Lords Sitting of 20 December 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) REGULATIONS, 1934.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER) moved, That the Draft Regulations, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved. The noble Lord said: I appreciate the pressure upon your Lordships' time, and although I have been given a somewhat voluminous brief from the Ministry of Labour, I shall compress my remarks into the fewest possible words, not because I think the Regulations I submit to your Lordships for approval are not all important, but because I realise that we have got to the last day before the adjournment for the Christmas Recess. If there are any points that I omit I shall be glad to deal with them upon their being raised during the debate. The Draft Regulations now before your Lordships have been prepared by the Unemployment Assistance Board in pursuance of Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934. That
654
Act provides that applicants for allowances under the unemployment assistance scheme shall have their need determined and their needs assessed in accordance with Regulations. The Draft Regulations have been made by the Minister of Labour and require the approval of both Houses of Parliament before they can finally be made. The Act does not permit of Amendments being made.
The Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House has reported that these Draft Regulations raise important questions of policy and principle, and cannot be passed without special attention being drawn to them. It is that special attention to which I direct your Lordships' consideration now. Your Lordships will understand that these Regulations represent the culminating step of a large scheme of social reform introduced by the Government in 1933 and incorporated in the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1934. Part I of that Act had for its object the placing of the unemployment insurance scheme on a sound and permanent basis. Part II, under which these Regulations are made, dealt with the problem of those persons who, either because of long-continued unemployment, or because their employment does not bring them within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, are not entitled as of right to payment of unemployment benefit and are therefore forced to rely, when unemployed, upon assistance from public funds for their maintenance. Any measure designed to help such persons will, I know, command the sympathy of all Parties in this House. The debate in another place, that concluded last night, showed the desire of all parties, without exception, that these people, in the time of their misfortune, should be assisted to the fullest possible extent. There may be a difference of opinion as to the precise figures which should go into the scales of allowances, but there is no disagreement that the guiding scales shall be adequate. The Scales embodied in the Regulations have been prepared after long and careful inquiry. The Reports and conclusions of various Committees and social surveys have been considered, and the views of various organisations specially interested in this problem have been very fully taken into account.
One of the most striking features is the provision that is made in the Scales for the children of the unemployed and that is one to which I desire to draw your Lordships' special attention. Whereas the unemployment insurance scheme allows a flat rate of 2s. per child, the Regulations which I am now submitting provide for allowances varying according to age from 3s. in the case of children under five years of age to 6s. in the case of older children. These rates, I venture to suggest, far exceed the most sanguine expectations of all interested parties, and there will, I am sure, be general agreement that in thus making provision for the health and maintenance of the future generation, the Board and the Minister of Labour have rightly interpreted the feeling of the country as a whole in this matter.
The Regulations are complicated, but obviously, in order to meet the infinite variety of circumstances that may exist in the lives of the hundreds of thousands of persons who will fall to be dealt with by the Board, this cannot be avoided. I would stress the point, however, that they make provision for a wide measure of discretion in their application to individual cases. The Regulations are designed to provide the officers of the Board and the Appeal Tribunals which will deal with the applications, with a guiding scale which the Board think is appropriate to meet the needs of the normal applicant or household, and further with various rules and provisions to enable the exceptional case or special circumstance to be dealt with. An important feature of the Regulations is their flexibility. Power to vary the allowances in any particular case is clearly necessary in the application of a test of needs.
I should like to direct your Lordships' attention specially to the rent rule, which is to be found in Regulation IV (2 (1)). Rent is the most important variable factor in the household economy of the unemployed man. No scale would be complete which did not make adequate provision for it. Accordingly the allowances in Part I of the Scale relating to households assume a basic rent varying according to the size of the household. Part II contains the allowances for persons living alone. Normally an adjustment is to be made where the actual rent differs from the "basic"
656
rent. If the actual rent is higher, an addition will be made provided it is reasonable in all the circumstances. If the actual rent is lower, the allowances will be correspondingly reduced, but in special circumstances this reduction may be less than the actual difference between the two figures. This rent rule will enable the allowances to be brought into relationship with the level or standard prevailing in particular areas, although in rural and agricultural areas some further adjustment may be necessary in individual cases. The general economy in those areas admittedly differs somewhat from that in the cities or big industrial districts. Applicants may in many cases have resources to which a precise monetary value cannot be attached, but such resources may represent a real advantage to the applicant which cannot be overlooked in a service based on need.
Let me now draw your Lordships' attention to that part of the Regulations which deals with the treatment of resources and capital assets. The Statute has already provided that assets shall be protected up to a certain point, but the Regulations have gone further in order to provide additional protection to the savings of the persons in an applicant's household other than the wife, husband, father or mother of the applicant. The point is one which was stressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Leverhulme, when I was conducting the Unemployment Bill through your Lordships' House earlier this year. This will provide an encouragement to thrift on the part of the young people which, I am sure, will command the unqualified approval of your Lordships. As regards earnings, a distinction has been drawn between the responsibility of members of the household according to relationship. The amount allowed for the personal requirements is greatest when the wage earner is not closely related to the applicant for assistance, and a son will be called upon to contribute less liberally to the support of his father than a father to the support of his son. A person in receipt of an allowance, moreover, is to be left with a definite inducement to avail himself of such opportunities for work as occur. No longer will he be under the temptation of considering whether, by taking an

657
odd job at harvesting time, for example, he will simply be working to reduce the amount payable to him from the State, without any monetary advantage to himself; in future, every applicant is to be allowed to retain half his earnings up to 5s. a week. Another point of general interest is the provision that in future the first £1 of disability pensions will be disregarded instead of only half, as heretofore.
The Government claim that these Regulations provide a set of rules and scales which will enable the needs of all unemployed households to be met, free from any stigma of the Poor Law, and in a manner both equitable and just. The unemployed man will be assured of uniform treatment in whatever part of the country he happens to live and with the right to have his case heard by an independent Tribunal if the allowances issued to him are not in accordance with these Regulations. Agricultural labourers and other persons who have hitherto been debarred from the benefits of our great unemployment insurance scheme will no longer be forced to apply to the Poor Law if they want assistance; the children of the unemployed will receive the benefit of greatly increased allowances; and the unemployed as a whole will receive payments amounting to some millions in excess of the present yearly total.
In conclusion, in commending these Regulations for your Lordships' approval, I would like to remind your Lordships that the administration of these Scale allowances is not the only duty that has been entrusted to the Unemployment Assistance Board, and I want with your Lordships' permission to stress this point. The Board will also be charged with the care and welfare of the unemployed man. The evil of unemployment lies not only in the withdrawal from the household of its means of livelihood, but in the demoralisation which inevitably results from enforced idleness, and it will be the task of the Board to counteract these influences. I hope that I have sufficiently explained in brief the purport of these Regulations. If there is any point upon which I can throw further light, I shall be only too glad to do so, but in deference to your Lordships' convenience I leave the matter at this point and content myself with moving that the approval of your
658
Lordships' House be given to these Regulations.
Moved, That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1934, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Rochester.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, we of course cannot expect any large attendance in your Lordships' House at this late period of the Session and when we are discussing only the matter of the unemployed, with about 4,000,000 people involved. In particular the complete absence of any Bishops from your Lordships' House is worth drawing attention to in view of their recent attendance in large numbers over a subject quite unconnected with their cure of souls in this country.
The Minister who moved the adoption of these Regulations was commendably brief, and I will do my best to follow his example. The Regulations introduce one completely new aspect of the method of dealing with the unemployed and that is that the unemployed, apart from those under insurance, come under a national relief scheme. That is a good thing. That is in accordance with what the Socialist Party have stood for for a long time, that is to say, the right of all workers to work or maintenance, such work to be provided by the ordinary means and the maintenance to be placed on a national basis and provided from national resources. To that extent, then, I think that we are grateful for this change in the attitude of the country to the unemployed and we welcome this aspect of the measure. Moreover, it will make it much simpler for a Socialist Government, when we come in, by the simple method of altering the Scales about which we have heard and raising them to the level recommended by the Trade Union Congress to the Unemployment Committee of Inquiry and by abolishing unemployment insurance altogether, to achieve what the Socialist Party stands for, the complete provision of work or maintenance from national resources. So these Regulations will simplify the task of the Socialist Government.
There are three main objections to which I would very briefly draw attention this afternoon. In the first place,

659
I cannot see the justification for bringing these Regulations before both Houses in a form in which we cannot make Amendments but have either to accept the Regulations as a whole or reject them as a whole. That of course is not the fault of the Minister who introduced them; it is because of a provision in the Unemployment Assistance Act itself, from which these Regulations are derived. I complain about it, although, in a way, of course, it is our fault, for not having observed the actual meaning of subsection (4) in the Unemployment Act, not having perhaps defined it to ourselves and so seen that this was differing from a considerable number of other Acts, Regulations under which can he altered.
LORD ROCHESTER: Will the noble Lord forgive me for asking whether he is referring to subsection (4) of Section 52?
LORD MARLEY: Yes. Shall I read it?
"If each House resolves that draft regulations made by the Minister under this section be approved, the Minister shall make regulations in the terms of the draft to take effect on such date as may be specified in the regulations."
Of course the interpretation of that is that we cannot alter the Regulations. My point is that under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, Section 2, Regulations may be added to or altered by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and similarly in the case of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, subsection (7) of Section 26. On the other hand in the case of Church Measures, you cannot alter them, and in the case of Regulations under this Act you cannot alter them. The result is that you tend to make Parliamentary consideration of these Regulations a sheer farce. We saw that exemplified in the other House, when they found a misprint in these Regulations and had to adjourn the House and go home—and no doubt they were very glad to do it—while they considered what they were going to do. That was because there was a misprint in the Regulations, in which "than" was printed as "that." It is really making Parliament a farce, and that is a very great mistake in these days of attack on democracy. The form in which the Regulations are put before both Houses I would describe as a Parliamentary Fascism—a negation of the old type of democracy which we supported.
660
My second objection is that the Scales under these Regulations are taken completely out of the control of local authorities. No public assistance committee has any voice in these Scales in the future, and because of that I think they do need very careful scrutiny. It is our duty to draw attention to the faults in the Regulations, so that when the time comes we may alter the Regulations and, as I believe, improve them. The criticism was voiced in a paper very much read by workers, in which it was said:
"A new powerful bureaucratic Board, completely divorced from the suffering of the men, women and children in the industrial areas and impervious to the demands of the workers or their organisations, is to have supreme control of the standard of starvation to be imposed on thousands of homes … the Board … can reduce (the scales) if it considers the situation so warrants it. For a Board, completely separated from any working-class influence or control, to hold such power is a terrible menace to the whole working class."
That feeling is very widely felt, and I cannot help thinking there is considerable justification for it. The broad policy comes to this, that the Government are dividing the unemployed into two sections, what I may call the short-term unemployed, those who come under unemployment insurance, and the long-term unemployed, those who come under the Unemployment Assistance Regulations, and I think there would be greater difficulty in getting these long-term unemployed back into the short-term section. I think that under these Regulations men are going to find it much more difficult to get back, and under these Regulations they are going to be treated as paupers.
Moreover, in those areas in which the workers have succeeded, by joint mass action, in raising their scales, those scales are going to be lowered under these Regulations, and they are going to suffer. That is going to cause great dissatisfaction. When men and women by working together have secured a better standard of life, they are not going to see it filched from them by a national body over which they have no control at all. There have been a great many complaints about this. I notice that the Glasgow public assistance committee decided to send telegrams and letters to the Prime Minister and all the Glasgow Members of Parliament, complaining about these Scales and demanding that they should be opposed. A similar delegation from local authorities

