Lords Sitting of 1 March 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WEST THURROCK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
ROYAL SHEFFIELD INFIRMARY AND HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.

SAINT BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill. The reason for this Motion is the usual one, that we have had to wait for the Attorney-General to report.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

BOMBAY, BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the registration of hairdressers and to regulate the practice of hairdressing, and for purposes connected therewith. I move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (HALIFAX) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (NUNEATON EXTENSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

POOR LAW (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) 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 O'Hagan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of Poor Law authorities to grant personal allowances to certain inmates aged sixty-five or upwards of Poor Law institutions.
1. The enactments relating to the relief of the poor shall have effect as if amongst the powers conferred on councils of counties and county boroughs there was included power to grant a personal allowance not exceeding two shillings per week to any inmate of any workhouse or other Poor Law institution under their control, being a person aged sixty-five years or upwards who is entitled to an old age pension or widows pension under the Old Age Pension Act, 1936, or under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1936 and 1937, but who is disqualified from receiving such pension by reason of the fact that he is an inmate of a workhouse or other Poor Law institution, or who is disentitled thereto by reason of the fact that he does not satisfy the conditions as to means imposed by the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved to leave out "inmate of any" and insert "person in receipt of relief from them in a." The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the first two Amendments on the Paper together, because they
950
both deal with the same matter. The Bill as drafted does not empower a Poor Law authority which has not an institution of its own, but sends persons by agreement to another authority's institution, to grant personal allowances under the Bill. The Bill as it stands also does not cover the position which exists in certain areas in Scotland, where two or more authorities have combined to provide an institution. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("inmate of any") and insert ("person in receipt of relief from them in a").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD O'HAGAN: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("under their control").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved to leave out all words after "upwards." The noble Lord said: The Bill as originally drafted related entirely to persons in receipt of pensions. It has been pointed out, however, that there are people, inmates of public institutions, who have not hitherto been in receipt of pensions, but who are in the same position as those who have pensions. If the Bill passed without amendment the result, as your Lordships will observe, would be to create a privileged class who would be obtaining pocket money under the terms of this Bill whereas other persons in the same institution would be left without any allowance of any kind. I think your Lordships will agree that that might create unrest in the institution and embarrass the administration. The intention is to make the pocket money allowed under the Bill payable to all inmates of the age of 65 and over.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out lines 13 to 21.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

WELSH CHURCH (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, this is a short Bill of only one operative clause, and the reason of it is this. When the first Welsh Church Act became law in 1914, the University of Wales consisted of only three University Colleges: the University College of Wales at Aberystwyth, the University College of North Wales, and the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire. In 1920 the University College of Swansea came into existence, and everybody agrees that the property of the Church which would have been distributed between those three University Colleges ought now to be distributed amongst the four. All the three Colleges concerned, and the University of Wales, have passed a resolution agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Bill; and of course the University College of Swansea has also, naturally, approved it. I think everybody concerned has been consulted and agrees with this Bill. I hope therefore that your Lordships will be prepared to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has made the situation absolutely clear in regard to this amending Bill. As I had the honour of serving as a Welsh Church Commissioner some years ago, I am naturally interested in all benefits under the Welsh Church Act. As the noble Earl has said, it is plainly necessary, having regard to the fact that the University College in Swansea has come into being since the passing of the Act, that there should be a reapportionment of the funds which are ultimately payable to these educational bodies. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl say that all the University Colleges have been consulted. As he has said that they all agree with the terms of this Bill, I feel sure that it will pass without a Division.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BLIND PERSONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think it is true that the majority of the great State social services, which we take almost for granted nowadays, have evolved in the first place from the efforts of voluntary bodies. This in turn may account for the fact that progress in these services has usually been maintained by a series of steps not always very spectacular in themselves, but calculated to preserve the original voluntary spirit and to widen its scope by combining it with the efforts of local authorities and ultimately with the efforts of the State itself. I have remarked on previous Bills that this voluntary system leads in some ways to complication in legislation, but I think it is worth making some administrative sacrifice if the sympathy and the knowledge of those voluntary organisations can be maintained. I think you will feel some pride in knowing that the blind have always attracted a great deal of spontaneous sympathy of the most practical kind, and indeed it was not until 1919 found necessary to make any State provision for them. The Act under which the blind are being at present assisted is, as your Lordships know, the Blind Persons Act, 1920, where for the first time the local authorities were charged specifically with the duty of promoting the welfare of the blind and were given powers to that end.
