Lords Sitting of 7 December 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SCOTLAND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ROTHESAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
CLYDEBANK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

MILK PRICES.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries a question of which I have given him private notice: that is, whether he can state the detailed arrangements for giving effect to the price insurance plan for milk used for butter and cheese outlined in the White Paper on milk policy last July, and whether the Government have taken into account the changed level of prices and costs.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity of providing your Lordships' House with the statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place this afternoon. The statement is as follows:—Paragraph 7 of the White Paper indicated the general outline of a price insurance plan under which Exchequer assistance would be payable,

351
within the limit of unspecified standard gallonages, in respect of milk used in factories for butter and cheese, and milk made into cheese on farms in the event of the average market prices of imported butter and cheese falling over a period below standard prices of 100s. and 56s per cwt. respectively. In the legislation to give effect to the White Paper policy, the Government will propose that the standard gallonages for milk used in Great Britain for butter and cheese should be 125 million gallons per annum in each case. The Government have also reviewed the figures to be fixed for the proposed standard prices. They have taken into account the factors referred to in my noble friend's question. They also consider that it would he desirable to take some account of the seasonal variation in the quantities of milk available and in the costs of production, and the forthcoming legislation will provide that the price levels at which Exchequer assistance should begin to operate should be 112s. in summer and 120s. in winter per cwt. of butter, and 62s. 6d. in summer and 67s. 6d. in winter per cwt. of cheese. At present the average prices of imported butter and cheese are 133s. and 7os. 6d. per cwt. respectively. It is also proposed to provide for an independent review of both standard prices and standard gallonages at three-yearly intervals.
LORD ELTISLEY: I am much obliged to my noble friend.

PATENTS ETC. (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to an International Convention for the protection of industrial property and to amend the provisions of the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 to 1932, relating to matters affected by the said Convention, and to give effect to an International Agreement regarding false indications of origin on goods, and to amend the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1926, relating to matters affected by the said Agreement; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JUVENILE CONTRIBUTORS AND YOUNG PERSONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MAR RIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, the Bill to which I respectfully ask the House to give a Second Reading resembles in many particulars the Divorce (Scotland) Bill which I had the honour of sponsoring earlier in the year, but which, most regrettably, through lack of time, did not achieve either discussion or determination in another place. In so far as this Bill is identical with the former Bill I should not be warranted in detaining your Lordships by re-arguing its provisions now, because, thanks to the courtesy of your Lordships' House, I had an opportunity at the earlier stage of very fully presenting the case on behalf of that Bill. I shall therefore restrict my observations this afternoon to recounting quite briefly the differences between this Bill and the former Bill. The differences may, I think, be compendiously and conveniently described as being of the nature of addition, subtraction and modification.
So far as addition is concerned, your Lordships will remember that since the Divorce (Scotland) Bill came before your Lordships' House earlier in the year the Matrimonial Causes Bill, promoted by Mr. Herbert in another place, has passed through both Houses of Parliament and is now inscribed upon the Statute Book. I have ventured to borrow and incorporate in this measure three clauses from the Matrimonial Causes Act, as now is. The first of these relates to the reaction of a decree of separation upon a decree of divorce; the second relates to the grounds upon which a marriage may be annulled: and the third relates to the presumption of death which arises after the disappearance of one of the parties to the marriage for seven years, with a resulting decree of dissolution of the marriage tie.
If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment I will develop quite shortly

353
these three provisions which are in the Matrimonial Causes Act, and which appear in the measure which is now before your Lordships' House for approval. The first of them will be found in Clause 3 of the Bill, which provides that the mere fact that a plaintiff has secured a decree of separation will not disable that plaintiff from subsequently pursuing an action for divorce, and where the decree of separation has proceeded upon the ground of adultery or cruelty, which are the two recognised grounds, then the decree of separation in that former action will excuse the plaintiff in the action for divorce which follows, from proving the offences a second time, if the Court thinks that that is the proper course. The second relates to a different matter; it relates to annulment of marriage. In the Matrimonial Causes Act there are four grounds upon which a marriage may be annulled. The first is that it has failed to be consummated owing to the wilful refusal of one of the parties to the marriage; the second is that at the date of the marriage one of the parties was insane or was a mental defective; the third is that at the date of the marriage one of the parties was suffering from communicable venereal disease; and the fourth is that at the date of the marriage the wife was pregnant to a third person. That is Clause 4 of this Bill. The third provides that, if reasonable grounds exist for the presumption that the other party to the marriage is dead, after disappearance for seven years, the marriage may be dissolved. That is Clause 5 of this Bill. I apprehend that your Lordships would certainly not desire me to-day to discuss or to argue these provisions, inasmuch as they have secured the approval of both Houses of Parliament so very recently, and inasmuch, further, as I can see no ground why the law of Scotland should differ from the law of England in these particulars. So much for additions.