661
in Monmouthshire made similar demands. These people are speaking about what they know. They have got to do the suffering, and therefore I think it is only just that we should bring forward this second objection that there is taken out of the power of the local authorities any chance of modification or improvement of these Scales.
My third objection is to the Scales themselves. The Minister said that there may be differences of opinion about the Scales. I can assure him that there are. I want for a moment to examine the Scales, so that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of those who are here this afternoon, as to what exactly they are doing when they vote for, and carry, these Regulations. First of all, under these Regulations, when in force, no individual obtaining relief under them can get any additional assistance from the Poor Law in the future. In the past, when you got any statutory relief, even unemployment insurance benefit, there were cases in which additional benefit could be given from the Poor Law, when the money received was inadequate. That stops. Therefore if the Scales are inadequate we may be condemning certain groups to semi-starvation, from which there is no possibility of emergence.
Just take an example. Under these Scales a man and wife with two children will get 31s. 3d. I agree with the Minister that they are complicated, but I make it out that a man and wife with two children, aged four and nine, will get 31s. 3d., out of which he will pay 7s. 9d. as his basic rent. Taking that basic rent, the actual amount left to him for all his living is 23s. 6d. Of course that is a very small amount. So small is it, that when the British Medical Association appointed a committee to go into the minimum scale of food allowance and a Merseyside Inquiry went into the necessary minimum for clothing, light and cleaning purposes, the minimum given came to 26s. 8d., which is 3s. 2d. more than the grant under these Regulations. That is why I say that for certain cases the Scale—it gets worse if the family gets larger—is below the minimum recommended by the British Medical Association.
I note that the British Medical Association came into conflict with the Ministry of Health on this matter, and they
662
eventually had a joint meeting. The Minister was good enough to supply me with a paper dealing with the matter, and I found that the agreement to which they came was virtually that the British Medical Association was right, and that the amount of calories necessary for a man in heavy work was 3,400 to 4,000, and for a man in moderate work from 3,000 to 3,400. The British Medical Association scale was brought out in July, 1933, and since then the food cost has risen, according to the Ministry of Labour index, from 118.5 to 127—that is, an increase of just under 7½ per cent. in the food cost. Therefore we ought to add that addition to the Scales in order to get at the extent of the difficulties that are being imposed on the people under them. I may say that there is nothing in these Scales which provides a single penny for fares, clubs, subscriptions, hospital or sundries, and every penny taken for fares means so much less food for the parents and the children. We may as well understand these things because when a man lives some distance from his work he has to pay his fares. Say he lives in Barking and is working in London, that means he has to pay 10d. a day for fares, so that such a man who works six days a week has 5s. taken off his allowance. You can calculate how many pints of milk that means for the children.
The Minister drew special attention to the rent question. I would like to remind your Lordships that while the basic rent in these Acts is 7s. 6d., it is almost impossible to find a house for 7s. 6d. for such a family. In the London County Council area in block houses the rents for two rooms vary between 6s. 4d. and 17s. 3d. and for three rooms between 8s. 6d. and 22s. 6d. How much is going to be left if such a family has to pay 22s. 6d. a week? It is true a small increase may be made for the rent, but it is never to be more than one-third of the basic rent. I want to know why under the Regulations the average rent throughout the country is not taken as the basic rent instead of 7s. 6d. The average rent throughout the country, according to the Ministry of Health's Report, is 9s. 3½d. Why then take 7s. 6d. as the average? In the London area the average rent for non-parlour assisted houses is 11s. 10½d. and for parlour houses it is 13s. 5d. And, personally, I do not

663
see why an unemployed man should not be entitled to a parlour house; he is not a criminal. It means a good deal less food for those people if they have to pay the average rent.
I see that Councillor Jackson, the Chairman of the public assistance committee in Manchester, says:
"For the whole of our relief cases the rent averages between 10s. 3d. and 10s. 6d. in Manchester."
The Deputy-Chairman of the Manchester public assistance committee and the Chairman of the special cases sub-committee point out that the rent in Manchester is an average for the relief cases of between 15s. and 18s. But of course we know why rent is the first charge on these people's incomes. We know perfectly well the amount of money invested in house property in this country and the necessity for securing that rents are paid, in order that those who own this property may have their rents. For years now it has been pointed out that these high rents are a definite menace to the health of the people, and medical officers of health all over the country have reported that there is malnutrition, due actually to the high proportion of the money available for these people which is being taken to pay their rents. I feel it is desirable most emphatically to protest against this perpetuation of the high rent proportion of the allowances to these people.
The Minister congratulated himself on the rise in the children's allowances but do not let us forget that these allowances, compared with the British Medical Association and the Merseyside scales, show a deficiency varying from 1s. 3d. to 2s. per week per child. The Minister in another place said something about school meals. He said that for a certain number of school meals there would be no deduction, but that if the school meals reached more than twelve per week—I think I am right in this—there would be a penny deducted for each meal after that. Now, that is a shameful thing. School meals virtually are only given if the children are not getting enough to eat otherwise; and yet we have the Minister congratulating himself that he is only going to deduct a penny per meal from these allowances after twelve meals. Well, twelve meals will not go very far for a family of five children. You may say a man has no right to have five
664
children. Well, I agree. But if he does have them, they are human beings, and they have got to be fed. If, in fact, under the Regulations twelve school meals are allowed free, then I think it becomes the duty of the Government to see that in all areas school meals and milk are provided. At the present moment there are many areas where school meals are not being provided, and yet we know that under the Regulations twelve meals have been taken into account in the amount involved in the Scale. Some areas are giving the school meals, some areas are not. Let us see to it that we press upon the Government, in the interests of common justice and humanity, that school meals and milk are given to all children, now that these allowances have taken into account this factor of the life of the people.
I believe that the Scales are likely seriously to affect the health of the million or so families which come under them. I believe that they are inadequate for building up healthy, strong and capable future citizens of this country. I believe it is imposing an intolerable burden on the wives and mothers who have to expend this money. It is shillings a week below the B.M.A. scale, and the B.M.A. scale was founded upon a price level which, I venture to say, very few of us would be capable of putting into effect if we had the spending of this money. I do not think it would be possible, for instance, to get foreign meat at 6d. a 1b.; and yet 6d. a 1b. was the money allowance for meat in the B.M.A. scale. I think you can get fish, which was included, for 6d. a 1b. I even think the B.M.A. scale was a little generous in allowing 1s. 1d. a 1b. for tea. But 6d. a 1b. for meat seems to me to be quite inadequate. Therefore the B.M.A. scale ought to be increased as to some of the prices allowed for food. Well, these Scales are far below the B.M.A. scale. Therefore I believe a very serious effect will be produced on health, and the result will be a deterioration in the health of the people, a deterioration in their strength, in their physical ability, in the power of children to profit from school teaching, and eventually, I hope, a realisation by the people themselves that they will never get justice until they appoint a Government to look after their interests, and not the interests of the possessing class.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I feel compelled to make one or two brief comments on the noble Lord's speech. In the first place, he commenced with a gibe which, even in my short membership of your Lordships' House, I have heard before, as to the thinness of the attendance to-day at a discussion of what is, of course, a social problem of tremendous importance. I do not think it is fair to draw the conclusion which he drew, that those members of your Lordships' House who are not here are not sensible of realities or of the tremendous character of this problem. It is obvious that the nature and circumstances of the introduction of this Motion make it more or less a formality. We are approaching the blessings of that unicameral form of government which the noble Lord's colleagues wish to force upon us a, short time hence, find consequently there is a certain formality about these proceedings. But I cannot help feeling that many noble Lords who are not here, and in particular the right reverend Prelates to whom the noble Lord made special reference—those of them who reside in the depressed areas especially—are doing more good at this time by their presence and their labours there than they would do even by sitting on these Benches and listening to the words of the noble Lord.
During the debate on another tremendous issue, the Indian problem, the other day, when for the purpose of noble Lords opposite the discussion was, in a sense, a formality, for they were not going to vote, I could not help noticing that the percentage of the total possible attendance on their Benches was smaller than the percentage of the whole membership of your Lordships' House, including those noble Lords who have never taken their seats, present on that occasion. Therefore I do hope that noble Lords opposite will not always treat us to that particular criticism, which I admit at first sight and at face value is a criticism which might spring to one's mind.
It would have been impossible, I think, to gather from the noble Lord's other remarks that this was a measure which increased very substantially—according to the calculations of the Minister of Labour, by no less than £8,000,000—the amount of money to be spent on the maintenance of the unemployed. It would have been very difficult indeed to
666
gather from the noble Lord's speech either that the unemployed were not all now in a condition of starvation or that this was not a measure expressly designed by hard-faced business men to press them still further down into the mire. The noble Lord referred to various scales. Of course, statistics are a very difficult thing to deal with, but I would remind him that for a man, wife, and three children what will be given to the unemployed under the new Regulations which we are discussing will actually be higher than what would have been provided under the Merseyside scale. Therefore that comparison is not perhaps so damning as the noble Lord assumed. With regard to the British Medical Association's scale, the noble Lord did not point out that one reason for the high level of price at which it arrived was that it contained a very large element of milk. That scale was drawn up before the Government, wisely and properly, introduced the provision of cheap milk into the schools, and it is necessary very radically to reconsider that scale when you take into consideration the fact that cheap milk is now provided in this way.
LORD MARLEY: May I point out that milk has gone up in price since the operations of the Milk Marketing Board? I did take that into consideration. The noble Lord does not realise that the price has gone up. The former price was 2¾d., the present price is 3½d.
LORD ELTON: I do not think that affects my point that the cheap milk which is being provided, not all over the country but over such large areas, does drastically affect the situation. It is true that the price outside has slightly risen, but the fact that this milk is being given in the schools and that milk plays such a very substantial part in the British Medical Association's scale does make it necessary for detached students of these statistics to modify the results arrived at before this change in the economic circumstances took place. The noble Lord's point of departure was that malnutrition, as reported by medical officers of health all over the country, is spreading and therefore this was an even worse measure than it would otherwise have been. He ought not to overlook the fact that, as your Lordships are all aware, the Chief