It must be said to the credit of the voluntary workers that a great deal of very useful work has been done under that Act for the benefit of that unfortunate section of the community, the blind. It is not, however, altogether surprising that in seventeen years certain administrative reforms should have proved themselves desirable, and it is to meet that demand that this Bill is introduced. Before going into the actual details of the Bill, I should like to recapitulate the principles on which State assistance has been given and upon which it is proposed to be continued. I suppose that the most valuable service that can be rendered by the State in connection with the blind is the prevention of blindness, and I am glad to say that the development in medical services and the advance in medical science have brought about an immense improvement in this direction. Since 1925 there has been no less than a 38 per cent. reduction in the number of blind children between the ages of five and sixteen, which is really a remarkable figure. The prevention of

953
blindness is more difficult in people of more mature age, but nevertheless the statistics show that the age at which blindness sets in has become, of recent years, steadily higher. In fact, 89 per cent. of all the new cases registered during the year ending March 31 last occurred at over forty years of age.
The next most valuable service that can be rendered by the State is, I think it would be generally agreed, in the training of the blind to support themselves. I do not put that forward on the ground of economy, although economy is important in training the blind, as it is always in administration. The real reason is that there is no lesser desire among the blind than there is among those of any other section of the community to pull their weight, to preserve their self-respect, and to make some contribution cowards the life of the country. I am told that in the United States certain blind persons are employed specially because they are blind, to carry out certain industrial processes for which special sensibilities are required, and I suppose employment of that sort would be the ideal employment for the blind. Unfortunately such opportunities are rare, and we cannot hope to train more than quite a small percentage of blind persons to support themselves entirely, particularly when blindness comes at an advanced age, because it is very difficult then to learn a new profession under what is a new and terrible handicap.
Accordingly, in the Act of 1920 provision was made whereby a blind person over fifty became entitled to the ten shillings pension which normally goes to the old age pensioner at seventy. It has been represented for some time by the Ministry's Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind, of which Lord Blanesburgh was Chairman, and their view has been confirmed by other bodies, such as the National Institute for the Blind, that it is just as difficult for blind persons to adapt themselves to new conditions at forty as at fifty, and one of the main proposals of the Bill is to make the ten shillings pension available to the blind at forty instead of at fifty. This is brought about in Clause 1 of the Bill. There are about 75,000 registered blind persons in this country, of whom, on March 31 last, about 8,200 were between forty and fifty years of age. These latter will therefore be eligible for pensions, although, of
954
course, they will not all qualify for it, as they would not all be under the necessary disabilities.
In Clause 2 we are attempting to simplify the administration and obtain greater uniformity. Any of your Lordships who are engaged in local government will appreciate that simplicity makes for increased efficiency, and therefore will benefit blind persons themselves. Your Lordships are aware that, whether people are blind or not, they have a right to be relieved of destitution by the local authorities, and the local authorities have further special duties in connection with the blind, which have appeared in previous Acts and are reproduced in this Bill in these words:
"It shall be the duty of the council of every county or county borough to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of blind persons ordinarily resident in the area of the council …"
Now these councils have hitherto carried out their duties by institutional treatment, by domiciliary assistance, by visits and by various other methods, and under the Act of 1920 the local authorities were given the option of dealing with the destitution part of their duties either under the Blind Persons Act or under the Poor Law procedure. Most of the local authorities have adopted the Blind Persons Act procedure, but we think it would make for simplicity and improvement all round if more uniformity was now introduced. It is accordingly provided that all blind persons, both in regard to destitution relief and training, should henceforth be dealt with under the Blind Persons Act. In fact, this principle is now to be extended to the dependents of the blind as well as to the blind themselves.
Following the recommendations of the Welfare of the Blind Committee of 1924, we are not proposing to remove the discretion of the local authorities, and before giving assistance they will still have to ascertain the means of the blind per3c,n and the family. But we think this investigation would be more sympathetically and simply conducted if the needs of the blind persons and their dependents were assessed by one committee and not by two. Therefore, for the more efficient and sympathetic working of the procedure we propose to transfer these dependents also to the care of the blind committees.

