that the two Amendments next in order on the Paper, to which the noble Marquess had referred, answered his own arguments. Those two Amendments dealt with certain classes of exceptions to the general rule, and had occurred not at all unnaturally to the minds of those two noble Lords, thereby showing that there wore certain classes of cases which might give rise to considerable hardship if not dealt with. They were agreed that those cases ought to be dealt with in some way or another, and the only question was whether the rules should be embodied in the body of the statute, or whether they were to trust the regulations made by a Government Department. He ventured to ask the noble Lords opposite to carry their minds back to a few of the recent statutes for which they were responsible. Were there no regulations, for example, under such Acts as the Workmen's Compensation Act with which the name of Mr. Chamberlain was so honourably associated? Were there no regulations dealing with questions just as complicated as that before the House? It was a matter of common knowledge to every man who had a seat in Parliament or who practised at the Bar that they were thrown back more and more in these days—and, in a way, it was a source of regret—upon the action of Government Departments, because the burden of legislation and of administration was becoming so onerous that the legislative machinery of Parliament was likely to begin to break down under it. If they tried to embody in the Act all those things which might be dealt with by regulations they would be sitting through the whole of the months of August and September. Further, if they once began placing limited classes of exceptions in the Act they would immediately be deemed by a Court of law to have practically determined that those cases, and 1109 these cases only, should be dealt with by way of exception. The Government claimed that their machinery, by regulation, would meet all the views and objects of noble Lords opposite and with which they entirely agreed. There ought to be a method of dealing with exceptional cases, and that being so he hoped noble Lords opposite would see that the Government had not, for a moment, overlooked the importance of the matter; it had been most carefully considered by them.
*LORD MAYOsuggested that the Law Officers of the Crown might define the word "residence," in order to assist His Majesty's Government in the passage of the Bill.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid there was no more intricate or difficult subject in English law than that of domicile. Practically what they were asked to do in defining "residence" in the Act of Parliament was to touch on the fringe of that most difficult and dangerous law. That would really be a most unwise thing for the Committee to do.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEasked whether the noble Lord meant to convey that it was the opinion of the Law Officers that it could be held that if a man had retained, not abandoned, his domicile in the United Kingdom he had retained his residence.
LORD FITZMAURICEreplied that that was a good instance of the sort of conundrum that the Government thought they ought to avoid in an Act of Parliament.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that everyone knew that "domicile" depended upon intention. A man might live for the best part of his life out of England, but if he had left the country without the intention of abandoning his domicile he would be held to have retained it. Did the noble Lord say that one of the points submitted for the decision of the law officers was that if a man retained his domicile he was held to have retained his rights to a pension?
LORD FITZMAURICEreplied that that was the sort of point that could only be dealt with effectually by regulation.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid they were entitled to know the result of whatever consideration had been given to the subject, before they gave a blank cheque. The debate would also be somewhat illuminated if they knew how the House were going to deal with the next two Amendments, in which they represented specific points. They had a right to know what was in the minds of the Government as to the nature of the exceptions that would be put into the regulations, so that they could see how the Government would fill up their blank cheque. He did not unduly press the point of domicile, which was, however, a legitimate one.
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the House had great cause to complain of the answer they had received from the Government on the matter. Noble Lords had realised the hardships that might arise under the Bill as it now stood. The Government, while asking for general power to make exceptions, said they could not tell the House what the exceptions would be. He confessed that what he was afraid of was that in attempting to remedy hardships in that general way the exceptions which might be forced upon the Government by their supporters elsewhere might be so numerous that practically the requirements of residence would be altogether done away with. From the point of view of the British taxpayer there was much to be said on the subject, because it would be quite unreasonable that a mere retention of a domicile in England should entitle a person who had spent his twenty years abroad to receive a pension at the cost of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. That would be obviously unfair unless a certain part of that time had been spent in service rendered to the country, either in the Army or the Navy. There was danger that the Amendment might enable large additional burdens to be imposed on the British taxpayer by persons who were certainly not entitled to receive pensions.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONattached no importance personally to the Amendment and was quite willing to withdraw it if the House was against it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1111§ LORD CLINTON moved to add that the regulations should provide that a person should not be disqualified by reason only of absence beyond the seas during the whole or part of the qualifying period, either in actual naval or military service on behalf of the Crown, or where his domicile in the United Kingdom was continuously retained in the performance of any duty arising from, or incidental to, any office, trade, service or employment. He welcomed very much the announcement that soldiers, sailors, and men of the merchant service ought not to be subject to disqualification, yet it seemed a matter of very sincere regret that the Government had refused in this particular instance to include actually in the Bill itself the terms which would appear in the regulations. In regard to cases coming under the statutory conditions it seemed obvious that the mind of the Government was made up, and if that was so he saw no reason why it should not appear in the Bill. The second part of his Amendment was tolerably widely drawn and should include almost all cases where hardship could arise out of any construction put upon the word "residence." But after the assurance of the noble Viscount it was unnecessary that he should include the cases of soldiers and sailors. He gathered that their case was admitted and that it was an overwhelmingly strong one. He believed, however, that the cases of many people who had to go abroad in the ordinary course of their employment, always with the intention of coming home again, was scarcely less strong. They were told that pensions under the Bill were to be given not as a charity but as a matter of right, that they were to be a sort of deferred pay for veterans of industry, and a man was no less a veteran of industry if, during the course of his life and of his employment, he had had to spend a year or two abroad, possibly for the very purpose of pushing forward some English trade or business in a foreign country. There were, for instance, the cases of men, and even of women, who, in the course of their ordinary employment as domestic servants, went out in the households of Ambassadors or of any other person who was bound to be abroad. It would be a hardship if such people, when they came 1112 home, should find themselves in an intolerably worse position in regard to these pensions than the men in exactly the same class of employment who had remained at home during the whole qualifying period. There was another instance which was a very common one in country districts. A man, in order to escape unemployment, and to endeavour to prevent himself becoming a burden upon the rates, accepted the offer of an emigration society, or by other means went to Canada or some other part of the world. When he arrived he found, as so many did, particularly these of mature age, that work was not so easily obtainable as he had supposed and he was driven to accept the inevitable and return home again. When he returned home he found he had got to live and to work in this country another twenty years before he could qualify for a pension. Such a man had, it was true, failed, but he had made a really great and supreme effort to achieve success. Why should he be in a worse position than the man who had remained at home and who had equally failed but who had not made the same effort? He thought that would be a case of very real hardship. It was quite unnecessary for him to multiply instances, which would occur very readily to their Lordships, but he would like to make a comparison of the disqualification which came under the condition of "residence." In subsection (2) of Clause 3 it was provided that a person who was convicted of any offence and ordered to be imprisoned was disqualified during the time of his imprisonment, and for a further period of ten years, from receiving an old-age pension. In the same way an habitual drunkard who was liable to have a detention order made under the provisions of the Inebriates Act, 1898, might be disqualified for ten years, but a man who went abroad for one year might be disqualified for twenty years. Taking a concrete case, a man at the age of fifty-nine was, perhaps, convicted of a crime and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. He came out at sixty but his disqualifying period was no disqualification to him, because he had worked it out before he had reached the age of seventy. But a man of the same age, fifty-nine, who went abroad for a year and returned at the age 1113 of sixty, was disqualified for twenty years—that was until he had reached the age of eighty, which amounted practically to permanent disqualification. Therefore they discovered at once a really serious case of hardship which ought to be considered and which, he had no doubt was being considered by the Government. He thought, however, that there should be in the wording of the Bill some recognition of the fact that such cases of hardship were prevented.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 26, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the words 'and such regulation shall provide that a person shall not be disqualified by reason only of absence beyond the seas during the whole or part of the qualifying period, either on actual naval or military service on behalf of the Crown, or where his domicile in the United Kingdom is continuously retained in the performance of any duty arising from, or incidental to, any office, trade, service, or employment.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONdeclared that they must either throw regulations overboard altogether or stand by regulations. If they commenced putting classes of exceptions and conditions into the Bill it would be fatal to the carrying out of any satisfactory legislation on the subject. He agreed with almost every word the noble Lord had said, but he could not consent to the Amendment, simply because if they began defining in the Bill the question would arise as to what had been left out. That would create the presumption that every case not mentioned was not intended to be included. The Government knew their own intentions as to what they would put into the regulations. These regulations would be submitted to Parliament and possibly disapproved of, but it was impossible now for them to take item by item the classes of people who under certain conditions ought to be entitled to pensions. It would be better to leave the whole question in the hands of the framers of the regulations. He was confident that there would be an opportunity in Parliament to discuss the regulations. The desire of both Houses would be that while all economy should be exercised, nobody being allowed to have a pension who was not properly entitled to it, yet, at the same time, nobody who was justly and fairly 1114 entitled to it should be shut out by any technicality.
§ LORD AVEBURYsaid that the Amendment went very far indeed. A man for instance, might be engaged in the service of a foreign railway or firm, be away for years, and get an English pension.