I now come to the second branch—subtraction. Here your Lordships will recall the situation. In the Bill which I had the honour to present earlier in the year several new grounds of divorce were included. Two of them were, respectively, habitual drunkenness and repeated conviction of serious crime or a sentence of penal servitude. As to habitual drunkenness, the position in regard to the Matrimonial Causes Bill,
354
which is now an Act, is that this ground was included in Mr. Herbert's original Bill. He, however, dropped habitual drunkenness as a ground of divorce while the Bill proceeded—I think in another place; at any rate that provision is not to be found in the Act. After very careful consideration, and with a considerable measure of regret, which will be shared by at least one member of your Lordships' House who spoke on the Matrimonial Causes Bill, I have resolved to omit that provision from the present Bill. I do so with the less hesitation inasmuch as there are other remedies which are open to the aggrieved party.
Coming to the second provision which is omitted from this Bill one is in a different region. The provision in the original Bill which was submitted to your Lordships' House was that where a party to the marriage had been convicted repeatedly of serious crime as defined, or was serving a sentence of penal servitude, that should afford a good ground for divorce. So far as the first of these grounds is concerned—repeated conviction of serious crime—it never was included in the Matrimonial Causes Bill, and I frankly admit, as I did on the last occasion, that it was not included in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Divorce. There was an attempt made to introduce it into the Matrimonial Causes Bill while it was before your Lordships' House, but the attempt failed, the Amendment being negatived without a Division. I think it right and proper to add that this provision about repeated conviction of serious crime caused more controversy and criticism in Scotland and among, if I may say so, members of another place than any other provision in my former Bill. Indeed it was really the spearhead of attack. In these circumstances—again with some reluctance I must own—I have resolved to omit that provision from this Bill, and your Lordships will accordingly no longer find either repeated conviction of serious crime or serving a sentence of penal servitude as a ground of divorce. So much for subtraction.
I now come to modification. That relates to the provisions in the Bill which deal with insanity. Insanity, as I ventured to say on a former occasion, in my humble judgment, involves a more complete frustration of the fundamental purposes of marriage than

355
perhaps any other ground. In the Bill I presented to your Lordships' House on the last occasion it was provided that three years of continuing insanity should be a ground of divorce, and I said that the extension of three years to five would find no opponent in me. In the Matrimonial Causes Act, on the other hand, it is provided that insanity is a ground of divorce after five years persistence and if incurable. I have, as your Lordships will see, introduced the word "incurably" into this Bill, but that is subject to a definition or interpretation which your Lordships will find in Clause 6 (2), which, with your Lordships' permission, I shall read to the House:
"In any action of divorce on the ground of incurable insanity, the defender shall not be held to be incurably insane, unless it is proved that he is, and has been for a period of five years immediately preceding the raising of the action, under care and treatment as an insane person, and where such care and treatment as aforesaid is proved the defender shall, unless the contrary is shown to the satisfaction of the Court, be presumed to be incurably insane."
Your Lordships will see that this clause sets up, not what lawyers term a prœsumptio juris et de jure, but a presumption of fact which may be rebutted by contrary evidence. I hold very strongly that without an interpretation clause of that kind the clause dealing with insanity would be a dead-letter, because it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get an expert to certify that either party to a marriage is incurably insane. Accordingly, fenced by that safeguard, I commend this clause, as altered, to the approval of your Lordships' House.