955
We are also able to make a further concession to the blind, because we now propose to adapt certain rules under which unemployment benefit is assessed for the purpose of calculating the assets of the blind person, and we are proposing to require those who administer the Bill to disregard the first 5s. of any sick pay received from a friendly society, the first 7s. 6d. of national health insurance benefit, and half of any weekly payment accruing from workmen's compensation. The clause also enables contribution to be made towards funeral expenses of the blind person and so removes what is known as the Poor Law stigma from this sad but unavoidable occasion in their lives. Clause 3 introduces a new procedure to deal with the cases of removal. It looks a little complicated, but it has been agreed with the local authorities, and it is not necessary for me to explain it in detail. Clause 4 contains particular provisions to enable the Act to be assimilated to Scottish requirements.
Your Lordships will therefore see that the main purpose of the Bill is to oil the wheels of the machinery under which the blind have been not unsuccessfully dealt with in the past. We do not propose to introduce any great new revolutionary principle, although I am aware that we were urged to do so in another place; but it is quite true that we still do leave to the local authorities a great deal of discretion as to how they should deal with cases of blindness, and what payments they should make to the blind. We are facilitating the task, and bringing a little more uniformity into the matter. It is of course possible to argue that where there is discretion the local authorities may abuse it. That is inherent in any form of devolutionary administration, but the evidence which we have has shown that hitherto the blind have been treated by local authorities with the greatest possible sympathy and efficiency. They have done a great deal to improve the conditions of the blind. The home visiting and the instruction that they are giving is of the highest possible value, and progress is being maintained everywhere. In these circumstances we feel that it is better to introduce reforms which will help these hitherto successful endeavours, and not introduce innovations which though seemingly beneficial
956
might easily hinder and not assist progress. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Viscount has explained the provisions of the Bill very lucidly, but I think it must strike your Lordships that the Government have missed an opportunity of doing something which would be of lasting benefit to the blind in this country. It is a disability for which we always feel the very greatest sympathy. While, curiously enough, the loss of sight is a terrible handicap, we all of us know that it has a wonderful way of sharpening other faculties, so that in some cases the blind person may be of considerable use, not only to the community, but socially. But I think it will strike those who listened to the noble Viscount's speech that it is not very clear why the age of forty has been chosen. If this disability is a serious handicap in the life of the poor, who undoubtedly find that in the labour market their chances are very small, that is a question which affects a far younger age than forty. This disability really ought not to be mixed up with the question of age; it is a question of the actual blindness itself. And we on this side of the House are inclined to think that the Government would have done very much better if they had accepted the fact that the number of blind people—I am glad to say a small number, and I agree with the noble Viscount, a decreasing number—should be taken as a whole because of their disability, and that assistance should be given to them from the age when they become adult, that is to say, eighteen, because a young man between twenty and thirty is just as much affected, and his future endangered, by his disability as a man between forty and fifty. So my first criticism is that the reduction of the age to forty is entirely inadequate, and that this was a great opportunity for treating the blind as a whole from the adult age.
In regard to the action of local authorities at present, there is no sort of uniformity. In some places the local authorities are granting a sum of 21s. a week, and in other, perhaps adjacent, areas the blind get 15s. a week or less. But a more serious possibility which may arise from the passage of this Bill is that

957
local authorities, as it seems, are preparing to make some saving in their expenditure, deducting the amount of the Government grant. The result of that will be no benefit to the blind at all; it is merely saving the rates in order to put the burden on the Exchequer. There ought to be some very strong safeguard against anything of that sort being done, otherwise the effect of this Bill will be entirely nugatory. The administration of the various organisations for dealing with blind people is in an unsatisfactory condition. As the noble Viscount himself said, the voluntary system leads to complications, and there is no doubt that there may be not only a certain amount of overlapping, but a lack of central administration, which prevents the various organisations doing all that they should. For instance, in the London area there are five agencies, chiefly voluntary, who ask for either the employment or the assistance of blind people; they act independently, and the result is not as satisfactory as it should be. These agencies should be co-ordinated, where they exist, under the authority of the local authority, whatever it may be, and that co-ordination might be arranged and organised on a regional basis. Unless these small matters are dealt with, the method of nibbling at this question by a little Bill from time to time will not effect the reforms and the relief which we want to see.