667
Medical Officer's Report for this year contains the words:
"There can he no question that the nutrition of the English people is better to-day than at any past period of which we have record."
It is, of course, open to the noble Lord to say that anyone who quotes such an authoritative statement as that is hardhearted and is ignoring suffering. I can only ask him to believe that those of us on this side of the House are just as conscious of human suffering as he is, but at the same time we are not prepared to shut our eyes to the finding of an impartial observer, not a member of the Conservative Party or even of the National Labour Group, but a Government official who is simply collating statistics. I quite admit that statistics are very cold, but the noble Lord also quoted statistics, and if he quotes statistics he ought to quote the provider of these statistics which are necessarily an impartial appreciation of the situation. That is why I do not think his point of departure is entirely fair.
I claim that what will be provided for the unemployed under these Regulations will very considerably exceed in generosity what was provided under either the Labour Government of 1924 or the Labour Government of 1929 which both the noble Lord and I supported. As far as I know, the noble Lord was not active in making such criticisms of the treatment of the unemployed at that time. What the noble Lord is apt to forget, when he makes some of his criticisms, is that in the concluding line or two of the Regulations there is authority for the Board to use discretion. I have it on the authority of one or two of those best qualified to give an opinion on such matters that in their opinion the number of those families with whom the Board will find itself dealing under its discretionary powers will actually exceed the number of those dealt with under the rigid form of the actual Regulations. If that, or anything like it, is true, what matters is the spirit in which the Board will approach its task. Is it going to work in mere terms of cold figures, or is it going to follow the best of the old Poor Law practice and treat those who come before it as human problems? I believe it is from the point of view of human problems that the Board is going to work. I believe therefore that this
668
discretionary authority is extremely important, and I believe that in a year or two in this Imperial Parliament we shall not be haggling over sixpences here and there, because we shall find that a great social service has been built up which is being worked, as a social service should be, as a great human institution.
If the noble Lord really thinks this is merely a measure to lower the standard of living of the working-class, he must ask himself how it is that, in the first place, we are going to spend, according to the calculations of the Minister of Labour, approximately £8,000,000 more. He must ask himself further how it is that bodies of detached and potentially hostile critics like the Children's Minimum Committee have admitted that for the small family the Board's Regulations represent a very considerable advance. It must be remembered that the small family represents an immense proportion of those who will come under these Regulations. The largest number of families are the families represented by the group of father, mother, and one child, and the next most numerous is the group of father, mother, and two children. I believe the average is father, mother, and one-and-a-half children. Therefore, if it is true, and impartial critics admit it is true, that for the small family this represents an undoubted advance, then it is important to recognise that the small family is in an enormous preponderance, according to the Ministry of Labour statistics, among the families which will come under this Board.
Therefore I would ask noble Lords opposite not to be too hard upon these Regulations, and to realise that they are not fathered solely by people whose object is to increase the miseries of the working class, and that the state of the working class even now, at the end of three years of extreme economic depression, is not so black as the noble Lord would have us believe, and that it can reasonably be claimed that despite the great suffering Which we must continue to try to abolish, despite numerous disastrous exceptions which we could all quote by the hour, it does remain true, broadly-speaking, that the standard of life of our people to-day is higher than that of the working class in any other country in the world. I am not suggesting to your Lordships that it does not want raising, but merely suggesting that

669
this is a thing of which, while not discontinuing our efforts, we might well be proud.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General replies, may I trouble your Lordships with one or two observations? May I begin by an observation which I am sure will carry universal consent and that is that no member of your Lordships' House, spiritual or temporal, would desire to inflict any unnecessary suffering on any person unemployed through his or her fault, and still less upon any child of an unemployed family? None of your Lordships, if it was in your power, I am certain, would allow any suffering of that kind amongst the children of the poor. Why then should we adopt a different approach in the way the nation looks after that large section of its citizens who, through no fault of their own, through causes quite beyond their concern and quite beyond their control, are unemployed? The noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, has a great and long connection with the County of Durham. He knows much better than I do that the unemployed miners in the County of Durham are a remarkably fine type of men, and are idle, not through any wish or desire of their own, but through certain economic changes that have taken place for which they had not the least responsibility. If we can approach it from that point of view I think the problem will be seen in its proper perspective.
One other observation. There is at the present time in this country an embarrassing amount of foodstuffs—an embarrassing amount of milk and eggs and meat and poultry and pig products—and there is an even more embarrassing amount of cereals and sugar and tea and coffee all over the world which we are at great pains to keep from being sent into this country. Why, under those circumstances, should we be so extraordinarily niggardly? because we are niggardly, as I propose to show in a moment to your Lordships. Let us take the actual Scales, ignoring rent (which was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Marley). The Government's approach to the rent problem was explained by my noble friend, and I entirely agree with what he said. They have ignored the very high rents in far too many of the great cities, especially
670
in the North of England and in the outer suburbs of London. I know certain allowances can be made, but I will show in a moment that they are inadequate. If we can ignore rent altogether, let me make the comparison that was referred to by my noble friend who opened the debate on this side. The British Medical Association scale for food in 1932 was what my noble friend stated it to be. I will take that scale and the scale of prices of the Merseyside Survey, which has been accepted as very authoritative and very exhaustive, and dealt with fuel, clothing, cleaning and light. If we take the latter items and food together, and ignore rent—that is the ordinary needs of a family leaving out travelling, newspapers, subscriptions to death benefit societies, clubs and so on—if we take the actual needs of a family outside rent, which are food, clothing, fuel and light, the scale of the present rules for a man and wife is 16s. 6d. (leaving out rent), but if we take the British Medical Association and the Merseyside Survey total it is 17s. 3d., so that 9d. a week less is given under the proposed rules.
In the case of a man and wife and one child the differences are: British Medical Association and Merseyside. Survey, 21s. 10d.; the proposed Scale which your Lordships are asked to approve, 20s. 6d. For a man, wife and three young children the amount is 32s. 1d.—and here, as my noble friend Lord Marley pointed out, is the great gap between the bare necessities of such a family and what is supposed to be paid them. The figures are 32s. 1d. as compared with 25s. 6d. With four children, under the British Medical Association and the Merseyside Survey scale (ignoring rent) the amount is 35s. 2d.—that is for a man and wife and four young children—while the Scale that we are now discussing is 29s. 6d. There is a very wide gap, your Lordships will observe, between those two scales, and it means that in effect a man and wife with a family of young children will literally be kept on short commons if not semi-starvation.
It is perfectly true that certain classes of unemployed workers will be slightly better off. We on this side of the House admit that the Government have made to some extent, in regard to the first and second child, an increase of the children's allowances, but there are other large

671
sections of workers, particularly with large families and young children, who will continue to go short of the bare minimum needed to keep them in health and physical fitness, and, more important still, to bring up the children as healthy, able-bodied citizens who will make soldiers for the Army of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, or airmen for the noble Marquess the Minister of Air, and so help to guard British liberties and hold together our great Empire. On the first two days of this week we had that great debate on India. Wonderful and glowing sentiments of Imperialism were expressed with matchless oratory from your Lordships' Benches. Now we are discussing the foundation of this great Empire, the people of England, of Scotland and Wales, who happen to be out of work after a long period through no fault of their own.
One other consideration, my Lords. The man who has been out of work for a long time is in a far worse position than a man who is seasonally unemployed, or who is simply in a period of transition from one job to the next. The man who has been a long time unemployed has used up his resources, his savings; he has had to dispose, no doubt, of some of his household furniture; his clothes and boots are worn out; his house is dilapidated; and he needs help much more than the man who has just fallen out of work. Surely these Scales are really onerous in his case. May I ask the Paymaster-General one or two other questions? If noble Lords will look at the Interpretation Regulation with regard to "earnings," they will see that it says:
"'Earnings' includes net profits derived from the carrying on of any trade or calling … less the employee's share of contributions payable under the National Health Insurance Acts, the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and any other sums the deduction of which is authorised by Statute."
There is no provision for payments that are customary and of very long standing in many parts of the country, particularly in mining districts, such as contributions to checkweighmen, to local hospitals and so on, which workmen are practically bound to pay. These are not taken into account in computing "earnings" where, for example, a son is em-
672
ployed, or alternatively where a father is employed and a son unemployed.
Would your Lordships also be so good as to observe that according to my reading of paragraph (e) on page 4 of the White Paper:
"Where in any household there are more than five members, the total for that household shall be reduced by 1s. in respect of each member in excess of five:"
each child over the third child will not get any benefit. May I ask the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, if my reading of that paragraph is correct? If so, I can now see why a man with a family of young children is actually a loser under these new Regulations. With regard to rent, I think I am right in saying—I would ask for correction from the noble Lord if I am not—that the maximum that can be allowed under the Regulations is 10s. My noble friend the Earl of Kinnoull is a member of a very important public assistance committee in London, and I believe I am right in saying that he will confirm the statement that in London it is customary to allow 12s. for a three-roomed house, and 15s. for a four-roomed house, and that in certain cases more can be allowed. If that is so, are all the Londoners who come under these Regulations to suffer in future? Is 10s. only to be allowed in future in the expensively rented London area? I submit that those are points of substance and I am sure that the noble Lord the Paymaster-General will be prepared to answer them.
Now I would draw your Lordships' attention to an extraordinary provision in these Regulations, a very extraordinary provision. Unemployed families who have savings are assessed on those savings—money in the Post Office Savings Bank, or whatever it may be—for all sums over £25, and the interest that is taken under these Rules is 1s. per week for every complete £25. That means that if a family has £125 in the bank, 4s. a week is taken in respect of £100 of that. That works out at 10 per cent. per annum. I do not know where investments are to be found that pay 10 per cent. to-day. We are on a 3 per cent. or a 3½ per cent. basis. India 3 per cent. stock stands at 98. It would have been far fairer to have taken the Post Office rate of interest and made the calculation on that. I do not think it is quite fair, when we have been