I have now covered all the points on which the Bills differ, and I would only say in conclusion that the measure which your Lordships are considering is well within the four corners of the Matrimonial Causes Act. It seeks to assimilate the law of Scotland to the law of England. Inasmuch as, if I may say so without offence, we on the other side of the Border have always been pioneers in the matter of divorce reform, it humbly appears to me that the case for a Second Reading becomes strong if not irresistible. I have honestly tried, your Lordships will believe me, to meet all reasonable objections which have been taken to the Bill as originally drawn, and I hope I have succeeded. The principle of the Bill has
356
been endorsed very recently in both Houses of Parliament. At the Committee stage the Bill will, of course, come up for examination and, if necessary, for revisal. In the meantime I submit it to your Lordships' House, and beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Alness.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, this Bill, as the noble Lord has just said, would bring the law of Scotland into line with what has now, since the passing of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, become the law of England and Wales. The present Bill was introduced only on Wednesday last, and it has not yet been possible for His Majesty's Government to consider their attitude towards it. I cannot therefore, at this stage, express on behalf of the Government either approval or disapproval of the principles which it embodies. I can only say that the Government will watch very closely the debates on the Bill in this House, and will have due regard to the views which your Lordships express.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have no intention of intervening with regard to this Bill. Obviously, after a long consideration of the whole question in this House and in another place, it is fitting that only those who can speak on behalf of Scotland should take part in these proceedings. But I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading whether he has had any communications with regard to the provisions of the Bill from the authorities of the Church of Scotland.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, as the noble Lord who spoke for the Government has just said, this Bill was only circulated on December r, and there has been less than a week in which to consider it. In view of the fact that there has been such a short time before the Second Reading, I hope ample time will be given before the Committee stage to anybody who wishes to raise any Amendment. For the convenience of some of your Lordships who come from Scotland, I hope that that stage will not be until after Christmas. I think that would be a great convenience. Last time the Bill came up I said I hoped the Church of

357
Scotland would have an opportunity of considering the matter, and I know that many Presbyteries have considered it. We should like to have ample time for any Amendments to be brought forward in view of the importance of the measure. Speaking from memory—because one has not had time to get notes from Scotland —I saw a point mentioned by the Society of Writers to the Signet. They considered that it was very important that any new Bill brought in for Scotland should be, as far as possible, the same as the English Act. The noble and learned Lord has assured us that this Bill is within the four corners of the Matrimonial Causes Act, and I am sure that point will be regarded as very satisfactory by the Society of Writers to the Signet. I trust we may have an assurance that plenty of time will be allowed before the Committee stage is taken.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the noble and learned Lord's original Bill on this subject was read for the first time on December 1, 1936, and that this Bill was read for the first time on December 1, 1937. I hope, in view of the extremely lucid and able manner in which the noble and learned Lord has introduced this measure, that this new Bill will have a little more good fortune than the previous one which he introduced. There is one point about this Bill to which I wish to draw the noble and learned Lord's attention in the hope that he may co-operate with me in amending the measure to a certain extent. The clause to which I wish to draw attention is Clause 2. Clause 2 extends to most of the new causes for divorce the penalty as regards the estates of the parties which at present exists in the law of Scotland with respect to adultery.
In Scotland, possibly owing to the persistent efforts of King Edward 1 of England to unify the two countries, the position of women has always been from very early times a very high one. At the present moment, by the ordinary law of Scotland, which cannot be varied by a married woman, a married woman has these rights in the estate of her husband. She has a right, in the event of his death, to one-third of the income from his heritable estate—that is his real estate—and she also has the right under her jus relictœ to one-third of the movable property of her husband, one-third, that
358
is, of all his personalty. She can take the capital away. I know as a matter of fact how damaging that right has been in many cases. I have known great houses in Scotland that are now empty shells because everything movable has been taken away to satisfy a widow's jus relictœ.That is the right of the married women of Scotland, and I am glad to say that, in most cases, no man feels that these rights are excessive. These rights are so sacred that not only can a married woman not vary them, but also, in certain circles—at any rate until recently—it was held to be a kind of reflection upon a widow if she was not named the trustee under her husband's will, although her duties as a trustee might conflict with her rights as a widow. That was the reward that a woman earned for long and faithful companionship.