I will call the noble Viscount's attention also to the fact that there should be some provision which ensures that the grant given to the blind person who is in need of Poor Law relief should in no case be lower than that granted at present by the public assistance committee. There is no safeguard against that. I would also urge that if the blind person is in hospital, he or she should continue to receive the pension in the ordinary course. I think the noble Viscount said that over 8,000 people would be affected by this Bill, and I think the cost would come to something like a little over £4,000 a week. That is not a very heavy sum of money, and if the Bill were far more comprehensive and dealt with these unfortunate people as a whole, I cannot conceive that the sum involved would be sufficient to make us hesitate to give the blind the relief they want. At a later stage there may be some Amendments suggested from this side of the House—not, I am afraid, that they will be likely to have any great
958
success—but between now and then I would urge the noble Viscount to take into account some of the points that I have placed before him, more especially the extension of the age downwards, in order that this measure may be a notable advance in our treatment of the blind.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I would like to point out in answer to the noble Lord's observations that the lowering of the age limit, the main point he made, was suggested in a Private Member's Bill introduced in 1928, and it was opposed by the advice of the Committee on the Welfare of the Blind, who, apart from the very heavy additional expenditure which would be thrown on the local authorities, were convinced that it would rob the blind of all incentive and generally undermine their morale. This question was debated at some length in another place, and I cannot hold out very much hope that that Amendment would be accepted here. I do not remember that one or two other suggestions made by the noble Lord were debated at such length in another place, and I will certainly look into them.
On the general question, I do not think anybody has ever suggested that as the result of this Bill the blind are going to receive a great deal more money than they are receiving to-day. We are still leaving the local authorities with a great deal of discretion as to how they deal with the blind, though of course we do take great interest in whether they are doing it in a satisfactory way. We hope that what we propose will make it easier for them to carry out their duties. We do not think any useful purpose would be served by centralising the whole of this administration very highly and insisting on some new cast-iron scale to which every local authority would have to adhere absolutely. We believe that would upset the voluntary principle. I may say that we have inspectors going all over the country, and they do not report any case of unsympathetic or bad treatment of the blind by local authorities. If any of your Lordships, now or in the future, know of any such cases the Ministry I represent will be most eager to take them up.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the last Bill I presented to your Lordships was a Bill dealing with the evolution of administration from something which had existed in the past. The Bill I now have the honour to put before you deals with an entirely new subject. It is common knowledge that of recent years the decline in the birth-rate has caused a great deal of concern in various scientific circles, and books and articles in some variety have appeared which, although they do not always arrive at the same conclusion, nevertheless combine to produce a somewhat gloomy picture. Visions have been put forward of a world largely inhabited by the black and yellow races, and of this country populated by a small, diminishing, and elderly population containing an undue number of mental defectives. It is not unknown that experts occasionally overstate their case, but it nevertheless remains true that the standing of these experts, and the unanimity of the main theme of their unhappy prophecies, certainly merit the attention of the Government. Indeed, the Government's expert advisers confirm many of the conclusions that have been arrived at independently, and one in particular—namely, that if anything is to be done to check this tendency, it is essential to do it now rather than to wait until it has gathered so much momentum that action would he largely useless.
In this matter the Government are confronted by certain difficulties. It is true to say that the people of this country are peculiarly sensitive to any official intrusions in their private lives, and doubtless your Lordships share that prejudice, if it is a prejudice. But it is also true that we are, on the whole, open to reason, and particularly when appeals to reason are combined with appeals to patriotism. Therefore we perhaps might imagine that if the Government could demonstrate quite clearly that a certain line of action is necessary in the national interest, there would be a probability of a national response which would surmount any instinctive prejudices there might be. There is another difficulty. I suppose every reformer in this country has at some time or other chafed against Treasury control, and indeed I have
960
occasionally heard that certain other Departments of Government sometimes do the same; but there is hardly any one who in his less impatient moments would not agree that the principle of Treasury control was fundamentally sound, if for no other reason than to ensure that, if money is going to be spent, it should at least be spent in such a way as to bring about the results aimed at. It seems to follow that if appeals are to be made to the people, and if new Government money is to be spent and new measures introduced, the Government must fortify themselves with information as accurate and comprehensive as they can get to enable them to make out a good case for this new action which they may have to take. It really is very little use relying on statistics from foreign countries where the forms of government and national sentiment are quite different to those we have here. In this matter every nation must work out its own salvation.