673
encouraging thrift for many years and a family has money put by, to pretend that that money is earning 10 per cent. when everybody who has anything to do with investments knows quite well that the rate is about 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent. for trustee stocks.
There are a good many other anomalies in the Rules, but I do not wish to detain your Lordships. I think I have shown that if I am correct in my interpretation these Rules are really niggardly in the amount allowed to these unfortunate people. When we have a surplus of all kinds of goods, and can produce far more than we need under present conditions, this is not the time to impose what really is semi-starvation on many families, not on all families that are unemployed but on many, numbering, as my noble friend has said, several million persons in all. This is not the time to do it. There will be punishment coining on us if we continue this policy on the one hand of artificially restricting the products of the field, encouraging people not to produce, destroying foodstuffs deliberately as part of a policy not only here but in other countries in the world, while on the other hand, children are being brought up in families short of the necessities of life. We cannot go on like that without some nemesis overtaking us. To use an old country expression, we are flying in the face of nature. Any nation or family or individual that flies in the face of nature pays in the end, and we shall have to pay. We are being mean, niggardly, indeed, stingy to the unemployed, who are unemployed through no fault of their own, and we shall all have to pay in the future, including the great masses who were so ill-advised at the last Election as to return the present Government.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I make no complaint of the contributions to this debate of noble Lords opposite. We expect them to be critical, and so far as their criticism has been constructive I welcome it. I will if I can deal seriatim with the points raised. My noble friend Lord Marley made a number of points concerning the Regulations and I feel that criticism coming from him demands and deserves a considered reply. He himself held Ministerial rank in a previous Government and I am sure he has no other object than to do the very best under the existing cir-
674
cumstances. I would point out to him that in his opening remarks he commended the Regulations because they were a national relief scheme—if I understood him aright—but a little later he went on to say that the scales of relief were now being taken out of the hands of the public assistance committees of local authorities. I suggest that he cannot have it both ways. If it is a national scheme it must be taken out of the hands of local authorities. Further, may I with great deference remind him that no less than ninety-five per cent. of the money comes out of State funds and not out of local funds. Surely, therefore, control must be central. The local authorities would have no financial responsibility if they proposed increases in the scales of allowances, assuming that such discretion was left in the hands of the local authorities. I do ask him, therefore, to appreciate that we cannot meet his views both ways. I think his first observation was the more correct.
As regards his point that we must take the Regulations as a whole and that we cannot amend them, I would like to remind him that that is in consequence of passing Clause 52 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. When that clause was being considered—I was in charge of the Bill at the time—I accepted an Amendment from my noble friend Viscount Bertie of Thame, but no noble Lord opposite raised any question at all. While it is true that there are some statutory powers in other enactments allowing Parliament to intervene it is also true, as he himself pointed out, that with regard to Church Measures the same point arises. Therefore it is not the responsibility of the Government as distinct from Parliament that that discretion is no longer available in this matter, and I am sure he will be the first to realise that taking the de facto position, we cannot help ourselves now. He wants the Regulations to go through although he would like to see them improved. Some of us on this side of the House may share his desire for variation, but we have got to take them or leave them, and I am sure the noble Lord would be one of the first to agree that we do not want to leave them, and that they are indeed a great improvement upon the past.
Then my noble friend referred to the question of the Scales, and also very definitely drew attention to the diver-

675
gence of opinion between the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Health and the Nutrition Committee of the British Medical Association. While I readily concede that a great deal has been made of these differences in the country, I suggest that they are really not differences of substance, because, as the noble Lord pointed out, as the result of those differences a joint committee has met consisting of three members of the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Health and three members of the Nutrition Committee of the British Medical Association, and in the course of their Joint Report they say this:
"It is indeed a fact that, while certain limited classes of men need well above 3,400 calories per day,"—
the number to which the noble Lord referred—
"others need less than 3,000."
Later in the same Joint Report they add:
"The conference also agrees that the all-round average requirements of the entire population or of large mixed groups of people at the present time is about 3,000 calories per day"
and not 4,000. Finally—and it is to this that I want to draw the noble Lord's special attention—their penultimate paragraph reads as follows:
"The members of the conference deplore the exaggerated importance which has been attached to the alleged disagreement between the two committees, and wish to avail themselves of this opportunity of stating that there did not exist, nor does there exist now, any fundamental disagreement on matters of scientific fact between the two bodies."
I suggest to the noble Lord that that really is unanswerable as to any disagreement between those two Committees.
The noble Lord went on to deal with exceptional cases of need. My noble friend behind me, Lord Elton, replied to him to some extent, but I would like to add that exceptional cases will be dealt with by the Appeal Tribunal as exceptional cases, subject to the overriding duty of the Board to meet need, and I feel therefore that his contention has to that extent been met. Another point to which the noble Lord, Lord Marley, referred was the question of school meals. Upon that I would only say that the allowances are regarded as adequate, but the Board will not take free school meals into account until they
676
can be regarded as substantially related to the needs which the Scale sets out to meet.
As regards the further point to which both he and the noble Lord behind him, Lord Strabolgi, referred, of the rent being fixed at the arbitrary figure at which it has been fixed, may I point out to the noble Lords that in a sense that is in their favour rather than otherwise, because if the rent is over 7s. 6d., which is the basic rent, the allowance will be adjusted under the rent rule, and this is an advantage to the applicant. Supposing for the sake of argument that the rent is appreciably higher than the basic rent, that will be taken into consideration and allowance made. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lords that so far from that being a grievance, it is a matter which the Government have no difficulty in defending.
LORD MARLEY: Only up to a maximum of one third.
LORD ROCHESTER: I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to the social surveys which have been held and compared them one with another. I do not know whether it is quite fair for me to say so, but I do rather deprecate his picking out the plums in those different surveys instead of taking the resultant findings and comparing the different findings of the different surveys. The differences in the results which have been arrived at by those different social surveys must be considered as a whole, and I submit that in deciding whether the Board have succeeded in their task, it is not fair to pick out the best bits from each of those scales and to put them all together into one scale with which to compare the Board's Scale, to the great disadvantage of the latter. I submit that the Board's Scale taken as a whole compares not only favourably, but very favourably, with the average of those scales to which reference has been made.
My noble friend also referred to the fact that none of these poor people can, with any sense of security, secure 10 per cent. on their savings. The Government never suggested that they could. All that the Government say is that if the joint resources are over the maximum, then it is not unreasonable to ask that some small trespass should be made upon the accumulated assets before those

677
people ask their neighbours—for that is what it comes to—to contribute to their upkeep. And while we should be the very first to agree that 10 per cent. would carry with it a very serious element of risk, we do suggest that even if they get 3 per cent., it is not unreasonable to ask them to trespass to the additional extent upon their reserved and accumulated savings.
Another point raised by my noble friend was as regards the children's allowances. My noble friend Lord Elton did to some extent answer that. I do not want to be provocative in any sense, and I have tried very hard not to be, but after all is said and done I think that we on this side of the House are fully entitled to remind noble Lords opposite that in the 1924 Labour Government and again in the 1929 Labour Government they did not then argue for an increase in the children's allowances. I notice that on July 9, 1924, on the Report stage of the Labour Government's Unemployment Insurance Bill, an Amendment was moved to increase the children's allowances from 2s. to 3s. This Amendment was resisted by Mr. Tom Shaw, then Minister of Labour, on the ground that it would increase expenditure, and 102 members of the Labour Party voted against the increase. Then again on December 3, 1929, an Amendment was moved to the Unemployment Insurance Bill of that year to increase the children's allowance from 3s. to 5s. Miss Margaret Bondfield, who was then Minister of Labour, opposed the Amendment, and in the Division which followed no fewer than 204 Members of the Labour Party opposed the increase. I could mention certain names, but I will abstain from doing so.
LORD MARLEY: About that I may say that of course this is a very good point always, but we hand over to you the Prime Minister who led us in those days—
LORD STRABOLGI: And the Lord Chancellor.
LORD MARLEY: And the Lord Chancellor, and we dissociate ourselves from that policy now. We know better: we have learnt better. You have not learnt enough yet.
LORD ROCHESTER: I concede that to the noble Lord. I accept my meed of responsibility as one of those who have
678
some sympathy with his position, and I would point out—and I think I am entitled to make this point for the Government—that while that was a suggestion of an increase from 2s. to 3s., under these Regulations we are giving from 3s. to 6s. I feel that without delaying the House further on individual items, I am entitled to ask the House to agree to these Regulations because they are at least a distinct advance upon anything that has been enacted before.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (FRIMLEY AND CAMBERLEY URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Feversham, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Urban District of Frimley and Camberley and laid before this House on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TAMWORTH ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SWINDON GAS ORDER, 1934.
  MANSFIELD GAS ORDER, 1934.