*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHsuggested that the mover of the Amendment should consider the advisability of dividing it into two parts, leaving out that relating to "domicile." There would naturally be much doubt as to whether domicile were "continuously retained in the performance of any duty, etc." It was rather difficult to define exactly what that meant. The Bill related practically to poor men of small means and such men would hardly retain continuously a domicile in the United Kingdom if they went abroad for any length of time for the purpose of working. The first part of the Amendment was open to very little objection, and it was just possible that the Government might see their way to adopt these or some similar words.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI do not think there is any difference between both sides of the House as to the necessity of providing in some measure for the class of cases covered by my noble friend's Amendment. I am under the impression that a distinct promise was given in another place that the case of sailors, sailing in registered vessels, was to be expressly provided for. What many of us feel is that some means or other should be found of making that appear upon the surface of the Bill. The matter is so important that it is not one that can be left to the chapter of accidents. The noble Viscount has told us that the matter will be dealt with in the regulations, and he laid stress upon the fact that the regulations will come before Parliament. I should have been disposed to accept that as a sufficient explanation, but the ground has been cut from under that argument because earlier in the evening we were told that the law officers of the Crown had advised that unless something was put into the Bill on this point, it might be 1115 found impossible to deal with the cases of sailors and others whom we desire to protect.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONThe noble Marquess quite misunderstood me. The law officers advised that litigation might arise as to what was the true meaning of the clause as it stood, whereas the non-professional advisers thought the clause was sufficient, and the House thought it sufficient. I myself have considered the words of no importance or value whatever. We thought the classes we wished to include were safe, but the law officers thought it might stop any possibility of argument if these words were put in.
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that after what had been said it was clear that the scope of the Amendment was too wide, particularly when they took into account the difficulty in introducing anything about domicile. If the noble Lord would consent to leave out the words after "Crown" and to insert the words "or seamen in the British merchant service or others engaged in some temporary service," he thought it would cover all the cases desired to be covered.
§ LORD CLINTONwas very certain that a large number of persons would be abroad for quite a short time, and would suffer a very serious hardship if there were not some further exceptions made in the Act.
§ THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEasked whether the noble Lord would have any objection to widening the first portion of thee Amendment to include all these actually in the service of the Crown, not merely specifying the Army and the Navy.
§ *VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsuggested the withdrawal of the Amendment, in view of the statement of the Government that they would be prepared to accept Lord Camperdown's Amendment that the regulations should be submitted to Parliament. That undertaking had not been given when Lord Clinton's Amendment was prepared, and there was, therefore, good reason for pointing out 1116 some exceptions; but he must admit that there was a considerable danger in picking out specific cases and dealing with them. That might mean the exclusion of cases that did not come within the exceptions, and he ventured to suggest that the bent course would be to withdraw the Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYaffirmed that the fact was the Government had consulted their own law officers and their own law officers thought that what the House wanted to be done could not be done by regulation.
§ VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONWe said that doubts might be raised.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it would be a most unfortunate thing if, in consequence of their not dealing with the matter when before the House, doubts were afterwards raised, and it might turn out to be impossible by regulation to confer pensions upon the two classes—these who served the State and these who went abroad for purely temporary purposes. That would be a most unfortunate result, and he could not help thinking that his noble friend would be unwise to press his Amendment at the present moment, but they could not allow the Bill to go back to the House of Commons without making it absolutely certain that seamen and these who went abroad for purely temporary purposes were not prevented from getting a pension. If there was really a doubt it ought to be cleared up.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)I have not the faintest doubt that under the regulations we can provide for the things desired.
§ *THE EARL OF CREWEIn confirmation of that I am given to understand that the expression of the Law Officers applied to what might happen in the case of individuals, and not in the case of classes of persons. That, I suppose, would equally hold good whether the provision appeared in the Act or in the regulations.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEAfter the very categorical statement 1117 made by the Lord Chancellor, and considering that we have received an asurance that these regulations will be laid before Parliament, and that a full opportunity of considering them will be given, I suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed.
§ LORD CLINTONIs it the intention that the classes to whom I have referred should be provided for not in the Bill but in the regulations?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThere is not the least doubt that anyone who wishes for fair play would desire to include the persons referred to.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MUSKERRYproposed to insert that in the case of masters and seamen of British nationality service at sea should be deemed sufficient to constitute a residence. He argued that under the Act a master was not a seaman and therefore it was absolutely necessary to make it clear that masters were provided for.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 26, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the words 'in the case of all masters and seamen of British nationality, service at sea shall be deemed sufficient to constitute a residence under the terms of this Act.'"—(Lord Muskerry.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONassured the noble Lord that the Government would do their best to meet his view. There would be an opportunity for the noble Lord to raise the question if he thought the regulations defective, but he did not think it would be necessary.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON moved to amend the statutory condition for receipt of a pension by providing that the "yearly" means of the persons as calculated under the Act must not exceed £31 10s.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 1, after the first 'the,' to insert the word 'yearly.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1118§ LORD AVEBURY moved to provide that the person applying for a pension must satisfy the local pensions authority that his means as calculated under the Bill do not exceed £31 10s. He explained that his Amendment was really consequential upon the one just accepted.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'means of the,' and after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'must satisfy the local pension committee that his means.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESpointed out that having inserted the word "yearly" the Committee could not now leave out the word "means" without making the clause ungrammatical.
§ LORD AVEBURYaccordingly altered his Amendment to enable the provision to read "That the person must satisfy the pension authorities that his yearly means, etc."
§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3:
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to omit the words "the thirty-first day of December, 1910 unless," so that the disqualification for a pension should apply to a person "While he is in receipt of any poor relief (other than relief excepted under this provision) and until Parliament otherwise determines, if he has at any time since the first day of January, 1908, received, or hereafter receives, any such relief." He said that this was the disqualifying clause by which a person who was in receipt of relief on 1st January last, or might be in receipt of such relief in future, would be disqualified from a pension "until 31st December, 1910, unless Parliament otherwise determines." He supposed it was common ground to all that outdoor relief of the ordinary kind and pensions should not go together, and he imagined that His Majesty's Government had inserted this disqualification in order to prevent any sudden transfer of persons now in receipt 1119 of out-relief by the boards of guardians in different districts to the old-age pensions list. There was no doubt whatever that there were a great many persons over seventy years of age in receipt of out-relief, especially in country unions, who would be more properly the recipients of old-age pensions, and whom the boards of guardians would be likely to transfer at the earliest opportunity. He imagined, therefore, that this disqualification had been inserted with a view to preventing anything of that kind. But he did not understand what was the object of the particular words "31st December, 1910, unless," which he was moving to omit. He could quite understand that a person who had been since 1st January last in receipt of such relief, or might hereafter receive it, should not be qualified for a pension, and that such disqualification should last until Parliament otherwise determined, because he understood it was the intention of the Government to connect this Bill with an alteration and reform of the Poor Law by which Poor Law relief would be subject to a better classification than was the case at present, and that pending the passage of such a Bill it was not desired that any persons in receipt of Poor Law relief should be qualified for pensions. The clause as he proposed to amend it would carry out that intention completely The disqualification would last until an Act was passed which would deal with the matter; but why the disqualification should cease on 31st December, 1910, whether such an Act were passed or not, he did not understand. These words, he believed, were not in the Bill at the time of its introduction, but were inserted in another place, for what reason he did not know, unless it was considered to be perfectly certain that a Poor Law Reform Bill would pass before the date named. Nothing of the kind could be certain in Parliamentary proceedings. The time of Parliament was already mortgaged by His Majesty's Government with proposals for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales, for a great Reform Bill, and for other smaller matters which he need not enumerate, but which would 1120 quite take up the time of Parliament without any measure of Poor Law reform. No Government, therefore, could be certain that by 31st December, 1910, any measure of the kind would be passed. He wanted to ask the noble Viscount what was the reason for these words and what they meant. Was it in contemplation that Parliament might remove this disqualification before 31st December, 1910, if it so chose, or was it in contemplation that Parliament should extend the term of disqualification in the event of no Poor Law Reform Bill passing? He submitted that it must be intended that the disqualification should last until poor Law reform was an accomplished fact, and that being so it would be very much better that the clause should so provide.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 7, to leave out the words 'the 31st day of December, 1910, unless.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the noble Viscount had correctly described the intentions of the Government at the present time. The words were inserted in the House of Commons to give effect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pledge that the Poor Law question would dealt be with before the end of the year 1910. It was clear that these words were a pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in order to make it binding upon him they wore inserted. He perceived the objection of the noble Lord, but the answer was that any Government that was in power would take care to deal with this question in order to prevent a large number of people being made pensioners so as to relieve the rates. The majority in the House of Commons were of opinion that these words ought to be inserted so that there would be no chance in the meantime of Poor Law reform being put on one side. He quite appreciated the noble Viscount's point as to the impossibility of making these pledges binding as events might alter them, but that was the sole explanation why the Government pledged themselves to take that view, and these words were simply put in as a record of the pledge.
§ THE EARL OF CROMERasked if the noble Viscount could say what would be the complete cost if the Poor Law disqualification were removed on 31st December, 1910.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he had no figures which would justify him in making such a statement, but it would be a very serious increase on the Exchequer.
§ THE EARL Of CROMERIt has been stated to be £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 sterling.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONI am not responsible for that.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIt has certainly been stated that the removal of this disqualification would involve a loss of £3,000,000 to the public, and that figure still holds the field.
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he was anxious to save the £3,000,000 if possible. He quite accepted what the noble Viscount had said as to the reason for the insertion of these words. It was a pledge on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Poor Law reform should be carried before the date named, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not omnipotent in such matters. He might find it impossible to carry anything of the kind. What would happen then? As the clause now stood, all these people would come upon the old-age pension list, unless the Government of the day brought in a Bill to provide that they should not. Was it likely that the Government, not having had time to pass a Poor Law Reform Bill, would take up again so difficult and controversial a question as to how and when persons in receipt of Poor Law relief should come on to the old-age pension list? He was afraid if these words remained in the Bill the Government would not be able to carry out their pledge for Poor Law reform by the date named, and they would not bring in a Bill for disqualifying all these people though, their coming into the old-age pension list would increase the cost by some 1122 £3,000,000. The very thing that the Government did not wish to do would be done by the retention of these words. That was why he ventured to move their omission.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNbelieved he was correct in his recollection that on the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Viscount said that the Poor Law Reform Bill could not be passed for four or five years.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONI did not say that.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if the noble Viscount would explain, the difference of opinion which appeared to exist between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Supposing for the moment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong, and, what was much more likely, the noble Viscount was right, what would happen?