I will now turn to the facts of the situation so far as we know them. In 1875, the birth-rate stood at 35 per 1,000. It has since more than halved itself, and reached its lowest point, 14·4, in 1933. The present birth-rate will not suffice to maintain the population at its present size. It is true that since 1933 there has been a slight check of this decline, but no great reliance can be placed on this small tendency for reasons into which I need not go. The point I wish to emphasize is that even if the birth-rate is maintained at its present level, a reduction in our population will nevertheless probably take place. It also means, as I have said, that once this decline in population takes place and is under way there will be a tendency for the curve to go down rapidly, and then it would be difficult, if not impossible, to stop it at any given point. So much is known. What is not known is why this tendency is taking place. There are many theories advanced for it, most of them contradictory and none of them supported by incontestable evidence.
It has been said that poverty is the cause, but that is ruled out because of the fact that the birth-rate among the poor is higher than it is among the more affluent. The fear of war, rising standards of material comfort, the increasing tendency for women to enter business, the absence of housing, and lack of vitamins in modern foods are all put forward as

961
being primarily responsible by different exponents of these theories. A new view has recently been advanced that because of the new decrowding standard parents will hesitate to increase their families if there is any likelihood of that standard being exceeded. From another and less material point of view, the decline has been attributed to the decay of religion. From a purely objective point of view, the Government cannot honestly say that there are any statistics available by which these different conclusions can be either proved or disproved, and for that reason it would be of little use setting up a Royal Commission of investigation. It is with the object of obtaining the statistics that this Bill is introduced. I may say that a similar course of action has already been taken in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Italy and Greece. In Germany, through Government action, they have had some success in checking the decline, and there the statistics have been taken since 1934.
Our first object is to find out what kinds of parents are producing the larger families and what kinds of parents are producing the smaller families. By this means we may get some light on the question of what conditions are encouraging and what conditions are discouraging the larger families. Up to a certain point this information can be obtained from the decennial census. Birth-rate statistics were obtained in the 1911 census, but if we wait till the next census in 1941—I must remind your Lordships that the classified results of the census are not available until three or four years after the census is taken—we believe it would be leaving things too late. Moreover, we require information taken over a continuous period and not merely investigations at intervals of ten years. I am quite aware that the original proposals for collecting this information were subjected to a good deal of hostile criticism in another place; but I do not think that necessarily implies arty hostile criticism of the general object of the Bill. My right honourable friend, it will be remembered, had taken the line that it was a new subject, and he had definitely invited Parliamentary criticism. The warmth with which his invitation was accepted was more a testimony to the activities of Parliament than any reflection on the Government. But whether that be so or not, the important fact remains that there was no criticism of the main
962
principles of the Bill. My right honourable friend fully accepted that unnecessary questions on these very intimate matters would be repugnant to the people, and he has reduced his questions to the minimum that are required for the important purposes of this Bill.
Your Lordships will remember that the original Bill had no time limitation and, therefore, it provided for the collection of information that might conceivably have been used for subsequent periods of investigation. Now there is a time limit, and I have been personally assured by the secretary of the Eugenics Society that the questions in the Schedule represent everything that could be reasonably required for present purposes. As your Lordships are aware, they have been unanimously approved in another place. Your Lordships will also be aware that it is proposed that this information should be obtained by a registrar on the registration of a birth or death, in addition to the particulars required to be given purely for ordinary registration purposes. The reason why particulars are to be obtained on the registration of death as well as of birth is that it is thought desirable to obtain particulars about wholly childless marriages. It has been noticed that the information might conceivably be introduced into legal and other cases, and that accordingly it might be withheld. That position has been safeguarded. It will now be impossible to use it for any purpose other than the investigation which we are making. Under Clause 4 of the Bill it is prohibited to disclose any information except in the form of purely impersonal statistics derived from it; and "privilege" is accorded to the personal information as against a subpoena in a Court of Law, except, of course, for any prosecution for an offence under this Bill itself.