    LIVERPOOL GAS ORDER, 1934.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders be approved.
    Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

SITTINGBOURNE AND MILTON URBAN DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1934.

  WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1934.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders be agreed to with a modification as printed.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved, with a modification.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1934.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee be approved with modifications.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved, with modifications.—(Lord Templemore.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, perhaps I ought to say a word upon this Order because the circumstances are rather peculiar. This Gas Order came before the Special Orders Committee yesterday, and it was discovered that it was not drawn up in the correct form. There were certain errors and therefore it was probably ultra vires. I should certainly have been bound to report to your Lordships that it was ultra vires. Modifications were proposed by the Board of Trade to get over this difficulty, but they would have necessitated the omission of certain parts, not very large ones but fairly important ones, of the area which it is proposed to serve. The difficulty might have been got over in two ways. One was by adjourning the Order and allowing these areas to be brought in correctly—notices issued and so forth—but that was not very convenient, because it would have delayed the supply of gas to other people. So a compromise, or way out, had to be discovered, by which the modification proposed by the Board of Trade could be made, and the company undertook to promote another Special Order at once to deal with the areas omitted. I thought I ought to tell your Lordships this, because it is important that the Special Orders Committee should go into these matters and
680
see that the Regulations are properly complied with.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIARY (SAFEGUARDING) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEPRESSED AREAS (DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Appointment and functions of Commissioners.
1.—(1) There shall be two Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioners") whose functions shall be the initiation, organisation, prosecution and assistance of measures designed to facilitate the economic development and social improvement of the depressed areas specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Commissioners and to their proceedings.
(5) Subject to the provisions of this subsection the functions of the Commissioners shall not include—
(a) the carrying on of any undertaking for the purpose of gain, or the provision of financial assistance to any undertaking carried on for that purpose; or
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "depressed." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment on the Paper, which stands in the names of Lord Gainford, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Strabolgi and myself. Your Lordships will remember that the object of this Amendment was discussed at some little length on the Second Reading. The object was to substitute for the adjective "depressed," in relation to these areas, some other adjective, and it has been agreed that the word "special" would be more appropriate and more acceptable to all concerned than the word "depressed." On the Second Reading there was an atti-

681
tude which was almost unique in this House. There was almost unanimous concurrence of opinion on this question, that the word "depressed" ought to be altered, and speeches were made by representatives of all Parties in this House in which that expression of opinion was put forward. I do not think I need recapitulate the arguments. It was pointed out that the word "depressed" had caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in the areas concerned, amongst the people sought to be benefited by this Bill. The people say, with some reason: "We are not depressed; we have suffered misfortune owing to economic conditions, but we are going to do our best to take advantage of the Bill and recover our economic position." That argument was accepted by all Parties.
That being so, this is the first of a series of Amendments for the purpose of carrying out that object which was common to all Parties. It would be somewhat lamentable if the views of this House, so unanimously expressed on that occasion, were not accepted by the Government. It will not hurt their Bill, but, on the contrary, will benefit it. I think we are all agreed that it would make the working of the Bill more easy and more satisfactory to those whom it is designed to benefit. Therefore I urge the Government, as far as I have any influence, to accept this Amendment, and I should be greatly surprised if there would be anyone in the House of Commons who would raise an objection to so reasonable an Amendment. I do not suppose for a moment it would be necessary to divide the House on the matter. Indeed it would be lamentable and anomalous if, after being practically unanimous on the Second Reading, the Committee were asked to divide on the matter. That necessity, I hope, will be avoided by the Government accepting the Amendment, and so giving satisfaction to a great number of people who have expressed their views on the subject in the County of Durham and other areas affected.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("depressed").—(Lord Danesfort.)
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My noble friend Lord Gainford very much regrets that he cannot be in his place. He was, I believe, the originator of the proposed
682
alteration and he hopes very much—without recapitulating the arguments which he gave at some length yesterday—that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment which has just been moved.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to express his regret that he is not able to be here to support the Amendment, personally. He authorises me to say that, as he indicated yesterday, we on these Benches entirely support the change of Title, and hope that the Government will make the proposed alteration.
LORD ROCHESTER: I confess I am in somewhat of a difficulty, and I will be quite frank and say that I am about to tread on very thin ice. I am within the recollection of the House when I remind your Lordships that last night I pointed out that an alteration from "depressed" to "distressed" was not possible, because there were certain technical difficulties associated with the latter word, and I threw out a suggestion that if any alteration were made at all it would probably be wiser to insert the word "special." I said I could give no pledge whatever, but that if such an Amendment were put down I would do all I could to bring it to the notice of the Government, and that if any concession could he made I would let your Lordships know to-day. I want to say, first and most important of all, it is imperative that we should get this Bill on to the Statute Book before Christmas. Otherwise the Commissioners would have no power to proceed with their beneficent and all-important work. That means that it must be ready to be submitted for Royal Assent to-morrow. I am in this difficulty, that if I accept this Amendment altering the Title it might conceivably cause difficulty in another place, and that I want to avoid at all costs.
I have not been idle in this matter since the House adjourned last night, and such concession as I can make, I should like to say, the House owes to the good offices of my noble friend the Leader of the House and the Minister of Labour—yes, and to the Prime Minister himself, for he, too, has been consulted in this matter. Having said that I think the House will appreciate that no Amendment would be defended from this Bench unless such acceptance were supported by the con-

683
currence of the Government as a whole. If for any reason the Amendment is not concurred in in another place, then I must ask your Lordships not to persist in the Amendment to-morrow. While the Government have every expectation that the suggested alteration in the Title to "Special Areas" will be acceptable to another place, none the less if serious disagreement should occur there I want to say quite frankly that the Government would drop the suggested alteration rather than lose the Bill. With those reservations for the time being I accept the Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: I quite follow what my noble friend says as to the vital importance of getting this Bill on the Statute Book at once and that if serious difficulty occurs in another place it may be necessary to drop this Amendment. I am very glad to hear that the Amendment is not opposed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (1), after the first "Act" to insert "being areas which have been specially affected by industrial depression." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (5), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at the Reports of the investigators, and particularly the Report of the investigator in West Cumberland, Mr. J. C. C. Davidson, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, you will see that attention is drawn, in paragraph 20, to a number of semi-public utility undertakings that have been very successfully carried out on the North-West coast. They have made a profit of about 5 per cent. The matter is explained in inure detail in the Second Appendix to the Chancellor of the Duchy's Report, and if I am right in my reading of paragraph (a) it seems unfortunate that such undertakings should be cut out from receiving any kind of assistance. The words of the paragraph are that the functions of the Commissioners are not to include:
"the carrying on of any undertaking for the purpose of gain, or the provision of
684
financial assistance to any undertaking carried on for that purpose."
That seems to cut out a lot of very desirable undertakings, including even some of the small harbours that we discussed last evening.
I do not expect the Amendment at this late period to be accepted by the Government, but I hope it will be possible to instruct the Commissioners to interpret the Bill rather widely, so that, while not wishing to insist on their supporting profit-making undertakings, some of the public utility societies such as are described by the Chancellor of the Duchy as being so helpful in certain districts of the North-West coast, will not be cut out by this paragraph. The Bill always secures Ministerial responsibility. At the end of the same clause it says:
"The functions of the Commissioner shall extend to the initiation, organisation, … of measures outside the areas …"
and in all cases the appropriate Minister must give his consent to all the schemes that they approve. There is therefore always control by the appropriate Minister—I presume the Minister of Labour. Could the Paymaster-General say that this particular paragraph shall not be too rigidly interpreted so as to cut out these societies such as the Miners' (Industries) Trust which, it is admitted, has done valuable work?
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD MERRIVALE: I cannot help thinking that the power of control which is vested under Clause 1 (3) in the Minister will prevent any rash proceeding within the provisions of Clause 4. There is control here, and if the functions of the Commissioners were left a little more at large it is still open to the Minister to decide whether the proposed exercise of them is beneficial.
LORD ROCHESTER.: The implications of this Amendment are very much wider than the noble Lord appears to appreciate. If the Amendment were passed the effect would be to allow- the Commissioners a general power to subsidise industry. The paragraph which it is sought to exclude was deliberately put into the Bill so that the Commissioners should not have this power. The objections to the general subsidisation of industry are obvious and are well known,