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was impossible for the Government to give a binding pledge of this sort which under all circumstances they would carry out. His individual opinion was that this was the first question with which the Government ought to deal, as soon as the Report was presented by the Royal Commission, no matter what Government was in power. The House of Commons were very anxious that that should be secured, and the pledge was given by the Government to comply with that request. What he had said was that when that Report was presented it would require the most careful consideration by the Government, who would have to construct a scheme, and before it could be brought into actual working it would take probably four or five years. That would not at all interfere with the pledge the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given. He was quite sure that if the noble Viscount opposite were at the head of the Treasury the pressure which would result from this sum coming out of the Exchequer would make him insist on this pledge being carried out. It was not an individual pledge in that sense but an official one.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the pledge of the existing Chancellor of the Exchequer to the existing House of Commons.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNBut the noble Viscount speaking from his own judgment says that is impossible.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble Viscount could not have put it more fairly to the House. These words were a pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the present House of Commons. That is a very interesting historical fact which it is well to have on record. But I submit that this is not the kind of thing that we want to put into an Act of Parliament. Here is a disqualification which affects the taxpayers of this country to the extent of about £3,500,000 a year. I desire that that disqualification should hold until Parliament otherwise determines. That is a perfectly simple and clear-cut issue, and I submit that it is not wise to complicate it by such personal matters as the pledges given by Ministers.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTON moved to amend the second proviso in paragraph (a) subsection (1) for the purpose of ascertaining whether the medical or surgical assistance, the receipt of which would not disqualify a person from receiving an old-age pension, would cover a case like the following: a person was suffering from a complaint or the effects of some accident, and could not be treated at home, possibly on account of the unsuitable accommodation or because of the nature of his complaint, or it might be because of the impossibility of getting proper attendance. In these cases the ordinary course was to remove the person to some charitable institution—a cottage hospital or a free infirmary, but in the event of such charitable institutions not being available there was no course left open but to take the person to the workhouse infirmary. That was a case very 1124 closely allied to the case of these who received free surgical assistance. The only difference was that in the one case the persons could be treated outside, but in the other, owing to limitations perhaps in accommodation, they could only be treated inside, and it was something of a hardship that these who were slightly better off in their house accommodation should not be disqualified while these who were worse off in that respect should be disqualified. He would like to know if this point had been considered or would be covered by the section.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 17, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'the temporary or occasional maintenance of that person or by means of.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that this was clearly a matter of privilege, as the Amendment would add to the cost, and the Government took their stand upon that ground.
§ LORD CLINTONsaid he would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT GOSCHEN moved to omit the words which disqualified a person for receiving an old-age pension, if he had habitually failed to work "according to his ability, opportunity, and need," and to substitute the word "diligently." He said that the Amendment was not hostile to the Bill, but its intention was rather to make the section plainer in its working. He thought that whatever opinion might be held with regard to the form or nature of a pension Bill, they would probably all be agreed that, provided the statutory conditions were fulfilled, the Bill should be drawn sufficiently wide to admit within its scope the hard-working and deserving without difficulty, while, at the same time, there should be sufficient restriction to keep out the idle and undeserving who might be ingenious enough to find a hole in the Bill by means of which they might derive some benefit. Surely this could only be done by making the language as simple as possible, and equally intelligible to these who had to administer 1125 the Act and these for whom it was administered. He ventured to think the word "diligently" would be sufficiently understood by all and would be intelligible to all, but he could not imagine three words about which there was more likely to be contention than "ability, opportunity, and need." They had to recollect that the onus of proof lay with the pension officer and the pension committee. If there wore any case in dispute, it was not the claimant who had to prove that he had habitually worked according to his ability, opportunity, or need, but the pension officer had to prove that he had failed so to work, which would be much harder to prove. He doubted if there was any quality about which there would be more difference of opinion than with regard to a man's ability, either mentally or physically, to work. It would be extremely difficult to prove that a man had not worked according to his ability, or to prove what ability a man had to work. He supposed the word "opportunity" meant the means or the chance of working. It could be proved whether a man had worked or not, and whether he had worked diligently or not, but surely there would be extreme difficulty during the course, of a man's life in finding out whether he had had the opportunity of working or not, if he said he had not. With regard to the third word, what was a man's "need"? He supposed it was what a man liked to make it. There were many cases of men who preferred to do quite casual labour and earn a very precarious means of livelihood in order that they might only work a few days in the week and have a holiday during the rest. Surely they would not be deserving of a pension, and yet they would be able to assert that they had worked from their view according to their need. By this Bill very heavy responsibilities and a great burden would be placed upon the pension officers and these who were responsible for the administration of the Act. Surely, therefore, they ought to make their duties as light as possible, and he believed they could only do this by lessening the opportutities for friction, dispute, and discussion, and it was because he believed that this Amendment went somewhere in that direction, while 1126 at the same time it assisted the deserving and lessened the opportunities of misuse of the Act by the undeserving, that he ventured to submit it to their Lordships.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 30, to leave out the words 'according to his ability, opportunity, and need, in order to insert the word 'diligently'."—(Viscount Goschen.)
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he was advised that this Amendment, as qualifying the conditions upon which a pension could be granted, was inadmissible on the ground of privilege, but apart from that, he could not help thinking that the noble Lord would see there were grave objections on the merits of the proposal. The aim of this subsection was to attain an object which he thought the whole Committee would agree in considering desirable, that was to say, to hit heavily the person who was popularly known as the wastrel. None of their Lordships, whatever their ideas might be about old-age pensions in general, would hesitate to say that an habitual wastrel was a person who at the end of a dishonourable career, as it would have been, ought not to receive a pension. That was the object of the clause, and the words ''according to his ability, opportunity, and need," had been considered by those upon whom for the purpose of drafting the Government had to rely as being the words best calculated to describe the sort of person with whom they had to deal. But the words which the noble Viscount wished to introduce did not affect the person, but the character of work, and they opened up a very difficult and, it seemed to him, almost impossible set of considerations; that was to say, they were to consider whether a man had or had not for a long period of years been working diligently. That struck him as being almost impossible. In addition, it would in many cases land them in a position to a certain extent of absurdity, because these words would be open to the obvious objection that a man who up to the age of, say, sixty or sixty-five years, had had the means to live without working bard, or perhaps without working at all, and then, through 1127 misfortune, had lost his money, would lose his pension because he had not diligently worked in the period during which he was able to live in the capacity of a gentleman at large, if he might use the expression. He did not think it could have occurred to the noble Lord that the words he had put on the Paper would have that effect. Therefore, for the whole of these reasons, but especially the first, he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe suspicion with which we regard this formula arises from a certain humility of mind which is perhaps peculiar to us on this side of the House, because when we examine ourselves, we come to the conclusion that there are few of us, if any, who can really say with confidence that we always work according to our ability, opportunity, or need, and therefore we desire, if possible, to find some formula of a more precise description. My noble friend suggests the substitution of the word "diligently." It seems to us a very sensible and easily understood expression, but my noble friend who spoke for the Government objected to the substitution of the word on the ground of privilege, and on the contention that it qualifier the financial effect of the clause. I should like to have it from His Majesty's Government in what sense they qualify it. Do they mean that a man can have worked according to his ability, opportunity, and need, and yet, nevertheless, has not worked diligently? That seems to me rather a difficult position to assume. What we feel throughout these discussions is that we are unable really to grasp the first principle upon which this proposal is based. Is it your object in this Bill to relieve poverty or to reward industry? Which principle is it you are working upon? You profess that there are many clauses in the Bill which are intended to reward industry, and your idea apparently is to leave the relief of poverty to the Poor Law. When it comes to defining what you mean by industry, you are compelled to fall back upon these extremely woolly formulas which no persons in the House interpret alike, and which it would be absolutely impossible for the 1128 pension authorities to interpret. I take it that the object of my noble friend was to elicit from His Majesty's Government some idea of the spirit in which these regulations are to be interpreted, and I am afraid he has failed altogether in his object.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT GOSCHEN moved an Amendment with the object of obtaining an interpretation of the proviso that a person should not be disqualified "If he has continuously for ten years up to attaining the age of sixty, by means of payments to friendly, provident, or other societies, or trade unions, or other approved steps, made such provision against old-age, sickness, infirmity, or want or loss of employment as may be recognised as proper provision for the purpose by regulations under this Act." He believed the words in regard to the ten years meant what his Amendment expressed, namely, during the last ten years immediately preceding the attainment of the age of sixty, but as they stood they seemed liable to be construed to mean continuously for any ten years up to attaining the age of sixty. As the clause was framed to favour thrift he presumed that it would naturally be drawn to favour the man who during the last years of his life had made some provision for his old age; but as the clause stood it seemed liable to either construction being placed upon it.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 34, to leave out the word 'for,' and to insert the words 'during the last.'"—(Viscount Goschen.)