I venture to think that, for adultery the proposed penalty is rather excessive where a marriage has not persisted for a long time. I remember that in the old days public opinion was not quite so strong. Before the Reformation a daughter of my father's house married a cousin, an Earl of Cawdor, and, while awaiting the dispensation from Rome, the marriage was solemnised and took place, that being as your Lordships know the custom in those days. But it was agreed that if the lady did not get the dispensation from the Holy Father, the Pope, to marry her cousin she should be returned to her family with three hundred marks Scots for her virginity. That shows your Lordships that, in those days at any rate, the penalty on the break up of such a marriage was not considered to be so very excessive. I venture to think that for adultery the imposition of this penalty is more in the nature of a vindictive punishment than a proper punishment. But the situation is even worse, because my information is that there is a certain type of young woman—a very undesirable type in some ways—who makes use of her attractions to marry a young man of property and, having done so, makes his life such a curse to him, such a hell upon earth, that he does anything in order to dissolve the marriage. This is done by the young woman for the set purpose of obtaining these very extensive rights upon the property of the young man so married. If Clause 2 were so amended as to make the second part of it applicable to all the grounds of divorce I think

359
that that kind of attraction would absolutely vanish, because everybody has the greatest confidence in the discretion and ability of our Judges, and I can see no harm in entrusting these settlements to the discretion of the Court. Once that is done, once it ceases to be a part of the law of the land that automatically these extensive rights are obtained by the pursuer, then I think this evil would abate. It is a very serious one and a very wicked one wherever it takes place. I hope the noble and learned Lord whose Bill this is will consider this point and that he will be able to meet it.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall endeavour to answer the questions which have been put to me. The most reverend Primate asked me whether I had had communication with the Church of Scotland upon the subject of this measure. I can only answer that question by saying that I have had the very great advantage of unofficial communications of an authoritative character with a representative of the Church of Scotland. Moreover, the most reverend Primate knows, I have very little doubt, that that Church on the last occasion of the meeting of its Assembly approved in principle of the Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships' House, and appointed a Committee to watch developments. I have seen to it that the Committee have been furnished with ample copies of the present measure, and I have no doubt that their views will be forthcoming before the Committee stage of the Bill is taken. As regards the Committee stage I am in no difficulty in giving the assurance for which my noble friend Lord Kinnaird asked. I certainly do not intend to hurry the Bill through this House, which would be most undesirable. Your Lordships will, of course, remember that you are not dealing with an entirely new measure but with a measure which is identical in many of its provisions with the former one that I had the honour to introduce. That I remember on the one hand. I also venture to recall on the other hand that as time runs out, the chance of this Bill becoming law in another place recedes. Subject to those two considerations, however, I shall certainly see to it that ample time is given before the Committee stage is taken.
With regard to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, it is an
360
interesting inquiry which he has suggested. There have been always two schools of thought on the subject, those who thought the old system of the Scottish law, the tierce, the jus relictœ, was best, and those who thought that the question of the adjustment of property might more properly be left to the Courts. But I will ask the noble Lord not to forget that the system which he condemns and criticises has been the law of Scotland for nearly 300 years, and that when the law of divorce for desertion was introduced—in the year 1573, if my memory serves me right—it was then provided that the same consequences should follow on the pronouncement of the decree of divorce as though the defender to the action were dead. At the same time, it is an interesting topic, and I have no difficulty in giving my noble friend the assurance that what is, after all, a Committee point, will be very seriously and carefully considered by me when that occasion arises.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a; (according to Order), and passed.

COST OF LIVING.
LORD KENILWORTH LORD KENILWORTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Minister of Labour, in summarising the information obtained from the investigation now proceeding as to the cost of living of certain wage-earning families, will give some figures setting out the value of the Social Services received by those families; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to ask the indulgence of your Lordships in order to ask the Question which stands on the Paper in my name. The reasons underlying this Question are based upon a long experience gained in dealing with matters concerning the relations between employers and employees in the engineering industry and particularly the earnings of those who fall under the heading of wage-earners. Before retiring from business it fell to me to preside over many meetings dealing with such questions. I should

361
explain that meetings such as these were conducted in a very friendly atmosphere, both sides endeavouring to arrive at a fair settlement bearing in mind the claims of the wage-earners and those of industry. In considering the claims of the wage-earners naturally the question of the cost of living was raised. The unknown value of the social benefits received by the wage-earners was always a matter upon which no authoritative information existed, and therefore, in view of the great importance which must be attached to the investigations now taking place by His Majesty's Government through the Ministry of Labour, I beg to propose for your Lordships' approval the suggestion contained in the Question I have placed upon the Paper.