685
and I confess I am somewhat surprised to hear this Amendment moved from the opposite side of the House. It is undesirable in general that industries or establishments which are unable to support themselves by their own efforts should be bolstered up by the State at the expense of the general taxpayer, and indirectly of other industries. If the principle of the subsidisation of industries were accepted it would be difficult to know where to stop. Every industry, especially those on the borderline of profit and loss, would contend that it had as strong a claim as any other industry; and within each industry each individual establishment or concern would claim equal treatment with every other establishment or concern.
The result must inevitably tend to be either that subsidies would be given where they were not required, or that there would be great danger that inefficient concerns would he supported by the State, to the detriment of efficient concerns, and ultimately of industry as a whole. It may be that in certain individual cases there are general public grounds for supporting an industry during a period of depression or in order to get it properly started. There is something to be said for the contention that such cases must be considered on their merits as part of Government policy, and could not be left to be dealt with by the Commissioners who are set up for the limited purpose of dealing with certain special areas. In particular it would be most undesirable for power to be taken to subsidise ordinary industry working in these special areas, and in competition probably with establishments in other parts of the country which could not obtain such assistance.
It will be observed that this, after all, would only affect those areas within the Schedule of the Bill. Proviso (i) of this subsection will permit the Commissioners to assist
"any undertaking carried on with the primary object of providing means of livelihood for the persons engaged in the undertaking with a view to their establishment in a position of independence or partial independence of assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, or under the enactments relating to the relief of the poor."
686
It is desired that the Commissioners should have power to assist undertakings of which some part of the produce may have to be put on the market, so long as the primary object is to provide a livelihood for the persons concerned and not to make profits; but it is most undesirable that there should be power to subsidise competitive undertakings, and I confess, for my part, with the greatest deference to my noble friend behind me, I really do not feel that the Government could possibly accept this Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sure my noble friends do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, especially as the speech of the noble Lord will be extremely valuable to us when we reassemble and when the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Bill comes before us and we have to renew the sugar subsidy and make a further grant for the building of another great liner, all subsidies to private enterprise in competition with other traders and manufacturers. That speech, whose eloquence I cannot hope to equal, will then be of the greatest value to us. I was referring to the particulars that appear in Appendix 2 of the Chancellor of the Duchy's Report on page 58 of the Blue-book. These are very impressive indeed in their scope, and I should have thought they would have come under proviso (i) at the bottom of page 2, which has just been quoted by the Paymaster-General. The Bill is certainly very narrow. The Government have thrown right overboard their own investigators, two of them their own colleagues, and are narrowing this Bill tremendously. But there it is. I suppose it is no use our battering against the walls of brass of the present Cabinet.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to appoint Deputy-Commissioner]:
LORD DANESFORT: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Financial Provisions]:
LORD DANESFORT: These Amendments are all consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special")
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special")
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special")
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special")
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Powers of Commissioners as to acquisition of land.
4.—(1) Each of the Commissioners shall have power to acquire land for the purposes of his functions under this Act, and, with the consent of the Treasury, to dispose of any land held by hem which is no longer required for those purposes, and to transfer to any local authority or other body any land held by him for the purpose of its being utilised by that authority or body in the economic development or social improvement of the areas specified in the First Schedule to this Act.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (1), after the first "land," to insert "or other hereditaments or minerals or water rights." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Listowel and myself I beg to move the Amendment on the Paper. The Commissioners will have the power to acquire land, mostly, of course, for allotments for the purpose of their functions, but why is it only confined to land? Or is there some legal term which governs the position? The Leader of the House is very good at interpreting these things. I remember, on one occasion, he gave me a very clear definition of a woman. Does "land," in this case, include buildings for allotments and small holdings? In order to clear the matter up my noble friend and myself put down this Amendment. I do not know if the word "land" includes minerals. If the words of our Amendment are unnecessary, we shall be satisfied with that assurance. With regard to water rights, we are about to set up another Committee, approximately the ten thousandth Committee set un by the present Government, to investigate the water shortage in the
688
country and the means to meet it in the future. That is why I think these words might be advantageous, and for these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("land") insert ("or other hereditaments or minerals or water rights").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD ROCHESTER: As regards the first three words of this Amendment, "or other hereditaments," these are unnecessary, as the noble Lord seemed to anticipate, because by Section 3 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, in every Act passed after 1850 the expression "land" includes "tenements and hereditaments, houses and buildings of any tenure." As regards the word "minerals," the Commissioners have full power to purchase minerals lying underneath any land acquired by them. It is hardly likely that the Commissioners, whose duration is limited—only two years and a quarter—would desire to start, or even contemplate starting, mining operations underneath someone else's land, so that I do not quite follow why the noble Lord includes minerals. He seemed to stress the point of water rights. As regards water rights, I shall content myself with saying that any rights appertaining to water in connection with the land acquired will naturally pass to the Commissioners when they acquire the land.
It is impossible to guess what else the noble Lord has in his mind, but if there is any other point I should be glad if he would amplify it a little bit. If it is a question of obtaining by voluntary agreement rights as to water coming from someone else's land which would be useful to the Commissioner in connection with his land, no doubt the Commissioner and the owner would be able to come to satisfactory terms. I notice that the noble Lord himself appreciated the fact that this suggestion had come rather late in view of the pressure upon us to get this Bill through to-night, but I am making no complaint on that score. If the noble Lord's purpose is to widen, to any material extent, the powers of the Commissioners, he could hardly expect such an Amendment to be accepted at this late stage of the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, will no doubt continue to watch the operations of this Bill, and if an amending Bill is neces-

689
sary and he is still holding his present office, and the present Government are still in power, probably this matter might be reconsidered. At the present time I feel we are rather narrowing the Commissioner's powers. I believe that water rights would certainly be useful, but I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Supplementary provisions as to small holdings and allotments]:
LORD DANESFORT: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Application to Scotland.
6. In the application of this Act to Scotland—
(e) Section four shall not apply provided that every local authority having powers under the Allotments (Scotland) Acts 1892 to 1926 shall have power to act as agents for the Commissioner for Scotland in such matters relating to allotments as may be agreed between him and the authority;
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved in para-(e), before Scotland, to insert" the special areas in." The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, after ("for") insert ("the Special Areas in").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, extent and duration]:
LORD DANESFORT: The next is also a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Provisions as to Commissioners and their proceedings]:
LORD DANESFORT: These are consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 13, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special").
Page 11, line 14, leave out ("Depressed") and insert ("Special").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Title:
An Act to provide for the initiation, organisation, prosecution and assistance of measures designed to facilitate the economic development and social improvement of the depressed areas; for the appointment of Commissioners for those purposes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
LORD DANESFORT: This, too, is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("the depressed areas") and insert ("certain areas which have been specially affected by industrial depression").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI: What happens about the short title? Is that altered automatically, or do we have to do it?
LORD DANESFORT: By some accident, there is an Amendment which ought to have been introduced to the First Schedule which has not been put down on the Paper. It is in the very first line of the First Schedule—" Depressed Areas in England and Wales."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think we have passed the First Schedule, and as we are going straight to Report perhaps the noble Lord will move it then. It would be more regular.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the convenient course would be this. The First Schedule, to which my noble friend Lord Danesfort desires to introduce an Amendment, has been passed over by an inadvertence. It would be necessary, in order to make the Amendment, to move it on Report.
House resumed.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Rochester.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may, by your Lordships' permission, I would mention that I have ascertained that there is no necessity to alter the headings in the First Schedule—I have been so informed by the draftsman—because they are merely headings and will automatically be altered as the result of the alterations which have been made in the substance of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendments reported accordingly.
Then Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Amendment of 15 & 16 Geo. 5 c. 49, ss. 4 & 11]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move the following Privilege Amendment in Clause 1, page 2, line 26, to insert at the end:
"(4) Nothing in this section shall authorise the expenditure of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or out of moneys provided by Parliament."
Privilege Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Privilege Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

IRISH FREE STATE.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a speech made by Mr. de Valera in the Dail on 28th November last, on the Second Reading
692
of the Citizens Bill, 1934, in which he said that, when the Bill was passed, nobody in the Irish Free State would be a British subject, and that it would be an impertinence for the British to claim any Southern Irish citizens as British subjects, and that not a single comma would have to be altered if a Republic were declared in Southern Ireland to-morrow; whether the British Government have sent a written or other protest to the Irish Free State Government against this Bill and these statements of Mr. de Valera, and if so, what reply has been received; and in any event whether the British Government concur in these statements of Mr. de Valera in whole or in part; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. May I say at once, this is a very grave subject. It is a serious subject for all those who reside in Southern Ireland, but especially serious for those loyal British subjects of His Majesty who are living within that area. I may also say that I have received a large number of protests from residents in Southern Ireland who think their interests will be badly affected by this legislation which is now being passed in the Irish Dail. I received some private letters only this morning—I shall not trouble your Lordships by reading them—really pathetic letters, from men who have lived all their lives as British subjects. Many of them have shown the value of their loyalty as British subjects and served either in the Army or in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and they urge and beg the British Government to do something to mitigate or, if it is possible, avoid altogether the effect of this legislation which is now being carried in the Irish Dail.
What is this legislation? It is described in the words of Mr. de Valera, President of the Irish Free State, which are given in the Motion that I have put down. But in order to be quite certain as to the words he used, may I very shortly read his exact words from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Proceedings in the Irish Dail on the 28th of November last. Your Lordships will find them at column 410 of the Report of that day. Mr. de Valera said, referring to the Irish Free State Citizenship Bill, 1934, as it is called:
"When this Bill becomes law it would be an impertinence if they "—

693
that is, the British—
"were able to claim as citizens of their country people who are obviously citizens of another country"—
meaning thereby citizens of the Irish Free State. He goes on to say, and I beg your Lordships' attention to this most remarkable statement:
"Under Irish law, no Irish citizen will be a British subject when this Bill is passed."
I shall have a word to say in a moment about the words of that Bill. "No Irish citizen will be a British subject when this Bill is passed!" I do not like to use strong words, but was there ever such preposterous legislation proposed in any part of the British Dominions or in any foreign country—that this part of the British Dominions should by legislation step in and deprive men and women whenever born—there is no limitation of time—deprive British men and women, British subjects, of the rights which they have enjoyed all their lives, and make them citizens of this Irish Free State?
There is only one other passage I want to read. Mr. de Valera said:
"Not a single line of this Bill need be altered if a Republic were declared in Ireland to-morrow."
The truth is this. This recent legislation is merely part and parcel of a deliberate attempt to prepare the ground in the Irish Free State for the setting up of an Irish Republic. What have they done? In the first place they abolished the Oath of Allegiance and violated the Treaty. Their second action was that they attempted by legislation to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Again, a gross violation of the Treaty and of one of the safeguards which were prominently put forward for persons resident in Ireland when the new Constitution was granted to Southern Ireland in 1922. I need only add that that question of the so-called abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council by the Irish Legislature is now the subject of consideration by the Privy Council over here, and therefore I do not comment upon it further.
There is yet another step. The Senate—another safeguard, another part of the original Constitution which was sanctioned by the Parliament of this country and by the Parliament of Ireland—the Senate in Southern Ireland is under sentence of death, and will expire,
694
according to the legislation already passed in the Free State, in March next. Then there is another, and if I may say so, a really distressing aspect of this attempt in Ireland at the destruction of the Treaty. The Governor-General, the representative of the King, who exists in every part of the British Dominion as the honoured representative of a great King, the Governor-General in Southern Ireland has been degraded to the position of a clerk in an office, and all he is asked to do is to register his assent to Irish Free State legislation, whatever it may be, by putting his stamp across it, or whatever the lamentable process may be.
Now comes this further attempt at the destruction of the Treaty, this attempt to undermine still further the position of His Majesty's subjects in the Irish Free State and to say that there shall be no British subjects recognised any longer in the Irish Free State. They are to be all citizens of this new community which was set up. If this Bill passes into law and is held to be valid without any protest on our part certain results will occur, certain results which I can only call deplorable, to residents, and especially loyal residents, in the Irish Free State. First of all, residents in the Irish Free State become, so far as the Free State is concerned, aliens in this country and will be subject to all the disabilities touching aliens so far as the Irish Executive and Irish legislation can effect that object. What can the Free State do? The Free State, if it so chooses, can declare these men incapable of holding land. It can confiscate their property and carry on with legislation which, as many of us think, has already gone gravely too far in that direction. But it can do more if this Bill is valid. It can deprive these citizens of the right which British subjects have of access to Courts of Law.
And there are other results which may follow. For instance, if this Bill is valid it will no longer be open to a Free State citizen to enter any of the British Services, because according to Irish legislation they will be no longer British citizens. They will be unable to join the Navy, the Army, the Air Force or the Civil Service, and persons already in those Services will be unable, assuming this legislation is valid, to retain their positions. But that is not all. I am ad-