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that, sympathising as he did with the wish of the noble Viscount that this clause should be clear, he could not help thinking that the words were sufficiently clear as they stood. The matter was very fully gone into in the House of Commons, and there was a general agreement that these words on the whole expressed the view intended.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYOh, no.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that, by agreement he did not mean that there was no difference of opinion expressed in the House of Commons on the subject but that eventually these words were accepted as the words which expressed the general feeling, and he believed that if their Lordships sent them back again they would only involve themselves in a minute verbal discussion without any object sufficiently great to warrant an alteration leading to a great deal of discussion between the two Houses He was not saying that there was any objection on the merits of the words of the noble Viscount, or that it was not conceivable that his words were slightly better than these, in the Bill, but, bearing in mind that on the whole there was agreement that these words expressed the very meaning which the noble Viscount himself desired should be in the Bill, he could not help thinking that they had better be kept as they were.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the noble Lord had been misinformed if he thought there had been a general agreement in the House of Commons on this point.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid his information was rather different. During the debate in the other House there was great doubt as to the meaning of these words, and a large section of Members interpreted them just as his noble friend thought they might be interpreted, namely, that all that was exacted was that for any ten years before the age of sixty a person was to subscribe to one of the friendly societies. A large section of the House of Commons took that view, and he could not conceive why the Government should resist words which clearly expressed what they said was their intention. Being rather interested in this matter he took the precaution of consulting good legal opinion as to the meaning of these words, and the gentleman who advised him at once said that he thought it meant any ten years before reaching the age of sixty. Under these circumstances it was hardly worth 1130 arguing the case. The Government wanted it, and his noble friend suggested it, and of course they ought to accept it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'up to attaining,' and to insert the words 'immediately his attainment of.'"—(Viscount Goschen.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESpointed out that an Amendment in the name of Lord Saltoun had been handed in, but had been omitted from the list of marshalled Amendments, and it would be necessary to take it.
§ LORD SALTOUN moved an Amendment providing that a person sent to prison without the option of a fine should only be disqualified for a pension for a further period of ten years after the date on which he is released from prison, "if the Court before whom he is convicted so orders." He said that there were crimes and crimes. Of course, a very serious crime might be committed, and then probably the imprisonment might be of greater duration; but if they took the case of an old man, say, who had gone to sleep while driving a cart, he might be fined for such an offence on more than one occasion by the Justices. If he continued to do it he might be put in prison for a week perhaps. For that he was penalised to the extent of ten years, and if he were a man of over sixty years of age, it would naturally put him out of court altogether. That seemed to him to be a very serious hardship, and he wished to draw attention to the subsection which gave the protection of His Majesty's Government to the drunkard, who, under the Inebriates' Act, was not to be disqualified. He thought a distinction should be drawn between trifling offences and serious crimes, and to secure that he begged to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 17, to insert the following words, 'If the Court before whom he is convicted so orders."—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the objection to the principle of this Amendment was that it was introducing an option, so to speak, in this matter to the Court. He thought there was a good deal of force in what the noble Lord had said, and that there were occasions when offences which were punished by a short term of imprisonment—perhaps for a day, as sometimes in a bigamy case the person convicted was sentenced to imprisonment only until the rising of the Court. That, he thought, would be a very hard case, and the words that he would suggest to meet it would be words providing that the imprisonment which was to act as a disqualification should be "for any period not less than one month."
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEEShoped the noble Viscount would not object to his pointing out that the line in question had been passed, and as they had not left much over to a later stage, he suggested this might be left to the Report.
§ VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONI am quite agreeable to that.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved an Amendment to provide that in calculating the means of a person for the purpose of the Act, account should be taken of the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person, "if such property being at the time capable of realisation were realised and invested in the purchase of a Government annuity for the life of such a person. Provided that the house in which such person resides, and any furniture or effects necessary for its occupation, shall not be considered as property that could be realised for the purchase of such annuity." He said this was a very important point which was raised in another place on the Third Reading, but to which, so far as he was aware, no answer had been 1132 given by His Majesty's Government. By an Amendment already inserted in the Bill the means of a claimant for a pension were interpreted to be a yearly means; in other words, the income derived from any source of labour or property. The fourth clause laid down a rule for calculating the yearly means of a person for the purposes of the Act. Subsection (a) of the clause said that in the absence of other means for ascertaining the income the income might be taken to be that actually received during the preceding year, and then subsection (c), on which he was raising this question, said the yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, was not so invested or profitably used by him. The Committee would see that under these words the income derived from any form of investment would be calculated as the yearly income. The result might be that, supposing a person invested a certain sum in Consols, returning an income of not more than 2½ per cent., he might possess as much as £1,200 in Consols and yet be the recipient of a pension of 1s. a week under the Bill. That was of course an extreme case, but it was a case that ought not to occur. It would be ridiculous to say that a person possessed of that kind of property should be entitled to the benefit of a pension under the Bill. These old-age pensions were not intended for any case of that kind, yet as the Bill stood it would be possible. If a husband and wife lived together, each of them possessing the amount of Consols he had mentioned, they might each get 1s. a week under the provision of the Bill as it now stood. If they possessed about £800 each in Consols, each might obtain the full pension of 5s. a week. It could not be the intention of His Majesty's Government, yet that was what would result from the provisions of this Bill. This matter was called attention to by Sir Henry Norman, a supporter of the Government in another place, on the Third Reading of the Bill. Clearly there ought to be some kind of limit as to the amount of realisable property which a person might own who was coming under the provisions of the Old-age Pensions Bill. In New Zealand, 1133 which he understood from a speech of the Prime Minister on the Budget had been rather a model to His Majesty's Government in framing this Bill, the limit was £200. What he suggested by this Amendment was that where a person possessing property which, if realised and invested in a Government annuity, would produce £31 10s., which was the income debarring a person from receiving a pension under this Bill, such a person should not be the recipient of a pension. That appeared to be perfectly fair because he had added the proviso that it should not apply to the house in which any pensioner resided, or to the furniture or effects necessary for its occupation. If the Government thought that too hard a condition—and he would say that it did not compel the realisation of the property for that purpose, but simply related to the income which might be derived from the property if realised—would they insert in this clause something to show that at any rate the claimant for a pension was bound to make the best he could reasonably make by way of income from any property which he possessed? The words as they now stood did not carry that out. For example, a man who possessed £1,200 in Consols could with perfect safety transfer his investment to East India 3½ per cent, and he would get a much larger income in that way. There ought to be some kind of rule laid down in the Bill to prevent the abuse of giving old-age pensions at the cost of the taxpayers to people who did not need them. That was why he placed the Amendment upon the Paper, and he hoped the noble Viscount opposite would be able to give some satisfactory assurance that he would insert words to carry out the principle he had mentioned.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 3, line 40, to leave out the words which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him,' and to insert the words 'if such property, being at the time capable of realisation, were realised and invested in the purchase of a Government, annuity for the life of such person. Provided that the house in which such persons resides, and any furniture or effects necessary for its occupation, shall not be considered as property that could be realised for the purchase of such annuity.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that this was a question on which there was a good deal to be said on both sides. The noble Viscount had put a case of the claimant to a pension with £1,200 invested in Consols. That was an extreme case, and he quite agreed that such a man ought not to have an old-age pension. A more likely case was that of a man of seventy who had accumulated, say, £300, and who had carefully husbanded that amount to provide for his widow or child. According to the noble. Viscount's Amendment, as it appeared on the Paper, he would be bound to invest that sum in the purchase of a Government annuity.
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNHe would not be bound to do it. His income would be calculated as if he had done so.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid the man might live only a year, and the Government annuity would be calculated upon his expectation for life. They might almost call it a gamble with his money. The man had to risk at once the sacrifice of his capital in order to increase his income. He thought that would be discouraging thrift to a very great extent. He thought there ought to be some mode of dealing with the point, but he did not like the noble Viscount's proposition, and he did not like his own. He had, however, great confidence in the noble Viscount's fairness, justice, and ability, and perhaps he would bring up at the next stage of the Bill an Amendment, and then the Government could see if they could carry out something that would be fair and just in all the circumstances of the case. He thought they ought, as far as they could, to encourage thrift, but this Amendment would shut the door against it.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNNo.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he was afraid it would, but he was quite sure that His Majesty's Government would be willing to co-operate with the noble Viscount in anything reasonable and fair in the matter.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the noble Viscount had met the principle he 1135 wanted to establish to some extent, though he had not made any definite suggestion. Would the noble Viscount insert in place of the Amendment words which would establish the same principle and which would make the section run: "The yearly income which might be expected to be derived from any property belonging to that person which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used by him so as to insure the largest income which might be reasonably derived from it"?