The Social Services cost this country anything between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000 a year and it is self-evident that some part of the community must receive substantial benefits therefrom. Those benefits may be spread over all, but it is fair to assume that the greater part must reach the lowest-paid workers, otherwise the benefits must be regarded as having failed to carry out the underlying intention. In the main those benefits are distributed, as is well known to your Lordships, by His Majesty's Government through the Ministries of Labour, Education and Health. In addition there is very considerable expenditure by other authorities, the county councils and municipalities. In addition to the contributions of the wage-earners themselves, the State and the employers each contribute similar, and in some cases larger, amounts under the unemployment and sickness insurance schemes. Education costs the country through taxes and rates over £100,000,000 a year. It is one of the greatest of our Social Services, but my experience as a governor of a school supported by an old charitable bequest would lead me to believe that the families of the wage-earners do not receive by any means the whole of this amount. The Ministry of Health deals with so many sides of the Social Services that one can only mention housing as one matter to be considered.
It is becoming evident that this matter in various other aspects than the mere cost is receiving careful thought from a large number of people apart altogether from industrialists. Since I placed my Question on the Paper I have been
362
greatly impressed by the presidential address delivered to the Royal Society of Arts by a member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who chose as his subject "The State and the worker." With your Lordships' permission I will quote a sentence or two from the noble Lord's address. He said:
"The welfare of the worker is determined not only by the amount of remuneration which he receives for his services and the conditions under which his work is done but also by the extent to which he is provided with advantages, free of charge or partly paid for by the State, which would otherwise have to be paid for by him or which he would have to do without. Most of what is usually termed social legislation thus comes under review."
If your Lordships would take the opportunity of reading that address it would do more to advance the point of view I am endeavouring to raise than any words of mine.
In dealing with this question I am in no way unmindful that wage-earners themselves contribute in a degree to rates and taxes, and I have to express through long experience very great admiration for the spirit in which the best workers of the country—I refer to those in constant employment—contribute to both unemployment and sickness benefit very generally for the welfare of their less fortunate fellows. The present investigation—and this is the important point, my Lords—is likely to set the datum line for the future regulation of wages of our millions of workers, and that is my reason for bringing the matter forward. I have endeavoured to deal with it in the simplest possible manner, not bringing in a large number of arguments to strengthen my case; but in view of the fact that we as a nation pride ourselves upon these great Social Services and the high standard of living enjoyed by the wage-earners of this country, I do think that it is desirable in this present investigation to set out the value of the Social Services enjoyed by the families of our wage-earners. Those services have an important effect upon the family budget, and I therefore hope that my suggestion will meet with a favourable reception from your Lordships. I beg to move.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE): My Lords, first of all I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, for his

363
great courtesy in sending to me a great deal of information on the points which he intended to raise this afternoon. That courtesy enabled me to consult the authorities in the Treasury on this Question. I would like to point out to your Lordships that the inquiry which is going on at present under the direction of a Committee advising the Minister of Labour is one that deals with the cost of living. It is capable of exact results, in that the object of the inquiry is to obtain particulars of the expenditure of representative sections of wage-earners and small-salary earners. The Ministry have compiled a form which has been sent round to selected households—some 40,000 of them—who are asked to make a return of expenditure for four separate weeks in four separate quarters. The return will deal with expenditure on food, rent, fuel, light, clothing, furnishings, cleaning materials, travelling, tobacco, newspapers and books, entertainment and other items of weekly expenditure which the ordinary wage-earning household has to make each week. The inquiry is not designed to give a return of the wages received, nor does it deal with the amount of unemployment benefit or allowances which any individual family may receive. Consequently the return when it is complete and analysed will give an average—a sort of sample of the expenditure of the whole of that part of the community. That does not give the value of the benefits or allowances which are obtained through the Social Services or the various insurance services. This is the sort of form that the Minister of Labour is sending out; it is a very long and detailed form, and I have no doubt that when this inquiry is complete we shall know a great deal more than we know now of the cost of living to the average working-class house.