I would like to make one further reference to the ten years' limitation, and to explain that it is not our belief that we hope to dispose of the whole problem in that time. It is not certain, in our view, that the proposed system by which we will collect data will not have to have some modification made to it before that time expires. The problem is new, and we hope, without committing ourselves, that the information we ask for now will materially help us, though it will not be absolutely extraordinary if after

963
some years we feel that a better Schedule could be devised. Your Lordships will also remember that the Minister has already powers under the existing law to collect certain information with regard to the registration of births and deaths, and he has promised to use these powers so that information about occupation may be co-ordinated with that obtained under the new powers for which he asks now. In this way, by adapting existing powers and using them in combination with the new powers asked for in the Bill, we hope to get at the information that we want, and, having got it, we shall be in a much better position than we are at present to devise legislation if that is found to be necessary. Meanwhile, we shall continue to try to arrest maternal and infant mortality by every means in our power, and we hope that Acts such as the Midwives Act may be of material assistance to us in that task.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will make a few observations on the subject of this Bill, but I offer them in no spirit of captious criticism and, indeed, inspired with no sort of Party or partisan animosity. It seems to me that if any Bill could ever be declared to be a non-Party measure it is the Bill that your Lordships are considering this afternoon. The views that I shall express are views that I hold myself and that I believe are shared by many individuals, adherents of different political Parties and adherents of none, and certainly by many experts who have studied the population problem in this country and have made a comparative study of population movements in this country and elsewhere. I do not say for a moment that they will conflict with any views that may be held officially by the Party to which I have the honour to belong, because, so far as I am aware, neither my own Party nor any other political Party in the State has any definite or declared policy as regards population, and where there is no creed for the orthodox to confess there can be no heresy.
I think the noble Viscount opposite stated very fairly the population problem as it stands, and my only criticism of
964
his exposition of the case would be that he erred on the side of myosis. After all, when we recollect that the decline began before the end of the last century, and that the disproportion between the death-rate and the birth-rate which is the index of a declining population began soon after the beginning of the present century, it becomes apparent that action has certainly been delayed, and in its present form seems really inadequate to meet the situation. I do believe very sincerely that this social problem is just as important as any of the major issues of the present day such as the problems of unemployment, or bad housing conditions, or poverty. The only reason it does not occupy so much of the attention of His Majesty's Government or the Press or the general public is that it is a process the evil effects of which will only be apparent after the lapse of many decades, whereas the other evils are apparent to all those who travel about the country every day of the year. I think His Majesty's Government should be congratulated in this matter, because it is always difficult for a Government in a democratic country to act at all unless it is urged forward by public opinion. It is, of course, difficult to take important and far-reaching steps when public opinion has not been carefully prepared beforehand. This measure, small as it is, does at any rate indicate that, for the first time I think in the history of our country, the problem of population has reached a point where His Majesty's Government have felt obliged to record their attempt to cope with it on the Statute Book.
I should like, as I say, to amplify the case made by the noble Viscount rather than to disagree with it, and I should like to amplify it on these grounds. If population continues declining, as most of the experts imagine, so far as you can predict anything that may be altered by future events, it will involve an immense drop in our present standards of living, and, as I think the noble Viscount himself indicated, an immensely serious problem from the point of view of national defence. It is all very well to provide the machinery, but you have also to provide men who can work the machine. In fifty or sixty or seventy years time, after the tremendous rearmament programme has been completed, we may find that much of the material produced is useless

965
for lack of those who have the knowledge or capacity to work it. It is a case for providing for the future of the national family in the same way that we feel obliged to provide for the future of members of our own families. I cannot help feeling that this measure, when compared with what is happening in other parts of the world, is very tentative and unambitious. It is not a positive measure to prevent or to slow down the decrease in the birth-rate, or to encourage reproduction, but simply a measure to provide for the data required by those who hereafter will frame legislation to promote those ends.
As the noble Viscount so clearly and admirably explained, it is an effort to enable the Government's advisers and those who are experts on the subject of eugenics and population to ascertain the main causes for the decline in the birth-rate. I am perfectly convinced that there is no reasonable individual and certainly no political Party who would consider that such information and knowledge could be anything but beneficial. The Bill has an added merit of omitting those blemishes that were severely criticised in another place. I need not mention them, because they are not before your Lordships for discussion, but the blue pencil of the officers of His Majesty's Government seems to have been through the Schedule with extraordinary vigour and with remarkable deference to the views expressed by members of another place. The Schedule as it stands at the moment is both specific and limited, and surely those are admirable requirements for any Bill that is not to interfere unjustifiably with the intimacies of family life and that is not to threaten the reputation of parents with injury owing to indiscreet publicity.