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that this suggestion commended itself much more to him, but he would like to consult the Treasury officials upon it, because, after all, it might involve more than he saw at the moment. He quite sympathised with the noble Viscount's views that the income should be calculated upon the largest sum the claimant could safely expect to get for his money, but if they allowed an annuity principle to come in they were dealing with part of his capital. Of course, as the noble Viscount said, a man could get 4 per cent. with perfect safety.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that if, as he understood, the noble Viscount would consult the Treasury, he would not press the Amendment now.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked the Government to explain the meaning of paragraph (d), which ran:—"The yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person." The object of the clause was to provide that in calculating the needs of the applicant for a pension, any benefit or privilege he enjoyed was to be taken into account, and he wanted to know from the Government how they would apply that principle in the case, say, of a cottager whose house was worth 2s. a week. That would be all right if the house were worth £100, as the 2s. would fairly correspond to its value. But many landlords would not be satisfied with a cottage on their property worth only £100. They might be persons interested in the proper housing of the working classes, and they 1136 might put up cottages worth £200 each That would be a benefit or privilege to the occupier. There might be two old labourers, each seventy years of age, receiving equal wages or no wages at all, both paying a rent of 2s. a week, but one occupying a house worth £100 and the other occupying one worth £200. In all other respects they were in exactly; the same position. Was the proper interpretation of the Bill that the means of the man who lived in the more expensive cottage were higher than the means of the man who lived in the less expensive cottage? In that case the man who lived in the better cottage might get the worse pension. He did not know whether that was the interpretation the Government put upon the Bill, but if so it was a very unfortunate result. What it came to was that in order to get the highest possible pension the man would prefer to live in the bad cottage rather than the good cottage. The whole effect of that would be that the labourer would be in favour of bad houses rather than good houses in order to get the largest amount of pension under the scale. It all turned on the words "the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by that person," and if that value varied according to the value of the house the result would be very unfortunate. He would, however, like the Government themselves to explain what they conceived to be the interpretation of their own clause.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid his noble friend had put a number of conceivable cases, and he had asked the Government whether they could lay down any general rule and standard such as could tie stated then and there as to how the different pension authorities would deal with each one of the different cases he had put. No doubt it would have been very easy for each one of their Lordships to have mentioned cases out of his own experience, where circumstances varied and difficulties could be put in the way, as the noble Marquess had done. His answer to his noble friend was that the points that would arise in this case were questions of fact of which the pension officer and the pension committee, and, in the last resort, the Local 1137 Government Board, would have to judge. He was not saying that difficult cases would not arise, and the noble Marquess had put an exceedingly fair instance of the sort of difficulty that might be expected. The noble Marquess started by taking the case of a cottager living rent free. What, he asked, would be the manner in which the pension officer would judge a case of that kind? He (Lord Fitzmaurice) should say that the pension officer, being a local man who would be cognisant to a certain extent of the value of the house, would judge the value of it to the neighbourhood, and so on, in every case where cottages were let, as they often were, at a comparatively low rent, upon the estates of a large landowner who very often built exceedingly good cottages and let them at low rates. Those cases, no doubt, would have to be judged one by one as part of the very arduous task of the pension officer. He could not in reply to the noble Marquess lay down any general rule to show how these difficulties would be solved. They would have to be solved on the principle of solvitur ambulando. Beyond that he really did not think he could go.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether it was not a marvellous state of things that the noble Lord, who was one of the most intelligent Members of their Lordships' House, explained that he was unable to solve these great difficulties, but said: "Do not distress yourselves, there is always the exciseman in every county who is qualified to solve all these difficulties." This wonderful Imperial officer, whom the noble Lord, speaking with great humility, credited with far more intelligence than himself, was going to solve all the difficulties which the noble Lord could not approach. Was it not perfectly clear that the Government had not thought out what the provisions of this Bill were? Notwithstanding the assurance of the noble Viscount that these things had been thought out for the last twelve months, he thought the Government really had not fathomed the effects of the Bill, and were absolutely unable to give any answer to this simple conundrum. He ventured to say that the points he had raised had not occurred to the Government until he 1138 spoke. The Bill had gone right through the House of Commons—very ill-discussed, he admitted—and it came up to their Lordships' House at the end of July, and then the most simple question put to the Government could not be answered by them.
§ *THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Marquess has paid my noble friend the compliment of having one of the finest minds in the House. I think we should pay the noble Marquess the compliment of having one of the most ingenious. In this particular instance I can assure him he is wrong. This question was very carefully considered indeed. The noble Marquess thinks that he has put us into a difficulty by mentioning the case of a house worth £100 and one worth £200. But the difficulty does not stop there. It is quite conceivable under any old-age pension scheme that an inmate of the noble Marquess' house at Hatfield might be perfectly competent to receive an old age pension. Conceive the possibility of some aged retainer of the noble Marquess who did not receive from him or from any other source an income of £30 a year. He or she would undoubtedly be qualified to receive an old-age pension, even though inhabiting the residence of the noble Marquess, which is worth a great deal more than £100 or £200.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved an Amendment with the object of discovering whether the sum paid by a son or daughter towards the support of a parent by an order of a board of guardians was to be counted in the income of a pensioner.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 4, line 6, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'but this provision shall not include the value of the maintenance of a person by relatives who are by law compellable to maintain that person.'"—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the Amendment on the Paper went a great deal beyond the point the noble Viscount said he wished to raise, which, if he followed him correctly, was that he wished to inquire what would happen in the case of a certain amount of poor relief finding its way into a household. The 1139 Amendment went a good deal beyond that and said that the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the person whose case was under consideration should count towards his income. That would cover a great number of cases. A man, whom he would call William Smith for the purpose of argument, might have a relative living with him who paid something towards the household expenses. That went into William Smith's pocket. As the Amendment stood it would not count in the calculation of William Smith's income, and the noble Viscount was getting distinctly within the meshes of the question of privilege, because if the Amendment were carried it was quite clear that one of the safeguards of the Bill would be knocked away, and though there might not be a great increase of expenditure it would arise in a certain number of cases. Then there was the more limited class of cases where a certain amount of money would come in from certain members of the household for payment which went, so to speak, into the common pot, and therefore went to the help of the household. He understood the noble Viscount to ask what was the intention of the Government with regard to sums of that kind. He (Lord Fitzmaurice) desired to speak rather under correction, and possibly it might be desirable that this point should be gone into on Report, but as the words stood at present he thought there could be no doubt at all that any sum of that kind would come within the meaning of the word "benefit" and would count towards income. Some people might think that hard, but no doubt the Government had had to hedge round the granting of these pensions with a great deal of precautions and limitations. Hitherto the Government in this House and elsewhere had chiefly been attacked for not having put in safeguards enough, but now and again criticism was directed against them from an exactly opposite point of view, and noble Lords wanted to knock away some of the safeguards the Government had erected.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid the noble Lord had certainly misunderstood the object of his Amendment. This case of William Smith, so far as he could understand it, certainly would not come under his Amendment, because the 1140 Amendment suggested the maintenance of a person by relatives who were by law compellable to maintain that person, whereas William Smith was being maintained voluntarily.
LORD FITZMAURICEBut they might be persons compellable by law to make the payment though they were making it voluntarily.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid the case he wished to put before their Lordships was that of poor people who, by order of the guardians, had their support helped by sons or daughters with whom they lived. They might perhaps have a small income of their own, and the board of guardians might make an order for the payment of more, and he could not help thinking that it was not the intention of the Government that such sums when so ordered should count as part of the regular income.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he certainly interpreted his noble friend's Amendment in that way, though he did not think it would carry it out as it was at present worded. If it read, "shall not include any sum paid for the maintenance of a person by relatives who are by law compelled to maintain him," that would probably meet the case. He thought it would be better to postpone the point until the Report stage, because he would be sorry, and he thought his noble friend would be sorry, to include such cases as these to which the noble Lord referred.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid he would withdraw his Amendment and bring the matter up on Report.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that before the Amendment was withdrawn he desired on the part of the Government to reserve the question of privilege on this point, because although the amount affected was not large, there would be some increase, and therefore the question of privilege could be raised.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he could not help thinking that if the Amendment were altered in the way he suggested there would be no question 1141 of privilege at all, because it could not be intended by the Bill that orders of the kind referred to should be included in the income.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that that was not quite the point. There might be some person at the head of a household receiving sums from persons in the house which would go into the common pot, and practically be part of the income of the head of the household.
§ LORD AVEBURYasked whether there was not a danger of a person having an income being handed over to his children who were compelled to maintain him.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEYasked the meaning of subsection (2) of the clause which provides that in calculating the means of a person being one of a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall not in any case be taken to be a less amount than half the total means of the couple. He asked what was the object of the provision. It might lead to very considerable hardship in certain cases. When the Bill was originally brought in, the idea was that persons entitled to pensions should not receive more than 3s. 9d. a week if they lived together, and it was altered on its being pointed out that a husband and wife would be penalised. But the effect of this would be that if they took two old people of seventy who were sisters or brothers, or no relations at all, and A had £21 a year and B £29, A would get 5s. a week and B 1s. a week, but in the case of a married couple enjoying the same respective incomes A would only receive 3s. and B 1s. If that was the effect of these words it would in certain circumstances penalise old married couples who lived together.
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that if the noble Viscount would put down an Amendment to express his views the Government would give it consideration. They could not answer off-hand what construction could be put upon it.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid he did not desire so much to put down an Amend- 1142 ment, because he fully agreed that the Government could not meet every possible case arising under the Bill, but he would be satisfied if a member of the Government could tell him what the object of this particular subsection was. If the noble Viscount wished time, he would raise the question on Report.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was sorry that the Government took that line, because he wished to ask a question on the subsection. How were married couples going to be treated under the Bill? He took the case of an old man of seventy who had an income of £32 a year, while his wife of seventy had nothing. He would get nothing, while presumably his wife would get 5s. a week. But if each had £16 a year, making the total income of the same amount, both would come in on the lowest limit and would be entitled to the highest pension, and the household would get 10s. a week. Did the Government defend that the two households should be treated so differently in the same circumstances?
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid he must enter his protest against the noble Lord's question, as to what the Government intended. They had put all they intended into a clause and if the noble Lord was dissatisfied with their wording the legitimate mode of proceeding was for him to put down an Amendment. He had had as much, experience as the noble Marquess in Parliamentary history and never heard of such a thing as being cross-examined.
§ *LORD SANDERSONasked if the noble Viscount would not say what was the meaning of the subsection. It provided that the means of one of a married couple should not be taken at loss than half the total means of that couple, yet there was no provision that the means of the other one might in certain cases be taken at less than the full amount belonging to that individual.
§ VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONIt means what it says.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was sorry he should have incurred the rebuke of the noble Viscount. He had had the honour of sitting opposite to him for many years, and had watched his conduct of important measures, including the Local Government Bill, through the other House. In the House of Commons the noble Viscount would no more have thought of refusing to answer a question put by one of his opponents than he would have thought of flying. It was reserved for their Lordships' House to be treated in that way by the Government. He asked a perfectly respectful question. He took a perfectly simple instance and wanted to know the meaning of the Bill. If the noble Viscount objected to the point being put in the form of a question, he would make it in the form of an assertion. His point was that in precisely similar cases the pension in one would be 5s. a week and in the other double that amount. Whatever their opinion might be as to the policy of old-age pensions all would agree that the Bill ought to be a fair one. That was why he did not very much care for the Bill, though he had done his best in anything he had said to put the Bill into proper shape.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that nobody had complained of the way in which the question was put or of his noble friend illustrating his view by stating a concrete case. His noble friend had said that, as there was no Amendment on the Paper, his attention had not been specially drawn to the concrete case which had been put forward, and, therefore, he asked that he might be allowed to give an answer on the Report Stage. That was all. The case stated by his noble friend was a reasonable one, so far as he had been able to follow his argument. He must confess he was not aware that on this subsection these points were going to be raised, and, therefore, he was not so fully prepared on these points as on others. All these points, the Committee would agree, especially when they worked them out by mathematical calculation, were extremely complicated, and it would be fairer to his noble friend to give his answers on the Report stage, when 1144 they would be able, he had no doubt' to give complete answers to the perfectly legitimate points raised by the noble Lord.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid that so far as he was concerned, he would be perfectly satisfied to defer the Amendment to the Report stage, but he would point out the extreme difficulty in which the House was placed. The Bill was only brought into their Lordships' House a few days ago and there had been very little time to put down Amendments, and he desired to ask for information concerning rather an important subsection in order that, if he thought fit, he might put down an, Amendment before the Report stage was reached. That would be impossible if he did not get the information until then. Considering the amount of time the Government spokesmen had been giving to the details of the Bill, he could not help feeling sorry that they had not been able to give him information upon a subsection which at any rate, needed explanation.
§ Clause 4 agreed to.
§ Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7:
§ LORD ATKINSON moved to add that if the pension committee, after the receipt of the report of the pension officer upon a claim or question referred to him, do not, within the time prescribed, proceed to give their decision on the matter, the recommendation or opinion of the pension officer shall, as far as practicable, be treated as a decision of the pension committee. They wished, he said, that the pension committee, when application was made either for the granting of a pension or the forfeiting of a pension that had been already granted, should not put it aside and do nothing. It was possible that the pension officer's report might not contain anything like a decision either in favour of or against the applicant or claim. Therefore, there might not be any decision. He admitted that his Amendment was not perfect, but it was lucidity itself compared to the Amendment next on the 1145 Paper in the name of the noble Viscount. There were complaints that the pension committee would do nothing, but the noble Viscount proposed that there should be an appeal against their decision. That was exactly the defect. The Bill provided that when they came to a decision the pension officer and any person aggrieved might appeal to the central pension authority against the decision of the local committee. It seemed to be a strange misapplication of language to say that they were also to appeal when there was no decision. He did not understand how any human being could perform the operation of appealing against a blank. What the noble Viscount and he himself both desired was that when a pension committee did nothing the central authority should be in a position to hear the question and to decide it, putting the pension committee entirely aside when that committee refused to do its duty. He suggested that if the noble Viscount would leave out all the words from the word "may" and insert "apply to the central pension authority to consider and finally decide such claim or question which the said last-mentioned authority shall have power to do," that would meet the case. He would withdraw his Amendment if the noble Viscount would say he would consider the matter so that on the Report stage they might decide as to the form of words whic wouldh carry out the common intention they both entertained.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 11, after the word 'question,' to insert the following new subsection: '() If the pension committee after the receipt of the aforesaid report do not within the time prescribed proceed to give their decision on the claim or question so reported upon, the recommendation or opinion of the pension officer as expressed in his report shall, as far as practicable, be deemed and taken to be a decision of the pensions committee upon the same, and shall be acted upon and treated accordingly.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONwas glad the noble Lord had understood his meaning in the clause which had been drafted and put down. They were perfectly agreed as to what the evil was which the noble Lord feared, and perfectly agreed also that it should be 1146 checked. It was a question simply of which machinery was the best. He would adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord and hoped that before the Report stage they would have arrived at the best means of dealing with what would be a very serious evil unless dealt with.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 20, after the word 'them,' to insert, 'If a local pension committee refuse or neglect to consider any claim for a pension or to determine any question within a reasonable time, any person who would have the right under this provision to appeal against the decision of the local pension committee may appeal as if the pension committee had given such a decision.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
§ On question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD ATKINSON moved to provide that a member of the committee who disapproved of the decision should be deemed to be a party aggrieved. The object was, he said, to make it clear what was meant by the words "person aggrieved.'' Apparently the appeal was practically confined to the pension officer and to the applicant whose claim was refused or who was held to be disqualified. That was a most unsatisfactory position. He did not want to go into the position which the pension officer would have to occupy in very many parts of Ireland. Viscount St. Aldwyn had said that the pension officer would be the watchdog of the Treasury. In the West of Ireland he wished no dog an unhappier fate than would be the fate of a pension officer who decided against a popular man or in favour of an unpopular man. He should think the famous "dirty dog," or a dog sent out into a street filled with his enemies, and with a tin-kettle on his tail, would have a peaceful, dignified, and happy life compared with that of the pension officer who decided on the lines of which he had spoken. He thought the member of a committee who disapproved of the decision at which the committee had arrived should be deemed to be a person aggrieved within the meaning of the section, and should have a right to appeal to the central authority against their decision. Everyone desired to have an administration of 1147 the Act which was pure, efficient, and carried on with ordinary celerity. To expect a pension officer to appeal against a popular decision, however unjust, was absurd.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 20, to add the words, "That a member of the committee who disapproves of the decision shall be deemed to be a party aggrieved within the meaning of the Act.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONthought the Amendment would require a little consideration and might be allowed to stand over. He would like to know what the Irish Office thought of it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 8:
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved an Amendment to provide that the majority of the local pension committee (a pointed by the council of the borough, district, or county, and, according to the clause, the persons appointed need not be members of the council) should consist of members of the appointing council. The clause was, he said, an important one, as he understood, that, although practically the local pension committee would not have the means of administering any public funds, it would practically be on their advice that the lists of these to whom pensions were ultimately given would be compiled. He understood, however, that the ultimate decision on the matter was still in the hands of the Government so far as the regulations were concerned. The point he wished to raise was this: Under the clause as it now stood the councils, either borough, urban or district, were placed in a position of trust, and had to act with the Government in finding out who were eligible for the pensions. At one time it was an axiom of the Liberal Party that taxation and representation should go together. By the present Act they were placing the control of vast sums of money in the hands of individuals who certainly had not been elected by any constituency of any description for the purpose of 1148 administering those funds. All he asked was that the authority to which they gave these far-reaching extensive powers should have some responsibility cast upon them and should not, in the words of the Act, have the power of delegating the whole of their authority to some committee of whose constitution they had no knowledge whatever. Therefore he made the suggestion that any committee which might be appointed by these different authorities should have at any rate a majority of the appointing committee serving on it.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 30, after the word 'county' to insert the words 'and shall consist either wholly or partly of members of the appointing council, but the members of such council shall be a majority of the whole committee.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he could quite realise that when his noble friend moved the Amendment he had perhaps some feelings running in his mind similar to these which animated Mr. Pitt when, on a celebrated occasion, thinking that his great rival, Mr. Fox, had made a mistake, he said he would "un-Whig" him. He quite felt that it was difficult for them on the Liberal side of the House to appear to resist an Amendment of the kind moved, even if it were moved from the Opposition side of the House, based as it was upon an appeal to the great canons of popular representation, and indeed to a strict application of what he might call democratic doctrine. The noble Duke objected to the Bill as it stood because the pension committee might consist of outsiders, and was in no manner compelled to have upon it a majority of members of the actual appointing authority, the county council, and no doubt he would say that there he was standing upon essentially Liberal ground, a strong Liberal foundation, and he (the speaker) was the very last person to regret seeing the noble Duke standing on these grounds. But, notwithstanding, he could not help thinking that there were some reasons for leaving the Bill as it stood. The other day the noble Viscount, Viscount St. Aldwyn, dwelt upon what he thought was the great difficulty and future danger of county government, namely, that year after year Parliament went on piling new duties upon 1149 those bodies until they were almost breaking down under the burden. That was most true. Not a year passed by without very complicated duties of a burdensome character being put upon the county councils, and all that work had to be done by committees. They had to man their committees, and must man them with men who were able to attend, for it was essential to have continuity of policy, and, therefore, the presence of people who were able to give their time to the work. He could not help fearing that, bearing in mind the enormous increase of work placed in recent years upon county councils, if they were to throw upon those bodies the duty of finding the greater portion of the members of these committees they might be getting into a very considerable practical difficulty. He might perhaps point out to the Committee that there was a very great difference between this committee and many other committees of local bodies such as county and borough councils that had been appointed, because in all those other committees Parliament had very wisely insisted upon a majority of the members of a committee consisting of members of the council. The county council had been administering funds which, if not wholly, had in any case in part come out of the local rates, but that was not at all so in the present case. The county council would be administering Imperial funds, and he took it that what a county council ought really to try to do was to pick out men who were skilled administrators. They ought to look a great deal towards the example of the German municipalities. A very great portion of local administration in Germany was carried out by experts, appointed and selected by the local authority, but not necessarily members of the appointing body. They were a mixture of the permanent official such as was known in this country and of the local member, because they were selected from persons living in the areas in which the committee had to act. Therefore, he was not inclined to think that he was really offending against sound Liberal doctrines when he said that in this case the balance of argument was contrary to the proposal of his noble friend, although he thought it was not at all an unnatural thing to consider or to discuss, 1150 and he hoped, whatever the decision of the Committee might be it would see that the Government, in making this proposal, had been animated, not by distrust of popular representation, but simply by the desire to obtain the best practical machinery for carrying out the exceedingly difficult and important duties it would have to perform.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved an Amendment to make a Metropolitan borough and the City of London the authority under the section by which the local pension committee is appointed. The Amendment, was, he said, one of those that had the misfortune to come under the guillotine in another place, and he imagined the Government would be prepared to accept it. He believed the intention was that the London County Council should nominate all these pension committees, and he submitted it was highly desirable over so great an area that the committees should be nominated by the borough councils which were representative of very large masses of the inhabitants, and had a much greater local knowledge as well as being the authorities for such business as appointing distress committees. The committees ought to deal with the present matter, which involved Imperial and not local funds, direct with the controlling body and not through the machinery of the county council. He suggested that the present system could only result in the whole work being done by inter-communication between them.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 30, after the word 'county' to insert the words 'for the purpose of this subsection the expression "borough" means and includes a metropolitan borough and the City of London.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONsaid that in London there was a strong difference of opinion, and so far as the Government were able to form any impression of what the view of Parliament was it seemed to be most decidedly in favour of the county council being the authority in London. So far as efficiency of administration was concerned in London, he certainly thought it would be better 1151 —it had proved to be so in educational matters—that the county council should be supreme and not the borough council. Therefore the Government could not assent to the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought it was laying upon the County Council of London a duty which they could not hope to perform satisfactorily. They could not force the borough councils to undertake the duties, and if they themselves had throughout this vast area to find local pension committees where they themselves had not the local acquaintance which the borough council had, it would really mean putting upon them not only a duty which they could not satisfactorily discharge, but an amount of correspondence and work which they would be most unwilling to undertake. Certainly in a matter of this magnitude he should have thought the Corporation of the City of London would have been the proper authority within the boundaries of the City. He asked the House to consider the Amendment further.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved to insert a new subsection providing that the Local Government Board should have power to appoint such persons as they should select not exceeding three in number to serve as ex-officio members of any local pension committee. He understood that these committees were at present capable of being entirely appointed by the different county authorities, but the Amendment in his name simply gave the power of appointing to serve on those committees two or three gentlemen whom the Local Government Board thought fit. They had but little experience as to what these pension committees might lead them into, and the Amendment was a safeguard against either mal-administration or failure on the part of these nominated bodies to carry out the intentions of the Act.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, to leave out lines 31, 32, and 33, and to insert the following new subsection: 'The Local Government Board may have power to appoint such persons as they shall select, not