The noble Lord, if I may say so, expressed himself extremely well in putting to your Lordships' House the suggestion he makes. I understand that this is the first time he has had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House. I hope that he will often address us again, and give us the benefit of his great experience in these matters. The difficulty with which I have to deal in relation to his request is one of feasibility. There is a difference, of course, between the cost of living and the standard of life. The cost
364
of living is an exact thing which you can more or less determine; every household knows what it means in terms of cash. The standard of life certainly includes the cost of living, but it also includes a great many other things which a country provides for its citizens. Therefore, when we try to give a cash value to those other considerations which are provided under the Social Services it is extremely difficult to find a form in which to give that value. It may be perfectly clearly stated that no inquiry of this nature made to individual households would give us a really sensible return. In other words, it would be quite impossible to ask those various households to say, in terms of cash, what they receive from the expenditure on education, the subsidised housing or the various insurance schemes from which they may hope to benefit in the future.
To give an example, although it is true that a woman, possibly with a child, may become a widow early, or an orphan during the lifetime of her husband, it is not true to say that there is no value for her in a future pension scheme for widows of sixty-five. It has value, because it gives security for the future. Exactly the same principle applies to unemployment insurance. Even if a man is not drawing any benefit, his insurance has obvious value in giving him security, for he knows that if and when he goes out of work he will have this benefit to help him. Again, if an insured person is going to draw a pension at the age of sixty-five, it is untrue to say that the pension has no value at sixty-four and a half. It has a potential value, which will be actual at sixty-five. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has complained that I am addressing the noble Lord who asked the Question. I apologise.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Not at all, but the whole Liberal Party are anxious to hear something of what you say!
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: It is therefore difficult to give a contingency value to those potential services. That is one of the difficulties which you have to face in dealing with this very difficult question. Then there are the other Social Services in addition to education and subsidised housing; there are the public health and public assistance services. It would be extremely difficult for a household to give those services a cash value. We must not overlook the

365
fact that on the other side you have to take note of the various contributions which the worker makes. He makes contributions to his unemployment insurance; he certainly makes contributions through rates and taxes to the various forms of social service provided by local authorities. Therefore the difficulty of arriving at a clear-cut household value is to my mind almost insuperable. The authorities who are engaged in watching this matter and who compile figures every year on the subject all feel that the only way in which it could possibly be approached would be to have a close examination made by actuarial experts of the whole field of national expenditure on these Services, and then to arrive at some sort of problematical figure for the individual value received. Even then the figures would be of little value, because they would not be exact figures but only problematical figures. For that reason it is extremely difficult to do what the noble Lord suggests should be done.
Every year a return is made of the expenditure on the Public Social Services. Perhaps it is not very widely known, but in the last return, on page 7, in columns 13 and 14, will be found the expenditure under the heading of each of our Social Services, with the total expenditure for the year, and the number of persons directly benefiting from it. The last total made up amounts to the enormous sum of £488,000,000. These figures can only be analysed by real statistical and actuarial experts. The various sections of this expenditure are carefully watched by His Majesty's Government, and I am advised that they do not consider it feasible to attack the Social Service expenditure in the way of bringing it down to a definite cash value for individuals by means of an inquiry such as is being carried out now into the cost of living. Therefore I hope the noble Lord, who has so well introduced this question in your Lordships' House, and who, I am sure, will cause thought to be directed to it by those responsible, will not be too disappointed at the reply which I have been able to give him.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think many noble Lords will be greatly obliged for the very lucid explanation which has been given to us. It has made the point perfectly clear, for it has proved to us that the return is going to be perfectly
366
valueless. The noble Lord started by saying that the return would enable us to know what was the cash value of the cost of living. He then told us that there were insuperable difficulties connected with the suggestion that had been made. I have great sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Kenilworth said. I have been interested for a long time in industrial matters, and I ask myself how can one say what his cost of living is if someone gives him his rent, if someone pays for his doctor, if someone pays for the schooling of his children, and for everything he has, except bread and cheese. To give a return leaving out all that has to be spent in order that a man may lead a decent life is to give a return which is valueless. I had no intention of speaking, but I have come to the conclusion that it is merely waste of paper, ink, pen and time to send round such a return.