695
vised by those whom I have every reason to trust that any such citizen under the new law, being a medical practitioner at present on the British medical register, will lose his qualification to remain on the British register and in future no such citizen will be entitled to enrolment on that register.
Let me give your Lordships' House one illustration more to show that this is not an imaginary grievance and that it is not simply a matter of sentiment. It is quite true that it is based on deep and passionate sentiment, the sentiment of attachment to the British Crown, but it is not merely based on sentiment. No citizen in Southern Ireland under this law, being a legal practitioner who is on the roll of solicitors of Great Britain, will ally longer be able to practise in Great Britain or continue as an officer of the Court, assuming that the Irish legislation is valid. The final grave injustice, as I think—assuming this law of the Irish Free State to be valid—is that a person who is turned into a citizen of the Irish Free State by this Bill instead of being, as heretofore, a British subject, will not be able to obtain diplomatic protection under British law.
I ask your Lordships, has any civilised country in the world attempted, or is it ever likely to attempt, to pass such legislation? No British Dominion has ever put forward any such unexampled and preposterous proposal as this. But suppose a foreign country did enact that every resident in that country who was a British subject should cease to be a British subject and should become a citizen of the State in which he happened to be resident. If such an amazing proposition were put forward, would not the British Government and the British Empire protest in the strongest possible way; and if no redress was possible by any other means, is it not more than likely that the British Government would break off diplomatic relations with that country? Are we to be told that because the Irish Free State is not a foreign country but is part and parcel of the British Empire, that it is to be allowed to inflict injustice on British subjects which no foreign country in the world would be allowed to inflict?
I do urge this point upon your Lord' ships, or perhaps I should say upon the Government, because I think if your
696
Lordships had the decision in your hands there would be but one answer to the question. I urge on the Government that they should enter the strongest possible protest against this legislation, and should ask the Irish Free State either to modify it or to abandon it and thereby avoid the terrible position that must follow. I have read that in another place the Secretary of State for the Dominions made two statements. He said in the first place, that this Bill did not have the effect which I have told your Lordships it has. In this matter I confess I prefer the authoritative statement of the author of the Bill, Mr. de Valera, who not once but twice or thrice told the Irish Free State Parliament that once the Bill was passed there would be no such thing as a British subject within the Irish Free State. I confess I prefer his statement to the statement as to the effect of the Bill by Mr. Thomas, who, of course, only speaks on advice received, which is perhaps not quite so authoritative as the statements of the Irish Free State people themselves. Then the Secretary of State for the Dominions has said in another place: "Oh, but this Irish legislation is not valid; it is illegal."
We have heard those statements from members of His Majesty's Government before. We heard them when it was proposed to abolish the Oath of Allegiance; we heard them when it was proposed to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and when they proposed to treat the Governor-General, the King's representative, as they have done; and the Irish Free State apparently paid not the smallest attention to those statements. Nothing followed. They went on with their legislation just as if they had been told by the British Government that they were acting perfectly legally and with perfect propriety. Therefore something more is wanted than a mere statement, even from so authoritative a person as the Secretary of State for the Dominions. Something more is wanted than telling them that they are acting illegally. What that more should be it is hardly for me to suggest, but I do urge His Majesty's Government to think of some effective mode of putting forward their protest.
May I add this? We have a High Commissioner of the Irish, Free State

697
coming over to this country like the High Commissioners of the Dominions of Canada and Australia and of all the great Dominions of the Crown. They are the authorised representatives and the honoured representatives of great and friendly communities who come over here and are treated with the same respect and with the same honour as diplomatic representatives from foreign countries. Does it not seem a somewhat strange thing that a High Commissioner should come here from Southern Ireland to represent a country which not only is not friendly to us but by every means in its power has expressed its hostility and, perhaps I may add, its desire to injure those resident within its area who are friendly to the British connection and who have proved themselves loyal to the British Crown and the British people in the past? We are told one more thing by the Secretary of State for the Dominions. In answer to Questions in the House of Commons on two occasions, on November 27 and on December 3 (the present month) the Secretary of State for the Dominions said in another place that communications had passed between the British Government and the Irish Free State upon this subject. What I venture to urge to-day is that your Lordships are entitled to know what those communications were, the nature of the statements made by His Majesty's Government to the Free State Government and the answers which they received. Unless we have those communications we are really not in a position to judge of the position taken up by one party and the other. Therefore, I ask by my Motion that we may have those communications, and I therefore move for Papers.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should not like to leave my noble friend Lord Danesfort without support on this occasion. It is now a number of years since he and I acted together in the House of Commons when the whole issue of Ireland, the Irish Treaty and Ulster, was very much to the fore. I am glad to say we were able to secure the exclusion from the Irish Treaty- of Ulster, but at that time I think there was not one of us who were working in that connection who did not prophesy that the time would come when the South of Ireland would attempt to become a Republic. Mr. de Valera was very much in the picture at that time, as
698
he still is, and we never had any illusions on that point, but realised that Mr. de Valera had made up his mind whenever he had the opportunity to turn the South of Ireland into a Republic.
Within the last year or two, as my noble friend has so truly told us, legislation has been passed and acts have been committed which are all tending in that direction, until at last we are to-day discussing a Bill which is not only before the Dail but (though my noble friend did not refer to the fact) was actually passed last night by 51 votes to 36, under which British citizenship will be done away with in the South of Ireland and all the people of the South of Ireland will in future be Irish citizens, nothing move and nothing less. Mr. de Valera, in his speech at the conclusion of those proceedings according to a report which appears in The Times to-day, said:
"The fact was that by Irish law henceforward no person who was of Irish nationality would be regarded as a British subject."
That is a most deplorable thing. As my noble friend has stated, it is the most tragic and terrible thing that can be done to any individual to deprive him of a citizenship or status under which he was born, under which he has lived, which he reveres and honours and under which he desires to continue.
I am aware, and I am sure my noble friend is, that the Secretary of State for the Dominions and His Majesty's Government are face to face with one of the most difficult problems with which they have had to deal during the life of this Government. We are all aware that so soon as the Statute of Westminster was passed, any Dominion was placed in the position of being able to secede from the British Empire, but when the Statute of Westminster was passed and promulgated it was never contemplated that any one of the Dominions would take such a serious step. In spite of the fact that certain warnings were given at that time, both in your Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, as to what might happen in the case of the Irish Free State, that Bill was passed, and now to-day we see the results of it as reaped in the action taken by the Dail in Dublin last night.
My noble friend has spoken more particularly with regard to the conditions in which this Act will leave the citizens of

699
the South of Ireland who are actually resident in the South of Ireland, but I would like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government what will be the position of all the citizens of the South of Ireland who are now resident in great numbers in Glasgow and the Clyde and in Liverpool and other big cities of this country, or who are resident in Australia, Canada and other Dominions? It might be said that the other Dominions do not affect this particular question, and it is probable that the Government will not be able to reply, or would prefer not to reply, to that point, but I am entitled to ask what will be the position of those citizens of Irish birth who are now resident on the Clyde, or in Liverpool, and so on. Are they to be treated as British citizens or as foreign citizens? Mr. de Valera says that in future the British will be regarded as foreigners, so far as the South of Ireland is concerned. Are we, therefore, to regard citizens who come from the South of Ireland as foreigners in this country, or are we to continue to treat them as British subjects, and go on conferring upon them all the benefits which British subjects enjoy in this country in virtue of the fact that they are British subjects?
That is a very serious and difficult point, and it may be that the Government will say to-day that it is not possible to give an answer on the point until the whole question has been further considered, and until the legislation has been finally passed through the Senate, as well as through the Dail, in Southern Ireland. I venture to suggest that if this legislation is finally passed, and if it is finally laid down that citizens of the South of Ireland are no longer British subjects, but Irish citizens, then we must carefully consider the position of those South of Ireland citizens who are resident in Great Britain to-day. In the Clyde we have numbers of them who have come over from the South of Ireland because of the bad economic conditions that exist in the South of Ireland, and they are receiving great benefit through unemployment insurance, housing benefits, pensions, and so on, just as if they were British citizens. My belief is that if this really comes to pass there should be a thorough sifting out of these particular people, and that only those citizens from the South
700
of Ireland who have been resident for a reasonable period in this country, and have been employed in this country, and have not come over in what I may call a haphazard way, with the object only of receiving these benefits and then perhaps returning to the South of Ireland, should be classed as British citizens, and that the others should be sent back to their homes in the South of Ireland.
I think my noble friend suggested that possibly there might be what might almost be described as a diplomatic rupture by refusing to accept here any longer a High Commissioner from the South of Ireland. Personally I should deprecate such a step without the very gravest consideration. There are all kinds of matters which have still to be considered before such a step could possibly be taken. I for one, in spite of what I am saying this afternoon, believe that perhaps some day, not too far off, it may be possible to come to some arrangement with the South of Ireland that will eliminate all these difficulties which are apparent to-day. The South of Ireland has always lived in the past. She is always raking up old troubles. She never seems to think of the present, or of the future. Perhaps some day, not too far distant, a man will arise in the South of Ireland who will have less circumscribed views than the gentleman who holds the premier position in that country to-day. When that time does arrive he may be able to lead and to guide those unfortunate people into paths of saner and more reasonable progress, more in accordance with the traditions which so many of them hold.
I have, as I have stated, risen to support my noble friend Lord Danesfort on this Motion, because I believe that the matter ought not to be allowed to pass without notice in this House as well as in another place. I hope that the Government may be able to answer some of the points that appear in my noble friend's Question, and at least that they will take account of what we have suggested to them, and what we have said to-day.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we all know the great interest that my noble friend always takes in Irish affairs, and he has often brought up questions on the same lines as that which he has put clown