1152
exceeding three in number, to serve as ex-officio members of any local pension committee.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
§ LORD ATKINSONsaid he had on the Paper an Amendment which had the same object. Probably this was the first time in the course of English legislation that a body that did not represent those who supplied the funds were given the power to spend them in the way the pension committees were in this Bill. He had no doubt that the committees would be most generous in the expenditure of these funds. It was absolutely necessary that experts should be employed, and in that he agreed with the noble Viscount, Viscount Wolverhampton. Where they differed was as to the person who was to nominate the expert. The noble Viscount had said that the expert ought to be nominated by the pension committee, whilst he suggested that he should be nominated by a Government Department in some way representing the taxpayer who would really have the paving for all the operations carried on by the pension committee over which, that taxpayer had no control whatever. It would also ensure that there would be somebody on the committee to stand up for the pension officer; to argue and support his report and to defend his action if necessary. If that was not done no person outside would know why a report was ignored. In addition to that there would be somebody who would be able to bring the proceedings in committee on appeal to the central authority. He could see no reasonable objection that could be urged against the Amendment. It was not opposed to any principle of taxation and representation. On the contrary, it carried out that principle, for an expert appointed by the Local Government Board would more truly represent the Imperial taxpayer than the members of the county council who represented the ratepayer, and in no way represented the Imperial taxpayer whose money they had to spend.
LORD FITZMAURICEthought the Committee would have come to the conclusion that this particular question was really an Irish question. They had had put before them by the noble Lord, Lord Atkinson, certain special dangers which might arise in certain districts in 1153 Ireland in regard to the conduct of the pension committees. Assuming that those arguments were sound, that those kinds of difficulties might arise in particular places owing to party, local, religious, or personal feelings, he was bound to think that that difficulty was really met by giving a claimant to a pension the right of going on appeal to the Local Government Board, if the pension committee refused, for instance, to meet and thereby to do justice to the individual. But while such a course as that proposed by the noble Duke and the noble Lord might be desirable in some parts of the West of Ireland, to give this really gigantic power to the Local Government Board all over the country would be an exceedingly difficult and invidious power to exercise. If the Local Government Board exercised it generally a great cry would arise that the Government were not trusting the local committees, and if they did not trust the local committees on the ground that those committees were not fit to deal with Imperial funds they had better not have appointed them at all, but simply have put the matter into the hands of officers—Excise officers or other officers who might be appointed. Then, on the other hand, if they picked out particular places—he was speaking generally, in the light of English experience—it would still be an exceedingly difficult thing, because it would give rise to great controversy and comment, to complaints that different places were being treated in different ways, and the Local Government Board would be called upon to justify the appointment of the representatives. They would be asked, for example, if something had gone wrong, or whether they suspected something wrong or improper was going to be done in particular districts. The Local Government Board would be brought into constant collision with the county authorities. He did not see that there was any halfway house between appointing these county councils and trusting them or doing what would have been a perfectly conceivable alternative, namely, saying that as these funds were Imperial funds they were to be entirely administered by Imperial officers. The Bill was, he admitted, to a certain extent, a compromise, because they had brought in an Imperial officer in the shape 1154 of an Excise officer. On the other hand, the noble Duke and the noble Lord wished to go further in bringing in the Imperial element, not in the representative of the Treasury alone, in the person of the Excise officer, but also the Local Government Board. That, he was inclined to think, was pushing things rather too far. In any case the Government, having made up their minds to start by giving the full confidence, subject to the control in the Bill, to the county and borough committees, were not in a position to accept these two Amendments or either of them. At the same time, if there were districts in Ireland where the difficulties described might arise, that would be met by the provision giving the claimant power to go by the pension committee and appeal to the Local Government Board. He hoped that in any ease at starting the pensions that would be sufficient to remedy any difficulty that might arise in the West of Ireland.
§ LORD ATKINSONsaid the noble Lord had misunderstood the Amendment. Its object was to protect the Imperial taxpayer. There was no difficulty whatever in carrying out the administration of Ireland, in the Local Government Board appointing as their officer a Poor Law inspector who did exactly for every Board of Guardians in Ireland what he would be asked to do under the Amendment, namely, to attend to give the people the benefit of his advice and to prevent abuses, corruption and extravagance.
§ *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid they did not consider that this was purely an. Irish question. It was a question of importance to Imperial taxpayers in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The proposal under the Bill was the strange one of allowing local committees appointed by local authorities full scope in the expenditure of Imperial funds. He looked upon that as a dangerous proposition, especially when they all knew that it would be to the interest of these local authorities to transfer certain Poor Law charges from the rates to the Exchequer. The Government had thought fit to empower county and borough councils to appoint these committees. What had the county and borough 1155 councils to do with the matter at all? They did not find the funds. The only reason was that they possessed the local knowledge which would enable them to choose more easily the pension committees than the Local Government Board could do. What was asked now was that the Local Government Board which represented the taxpayer should have some voice on these pension committees in defence of the taxpayer. They were to appoint not more than three members of such committees. This was characterised as a gigantic power on the part of the Local Government Board. He had really never heard an assertion which appeared to him more absurd, because all that it would involve was that there should be some representation of the taxpayer on bodies which almost naturally would be rather antagonistic to the interests of the taxpayer. He hoped that one of the Amendments would be pressed to a division, because he was quite sure something of the sort ought to be embodied in the Bill.
§ *THE EARL OF CREWETwo entirely separate questions are involved in this Amendment. What is spoken of as the Irish side of the question appears to us to depend upon the possibility that some person might be deprived of a pension because for some reason or other he was locally unpopular, and that the pension officer would be debarred by threats from doing his part in representing the case. The other side of the case is the one which has been alluded to by the noble Viscount, Viscount St. Aldwyn, who feared that pension officers would, be too easy-going, and that being local people their tendency would be to transfer charges where they could from the rates to the taxes. I admit at once that the county council, as such, have no locus standi in this matter at all. They nave no more power to decide the allocation of this money than any other body of taxpayers. They are selected to choose these committees because they have local knowledge and a very real and substantial position in a particular locality. The committees, it is hoped, will be composed of what are sometimes called people of "good-will," people who are willing to give their time and trouble without remuneration to the 1156 service of local duties in their own neighbourhood. It is perfectly true, as the noble Viscount has said, that there may be a temptation on the part of those people to be too easy-going in admitting cases, but when the noble Viscount said that they have an unrestricted power of allocating public money he cannot have read the Bill. The allocation in every case is subject to the consent of the pension officer, who, of course, represents the taxpayer. It is perfectly arguable that the pension officer by himself may not be strong enough to-resist the committee, and ought to be strengthened. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the Local Government Board would put its inspectors on these committees. There are, of course, not enough inspectors of the Local Government Board to go round to all the committees to the number of three in each, so you come to this difficulty, that the only people the Local Government Board could nominate are people who will be subject to precisely the same limitations as members of the pensions committee. They could not all be officers, because the officers do not exist, but they will have to be some nominated people in the neighbourhood Those people will be subject to exactly the same temptation to save the rates and impose on the taxes. The mere fact that they are nominated by the Local Government Board will not remove, that.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment to provide that the local pension committees should be so constituted as; to contain representatives of the other local authorities within their area. He said that the object of the Amendment was that certain members of the pension, committees should be men of local knowledge and men belonging to the minor order of local authorities. This part of the clause appeared to him to be so widely drawn that it might result in the whole local pension committee being appointed from outside the areas of the pension committee. Consequently, no member of the committee would be in any way acquainted with the locality or its people. Personally, he would have 1157 preferred that a very large number of these committees should have been members of local authorities, but he had contented himself with suggesting that some, at all events, of the minor local authorities should be represented on the committees. It was true that any county council would probably wish to appoint such men, but the second part of the clause said that they need not do so, and in fact appeared to imply that it would be better if they did not do so at all. He knew that was not the intention of the Government, because although the clause was not discussed in another place, yet in answer to a deputation the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed himself as being entirely in sympathy with the idea that members of the guardians should be unofficially upon these committees. He went as far as that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also one step farther, when he suggested that the other local authorities, such as the parish council, should also be represented. It was of extreme importance that these committees should have sufficient local knowledge to deal with many of the difficult and oftentimes delicate questions which would come before them.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert the words 'Each local pension committee should be so constituted as to contain representatives of the other local authorities within their area.'"—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the proposals of the Bill were in reality to a certain extent a compromise, and he did not think the Government could go beyond the stage that they had reached in regard to recognising local information. They had heard a good deal of criticism for which no doubt theoretically a very great deal could be said, but with all respect for local government he thought that in a matter of this kind it would be going a very great deal too far to bring in representatives of not only what were known as the minor local authorities, but of the boards of guardians and even of the parish council, and might give rise to very considerable confusion. Anybody who had sat on a board of guardians knew that one of the very great 1158 difficulties of Poor Law administration, unless the chairman of the board happened to be a very strong man and had one or two members to back him up, was the tendency of each parochial representative to look after what he called his "own poor." That very often took the shape of a guardian coming into the room, and after doing what he thought was his duty, "looking after his own poor," going away and leaving the remaining guardians to do likewise. That was how mal-administration and jobbery arose. If they desired this pension scheme to work well they must take every precaution against anything of that kind happening, and for that reason the Government, when they decided to trust local authorities, selected the large authorities, leaving them to be the masters of the persons to whom they were delegates, and he sincerely hoped that in practice the county councils and other bodies would make up their minds to rise a little superior to the ordinary British prejudice against what was called the expert. There was nothing in the world so difficult as administering poor relief, and this would also be an exceedingly difficult duty. In fact a man might almost devote a very great portion of his life to attaining the know ledge which was necessary to administer matters of this kind faithfully and skilfully. There was another objection to the proposal, namely, that by bringing in the representatives of boards of guardians as such——
§ LORD CLINTONI did not bring them in by name.