There is an easy way of getting what is the cost of the Social Services. I speak entirely from memory now, but I remember that during the current year a statement was made in another place that the tax cost of Social Services this year was £215,000,000. Expenditure raised by taxation amounted to £860,000,000, Debt Services and Defence amounted to £425,000,000, which leaves a balance of £435,000,000, and out of that £215,000,000 goes to Social Services. If my noble friend throws in his hand and says that the difficulties are insuperable, he can obtain the information he requires from the Treasury Return of 1937. There he has it. £215,000,000 this year is provided out of Imperial taxation, quite apart from the amount raised by local rates for public services, partly provided by the men who receive the service back again—namely the working people. I have complete sympathy with what was said by my noble friend behind me, and I am surprised that the Department should give such an answer as they have given, because they have told us, here and now, that the pink paper they are sending round is quite valueless, and I believe it is if the Government cannot add Social Services to the total.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, upon his first and very interesting contribution to our proceedings?

367
When I read his Motion on the Paper, I thought there was a catch somewhere, and it very soon exposed itself in the very lucid and clear address which the noble Lord gave. He and other great captains of industry are apparently looking for some such figures as the noble Lord who spoke last referred to, in order to say: "Oh! yes, here are the cost-of-living figures, and here are the wages, and here is the value of the Social Services. You are getting too much, and we can knock something off." The noble Lord smiles. I am not suggesting that he would do so personally, but he knows that if these people can get hold of certain figures which represent the unseen wages, as they call them, of what they call the wage-earners, they will have a bargaining point which will enable them to bring pressure to bear upon trade unionists, or members of the wage-earning class, the employees, to take less wages. Therefore, I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, say that it was not practicable to give these figures. Neither is it. It is quite impracticable, and I am very surprised that such an experienced member as the noble Lord who spoke last should say that it was practicable. These Social Services are provided for everyone. The noble Lord himself, if he goes into a public park, is getting the benefit of Social Services.
LORD MANCROFT: I do not wish to hide the fact that I am getting the benefit of Social Services. I know it, but why should other people not be ready to disclose it?
LORD STRABOLGI: How can we sum up what is the amount of the benefit? The noble Lord and Lord Kenilworth could send their children and grandchildren to secondary schools if they wanted to. In Germany it would be compulsory, under the Nazi régime, which some people in this House appear to have a hankering after. In America it is done voluntarily. It only happens to be our custom in this country, if we have a certain income, to send our children to private schools, but we are quite legally entitled to send them to secondary schools. Lord Kenilworth mentioned the amount which is spent on education. Supposing he has a grand-daughter who wishes to come up to London and study art. All
368
the art schools in London get a grant from the London County Council, and I, as a resident in London, help towards the paying of that grant through my rates. The Paymaster-General was perfectly right in saying that you cannot assess the value of these Social Services. When I saw the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to whom I used to enjoy listening in another place, rise this afternoon I thought he was going on another line. I thought he was going to say that the cost of Social Services was too high, that we were being too extravagant, and not earning what we were spending.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord was wrong again.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was hoping he was. I rather agree that at the present time our expenditure is very high, and that, with the adverse balance of trade, it is a rather serious state of affairs. I think it is deserving of attention, and very close attention. I think the expenditure, local and national, is high to-day compared with the volume of trade which we are doing, and taking into consideration the adverse balance of trade. I think it is a great responsibility upon the Government. But that is another story: we are paying for the wrong fiscal policies which the present Government and its immediate predecessors introduced. With regard to this Question of what the so-called wage-earners get in the way of Social Services, as all noble Lords have mentioned they help to contribute to the cost as taxpayers by every pipe they smoke, every glass of beer they drink. Yet I still think the standard of life of the masses of the people in this country is far too low.