701
to-day. I have no reason to complain of the way in which he has put his Question. I can give him certain statements made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, and I can give him a certain amount of information in that form. As regards what Lord Elibank has said, I can only say that he has raised very difficult and grave points of constitutional law, with which I do not feel myself at all qualified to deal, and I do not propose, necessarily, to accept all that the noble Lord has said, or to go into any matter outside the actual Question which the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, has put on the Paper. He has called attention to certain statements reported to have been made by Mr. de Valera during the passage of the Irish Free State Citizenship Bill, which your Lordships have heard was passed through the Dail yesterday.
The noble Lord quoted one or two passages from that statement, in which I think it was said that under Irish law no Irish citizen would be a British subject when the Bill was passed. Mr. de Valera went on to say:
"The Bill implements, in the only way in which it can genuinely be implemented, the principle of equality and reciprocal treatment which is fundamental in the principles laid down at the Imperial Conference …"
Nobody denies that Mr. de Valera has a right to claim who are to be regarded as citizens of the Irish Free State, but when he claims that the method in which he proposes to give effect to this right is in accordance with the principles laid down at Imperial Conferences, that is where the Government entirely disagree with him. They think that the method which he has adopted is not in conformity with the principles laid down at Imperial Conferences as to what is called the common status of subjects of His Majesty which is possessed by all subjects of His Majesty throughout the British Commonwealth.
Their position in this respect was made clear by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in a statement made by him on the 27th November, as follows:
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in correspondence with the Irish Free State Government regarding, the Irish Free State Citizenship Bill. They have informed the Irish Free State Government that the Bill cannot be regarded as making provision for the main-
702
tenance of what is known as 'the common status' of subjects of His Majesty on the basis of common allegiance to the Crown as contemplated in the conclusions of the Imperial Conference of 1930 relating to nationality. At the same time I am advised that the Bill does not purport to, and could not, in any case, deprive any person of his status as a British subject."
This statement was made before Mr. de Valera's statement in question, but subsequently Mr. Thomas took an opportunity of making the position of the Government further clear in a statement made on the 1st December in his speech at Derby.
The important parts of this statement were as follows:
"What I said in the House of Commons was that the Irish Free State Citizenship Bill does not purport to, and could not in any case, deprive any person of his status as a British subject.
"What is the status of a British subject? With a few exceptions, any person born within His Majesty's Dominions is a British subject. It is a status which is based on allegiance to the Crown, and is a much wider conception than the citizenship of any particular part of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
" No one has questioned the right of the Irish Free State to define Free State citizens. No one challenges that right now. Indeed, the right is expressly provided for in the Irish Free State Constitution.
" But to define Irish Free State citizenship is something quite different from taking away the status of British subject from anyone who possesses it. When I use the term ' British subject ' I do not use those words as applying only to persons who have a special connection with the United Kingdom or, indeed, with any particular part of the Empire. I use them as applying to all persons who owe allegiance to the Throne with whatever part of the British Commonwealth they may be specially connected.
"When Mr. de Valera says that it would be an impertinence if the British were to claim as citizens of their country persons who are obviously citizens of another country, I think he must have misunderstood what our position is.
"Mr. de Valera has surely forgotten that the Imperial Conference of 1930, in which the Irish Free State took part, affirmed that the members of the British Commonwealth are united by a common allegiance to the Crown ' and that this allegiance is the basis of the common status possessed by all subjects of His Majesty.'"
As regards Mr. de Valera's statement that no change would be made in the Bill if a Republic were declared the position of the Government is that, of course, if a Republic were declared a new situation

703
would arise which would require further consideration. But they have declined to indicate in advance what measures they would take. Their attitude was expressed in a Despatch sent to the Irish Free State Government on the 5th December, 1933, in the following terms:
"They cannot believe that the Irish Free State Government contemplate the final repudiation of their Treaty obligations in the manner suggested, and consequently they do not feel called upon to say what attitude they would adopt in circumstances which they regard as purely hypothetical."
The noble Lord will remember that last summer, when the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House was answering a Question from him, he laid down the attitude of the Government in very much the same terms. When my noble friend asks whether written or other protests have been made against the Bill I can only tell him that it was made plain in Mr. Thomas's statement, to which I have referred, that the Government had sent a formal communication to Mr. de Valera expressing their doubts on the Bill. No Despatch has been addressed to the Irish Free State with reference to Mr. de Valera's statement of November 28, but the views of the Government have been made clear in public statements made on their behalf.
LORD DANESFORT: Can we have the Despatch that the noble Earl referred to?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I quoted the Despatch, but I am afraid I have no Papers to lay.
LORD DANESFORT: Might I refer the noble Earl to the answer which he has read—the statement of the Secretary of State for the Dominions on November 27 beginning "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in correspondence with the Irish Free State Government" regarding this Bill? That is the correspondence I want to see.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Lord will understand that I am not in a position to give him correspondence of that nature. I must consult the Dominions Office and the Secretary of State. As regards the High Commissioner, I do not think, as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, recognised, that it would be a happy solution of the matter to take any steps as regards the High Commissioner. The policy of His Majesty's Government in the United
704
Kingdom is to make it as easy as possible for the Irish Free State to remain a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and I do not think that any step of the kind which my noble friend indicated would help towards that. I hope I have been able to satisfy my noble friend.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I think we ought to thank Lord Danesfort for bringing this very serious question forward. As one who has been steeped in the affairs of Southern Ireland in happy and in very unhappy times, I quite realise the terrible implications of this legislation in the Irish Free State Parliament. I hope His Majesty's Government will very seriously consider the situation, and will not be hurried into anything of a violent nature, and I do hope that no policy of retaliation will be adopted. After all, Ireland has gone through a very unhappy time, being led by people who are distinctly unfriendly to this country. We hope that better days may come. I think, if we exercise patience, it is possible that better counsels may prevail and some understanding with our fellow countrymen in Southern Ireland may yet be produced.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I recognise that my noble friend has done his best to answer my Question, but he has failed to give me any information on the most material point to which my Question is directed—namely, whether any written or other protest has been made to the Irish Free State Government by the British Government against this Bill and against the statement of Mr. de Valera, and if so, what reply has been received. It is quite obvious there have been communications because in the very passage which my noble friend read out from the statement by the Secretary of State for the Dominions on November 27, it was stated:
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in correspondence with the Irish Free State Government regarding the Irish Free State citizenship Bill."
He gave no reason why we should not have that correspondence. I suppose, technically, it will be necessary to get the consent of the Dominions Office and, possibly also, the consent of the Irish Free

705
State Government, but is there any conceivable reason why these consents should not be given? Are we in this House not entitled to know what is being done by this Government to protest against what I can only call an act of gross iniquity, and are we not entitled to know what the Free State reply is?
If my noble friend says he is not authorised at the moment to produce that correspondence, it would not be proper to press the matter further or to divide the House upon it, which otherwise I should be disposed to do. But perhaps he can give me this undertaking, that he will go to the Secretary of State for the Dominions, report what has taken place here, and ask if there is any real objection, from the point of view of broad policy, to the publication of these communications, and also find out from the Irish Free State Government whether they object to the reply being given. I should have thought that both these important personages—the President of the Irish Free State and the Secretary of State for the Dominions—would have been only too glad that their views on this subject should be made public, otherwise many people might say—I do not say they would be justified in saying: "Here is some secret diplomacy going on. Neither side, neither the British Government nor the Free State Government, is able to give its consent to the public knowing what is going on." I sincerely trust, in the interests of both Governments, and in just assertion of the rights of this House and of the public at large, that my noble friend will do his very best to get this correspondence published. My last word is this: Do not let it be said in Southern Ireland that we in this country are oblivious of the services rendered by our loyal subjects in Southern Ireland, and do not let it be said that we are not only oblivious of those services but that we are willing, without effective protest, to abandon these people to their fate.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I can assure my noble friend I will certainly report what he has said to the Secretary of State for the Dominions and point out that there is an urgent application for these Despatches.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, before we adjourn it may be convenient to say that I understand it is arranged we shall meet to-morrow at eleven o'clock and that there will be a Royal Commission at half-past eleven in order to give His Majesty's Assent to those Bills which we hope by that time will have been passed by both places. I understand the suggestion is that we should meet again on January 29. They meet in another place on January 28. We shall have the Adjournment in the form which has become usual in recent years—namely, giving power to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons to summon the Houses together at an earlier date should occasion arise.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Is it anticipated there will be sufficient business to fill up the first week after the Adjournment?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not anticipate there will be sufficient business, but unfortunately there is one Bill—the Electricity (Supply) Bill—which we passed through all its stages last Session but which unfortunately did not pass in another place before the Prorogation and which it is very urgently desired to pass into law. The reason I am asking your Lordships to meet so early is to enable us to achieve that end, although I am afraid it does mean there will be same blank days. There are, I am told, three Bills down for Second Reading on January 29, so that there will be something, at any rate, to give us a start.
LORD SANDERSON: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount if he can kindly tell us what business there is before the Royal Commission at eleven o'clock to-morrow, and what are the three Bills which he proposes to take on January 29?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Bills in question are already on the Order Paper. They are the Matrimonial Causes (Amended Procedure) Bill, the Matrimonial Causes (Procedure in Suits for Nullity) Bill, and the National Gallery

707
(Overseas Loans) Bill; these are the Bills which are down for January 29. The only business I anticipate to-morrow morning will be any necessary communications from another place before we get the Royal Assent. What I shall now call the
708
Special Areas Bill has gone down with Amendments, and we shall have to hear from another place whether or not these Amendments have been accepted.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.