LORD FITZMAURICEpointed out that local authorities would include boards of guardians. They all desired to keep the administration of the pensions and the Poor Law entirely distinct. If there was any member of a board of guardians who from long experience had become an expert in the subject he felt convinced that the county and borough council would not require any spurring to call in their assistance.
*LORD LANSDOWNEI quite agree that these committees should be strengthened, but I cannot help thinking that there are practical objections in the way 1159 of this proposal. The proposal makes it obligatory upon the county councils to include on the local pensions committees representatives of every local authority within their areas. It would be obligatory under those words to include members of the minor councils and also of the boards of guardians, and I think there is force in the objection that this Bill desires to keep the administration of the Poor Law entirely distinct from the administration of the pension law. I am afraid, therefore, that if this Amendment were to be inserted in the Bill it would give rise to a good deal of complication and trouble, and I respectfully suggest that my noble friend had better not press it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF MAYO moved the omission of the words "either absolutely or under such conditions as they think fit," from the provision giving local pension committees the power to delegate to sub-committees powers and duties of the local pensions committee. He submitted that the words were not the least necessary, and if they were left out the subsection would have exactly the same effect as if they were in.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, lines 37 and 38, to leave out the words 'either absolutely or under such conditions as they think fit.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD FITZMAURICEthought there would be no difficulty in proving that the words ought to be left in. In the first place there was precedent for them. He was practically certain that the same words would be found in the Education Act of 1902, in regard to the delegation clause under which practically the education of the country was carried on. Considerable trouble arose at one time in the working of the Local Government Board Acts, because there were certain powers there which it was stated could be delegated, and some great lawyers took the view that delegation, if not qualified, was absolute and irrevocable. That danger was to be guarded against. What the words really did 1160 was that they enabled the county council to delegate and at the same time to remain members of their own delegation. If the words were left out, there might be considerable danger of unqualified delegation, putting the county council or other authority in the position of having parted with some of their powers and rendering it difficult for them to get them back.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved to add, at the end of subsection (2), which ran—
(2) A local pension committee may appoint I such and so many sub-committees, consisting either wholly or partly of the members of the committee as the committee think fit, and a local pension committee may delegate, either absolutely or under such conditions as they think; fit, to any such sub-committee any powers and duties of the local pension committee under this Act"—the words" other than the power to give a decision on a claim within the meaning of this Act."'
He moved this Amendment in the hope that the power of actually dealing with claims might be reserved to the pension committee. The sum of £7,000,000 was I delegated by the Treasury to the local authorities. Those local authorities had power to appoint a committee, and this committee in its turn was empowered to appoint a sub-committee which would possess absolutely every power conferred: upon the local pension committee by the Bill. Thus it would be possible for the local pension committee to delegate all or any of its powers, either absolutely or under such conditions as they might think fit, to this sub-committee. It would be possible, under this clause, for the pension committee to delegate the power of granting pensions to the vicar and churchwardens. He did not know whether such a provision would commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His Amendment would leave full discretion to the sub-committee to gather information and collect as much material as possible to enable the local pension committee to arrive at a decision, but the giving of the decision would rest with the responsible local pension committee.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 40, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'other than the power
1161
to give a decision on a claim within the meaning of this Act.'"(The Duke of Devonshire.)
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that, if it was thought that the pension committee were going to act in the manner proposed, they ought not to give them these powers at all. It was surely a fair thing to assume that bodies of this kind would act in a reasonable manner. He could not imagine any county or borough authority with which he was acquainted acting in the way suggested, merely because the funds with, which they would be concerned did not come from the local rates but from the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore he thought the precautions proposed to be taken quite unnecessary. If they could not trust these committees, the only rational alternative would be not to give them the powers at all.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, line 40, alter the word 'Act,' to insert the following new subsection: '() The Local Government Board may appoint any person or any persons not exceeding three in number to be a member or members of any local pensions committee, or of any sub-committee appointed by the latter, who shall, when appointed, have all the rights of ordinary members of such committees.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 9:
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 7, after the word 'obtaining,' to insert the words 'or continuing.'"—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 8, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'either for himself or for any other person, or for the purpose of obtaining or continuing an old-age pension under this Act for himself or for any other person at a higher rate than that appropriate to the case."'—(Viscount Wolverhampton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to add words in the same subsection to 1162 meet an obvious omission, and said he understood the Amendment was accepted by the Government.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 9, after the word 'misrepresentation,' to insert the words 'or if it appears that any person has directly or indirectly deprived himself of any income or property in order to qualify himself for the receipt of an old-age pension, or for the receipt of an old-age pension at a higher rate than that to which he would otherwise be entitled under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONaccepted the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD ATKINSON moved the insertion of a new subsection. He said that as the Bill stood nobody was interested in making an inquiry to ascertain whether the recipient of the pension had ceased to be qualified to receive it. Subsection 2 provided that—
If it is found at any time that a person has been in receipt of an old-age pension under this Act while the statutory conditions were not fulfilled in his case or while he was disqualified for receiving the pension, he, or in the case of his death, his personal representative, shall be liable to repay to the Treasury any sums paid to him in respect of the pension while the statutory conditions were not fulfilled, or while he was disqualified for receiving the pension, and the amount of those sums may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown.
But there was no person or tribunal whose duty it was to make the inquiry. His Amendment met that point, and placed the duty of making the inquiry upon the pension officer. If that were not done, he failed to see the value of the disqualifying clauses. Unless this duty were imposed upon somebody the inquiry would not be made, and a person once in receipt of a pension might easily continue to receive it though he had become disqualified.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 11, after the word 'labour,' to insert the following new subsection: '() The pension officer may at any time, without the matter having been referred to him, call upon and require a person in receipt of an old-age pension to establish that he has not since the same was granted to him become disqualified to receive it, and the pension
1163
officer shall inquire into the matter of the pensioner's disqualification and report on the same to the pension committee, who shall receive and, as far as applicable, act upon the said report as if it were a report received under the provisions of Clause 7, subsection (7).'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
§ *VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONthought this a case that might be left to be met by the regulations.
§ *LORD HAVERSHAMsupported the Amendment and said he had received a letter from Sir John Young, for many years Secretary of the Royal Patriotic, Fund, with whom he served for fifteen years as a member of the Executive of the Patriotic Fund, in which he stated that it was of the utmost importance that there should be personal visits by the pension officer to the pensioners. The areas allotted to the pension officers should not, therefore, be too large. He hoped there would be stringent regulations on this matter, and that every pensioner changing his residence should notify it to the pensions officers.
§ LORD ATKINSONwarned the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that he was taking a very dangerous step in embarking upon the task of giving jurisdiction by regulations. He admitted that it was possible to draft regulations as to the mode in which jurisdiction should be exercised,; it was a very different matter to attempt to give jurisdiction by regulations.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10:
§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert a new subsection providing for the laying of the regulations before Parliament. He said it was not without considerable hesitation that he had adopted the period of twenty-one days in his Amendment, but, in the circumstances, it would, perhaps, be sufficient to give Parliament an opportunity of examining, and, if necessary, objecting to the regulations. He was surprised that the Government had not inserted in the 1164 Bill some provision akin to this, because the whole administration of the Bill depended upon regulations. If Parliament were not to insist upon having the regulations laid upon the Table and did not take power, if necessary, to object to them, then he thought Parliament would be surrendering a most valuable power.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 7, line 17, after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection: '(3) Every regulation under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTONaccepted the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to
§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Standing Committee negatived.
§ The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 189.)