But the cost of living and the standard of life are, as has already been said by the Paymaster-General, very correctly if I may say so, very different things. A tremendous lot depends on the household economies of a man drawing a certain wage. One man may have a clever wife, probably a Scotswoman, who knows how to manage the family budget and is a good cook. That man may be better off than his neighbour, who is a feckless creature and has not been brought up properly, and consequently has not the same standard of living. We cannot assess these things. But what I do say on behalf of the Party I now represent in your Lordships' House and for whom I

369
speak, is that the standard of living of the people, taking into consideration wages, Social Services and everything else, is too low. In great categories of workers— agricultural labourers, coal miners and others—the standard of life is too low and it ought to be raised; and I wish the Government would show more energy in trying to raise it.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before your Lordships leave this subject I am sure you will excuse me a moment if I say one word upon quite a different aspect of it. I did not know it was possible in this debate to raise the Party issues in the sense that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has raised them. There is no dispute, least of all with the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, about the fact that we want every working-class family to be as well off as they can possibly be. I see what is in the mind of Lord Kenilworth, whom I have known for twenty or thirty years; he wants to get a just estimate of what I may call the budget of the working-class family during the inquiry which is now proceeding. Nobody who knows him would dream that his idea was to reduce their standard of living by showing how much they get from the State. On the contrary, I know his object is—because he has helped so much in the matter to which I am going to refer—to try to make the division in this case fair and just so that one particular family shall not be put down as getting more than another class of person, and so that we may know just what is coming in arid what is going out.
I came here this afternoon because, as I always have to do, I must keep a vigilant eye open if I am to continue to be the senior trustee, if I may so say, of the £1,400,000,000 the people have saved, to see that nothing is done to militate against that wonderful movement, which can only survive if it is fairly treated. Of course there is a danger that when you are going to assess the value of working-class incomes you may forget those outgoings which, although they are not compulsory by law, nevertheless are standard and continuing. Now of course it is quite true that there are certain things we should ascertain from the return that the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, proposes.
With regard to the public services I think it was indicated by the Paymaster-General that one could almost arrive at
370
the gross amount that was coming in. But that is only what the State provides. When you really come to look into a working-class family budget, as I have had to do these last ten or eleven years, you will find out really what its members have got to spend. Not only have they to provide for the deductions from wages, but they have to provide these sums for national savings of various kinds on which the well-being of the whole household depends; for the children's education depends absolutely and entirely in many cases on the savings that they are making, and if they stop saving the hope of the boy of a very poor household going perhaps to Lord Kenilworth's own works and becoming a captain of industry, as has often happened, is banished like a dream. So I respectfully say to the Paymaster-General that when this is put in another form, as assuredly it will be, and before we spend any more money, let us see what the working-class family really gets from the State. When we see that it gets all this, that and the other, as indeed we rejoice that it does, let us not forget these voluntary contributions which, though they are not established by law, are as essential in the working-class home as is anything that is demanded by the rent collector or the tax collector.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I have nothing to complain of in the terms of the speeches of the noble Lords who have spoken on this Motion. I think that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has mistaken slightly what has been asked. We can give, and we will give, exact figures for the items in the cost of living; but what we cannot assess accurately in cash value is what the individual families receive through the Social Services. That can only be got, as I am told by experts, by a careful scrutiny by actuaries or statistical people, and then by getting an approximate figure—it could never be an exact figure. Therefore I think we must be content with the knowledge of the total sums which we spend on the various forms of Social Services and the total number of people in this country who receive benefit therefrom. Now I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and we all congratulate him on the marvellous success of his savings campaign, which he has so devotedly carried on through all these years. The wonderful prosperity and resilience of our working classes are

371
shown by the way in which they have been able, through the savings banks, the Post Office Savings Bank, and the various savings certificates which are sold, to accumulate the enormous sums of money that they have. I think that this expenditure of £488,000,000, as the amount was last year, on the Social Services, goes a long way towards enabling those working-class families to be provident to that extent.
LORD KENILWORTH: My Lords, I would like to thank the Paymaster-General for so courteously replying to my points, and I fully appreciate the difficulty in obtaining this information. I quite understood that it would have to be obtained actuarially and could not be embodied in the returns from the households. If I may I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the points he endeavoured to make against me were actually admitted by me in my few remarks. I said that the Social Services were for all, and though a great part of the vote for education goes to the poorer people I fully appreciate that it goes to the Universities as well. I thank your Lordships for your attention, and in view of the difficulties in obtaining this information I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Hutchison of Montrose be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.
Moved, That the Lord Hutchison of Montrose be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Hutchison of Montrose be added to the Special Orders Committee.
Moved, That the Lord Hutchison of Montrose be added to the Special Orders Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past five o'clock.