But when all is said and done, when this Bill has become effective and when the Government are in possession of the new facts that they believe it will bring to light, what are we to expect? It may well be that after all this information has been collated and carefully examined, the experts will declare that they cannot put forward even a plausible hypothesis as to the real reason for the rapid decline in our birth-rate. Experts have a certain scientific conscience which will not permit of their giving a definite view unless they feel that they are justified in doing so. As the noble Viscount pointed out, it is a fact that, in spite of
966
the immense curiosity that both ordinary people and experts have evinced, we do not know the causes. Are we to wait until the causes have been ascertained before action is taken? When we look at other countries, with no greater opportunity than ourselves for access to information of this kind, we observe that they have taken action which, though it may not have been as successful as its promoters anticipated, has at any rate done quite a lot to mitigate the severity of the decline of their populations. That is because we have, after all, a rough, rule-of-thumb idea of the sort of measures that encourage people to have families, and to have large families, and to feel the responsibility that they owe towards their country and the next generation.
We do know, in a rough, inexact sort of way admittedly, what these measures are, and what are the sort of social conditions which prevent people from wishing to bring children into the world. It is on that admittedly broad and general and common sense knowledge that certain other Governments in other European countries have acted, and have acted with some measure of success. I therefore profoundly hope that, whatever the results of the inquiries set on foot by this Bill, the Government will not delay to take action, because the Government may wait, but the population will not wait for the Government. This is a problem that waxes in magnitude with the lapse of every year, and I express the profound hope that whatever the results of the inquiry—and I do not think one should be unduly optimistic—we shall in a very few years be able to welcome any really drastic and far-reaching measure by His Majesty's Government to cope with a problem which, if allowed to run on, will mean the eclipse of this country as an independent nation and an increase in poverty such as one can hardly conceive in one's wildest dreams.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I desire to make one point only, and I will be as brief as I can in doing so. I will not refer to the merits of this Bill or attempt to criticise it. The point, which I have made before in regard to other Bills, is a financial point. Nearly every Bill that comes to this House seems to impose a new and additional burden—sometimes very large, generally not very large, and in this case very small, but nevertheless an

967
additional burden—to be placed upon the shoulders of our ratepayers. I know that in financial matters the powers of this House are very limited, possibly limited to the right of protest. But I should like to point out that this Bill seeks to impose upon registrars additional duties, necessitated by census requirements and therefore wholly national in character. Those local authorities who will be affected by this Bill feel that such expenditure as is imposed upon the rates by way of increased fee and salary payments to these officers, or as in any way arises out of their work, should be reimbursed to the local authorities in full. That is the point I wish to make to the House. May I remind your Lordships that this is the second measure which imposes new expenses on local authorities, that we have had before us to-day. The Poor Law (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill will inevitably impose a fresh responsibility, and having disposed of that Bill, we finish up with this one as a sort of night-cap to our work. I wish most respectfully to protest against the cost of a national duty being imposed upon the local authorities to be paid for by local ratepayers.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I must thank the House for the reception that has been extended to this Bill, and Lord Listowel for the encouragement he has given the Government. He quoted me as having mentioned defence as one of the purposes for which this Bill was intended. Actually I did not do so, but of course it is a consideration, which I hope will not arise in view of the foreign policy which His Majesty's Government are adopting. I cannot, I am afraid, give him any undertaking about the time of
968
the positive action that will follow, or indeed any particulars about it, because we do not know. The noble Earl referred to rough-and-ready ideas that we might have, but I do not feel quite so confident that we have any ideas, either rough or ready, on which we could base any legislation at present. As I said before, I do not think it is possible to base our policy on statistics derived from foreign countries, because conditions there are entirely different from ours.
As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, has said, I am a member of a county council myself and I very much sympathise with his desire to reduce expenditure imposed on local authorities by Act of Parliament. At the same time there are other instances which might perhaps have been considered rather more glaring examples than this one, because I really do not see a likelihood of any large burden being imposed on local authorities under this Bill. It is only, after all, an extension of the present activities of the registrars. No new service is being set up. I think that covers all the points that have been specifically put to me.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I understand that there is no public business on the Order Paper for to-morrow, and that therefore we shall not meet again until Thursday.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.